Pacific Northwest Coast - ScholarsArchive at Oregon State University
07.04.2013 • Views
Share Embed Flag

Pacific Northwest Coast - ScholarsArchive at Oregon State University

Pacific Northwest Coast - ScholarsArchive at Oregon State University

Pacific Northwest Coast - ScholarsArchive at Oregon State University

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
ePAPER READ
DOWNLOAD ePAPER
ir.library.oregonstate.edu

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

START NOW

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong><br />

Ecoregional Assessment : Appendices<br />

© Nancy Sefton<br />

August 2006

Index to Appendices for the <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong><br />

Ecoregional Assessment<br />

Appendix number (corresponds to Chapter numbers) and Title<br />

2A <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregion Crosswalk Plant Associ<strong>at</strong>ion Group X<br />

Ecological System<br />

2B Rare Plant Community Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets in the <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong><br />

Ecoregion<br />

2C Rare Estuarine and Wetland Plant Community Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets in the <strong>Pacific</strong><br />

<strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregion<br />

2D PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregion Rare Plant Targets<br />

2E PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregion Wildlife Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets<br />

3A Macrohabit<strong>at</strong> <strong>at</strong>tributes of aqu<strong>at</strong>ic systems in the <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong>al, Willamette,<br />

Olympic/Chehalis, Lower Columbia, and Puget Sound, and Rogue-Umpqua EDUs<br />

3B Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets, PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment<br />

4A PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Shoreline Targets<br />

4B PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Intertidal Veget<strong>at</strong>ion Types<br />

4C PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Estuarine Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets Based on Substr<strong>at</strong>es (Area in ha)<br />

4D PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregion Fine Filter Marine Targets<br />

4E Building a Benthic Habit<strong>at</strong> Model as Surrog<strong>at</strong>es for Ecosystem-Scale Targets<br />

5A PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregion Protected Areas<br />

5B Numbers of Targets Meeting Goals (by Quartile) in Existing Protected Areas<br />

6A The SITE Selection Algorithm<br />

7A Prioritiz<strong>at</strong>ion of Assessment Units<br />

7B Sensitivity Analysis for Terrestrial HUCs<br />

8A Autom<strong>at</strong>ed Integr<strong>at</strong>ion of Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic and Terrestrial Site Selection<br />

8B Peer Review Comments and Comment Disposition<br />

8C PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregion Portfolio Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Areas<br />

8D Summaries of Portfolio Sites in the PNW Ecoregion<br />

8E Targets and Goals Summary<br />

8F Site Prioritiz<strong>at</strong>ion Results<br />

8G Lowest Vulnerability Sites--Top 25%<br />

8H Thre<strong>at</strong>s Analysis

Appendix 2A <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregion Crosswalk Plant Associ<strong>at</strong>ion Group X Ecological System<br />

PAG # COUNT PAG "Name" (unofficial) N<strong>at</strong>ureServe Ecological System<br />

0 1853108 Area not mapped<br />

17 261 No Name Available North <strong>Pacific</strong> Oak Woodland<br />

25 27530 No Name Available North <strong>Pacific</strong> Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland<br />

27 489689 No Name Available North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritme Wet-Mesic Douglas-Fir Western Hemlock Forest<br />

28 68227 No Name Available North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry Douglas-fir Forest and Woodland<br />

771 24 Rock Outcrop Shrub / Forb / Grassy Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe<br />

791 72 Black Hawthorn? Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe<br />

801 42 Lodgepole Pine North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry Douglas-fir Forest and Woodland<br />

901 538712 Sitka Spruce / Salal North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest<br />

902 6375170 Sitka Spruce / Sword Fern North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest<br />

903 2074477 Sitka Spruce / Salmonberry North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest<br />

1001 60 Ponderosa Pine / Buckbrush Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland<br />

1002 126 Ponderosa Pine - Doug Fir Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland<br />

1101 42313 Ponderosa Pine / Western Whe<strong>at</strong>grass Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland<br />

1102 168 <strong>Oregon</strong> White Oak / Shrubby North <strong>Pacific</strong> Oak Woodland<br />

1103 154 <strong>Oregon</strong> White Oak / Bristly Dogstail North <strong>Pacific</strong> Oak Woodland<br />

1201 957 Jeffery Pine (White Oak) / Idaho Fescue Klam<strong>at</strong>h-Siskyou Lower Montane Serpentine Mixed Conifer Woodland<br />

1203 921 Jeffery Pine-Incense Cedar Klam<strong>at</strong>h-Siskyou Lower Montane Serpentine Mixed Conifer Woodland<br />

1271 115 Buckbrush Shrublands Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe<br />

1301 382 Port Orford Cedar / <strong>Oregon</strong> Grape North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Douglas-Fir Western Hemlock Forest<br />

1302 511 Port Orford Cedar / Rhododendron - Salal North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Douglas-Fir Western Hemlock Forest<br />

1303 449 Port Orford Cedar / Sword Fern North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Douglas-Fir Western Hemlock Forest<br />

1305 400 Port Orford Cedar / Oval-leaf huckleberry North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Douglas-Fir Western Hemlock Forest<br />

1321 465 Port Orford Cedar / Pink Honeysuckle North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Douglas-Fir Western Hemlock Forest<br />

1401 30 Doug-fir / Buckbrush / Western Whe<strong>at</strong>grass Rocky Mountain Montane Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland<br />

1402 2737 Doug-Fir / Kinnikinnick North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Douglas-Fir Western Hemlock Forest<br />

1403 56 Doug-Fir / Pinegrass Rocky Mountain Montane Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland<br />

1404 296 Doug-Fir / Ninebark - Symphoricarpos Rocky Mountain Montane Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland<br />

1405 31 Doug-Fir / Huckleberry Rocky Mountain Montane Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland<br />

1406 229642 Doug-Fir / Ocean Spray / <strong>Oregon</strong> Grape North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Douglas-Fir Western Hemlock Forest<br />

1407 1438026 Doug-Fir / Dry Scrub Rocky Mountain Montane Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland<br />

1408 343495 Doug-Fir - Canyon Live Oak Rocky Mountain Montane Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland<br />

1409 77571 Doug-Fir - Golden Chinquapin Rocky Mountain Montane Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland<br />

1411 40 Doug-Fir / Incense Cedar-Jeffery Pine Rocky Mountain Montane Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland<br />

1423 7513 No Name Available Rocky Mountain Montane Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland<br />

1424 7552 No Name Available Rocky Mountain Montane Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland<br />

1425 8361 No Name Available Rocky Mountain Montane Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland<br />

1426 9888 No Name Available North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Douglas-Fir Western Hemlock Forest<br />

1427 9848 No Name Available Rocky Mountain Montane Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland<br />

1428 8383 No Name Available Rocky Mountain Montane Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland<br />

1429 8163 No Name Available North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Douglas-Fir Western Hemlock Forest<br />

1430 7135 Psme-Cade SO OR Rocky Mountain Montane Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland<br />

1471 4240 Dry grasslands Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe<br />

1481 44 Montane Talus shrub North <strong>Pacific</strong> Broadleaf Mesic Seral Forest<br />

1491 107 Riparian Shrublands North <strong>Pacific</strong> Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland<br />

1501 361872 Tan Oak-Doug Fir-Golden Chinqapin Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest<br />

1502 120745 Tan Oak - Doug-Fir/ <strong>Oregon</strong> grape Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest<br />

1503 31562 Tan Oak / <strong>Oregon</strong> grape Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest<br />

1504 1448479 Tanoak / Huckleberry Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest<br />

1521 806 Tanoak -Chinqapin Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest<br />

1601 3010 Grand Fir / Ocean-spray Northern Rocky Mountain Montane Mixed Conifer Forest<br />

1602 1777 Grand Fir / <strong>Oregon</strong> Grape Northern Rocky Mountain Montane Mixed Conifer Forest<br />

1603 1938 Grand Fir / Vine maple Northern Rocky Mountain Montane Mixed Conifer Forest<br />

1604 1377 Grand Fir / Pinegrass Northern Rocky Mountain Montane Mixed Conifer Forest<br />

1605 1604 Grand Fir / Huckleberry Northern Rocky Mountain Montane Mixed Conifer Forest<br />

1607 35312 Grand Fir / Salal Northern Rocky Mountain Montane Mixed Conifer Forest<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment • Appendix 2A, page 1 of 3

PAG # COUNT PAG "Name" (unofficial) N<strong>at</strong>ureServe Ecological System<br />

1608 117678 Grand Fir - CA Laurel Northern Rocky Mountain Montane Mixed Conifer Forest<br />

1609 197285 Grand Fir / Ocean-Spray - Poison Oak / Sala Northern Rocky Mountain Montane Mixed Conifer Forest<br />

1612 34434 Grand Fir - Golden Chinqapin / <strong>Pacific</strong> PeavinNorthern Rocky Mountain Montane Mixed Conifer Forest<br />

1613 111985 No Name Available Northern Rocky Mountain Montane Mixed Conifer Forest<br />

1621 1406 No Name Available Northern Rocky Mountain Montane Mixed Conifer Forest<br />

1622 1101 No Name Available Northern Rocky Mountain Montane Mixed Conifer Forest<br />

1623 1369 No Name Available Northern Rocky Mountain Montane Mixed Conifer Forest<br />

1627 28 No Name Available Northern Rocky Mountain Montane Mixed Conifer Forest<br />

1671 84 Sagebrush / Fescue Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe<br />

1691 5750 Riparain / Wetlands North <strong>Pacific</strong> Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland<br />

1701 1362 Whitebark Pine-Jeffery Pine Klam<strong>at</strong>h-Siskyou Lower Montane Serpentine Mixed Conifer Woodland<br />

1901 201043 Western Hemlock / Queens Cup North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock - Western Red Cedar Forest<br />

1902 728945 Western Hemlock / Rhododendron-dry North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Douglas-Fir Western Hemlock Forest<br />

1903 5181885 Western Hemlock / Salal - <strong>Oregon</strong>grape North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Douglas-Fir Western Hemlock Forest<br />

1904 491313 Western Hemlock /Alaska blueberry North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Douglas-Fir Western Hemlock Forest<br />

1905 339246 Western Hemlock / Vanillaleaf North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Douglas-Fir Western Hemlock Forest<br />

1906 12204674 Western Hemlock / <strong>Oregon</strong> Grape North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Douglas-Fir Western Hemlock Forest<br />

1907 10116696 Western Hemlock / Sword Fern - Oxalis North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Douglas-Fir Western Hemlock Forest<br />

1908 2670981 Western Hemlock / Salmonberry North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Douglas-Fir Western Hemlock Forest<br />

1909 3940889 Western Hemlock / Blueberry - Sorrel North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest<br />

1910 34193 Western Hemlock / Devils Club North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Douglas-Fir Western Hemlock Forest<br />

1911 339 Western Hemlock / Skunk Cabbage North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Douglas-Fir Western Hemlock Forest<br />

1912 13 Western Hemlock / Fools Huckleberry North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock - Western Red Cedar Forest<br />

1914 130736 No Name Available North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Douglas-Fir Western Hemlock Forest<br />

1915 237064 Western Hemlock / Rhododendron - moist, soNorth <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Douglas-Fir Western Hemlock Forest<br />

1922 1008 Western Hemlock / Rhododendron - Drier, noNorth <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Douglas-Fir Western Hemlock Forest<br />

1923 1907 Western Hemlock - (Incense Cedar, Doug FirNorth <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Douglas-Fir Western Hemlock Forest<br />

1924 9165 Western Hemlock / Rhododendron -dry North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Douglas-Fir Western Hemlock Forest<br />

1925 16483 Western Hemlock - Port Orford Cedar / SorrelNorth <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Douglas-Fir Western Hemlock Forest<br />

1926 5937 Western Hemlock-Port Orford Cedar / Rhodo North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Douglas-Fir Western Hemlock Forest<br />

1927 36077 Western Hemlock-Tan Oak/ Rhododendron North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Douglas-Fir Western Hemlock Forest<br />

1928 3269082 Western Hemlock / Salmonberry North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Douglas-Fir Western Hemlock Forest<br />

1971 58241 No Name Available Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe<br />

1991 4976 Riparian/Wetland Shrub and Herb North <strong>Pacific</strong> Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland<br />

2001 2632 White Fir - Tan Oak Mediterranean California Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland<br />

2002 481 White Fir / Rhododendron Mediterranean California Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland<br />

2003 7842 White Fir - Grand Fir / <strong>Oregon</strong> Grape Mediterranean California Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland<br />

2004 31539 White Fir - Doug Fir / Rosa Symphoricarpos Mediterranean California Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland<br />

2006 2448 Grand Fir / Salal- <strong>Oregon</strong> Grape Northern Rocky Mountain Montane Mixed Conifer Forest<br />

2008 689 White Fir / Sorrel Mediterranean California Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland<br />

2098 93 White Fir -Shasta Fir / Sweet-After-De<strong>at</strong>h Mediterranean California Red Fir Forest and Woodland<br />

2099 2 White Fir - Brewer Pine Mediterranean California Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland<br />

2101 96 Shasta Fir / Prince's pine Mediterranean California Red Fir Forest and Woodland<br />

2102 244 Shasta Fir / Pyrola Mediterranean California Red Fir Forest and Woodland<br />

2103 286 Shasta Fir - White Fir Mediterranean California Red Fir Forest and Woodland<br />

2104 313 Shasta Fir - White Fir Mediterranean California Red Fir Forest and Woodland<br />

2201 77718 Silver Fir / Rhododendron - <strong>Oregon</strong> Grape North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest<br />

2202 46679 Silver Fir / <strong>Oregon</strong> Grape North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest<br />

2203 520814 Silver Fir / Alaska huckleberry North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest<br />

2204 249072 Silver Fir / Big Huckleberry - Beargrass North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest<br />

2205 24619 Silver Fir / White Rhododendron - Alaska HucNorth <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest<br />

2206 23008 Silver Fir / three-leaved coolwort North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest<br />

2207 474179 Silver Fir / Alaska Huckleberry North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest<br />

2208 951823 Silver Fir / Sorrel North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest<br />

2209 8124 Silver Fir/ Devils Club North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest<br />

2271 79579 No Name Available North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry and Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland and Meadow<br />

2291 107 Sitka Alder North <strong>Pacific</strong> Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 2A, page 2 of 3

PAG # COUNT PAG "Name" (unofficial) N<strong>at</strong>ureServe Ecological System<br />

2302 6 Mountain Hemlock / Huckleberry/ Beargrass?North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest<br />

2303 20701 Mountain Hemlock / Fools Huckleberry? North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest<br />

2304 384423 Mountain Hemlock / White Rhododendron - BNorth <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest<br />

2305 563956 Mountain Hemlock / Alaska Huckleberry North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest<br />

2306 4807 Mountain Hemlock / Devil's Club North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest<br />

2371 72379 No Name Available North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry and Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland and Meadow<br />

2391 541 Riparian / Wetland Shrub and Herb North <strong>Pacific</strong> Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland<br />

2504 81428 Subalpine Fir / White Rhododenron - BeargraRocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland<br />

2571 15694 Festuca Grasslands, Sagebrush-grasslands Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe<br />

2901 49 Larix lyalii Parkland Northern Rocky Mountain Subalpine Larch Woodland<br />

3201 421617 Mountain Hemlock Parkland wet-mesic-dry North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest<br />

3301 30762 Alpine North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry and Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland and Meadow<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 2A, page 3 of 3

Appendix 2B Rare Plant Community Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets in the <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregion<br />

Scientific name Common name Rank Distri- P<strong>at</strong>ch Ecoregion NVCS alliance<br />

bution Size Goal<br />

Myrica gale / Sanguisorba officinalis / Sphagnum spp. Sweet Gale / Gre<strong>at</strong> Burnet / G1?S1? L S 13 MYRICA GALE<br />

Shrubland<br />

Pe<strong>at</strong>moss species Shrubland<br />

SATURATED<br />

SHRUBLAND<br />

Carex (livida, utricul<strong>at</strong>a) / Sphagnum spp. Herbaceous (Livid Sedge, Beaked Sedge) G1G2S1 W S 7 CAREX<br />

Veget<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

/ Pe<strong>at</strong>moss species<br />

UTRICULATA<br />

SATURATED<br />

Picea sitchensis / Cornus sericea - Salix hookeriana Sitka spruce / creek dogwood - G1G2S1 L L 7 PICEA SITCHENSIS<br />

Hooker willow tideland<br />

TIDAL WOODLAND<br />

G1S1 E M 25 ABIES GRANDIS -<br />

PSEUDOTSUGA<br />

MENZIESII GIANT<br />

grand fir - Douglas - fir /<br />

tanoak / sword fern<br />

Abies grandis - Pseudotsuga menziesii / Lithocarpus<br />

densiflorus / Polystichum munitum<br />

Abies procera / Oxalis oregana Forest Noble Fir / Redwood Sorrel G1S1 W M 7 ABIES PROCERA<br />

FOREST<br />

G1S1 L S 13 CALAMAGROSTIS<br />

NUTKAENSIS<br />

TIDAL<br />

G1S1 E L 25 CHAMAECYPARIS<br />

LAWSONIANA<br />

FOREST<br />

G1S1 L S 13 CHAMAECYPARIS<br />

LAWSONIANA<br />

FOREST<br />

G1S1 L S 13<br />

Calamagrostis nutkaensis - Argentina egedii - Juncus <strong>Pacific</strong> Reedgrass - <strong>Pacific</strong><br />

balticus Herbaceous Veget<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Silverweed - Baltic Rush<br />

Herbaceous Veget<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Chamaecyparis lawsoniana - Picea sitchensis / Port Orford cedar - Sitka<br />

Vaccinium ov<strong>at</strong>um - Rhododendron macrophyllum spruce / evergreen<br />

huckleberry - western<br />

Chamaecyparis lawsoniana / Vaccinium ov<strong>at</strong>um Port Orford cedar / evergreen<br />

huckleberry dune oldgrowth<br />

forest<br />

Deschampsia cespitosa - Sidalcea hendersonii Tufted hairgrass -<br />

Henderson's checker-mallow<br />

G1S1 L S 13 FESTUCA RUBRA<br />

HERBACEOUS<br />

Festuca rubra dune grasslands red fescue stabilized sand<br />

dunes<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 2B, page 1 of 7

Scientific name Common name Rank Distributi P<strong>at</strong>ch Ecoregion NVCS alliance<br />

on Size Goal<br />

Ledum glandulosum - Myrica gale western Labrador tea - sweet G1S1 L S 13 LEDUM<br />

gale he<strong>at</strong>h<br />

GLANDULOSUM<br />

SATURATED<br />

LEDUM GROENLANDICUM - KALMIA<br />

BOG LABRADOR-TEA - BOG- G1S1 W S 7 NEEDS NEW:<br />

MICROPHYLLA / XEROPHYLLUM TENAX<br />

LAUREL / BEARGRASS<br />

LEDUM<br />

SHRUBLAND<br />

GROENLANDICUM<br />

Myrica gale / Boykinia intermedia - Carex obnupta Sweet Gale / Sierran G1S1 W S 7 MYRICA GALE<br />

Shrubland<br />

Brookfoam / Slough Sedge<br />

SEASONALLY<br />

Shrubland<br />

FLOODED<br />

Picea sitchensis - Abies grandis / Gaultheria shallon / Sitka spruce - grand fir / salal / G1S1 E S 25 PICEA SITCHENSIS<br />

Polystichum munitum<br />

sword fern<br />

GIANT FOREST<br />

Picea sitchensis - Tsuga heterophylla / Rhododendron Sitka spruce - western G1S1 L L 13 PICEA SITCHENSIS<br />

macrophyllum - Vaccinium ov<strong>at</strong>um<br />

hemlock / western<br />

GIANT FOREST<br />

rhododendron - evergreen<br />

Pinus contorta spp. contorta / Arctostaphylos uva - shorepine / kinnikinnick G1S1 L L 13 PINUS CONTORTA<br />

ursi<br />

SSP CONTORTA<br />

ROUND -<br />

Pinus contorta ssp. contorta / Arctostaphylos shorepine / hairy manzanita G1S1 E L 25 PINUS CONTORTA<br />

columbiana<br />

SSP CONTORTA<br />

ROUND -<br />

Pinus contorta ssp. contorta / Gaultheria shallon - pygmy shore pine forest on G1S1 L L 13 PINUS CONTORTA<br />

Vaccinium ov<strong>at</strong>um<br />

Blacklock soils<br />

SSP CONTORTA<br />

ROUND -<br />

Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa / Cornus sericea black cottonwood / creek G1S1 W Li 7 POPULUS<br />

/ Imp<strong>at</strong>iens capensis<br />

dogwood / touch - me - not<br />

BALSAMIFERA SSP<br />

TRICHOCARPA<br />

Quercus garryana / Festuca idahoensis var. romeri white oak / Idaho fescue G1S1 L L 13 QUERCUS<br />

savanna<br />

GARRYANA<br />

WOODED<br />

Ranunculus flammula - Juncus nevadensis - Carex Gre<strong>at</strong>er Creeping Spearwort - G1S1 L Li 13 CAREX OBNUPTA<br />

lenticularis Herbaceous Veget<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Sierran Rush - Lakeshore<br />

SEASONALLY<br />

Sedge Herbaceous Veget<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

FLOODED<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 2B, page 2 of 7

NVCS alliance<br />

Scientific name Common name Rank Distributi P<strong>at</strong>ch Ecoregion<br />

on Size Goal<br />

Sidalcea hendersonii - Tidal Marsh Henderson's checker-mallow - G1S1 L S 13<br />

Tidal Marsh<br />

Tsuga heterophylla / Ledum glandulosum / Carex western hemlock / western G1S1 L M 13 TSUGA<br />

obnupta - Lysichiton americanum<br />

Labrador tea / slough sedge -<br />

HETEROPHYLLA<br />

skunk cabbage swamp<br />

SATURATED<br />

Tsuga heterophylla / Rhododendron macrophyllum - western hemlock / western G1S1 W M 7 TSUGA<br />

Vaccinium ov<strong>at</strong>um<br />

rhododendron - evergreen<br />

HETEROPHYLLA<br />

huckleberry forest<br />

GIANT FOREST<br />

Myrica gale - Spiraea douglasii / Sphagnum spp. Sweet Gale - Douglas' G2?S1S2 L S 13<br />

Shrubland<br />

Meadowsweet / Pe<strong>at</strong>moss<br />

species Shrubland<br />

Baccharis pilularis / Artemisia pycnocephala - south coast herb dunes G2S1 L S 13 BACCHARIS<br />

Scrophularia californica<br />

PILULARIS<br />

SHRUBLAND<br />

Calamagrostis nutkaensis - Elymus glaucus <strong>Pacific</strong> reedgrass - blue G2S1 L S 13 CALAMAGROSTIS<br />

wildrye<br />

NUTKAENSIS<br />

HERBACEOUS<br />

FESTUCA ROEMERI - CERASTIUM ARVENSE - ROEMER'S FESCUE - FIELD G2S1 L S 13 FESTUCA<br />

KOELERIA MACRANTHA HERBACEOUS<br />

CHICKWEED - PRAIRIE<br />

ROEMERI<br />

VEGETATION<br />

JUNEGRASS<br />

HERBACEOUS<br />

LEDUM GROENLANDICUM - MYRICA GALE / BOG LABRADOR-TEA - G2S1 W S 7 NEEDS NEW:<br />

SPHAGNUM SPP. SHRUBLAND<br />

SWEETGALE / SPHAGNUM<br />

LEDUM<br />

SPP.<br />

GROENLANDICUM<br />

Pinus contorta spp. contorta / Carex obnupta shorepine / slough sedge G2S1 W L 7 PINUS CONTORTA<br />

SSP CONTORTA<br />

SEASONALLY<br />

Poa douglasii ssp. macrantha dunes seashore bluegrass dunes G2S1 L S 13 POA DOUGLASII<br />

SSP MACRANTHA<br />

SHORT - SOD<br />

Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa / Cornus sericea black cottonwood / creek G2S1 W Li 7 POPULUS<br />

/ Imp<strong>at</strong>iens capensis<br />

dogwood / touch - me - not<br />

BALSAMIFERA SSP<br />

TRICHOCARPA<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 2B, page 3 of 7

Scientific name Common name Rank Distributi P<strong>at</strong>ch Ecoregion NVCS alliance<br />

on Size Goal<br />

Carex aqu<strong>at</strong>ilis var. dives - Comarum palustre Sitka Sedge - Purple G2S1? W S 7 CAREX AQUATILIS<br />

Herbaceous Veget<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Marshlocks<br />

VAR. DIVES<br />

SEASONALLY<br />

Abies lasiocarpa - (Pinus contorta) / Lupinus arcticus Subalpine Fir - (Lodgepole G2S2 W M 7 ABIES<br />

ssp. subalpinus Woodland<br />

Pine) / Subalpine Arctic<br />

LASIOCARPA<br />

Lupine Woodland<br />

WOODLAND<br />

Anaphalis margaritacea - Aster foliaceous Anaphalis - aster G2S2 W S 7<br />

Arbutus menziesii - Arctostaphylos columbiana Arbutus - hairy manzanita G2S2 P S 3<br />

G2S2 W S 7 CAREX CUSICKII<br />

SATURATED<br />

HERBACEOUS<br />

G2S2 L L 13 CHAMAECYPARIS<br />

LAWSONIANA<br />

FOREST<br />

G2S2 L L 13 CHAMAECYPARIS<br />

LAWSONIANA<br />

FOREST<br />

G2S2 L L 13 CHAMAECYPARIS<br />

LAWSONIANA<br />

FOREST<br />

G2S2 L L 13 CHAMAECYPARIS<br />

LAWSONIANA<br />

FOREST<br />

G2S2 L L 13 CHAMAECYPARIS<br />

LAWSONIANA<br />

FOREST<br />

G2S2 L L 13 CHAMAECYPARIS<br />

LAWSONIANA<br />

FOREST<br />

Carex cusickii - (Comarum palustre) fen Cusick sedge - (bog<br />

cinquefoil) fen<br />

Port Orford cedar - white fir -<br />

Douglas - fir / (dwarf<br />

Chamaecyparis lawsoniana - Abies concolor -<br />

Pseudotsuga menziesii / (Mahonia nervosa var.<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong>grape) / vanillaleaf<br />

Port Orford cedar - white fir /<br />

Sadler oak / leucothoe -<br />

western rhododendron<br />

Port Orford cedar - Douglas-fir<br />

/ (western rhododendron) /<br />

beargrass<br />

Port Orford cedar - Douglas-fir<br />

/ tanoak / salal<br />

nervosa) / Achlys triphylla<br />

Chamaecyparis lawsoniana - Abies concolor /<br />

Quercus sadleriana / Leucothe davisiae* -<br />

Rhododendron macrophyllum<br />

Chamaecyparis lawsoniana - Pseudotsuga menziesii /<br />

(Rhododendron macrophyllum) / Xerophyllum tenax<br />

Chamaecyparis lawsoniana - Pseudotsuga menziesii /<br />

Lithocarpus densiflorus / Gaultheria shallon<br />

Port Orford cedar - western<br />

hemlock / sword fern<br />

Chamaecyparis lawsoniana - Tsuga heterophylla /<br />

Polystichum munitum<br />

Port Orford cedar - western<br />

hemlock / western<br />

rhododendron - salal<br />

Chamaecyparis lawsoniana - Tsuga heterophylla /<br />

Rhododendron macrophyllum - Gaultheria shallon<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 2B, page 4 of 7

Scientific name Common name Rank Distributi P<strong>at</strong>ch Ecoregion NVCS alliance<br />

on Size Goal<br />

Eleocharis acicularis - Ludwigia palustris creeping spikerush - w<strong>at</strong>er G2S2 W S 7 ELEOCHARIS<br />

purslane marsh<br />

PALUSTRIS<br />

SEASONALLY<br />

Empetrum nigrum - Gaultheria shallon crowberry - salal oceanfront G2S2 W S 7 EMPETRUM<br />

shrubland<br />

NIGRUM DWARF -<br />

SHRUBLAND<br />

Festuca roemeri - Delphinium glareosum Herbaceous Roemer's Fescue - Olympic G2S2 E S 25 FESTUCA<br />

Veget<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Larkspur<br />

IDAHOENSIS<br />

ALPINE<br />

Festuca roemeri - Phlox diffusa var. longistylis Roemer's Fescue - Spreading G2S2 L S 13 FESTUCA<br />

Herbaceous Veget<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Phlox<br />

IDAHOENSIS<br />

ALPINE<br />

Festuca rubra - Armeria maritima coastal headland red fescue - sea-pink coastal G2S2 L S 13 FESTUCA RUBRA<br />

grassland<br />

headland grassland<br />

HERBACEOUS<br />

Festuca rubra - Danthonia californica red fescue - California G2S2 L S 13 FESTUCA RUBRA<br />

o<strong>at</strong>grass south coast headland<br />

HERBACEOUS<br />

G2S2 L S 13 LEDUM<br />

GLANDULOSUM<br />

SATURATED<br />

G2S2 L S 13 LEDUM<br />

GLANDULOSUM<br />

SATURATED<br />

G2S2 L S 13 LEDUM<br />

GLANDULOSUM<br />

SATURATED<br />

G2S2 L S 13 LEDUM<br />

GLANDULOSUM<br />

SATURATED<br />

G2S2 L L 13 PINUS CONTORTA<br />

SSP CONTORTA<br />

ROUND -<br />

or hillslope grassland<br />

western Labrador tea - salal /<br />

slough sedge bog<br />

Ledum glandulosum - Gaultheria shallon / Carex<br />

obnupta<br />

Ledum glandulosum / Carex obnupta / Sphagnum western Labrador tea / slough<br />

sedge / sphagnum bog<br />

western Labrador tea /<br />

darlingtonia / sphagnum bog<br />

Ledum glandulosum / Darlingtonia californica /<br />

Sphagnum<br />

western Labrador tea / burnet<br />

/ sphagnum bog<br />

Ledum glandulosum / Sanguisorba officinalis /<br />

Sphagnum<br />

shore pine / western<br />

rhododendron - evergreen<br />

huckleberry<br />

Pinus contorta ssp. contorta / Rhododendron<br />

macrophyllum - Vaccinium ov<strong>at</strong>um<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 2B, page 5 of 7

NVCS alliance<br />

Scientific name Common name Rank Distributi P<strong>at</strong>ch Ecoregion<br />

on Size Goal<br />

Pseudotsuga menziesii - Pinus contorta / Cladina Douglas-fir - lodgepole pine / G2S2 L S 13<br />

Cladina<br />

G2S2 L S 13<br />

Douglas-fir - lodgepole pine /<br />

Rhacomitrium<br />

Pseudotsuga menziesii - Pinus contorta /<br />

Rhacomitrium canescens<br />

PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII - TSUGA<br />

DOUGLAS-FIR - WESTERN G2S2 W M 7 PSEUDOTSUGA<br />

HETEROPHYLLA / RHODODENDRON<br />

HEMLOCK / PACIFIC<br />

MENZIESII - TSUGA<br />

MACROPHYLLUM - VACCINIUM OVATUM FOREST RHODODENDRON -<br />

HETEROPHYLLA<br />

PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII - TSUGA<br />

DOUGLAS-FIR - WESTERN G2S2 W M 7<br />

HETEROPHYLLA / VACCINIUM OVATUM FOREST HEMLOCK / EVERGREEN<br />

HUCKLEBERRY<br />

Scirpus subterminalis w<strong>at</strong>er clubrush bed G2S2 W S 7 SCIRPUS<br />

SUBTERMINALIS<br />

HYDROMORPHIC<br />

Spiraea douglasii - Vaccinium uliginosum / Carex Douglas spiraea - bog G2S2 L S 13 SPIRAEA<br />

obnupta / Sphagnum<br />

blueberry / slough sedge /<br />

DOUGLASII<br />

sphagnum<br />

SATURATED<br />

Vaccinium uliginosum / Carex obnupta bog blueberry / slough sedge G2S2 L S 13 VACCINIUM<br />

shrub swamp<br />

ULIGINOSUM SSP<br />

OCCIDENTALE<br />

Vaccinium uliginosum / Deschampsia cespitosa - bog blueberry / tufted G2S2 L S 13 VACCINIUM<br />

Carex obnupta<br />

hairgrass - slough sedge shrub<br />

ULIGINOSUM SSP<br />

swamp<br />

OCCIDENTALE<br />

Festuca idahoensis - Koelaria macrantha Idaho fescue - junegrass S1 W S 7<br />

S1 L L 13<br />

Shore pine - common juniper -<br />

hairy manzanita<br />

Pinus contorta var. contorta - Juniperus communis -<br />

Arctostaphylos columbiana<br />

S1S2 W M 7<br />

Thuja plic<strong>at</strong>a / Rubus spectabilis Western redcedar /<br />

salmonberry<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 2B, page 6 of 7

NVCS alliance<br />

Scientific name Common name Rank Distributi P<strong>at</strong>ch Ecoregion<br />

on Size Goal<br />

Phlox diffusa - Selaginella wallacei Phlox - moss S2 w S 7<br />

S2 L L 13<br />

Sitka spruce / false lily-of-thevalley<br />

Very Wet<br />

Picea sitchensis / Maianthemum dil<strong>at</strong><strong>at</strong>um Very Wet<br />

Hyperemaritime 1<br />

S2 L L 13<br />

Hypermaritime 1<br />

Picea sitchensis / Rubus spectabilis Very Dry Maritime Sitka spruce / salmonberry<br />

Very Dry Maritime<br />

Picea sitchensis / Rubus spectabilis Very Wet Sitka spruce / salmonberry S2 L L 13<br />

Maritime<br />

Very Wet Maritime<br />

Picea sitchensis / Trisetum canescens Sitka spruce / Trisetum S2 L L 13<br />

Pseudotsuga menziesii / Acer glabrum / Prosartes Douglas-fir / Douglas maple / S2 W M 7<br />

hookeri<br />

Hooker's fairybells<br />

Thuja plic<strong>at</strong>a / Lonicera involucr<strong>at</strong>a Western redcedar / black S2 W M 7<br />

twinberry<br />

Tsuga heterophylla - Pseudotsuga menziesii / Western hemlock - Douglas-fir S2 W M 7<br />

Kindbergia oregana<br />

/ <strong>Oregon</strong> beaked moss<br />

Tsuga heterophylla - Thuja plic<strong>at</strong>a / Blechnum spicant Western hemlock - western S2 W M 7<br />

redcedar / deer fern<br />

Tsuga heterophylla - Thuja plic<strong>at</strong>a / Gaultheria shallon Western hemlock - western S2 W M y<br />

Moist Maritime 1<br />

redcedar / salal Moist<br />

Maritime 1<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 2B, page 7 of 7

Appendix 2C Rare Estuarine and Wetland Plant Community Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets in the <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregion<br />

TOTAL SITES GOAL<br />

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME EL_CODE (#) _ID (#)<br />

SAND: PARTLY ENCLOSED, EULITTORAL, EUHALINE<br />

SANDY, HIGH SALINITY, LOW MARSH OP (MARSH) OLYMPIC PENINSULA CAEB.BB-OP 8 79 2<br />

SILTY, MODERATE SALINITY, LOW MARSH MIXED FINE: PARTLY ENCLOSED EULITTORAL,<br />

OP<br />

POLYHALINE (MARSH) OLYMPIC PENINSULA CAEB.BC-OP 13 80 4<br />

SAND: PARTLY ENCLOSED, EULITTORAL, MESOHALINE<br />

SANDY, LOW SALINITY, LOW MARSH OP (MARSH) OLYMPIC PENINSULA CAEB.CB-OP 2 81 1<br />

MIXED-FINE AND MUD: PARTLY ENCLOSED, EULITTORAL,<br />

SILTY, LOW SALINITY, LOW MARSH OP MESOHALINE OLYMPIC PENINSULA CAEB.CC-OP 7 82 2<br />

SANDY, MODERATE SALINITY, LOW SAND: PARTLY ENCLOSED, EULITTORAL, POLYHALINE<br />

MARSH OP<br />

(MARSH) OLYMPIC PENINSULA CAEB.DB-OP 4 83 1<br />

ORGANIC: PARTLY ENCLOSED, BACKSHORE, POLYHALINE<br />

MODERATE SALINITY HIGH MARSH OP (MARSH) OLYMPIC PENINSULA CAEC.A--OP 13 84 3<br />

ORGANIC: PARTLY ENCLOSED, BACKSHORE, MESOHALINE<br />

LOW SALINITY HIGH MARSH OP<br />

(MARSH) OLYMPIC PENINSULA CAEC.B--OP 9 85 3<br />

ORGANIC, SAND, MIXED-FINE OR MUD: PARTLY<br />

TRANSITION ZONE WETLAND OP<br />

ENCLOSED, BACKSHORE OLYMPIC PENINSULA CAED.---OP 2 86 1<br />

FRESHWATER TIDAL SURGE PLAIN FRESHWATER TIDAL SURGE PLAIN WETLAND OLYMPIC<br />

WETLAND OP<br />

PENINSULA CAEE.---OP 2 87 1<br />

LOW INTERTIDAL HIGH SALINITY SANDY<br />

SALTMARSH LOW INTERTIDAL HIGH SALINITY SANDY SALTMARSH CECG000001 1 88 1<br />

LOW INTERTIDAL HIGH SALINITY SILTY<br />

SALTMARSH LOW INTERTIDAL HIGH SALINITY SILTY SALTMARSH CEDG000001 1 89 1<br />

LOW INTERTIDAL BRACKISH SALTMARSH LOW INTERTIDAL BRACKISH SALTMARSH ON SANDS TO<br />

ON SANDS TO SILTS<br />

SILTS CEFG000001 1 90 1<br />

PINCON/CAROBN SHOREPINE/SLOUGH SEDGE CEGL000142 1 91 1<br />

SALHOC-MYRCAL COAST WILLOW DEFLATION PLAIN WETLAND CEGL001138 1 92 1<br />

FESRUB DUNE GRASSLAND RED FESCUE STABILIZED SAND DUNES CEGL001774 2 93 1<br />

LUPINUS LITTORALIS (DUNE COMMUNITY) SEASHORE LUPINE DUNES CEGL001974 1 94 1<br />

MID INTERTIDAL BRACKISH FINE<br />

SUBSTRATE SALTMARSH MID INTERTIDAL BRACKISH FINE SUBSTRATE SALTMARSH CEJG000001 1 95 1<br />

OLD-GROWTH SITKA SPRUCE/CREEK DOGWOOD<br />

PICSIT/CORSER TIDELAND SWAMP TIDELAND SWAMP CPVB1PSC01 1 96 1<br />

Calamagrostis nutkaensis - Argentina egedii - <strong>Pacific</strong> Reedgrass - <strong>Pacific</strong> Silverweed - Baltic Rush Herbaceous<br />

Juncus balticus Herbaceous Veget<strong>at</strong>ion Veget<strong>at</strong>ion CWWA000052 2 97 1<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 2C, page 1 of 3

TOTAL SITES GOAL<br />

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME EL_CODE (#) _ID (#)<br />

Calamagrostis nutkaensis <strong>Pacific</strong> reedgrass fen ORWETLND01 1 137 1<br />

Carex aqu<strong>at</strong>ilis var. dives Sitka sedge fen ORWETLND02 1 138 1<br />

Carex aqu<strong>at</strong>ilis var. dives - Comarum palustre Sitka Sedge - Purple Marshlocks<br />

Herbaceous Veget<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

ORWETLND03 1 139 1<br />

Carex lyngbyei Lyngby sedge freshw<strong>at</strong>er marsh ORWETLND04 5 140 2<br />

Carex obnupta / Sphagnum slough sedge / sphagnum ORWETLND05 1 141 1<br />

Cornus sericea - Salix (Salix hookeriana - Salix creek dogwood - willow (Hooker willow - Sitka willow)<br />

sitchensis)<br />

ORWETLND06 1 142 1<br />

Deschampsia cespitosa - Juncus balticus salt tufted hairgrass - Baltic rush salt marsh<br />

marsh<br />

ORWETLND07 8 143 2<br />

Festuca rubra dune grasslands red fescue stabilized sand dunes ORWETLND08 1 144 1<br />

Ledum glandulosum / Carex obnupta / western Labrador tea / slough sedge / sphagnum bog<br />

ORWETLND09 12 145 4<br />

Sphagnum<br />

Ledum glandulosum / Darlingtonia californica / western Labrador tea / darlingtonia / sphagnum bog<br />

Sphagnum<br />

ORWETLND10 9 146 3<br />

Ledum glandulosum / Sanguisorba officinalis / western Labrador tea / burnet / sphagnum bog<br />

Sphagnum<br />

ORWETLND11 2 147 1<br />

Picea sitchensis / Carex obnupta - Lysichitum Sitka spruce / slough sedge - skunk cabbage<br />

americanum<br />

ORWETLND12 8 148 1<br />

Picea sitchensis / Cornus sericea - Salix Sitka spruce / creek dogwood - Hooker willow tideland<br />

hookeriana<br />

ORWETLND13 8 149 2<br />

Pinus contorta spp. contorta / Carex obnupta shorepine / slough sedge<br />

ORWETLND14 4 150 1<br />

Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa / Cornus black cottonwood / creek dogwood / touch - me - not<br />

sericea / Imp<strong>at</strong>iens capensis<br />

ORWETLND15 3 151 1<br />

Salix hookeriana - Malus fusca / Carex obnupta coast willow - crabapple / slough sedge - skunk cabbage shrub<br />

- Lysichiton americanum<br />

swamp ORWETLND16 8 152 2<br />

Salicornia virginica - Distichlis spic<strong>at</strong>a - glasswort - saltgrass - arrow grass - (jaumea) salt marsh<br />

Triglochin maritima - (Jaumea carnosa)<br />

ORWETLND17 69 153 23<br />

Spiraea douglasii - Vaccinium uliginosum / Douglas spiraea - bog blueberry / slough sedge / sphagnum<br />

Carex obnupta / Sphagnum<br />

ORWETLND18 1 154 1<br />

Vaccinium caespitosum/Sanquisorba officinalis dwarf blueberry/burnet ORWETLND19 1 155 1<br />

Vaccinium uliginosum / Deschampsia cespitosa bog blueberry / tufted hairgrass - slough sedge shrub swamp<br />

- Carex obnupta<br />

ORWETLND20 6 156 2<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 2C, page 2 of 3

TOTAL SITES GOAL<br />

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME EL_CODE (#) _ID (#)<br />

Xerophullum tenax-Sanquisorba officinalis-<br />

Sphagnum beargrass-burnet sphagnum bog ORWETLND21 2 157 1<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 2C, page 3 of 3

Appendix 2D PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregion Rare Plant Targets<br />

Global Federal<br />

Species Target<br />

Scientific name Common name<br />

Rank St<strong>at</strong>us Justific<strong>at</strong>ion Distribution Goal<br />

Arenaria paludicola Swamp sandwort G1 LE G1 E 25<br />

Castilleja chambersii Chamber's paintbrush G1 SOC G1 E 25<br />

Erythronium elegans <strong>Coast</strong> range fawn-lily G1 SOC G1 E 25<br />

Lilium occidentale Western lily G1 LE G1 E 25<br />

Limbella fryei Moss G1 SOC G1 E 25<br />

Oenothera wolfii Wolf's evening-primrose G1 SOC G1 E 25<br />

Saxifraga hitchcockiana Saddle Mtn. Saxifrage G1 SOC G1 E 25<br />

Whidbeyella cartilaginea Marine algae G1 G1 E 25<br />

Desmarestia tortuosa Marine algae G1? G1 E 25<br />

Empselium rubrum Marine algae G1? G1 E 25<br />

Saxifraga tischii Tisch's saxifrage G1? G1 E 25<br />

Bryoria pseudocapillaris Lichen<br />

Willamette Valley<br />

G1G2 G1 E 25<br />

Delphinium oreganum larkspur G1Q SOC G1 L 13<br />

Bensoniella oregana Bensonia G2 SOC G2 L 13<br />

Cardamine p<strong>at</strong>tersonii Saddle Mtn. Bittercress G2 SOC G2 E 25<br />

Cimicifuga el<strong>at</strong>a Tall bugbane G2 SOC G2 W 7<br />

Dodec<strong>at</strong>heon austrofrigidum Frigid shootingstar G2 SOC G2 E 25<br />

Erigeron salishii Salish daisy G2 G2 E 25<br />

Filipendula occidentalis Queen-of-the-forest G2 SOC G2 E 25<br />

Gilia millefoli<strong>at</strong>a Seaside gilia G2 SOC G2 L 13<br />

Myriogramme pulchra Marine algae G2 G2 L 13<br />

Phacelia argentea Silvery phacelia<br />

Hairy-stemmed<br />

G2 SOC G2 L 13<br />

Sidalcea hirtipes<br />

checkermallow G2 SOC G2 E 25<br />

Sidalcea nelsoniana Nelson's checker-mallow G2 LT G2 P 3<br />

Thuretellopsis peggiana Marine algae G2 G2 E 25<br />

Heterodermia sitchensis Seaside centipede G2G3 restricted to PNC<br />

Olympic Mt.<br />

E 25<br />

Senecio neowebsteri Olympic Mtn. Groundsel G2G3<br />

Endemic.<br />

<strong>at</strong> the north end of<br />

E 25<br />

Arctostaphylos hispidula Hairy manzanita G3 SOC its range<br />

Olympic and<br />

Vancouver Island<br />

L 13<br />

Aster paucicapit<strong>at</strong>us Olympic Mtn. Aster G3<br />

endemic<br />

Olympic Mt.<br />

E 25<br />

Campanula piperi Piper's bellflower G3<br />

Endemic E 25<br />

Chiharaea bodegensis Marine algae G3 BC sectional target.<br />

Widespread but rare;<br />

disjunct from E<br />

L 13<br />

Discelium nudum Moss G3<br />

coast. D 13<br />

Encalypta brevipes Moss G3 rare<br />

Olympic Mt.<br />

L 13<br />

Erigeron flettii Flett's fleabane G3<br />

Endemic. E 25<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 2D, page 1 of 4

Scientific name Common name<br />

Global<br />

Rank<br />

Erioderma soredi<strong>at</strong>um Lichen treepelt G3<br />

Hollenbergia nigricans Marine algae G3<br />

Federal<br />

Species Target<br />

St<strong>at</strong>us Justific<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

rare, restricted to<br />

NWC and CFM;<br />

Distribution Goal<br />

disjunct in NWC<br />

S BC to Mendocino<br />

D 13<br />

Co. L 13<br />

Hypogymnia heterophylla Seaside bone G3<br />

restricted to PNWC.<br />

BC sectional target. L 13<br />

Minium parvum Marine algae G3<br />

Olympic Mt.<br />

W 7<br />

Petrophytum hendersonii Olympic rock m<strong>at</strong> G3<br />

Endemic. E 25<br />

Poa unil<strong>at</strong>eralis San Francisco bluegrass G3 SOC rare grass W 7<br />

Tayloriella divaric<strong>at</strong>a Marine algae G3 disjunct in NWC,<br />

Olympic Mt.<br />

W 7<br />

Viola flettii Flett's violet G3<br />

Endemic. E 25<br />

Erysimum menziesii ssp<br />

Close to the edge,<br />

concinnum <strong>Pacific</strong> wallflower G3?T3? SOC maybe peripheral, W 7<br />

Cryptantha leiocarpa Seaside cryptantha G3G4<br />

Saltmarsh species -<br />

W 7<br />

Sidalcea hendersonii Henderson sidalcea G3G4 SOC endemic? L 13<br />

Leioderma soredi<strong>at</strong>um Lichen treepelt G3G4? restricted to PNC E 25<br />

Plagiochila semidecurrens var<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Ranges<br />

alaskana Liverwort G3G5T3<br />

sectional target E 25<br />

Douglasia laevig<strong>at</strong>a var<br />

possible disjunct in<br />

ciliol<strong>at</strong>a Smooth douglasia G3T3<br />

NWC L 13<br />

Carex pluriflora Several-flowered sedge G4 OR sectional target W 7<br />

Cephaloziella spinigera Liverwort G4<br />

limited to PNC, but<br />

W? 7<br />

Dictyoneuropsis reticul<strong>at</strong>a Marine algae G4<br />

G4<br />

Appears to be<br />

L 13<br />

Draba longipes Long-stalked draba G4<br />

disjunct D 13<br />

Lasthenia maritima Hairy goldfields G4 offshore rocks L 13<br />

Limonium californicum Western marsh-rosemary G4 N edge of range W 7<br />

Metzgeria temper<strong>at</strong>a Liverwort G4 W? 7<br />

Microseris bigelovii <strong>Coast</strong> microseris G4 L 13<br />

Pannaria rubiginosa Lichen G4<br />

Endemic to coast.<br />

Sectional target for<br />

W? 7<br />

Plantago macrocarpa Alaska plantain G4<br />

OR/WA only L 13<br />

Pohlia sphagnicola Moss G4 W? 7<br />

Radula brunnea Liverwort G4<br />

Endemic in <strong>Coast</strong><br />

W? 7<br />

Senecio flettii Flett groundsel G4<br />

Range<br />

known from Sooke<br />

River, VI. Sectional<br />

E 25<br />

Thelypteris nevadensis<br />

Cordylanthus maritimus ssp<br />

Sierra wood fern G4<br />

target. W 7<br />

palustris Salt-marsh bird's-beak G4?T2 SOC E 25<br />

Artemisia pycnocephala <strong>Coast</strong>al sagewort G4G5 L 13<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 2D, page 2 of 4

Global Federal<br />

Species Target<br />

Scientific name Common name<br />

Rank St<strong>at</strong>us Justific<strong>at</strong>ion Distribution Goal<br />

Sphaerotrichia divaric<strong>at</strong>a G4G5<br />

Known only from<br />

W? 7<br />

Erysimum arenicola var<br />

alpine, Vancouver<br />

torulosum<br />

Lasthenia macrantha ssp<br />

Sand-dwelling wallflower G4G5T?<br />

Island; E 25<br />

prisca<br />

Triteleia hendersonii var<br />

Large-flowered goldfields G4G5T2 SOC E 25<br />

leachiae Leach's brodiaea<br />

Olympic Nuttall's<br />

G4G5T2 L 13<br />

Arabis furc<strong>at</strong>a var olympica<br />

Artemisia furc<strong>at</strong>a var<br />

rockcress G4T? Endemic, T2 E 25<br />

heterophylla Three-forked mugwort G4T? disjunct in NWC P 3<br />

Silene douglasii var oraria Cascade Head c<strong>at</strong>chfly G4T1 SOC E 25<br />

Anemone oregana var felix<br />

Synthyris pinn<strong>at</strong>ifida var<br />

Bog anemone G4T2 SOC endemic E 25<br />

lanuginosa Cut-leaf synthyris G4T2 T2, endemic<br />

possible disjunct in<br />

NWC. Sectional<br />

E 25<br />

Draba lonchocarpa var vestita Lance-fruited draba G4T3<br />

target.<br />

Disjunct from<br />

northeastern<br />

D 13<br />

Astragalus microcystis Least bladdery milk-vetch G5<br />

Washington D 13<br />

Campylopus schmidii Moss G5<br />

Appears to be<br />

disjunct. Sectional<br />

W? 7<br />

Cochlearia officinalis Scurvygrass G5<br />

target only in OR. L 13<br />

Corydalis aurea Golden corydalis<br />

Whorled marsh<br />

G5<br />

Disjunct from<br />

eastern Washington D 13<br />

Hydrocotyle verticill<strong>at</strong>a pennywort G5<br />

Disjunct in Olympics<br />

and Vancouver<br />

W 7<br />

Orthocarpus imbric<strong>at</strong>us Mountain owl-clover G5<br />

Island<br />

Disjunct from East<br />

D 13<br />

Pellaea breweri Brewer's cliff-brake G5<br />

Cascades D 13<br />

Polytrichum strictum Hummock haircap moss G5 W? 7<br />

Rhynchospora capitell<strong>at</strong>a Brownish beakrush G5 W 7<br />

Sparganium fluctuans W<strong>at</strong>er bur-reed G5 Disjunct from Idaho D 13<br />

Tritomaria quinquedent<strong>at</strong>a Liverwort G5<br />

Saltmarsh species<br />

uncommon in OR<br />

W? 7<br />

Stellaria humifusa Creeping sandwort G5?<br />

and WA,<br />

Olympic and<br />

W 7<br />

Castilleja parviflora var.<br />

Vancouver Island<br />

Olympica Magenta paintbrush G5?T2T3<br />

endemic.<br />

Likely Olympic<br />

E 25<br />

Pedicularis bracteosa var.<br />

endemic. Sectional<br />

Atrosanguinea Blood red pedicularis G5T?<br />

target. E 25<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 2D, page 3 of 4

Scientific name Common name<br />

Global<br />

Rank<br />

Federal<br />

St<strong>at</strong>us Justific<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Species<br />

Distribution<br />

Astragalus australis var<br />

olympicus Cotton's milk-vetch G5T1 SOC T1 E 25<br />

Sidalcea malviflora ssp p<strong>at</strong>ula <strong>Coast</strong> checker bloom G5T1 SOC T1 L 13<br />

Trillium ov<strong>at</strong>um var<br />

endemic to<br />

hibbersonii<br />

Abronia umbell<strong>at</strong>a ssp<br />

Dwarf trillium G5T1<br />

Vancouver Island E 25<br />

breviflora Pink sandverbena G5T2 SOC E 25<br />

Erigeron peregrinus ssp Thompson's wandering<br />

peregrinus var thompsonii daisy G5T2 T2, endemic. E 25<br />

Erigeron peregrinus ssp<br />

Sectional target in<br />

peregrinus var peregrinus Wandering daisy G5T4<br />

OR and WA.<br />

Disjunct from Rocky<br />

Mtns in Olympics<br />

L 13<br />

Hedysarum occidentale var<br />

and Vancouver<br />

occidentale<br />

Abronia umbell<strong>at</strong>a ssp<br />

Western hedysarum G5T5<br />

Island. D 13<br />

acutal<strong>at</strong>a Pink sandverbena G5TXQ SOC T2 E 25<br />

Corallorhiza macul<strong>at</strong>a var.<br />

New species,<br />

Ozettensis Ozette coral-root<br />

Olympic endemic<br />

New species,<br />

E 25<br />

Erythronium quinaultense Quinault fawn-lily<br />

Olympic endemic E 25<br />

Teloschistes flavicans Lichen W? 7<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 2D, page 4 of 4<br />

Target<br />

Goal

Appendix 2E PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregion Wildlife Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets<br />

Global<br />

Species Sp<strong>at</strong>ial Target<br />

Scientific Name Common Name<br />

Rank Justific<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Distribution P<strong>at</strong>tern Goal Comment<br />

Aneides ferreus clouded salamander G3 Imperiled W L 7<br />

Plethodon dunni Dunn's salamander G4 Declining W L 7<br />

Plethodon elong<strong>at</strong>us Del norte salamander G3 Imperiled L L 13<br />

Plethodon vandykei Van Dyke's salamander G3 Imperiled, Declining D L 20<br />

Dicamptodon copei Cope's giant salamander G3 Imperiled L L 13<br />

Rhyacotriton olympicus Olympic torrent salamander G2 Imperiled, Endemic E L 25<br />

Rhyacotriton varieg<strong>at</strong>us Southern torrent salamander G3 Imperiled L L 13<br />

Rhyacotriton kezeri Columbia torrent salmander G3 Imperiled, Endemic E L 25<br />

Ascaphus truei tailed frog G4 Declining W L 5<br />

Bufo boreas western toad G4 Declining W L 7<br />

Rana aurora aurora northern red-legged frog G4T4 Declining, Vulnerable in OR W L 7<br />

Rana boylii foothill yellow-legged frog G3 Declining W L 7<br />

Rana cascadae Cascades frog G4 Endemic sub-pop in WA D L 13<br />

Gavia immer common loon G5 Vulnerable W I 5<br />

marine -<br />

seabirds<br />

marine -<br />

seabirds<br />

marine -<br />

seabirds<br />

marine -<br />

seabirds<br />

marine -<br />

seabirds<br />

marine -<br />

seabirds<br />

Oceanodroma furc<strong>at</strong>a fork-tailed storm-petrel G5 Vulnerable W I 5<br />

Oceanodroma leucorhoa leach's storm-petrel G5 Vulnerable W I 5<br />

Pelecanus occidentalis brown pelican G4 Listed W C 3<br />

Phalacrocorax auritus double-crested cormorant G5 Vulnerable W C 3<br />

Phalacrocorax penicill<strong>at</strong>us brandt's cormorant G5 Vulnerable W C 3<br />

Phalacrocorax pelagicus pelagic cormorant G5 Vulnerable W C 3<br />

rookeries -<br />

check bc d<strong>at</strong>a<br />

marine -<br />

seabirds<br />

Ardea herodias gre<strong>at</strong>-blue heron G5 Vulnerable W C 9<br />

Significant aggreg<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Branta bernicla brant G5 (wintering) W C 3<br />

Branta canadensis<br />

leucopareia aleutian canada goose G5T3 Listed W C 3<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 2E, page 1 of 7

Global<br />

Species Sp<strong>at</strong>ial Target<br />

Scientific Name Common Name<br />

Rank Justific<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Distribution P<strong>at</strong>tern Goal Comment<br />

Histrionicus histrionicus harlequin duck G4 Vulnerable, Rare W I 5 no d<strong>at</strong>a yet<br />

Significant aggreg<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

marine -<br />

Melanitta perspicill<strong>at</strong>a surf scoter G5 (wintering) W C 3 seabirds<br />

Significant aggreg<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

marine -<br />

Bucephala clangula common goldeneye G5 (wintering) W C 3 seabirds<br />

Significant aggreg<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

marine -<br />

Bucephala islandica barrow's goldeneye G5 (wintering) W C 3 seabirds<br />

from US<br />

Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle G4 Listed W I 143 Recov. Plan.<br />

Accipiter gentilis northern goshawk G5 Declining, sub-pop on VI W C 20<br />

Falco peregrinus peregrine falcon G4 Listed (st<strong>at</strong>e), Vulnerable D C 31<br />

Dendragapus obscurus blue grouse G5 Significant PIF score W I 5<br />

Lagopus leucurus<br />

SAXITILIS white-tailed ptarmigan G5T3 Endemic E I 25<br />

Charadrius alexandrinus<br />

nivosus western snowy plover G4T3 Listed, Declining W I 50% nesting areas<br />

marine -<br />

Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani black oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher G5 Vulnerable W I 5 seabirds<br />

marine -<br />

Arenaria melanocephala Black Turnstone G5 Significant PIF score W C 3 seabirds<br />

marine -<br />

Aphriza virg<strong>at</strong>a Surfbird G5 Significant PIF score W C 3 seabirds<br />

marine -<br />

Calidris ptilocnemis Rock Sandpiper G5 Significant PIF score W C 3 seabirds<br />

marine -<br />

Calidris alpina dunlin G5 Significant PIF score W C 3 seabirds<br />

Larus occidentalis western gull G5 Significant PIF score W C 3<br />

Sterna caspia caspian tern G5 Signifcant aggreg<strong>at</strong>ion W C 3<br />

marine -<br />

Uria aalge common murre G5 Declining W C 3 seabirds<br />

marine -<br />

Cepphus columba pigeon guillemot G5 Signifcant aggreg<strong>at</strong>ion W I 5 seabirds<br />

points for US,<br />

model for BC<br />

Brachyramphus<br />

marmor<strong>at</strong>us marbled murrelet G3G4 Listed W C 50%<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 2E, page 2 of 7

Global<br />

Species Sp<strong>at</strong>ial Target<br />

Scientific Name Common Name<br />

Rank Justific<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Distribution P<strong>at</strong>tern Goal Comment<br />

marine -<br />

Synthliboramphus antiquus ancient murrelet G4 Signifcant aggreg<strong>at</strong>ion W l 3 seabirds<br />

marine -<br />

Ptychoramphus aleuticus cassin's auklet G4 Vulnerable W I 5 seabirds<br />

marine -<br />

Cerorhinca monocer<strong>at</strong>a rhinoceros auklet G5 Vulnerable W I 5 seabirds<br />

marine -<br />

Fr<strong>at</strong>ercula cirrh<strong>at</strong>a tufted puffin G5 Signifcant aggreg<strong>at</strong>ion W I 5 seabirds<br />

mineral<br />

Columba fasci<strong>at</strong>a band-tailed pigeon G5 Declining, mineral springs W I 21 springs<br />

Glaucidium gnoma swarthi Vancouver Island pygmy-owl G5T3 Endemic E I 16<br />

Strix occidentalis caurina northern spotted owl G3T3 Listed W I 50% territories<br />

Chaetura vauxi vaux's swift G5 Declining, Vulnerable W I 5<br />

Selasphorus rufus rufous hummingbird G5 Significant PIF score W I 5<br />

Selasphorus sasin Allen's hummingbird G5 Significant PIF score W I 5<br />

Sphyrapicus ruber Red-breasted Sapsucker G5 Significant PIF W score W C 5<br />

Contopus cooperi olive-sided flyc<strong>at</strong>cher G5 Declining W I 5<br />

Contopus sordidulus western wood-peewee G5 Declining W I 5<br />

Empidonax difficilis pacific-slope flyc<strong>at</strong>cher G5 Significant PIF score W I 5<br />

Eremophila alpestris<br />

strig<strong>at</strong>a streaked horned lark G5T2 Decliing, Vulnerable L I 9<br />

Progne subis purple martin G5 Declining W I 9<br />

Poecile rufescens chestnut-backed chickadee G5 Significant PIF score W I 5<br />

Regulus s<strong>at</strong>rapa golden-crowned kinglet G5 Significant PIF score W I 5<br />

Sialia mexicana western bluebird G5 Declining D I 9<br />

Dendroica nigrescens black-thro<strong>at</strong>ed gray warbler G5 Significant PIF score W I 5<br />

Dendroica occidentalis hermit warbler G5 Significant PIF score W I 5<br />

Sorex pacificus pacificus <strong>Pacific</strong> shrew G3 Imperiled, Endemic E L 25<br />

Common W<strong>at</strong>er Shrew,<br />

Sorex palustris brooksi brooksi subspecies G5T2 Endemic E L 4<br />

Sorex trowbridgii<br />

destructioni Destruction Island shrew G5T1Q Endemic E L 1<br />

Sorex bairdi bairdi Baird's shrew G4 Endemic to OR L L 13<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 2E, page 3 of 7

Global<br />

Species Sp<strong>at</strong>ial Target<br />

Scientific Name Common Name<br />

Rank Justific<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Distribution P<strong>at</strong>tern Goal Comment<br />

Scapanus townsendii<br />

olympicus Olymypic snow mole G5 Disjunct D L 13<br />

Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis G5 Fed, Species of Cocern W I 5<br />

Myotis keenii keen's myotis G2G3 Imperiled L? I 9<br />

Myotis evotis long-eared myotis G5 Fed, Species of Cocern W I 5<br />

Myotis thysanodes fringed b<strong>at</strong> G4G5 Declining W I 5<br />

Myotis volans long-legged myots G5 Fed, Species of Cocern W I 5<br />

Corynorhinus (Plectotus)<br />

townsendii townsendii <strong>Pacific</strong> western big-eared b<strong>at</strong> G4T3T4 Vulnerable W I 5<br />

Olympic Yellow-pine<br />

Tamias amoenus caurinus Chipmunk G5 Disjunct sub-pop. D I 9<br />

Marmota olympus Olympic marmot G3 Endemic E I 18<br />

Marmota vancouverensis Vancouver Island Marmot G1 Endemic E I 18<br />

western pocket gopher- Rogue G4G5T1<br />

Thomomys mazama helleri River<br />

T2 Endemic E I 18<br />

Thomomys mazama<br />

melanops Olympic pocket gopher G4G5T1 Endemic E I 18<br />

Arborimus albipes white-footed vole G3G4 Vulnerable L L 13<br />

Arborimus longicaudus red tree vole G3G4 Vulnerable L L 13<br />

extirp<strong>at</strong>ed<br />

from OR,<br />

WA, not<br />

Canis lupus gray wolf Keystone, Wide-ranging W R 0 target on VI<br />

Martes americana American Marten G5 Declining W? C 3 model for WA<br />

Martes pennanti fisher G5 Declining W? C 3 model for WA<br />

Mustela erminea anguinae Ermine, anguinae subspecies G5T3 Endemic E I 18<br />

Wolverine, vancouverensis<br />

Gulo gulo vancouverensis subspecies G4T1Q Endemic sub-pop E? R 2<br />

Odocoileus virginianus<br />

leucurus Columbia white-tailed deer G5T2Q Listed, Endemic E C 10<br />

Clemmys marmor<strong>at</strong>a<br />

marmor<strong>at</strong>a northwestern pond turtle G3T3 Imperiled L I 9<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 2E, page 4 of 7

Global<br />

Species Sp<strong>at</strong>ial Target<br />

Scientific Name Common Name<br />

Rank Justific<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Distribution P<strong>at</strong>tern Goal Comment<br />

Not<br />

Bradycellus fenderi Not found<br />

ranked Rare L L 13<br />

Not<br />

Gilbertiola helferi Not found<br />

ranked Rare L L 13<br />

Not<br />

Nebria acuta quileuta Not found<br />

ranked Rare L L 13<br />

Not<br />

Nebria danmanni Not found<br />

ranked Rare L L 13<br />

Not<br />

Nebria meanyi sylv<strong>at</strong>ica Not found<br />

ranked Rare L L 13<br />

Not<br />

Pl<strong>at</strong>yceropsis keeni Not found<br />

ranked Rare L L 13<br />

Not<br />

Pterostichus campbelli Not found<br />

ranked Rare L L 13<br />

Not<br />

Pterostichus humidulus Not found<br />

ranked Rare L L 13<br />

Not<br />

Pterostichus lanei Not found<br />

ranked Rare L L 13<br />

Not<br />

Scaphinotus johnsoni Not found<br />

ranked Rare L L 13<br />

Not<br />

Stomis termitiformis Not found<br />

ranked Rare L L 13<br />

Not<br />

Trechus humboldti Not found<br />

ranked Rare L L 13<br />

Not<br />

Trigonoscuta pilosa a weevil<br />

ranked Rare L L 13<br />

Cicindela hirticollis<br />

siuslawensis Siuslaw sand tiger beetle G5T3 Imperiled E L 25<br />

Agonum belleri Beller's ground beetle G3 Imperiled L L 13<br />

Pterostichus rothi Roth's blind ground beetle G1 Imperiled L L 13<br />

Saldula villosa Hairy shore bug G3 Imperiled L L 13<br />

Lygus oregonae <strong>Oregon</strong> plant bug G2 Imperiled L L 13<br />

Derephysia foliacea Foliaceous lace bug G2 Imperiled L L 13<br />

Hesperia comma hulbirti common branded skipper ?? Endemic L L 13<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 2E, page 5 of 7

Global<br />

Species Sp<strong>at</strong>ial Target<br />

Scientific Name Common Name<br />

Rank Justific<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Distribution P<strong>at</strong>tern Goal Comment<br />

Ochlodes sylvanoides woodland skipper - coastal<br />

orecoastus<br />

subspecies ?? Disjunct sub pop L L 13<br />

Parnassius smintheus<br />

olympiannus smintheus parnassian ?? Disjunct sub pop L L 13<br />

Pieris sisymbrii flavitincta spring white ?? Disjunct sub pop L L 13<br />

Lycaena nivalis browni nivalis copper G5 Disjunct sub pop L L 13<br />

Lycaena mariposa Makah (Queen Charlotte)<br />

charlottensis<br />

copper G5T2 Imperiled, Endemic L L 13<br />

Callophrys johnsoni Johnson's (mistletoe)<br />

(Mitoura johnsoni) hairstreak G2G3 Imperiled L L 13<br />

Incisalia mossii mossii<br />

(Callophrys mossii) moss elfin G4T4 Declining in BC L L 13<br />

Callophrys polios maritima<br />

(Incisalia p. m.) obscure elfin (butterfly) G5T4 Endemic on OR <strong>Coast</strong> L L 13<br />

Lycaeides idas<br />

vancouverensis Anna's blue ?? Disjunct L L 13<br />

Plebeius saepiolus (all ssp<br />

in area) greenish blue G5T1T3 Imperiled L L 13<br />

Icaricia icarioides<br />

blackmorei Boisduval's Blue, blackmorei s G5T2T3 Disjunct L L 13<br />

Plebejus acmon<br />

spangel<strong>at</strong>us acmon blue ?? Disjunct L L 13<br />

Agriades glandon megalo mountain blue ?? Disjunct L L 13<br />

Speyeria zerene hippolyta <strong>Oregon</strong> silverspot butterfly G5T1 Listed, Imperiled L L 25<br />

Speyeria zerene bremnerii valley silverspot butterfly G5T3T4 Vulnerable L L 13<br />

Boloria chariclea rainieri arctic fritillary ?? Disjunct sub pop L L 13<br />

Euphydryas chalcedona<br />

perdiccas chalcedon checkerspot G5T2T3 Disjunct sub pop L L 13<br />

Euphydryas editha colonia Edith's checkerspot ?? Disjunct sub pop L L 13<br />

Coenonympha tullia<br />

insulana Vancouver ringlet G3T5T4 Disjunct L L 13<br />

Erebia vidleri Vidler's alpine G4 Disjunct sub pop L L 13<br />

Oeneis chryxus valer<strong>at</strong>a chryxus arctic G5T3 Endemic L L 13<br />

Cerastius gloriosum (or<br />

Cerastis gloriosa) new Sphagnum bog moth ?? Rare L L 13<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 2E, page 6 of 7

Global<br />

Species Sp<strong>at</strong>ial Target<br />

Scientific Name Common Name<br />

Rank Justific<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Distribution P<strong>at</strong>tern Goal Comment<br />

Copablepharon fuscum sand verbena moth Not rank Rare, Vulnerable L L 13<br />

Microtes helferi Helfer's Grasshopper G2/G4 Imperiled L L 13<br />

Nisquallia olympica Olympic grasshopper G1G2 Imperiled L L 13<br />

Bolshecapnia gregsoni a stonefly G2 Imperiled L L 13<br />

Haddock's rhyacophilan<br />

Rhyacophila haddocki caddisfly G1 Imperiled L L 13<br />

Anodonta californiensis California flo<strong>at</strong>er (mussel) G3 Imperiled L L 13<br />

Anodonta kennerlyi western flo<strong>at</strong>er G4 Vulnerable L L 13<br />

Anodonta oregonensis <strong>Oregon</strong> flo<strong>at</strong>er G5 Vulnerable L L 13<br />

Gonidea angul<strong>at</strong>a western ridgemussel G3 Imperiled L L 13<br />

Margaritifera falc<strong>at</strong>a western pearlshell G4 Vulnerable L L 13<br />

Hemphillia burringtoni Burrington jumping-slug G? Imperiled L L 13<br />

Hemphillia glandulosa<br />

glandulosa warty jumping-slug G2 Imperiled L L 13<br />

Hemphillia malonei Malone jumping-slug G1 Imperiled L L 13<br />

Prophysaon coeruleum blue-gray taildropper G4 Imperiled L L 13<br />

Pristiloma pilsbryi crowned tightcoil G? Imperiled L L 13<br />

Deroceras hesperium evening fieldslug G1 Imperiled L L 13<br />

Cryptomastix devia Puget oregonian G2? Imperiled L L 13<br />

Hochbergellus hirsutus Sisters hesperian G?S1 Imperiled L L 13<br />

Vespericola megasoma redwood hesperian G? Rare L L 13<br />

Megomphix hemphilli <strong>Oregon</strong> megomphix (snail) G3 Imperiled L L 13<br />

Helminthoglypta mailliardi Del Norte shoulderband G? Rare L L 13<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> sideband(ssp.<br />

Monadenia fidelis Canyonville) G? Rare L L 13<br />

Monadenia fidelis pronotis rockycoast sideband G?T1 Imperiled L L 13<br />

Valv<strong>at</strong>a mergella rams-horn valv<strong>at</strong>a G2 Imperiled L L 13<br />

Fluminicola virens Olympia pebblesnail G2 Imperiled L L 13<br />

Pom<strong>at</strong>iopsis binneyi robust walker G1 Imperiled L L 13<br />

Pom<strong>at</strong>iopsis californica <strong>Pacific</strong> walker G1 Imperiled L L 13<br />

Pom<strong>at</strong>iopsis chacei swamp (marsh) walker G1 Imperiled L L 13<br />

Lanx subrotunda rotund lanx G2 Imperiled L L 13<br />

Algamorda newcombiana Newcomb's littorine snail<br />

(subrotunda?)<br />

(periwinkle) G1G2 Imperiled L L 13<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 2E, page 7 of 7

Appendix 3A: Macrohabit<strong>at</strong> <strong>at</strong>tributes of aqu<strong>at</strong>ic systems in the <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong>al, Willamette,<br />

Olympic/Chehalis, Lower Columbia, and Puget Sound, and Rogue-Umpqua EDUs<br />

Willamette, Olympic/ Chehalis, Lower<br />

Columbia, and Puget Sound Rogue-Umpqua<br />

0 – 100 km2<br />

0 – 100 km2<br />

100 – 1000 km2<br />

100 – 1000 km2<br />

1000 – 10,000 km2<br />

1000 – 10,000 km2<br />

> 10,000 km2<br />

> 10,000 km2<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong>al (Southern<br />

Areas)*<br />

HUCs aggreg<strong>at</strong>ed to similar size as<br />

rest of coast<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong>al (Northern Area)<br />

0 – 100 km2<br />

100 – 1000 km2<br />

1000 – 10,000 km2<br />

> 10,000 km2<br />

Size 1<br />

1 - 1st order<br />

2 – 2nd order<br />

3 – 3rd order<br />

4 – 4th order and higher<br />

Stream<br />

Order<br />

< 600 m<br />

600 – 1220 m<br />

1220 – 1825 m<br />

> 1825 m<br />

1000 m<br />

< 600 m<br />

600 – 1220 m<br />

1220 – 1825 m<br />

> 1825 m<br />

0.2<br />

Basalt Flows<br />

Basalt Flows and Breccias<br />

Intrusives<br />

Open W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Sandstone/Clastic Sediments<br />

Tuffaceous Clastics<br />

Unconsolid<strong>at</strong>ed Surface M<strong>at</strong>erial<br />

Geology 4<br />

Sandstone<br />

Shale<br />

Siltstone<br />

Ice<br />

Eolian Sand,<br />

Erodable Volcanics<br />

Coarse Outwash<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone<br />

Pe<strong>at</strong><br />

Ultramafic-Serpentine<br />

Sl<strong>at</strong>e<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment • Appendix 3A, page 1 of 2

Willamette, Olympic/ Chehalis, Lower<br />

Columbia, and Puget Sound Rogue-Umpqua<br />

Unconnected<br />

Stream/River<br />

Lake<br />

Reservoir<br />

Wetland<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong>al (Southern<br />

Areas)*<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong>al (Northern Area)<br />

Downstream<br />

Connectivity 5<br />

Unconnected<br />

Stream/River<br />

Lake<br />

Reservoir<br />

Wetland<br />

Glacier<br />

Upstream<br />

Connectivity 5<br />

Key: D<strong>at</strong>a Used<br />

1. USGS N<strong>at</strong>ional Hydrography D<strong>at</strong>aset (NHD) <strong>at</strong> 1:100,000 and USGS N<strong>at</strong>ional Elev<strong>at</strong>ion D<strong>at</strong>aset (NED) <strong>at</strong> 30m resolution, for WA and OR. British Columbia W<strong>at</strong>ershed Atlas<br />

D<strong>at</strong>aset <strong>at</strong> 1:50,000, and BC TRIM D<strong>at</strong>aset <strong>at</strong> 90m resolution.<br />

2. USGS N<strong>at</strong>ional Hydrography D<strong>at</strong>aset (NHD) <strong>at</strong> 1:100,000 and USGS N<strong>at</strong>ional Elev<strong>at</strong>ion D<strong>at</strong>aset (NED) <strong>at</strong> 30 m resolution, for Washington and <strong>Oregon</strong>. British Columbia<br />

W<strong>at</strong>ershed Atlas D<strong>at</strong>aset <strong>at</strong> 1:50,000, and BC TRIM D<strong>at</strong>aset <strong>at</strong> 90m resolution.<br />

3. USGS N<strong>at</strong>ional Hydrography D<strong>at</strong>aset (NHD) <strong>at</strong> 1:100,000 and USGS N<strong>at</strong>ional Elev<strong>at</strong>ion D<strong>at</strong>aset (NED) <strong>at</strong> 30 m resolution, for Washington and <strong>Oregon</strong>. British Columbia<br />

W<strong>at</strong>ershed Atlas D<strong>at</strong>aset <strong>at</strong> 1:50,000, and BC TRIM D<strong>at</strong>aset <strong>at</strong> 90 m resolution.<br />

4. Washington St<strong>at</strong>e Department of N<strong>at</strong>ural Resources Division of Geology and Earth Resources <strong>at</strong> 1:100,000, USGS Geologic map of <strong>Oregon</strong> (1991) <strong>at</strong> 1:500,000, Bedrock<br />

Geology from BC Ministry of Energy & Mines <strong>at</strong> 1:250,000, and Surficial Geology from the Geological Survey of Canada <strong>at</strong> 1:5 million.<br />

5. USGS N<strong>at</strong>ional Hydrography D<strong>at</strong>aset (NHD) <strong>at</strong> 1:100,000 and British Columbia W<strong>at</strong>ershed Atlas D<strong>at</strong>aset <strong>at</strong> 1:50,000.<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 3A, page 2 of 2

Appendix 3B Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets, PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment<br />

Global<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Scientific Name Common Name<br />

Rank Federal St<strong>at</strong>us Distribution Goal<br />

Acipenser medirostris Green Sturgeon G3 0<br />

Acipenser transmontanus pop 2 White Sturgeon (Columbia River Pop) G4T?<br />

Acipenser transmontanus pop2 White sturgeon (Columbia River) G4T? Endemic<br />

Acipenser transmontanus pop4 White sturgeon (Fraser River) G4T2 Endemic<br />

C<strong>at</strong>ostomus sp 4 Salish sucker G1 Endemic<br />

Cottus gulosus Riffle Sculpin<br />

Cottus perplexus Reticul<strong>at</strong>e Sculpin<br />

Gasterosteus sp Vananda Creek limnetic stickleback G1 Endemic<br />

Gasterosteus sp Vananda Creek benthic stickleback G1 Endemic<br />

Gasterosteus sp 1 Giant Black Stickleback G1<br />

Gasterosteus sp 2 Enos Lake limnetic stickleback G1 Endemic<br />

Gasterosteus sp 3 Enos Lake benthic stickleback G1 Endemic<br />

Gasterosteus sp 4 Paxton Lake limnetic stickleback G1 Endemic<br />

Gasterosteus sp 5 Paxton lake benthic stickleback G1 Endemic<br />

Lampetra ayresi River Lamprey G4<br />

Lampetra ayresi River Lamprey, West Island ESU 30<br />

Lampetra macrostoma Lake Lamprey G1<br />

Lampetra trident<strong>at</strong>a <strong>Pacific</strong> Lamprey G5 0<br />

Lampetra trident<strong>at</strong>a <strong>Pacific</strong> lamprey G5 Widespread<br />

Novumbra hubbsi Olympic Mudminnow G3 50<br />

Novumbra hubbsi Olympic mudminnow G3 Endemic<br />

Oncorhynchus clarki Cutthro<strong>at</strong> Trout, East Island ESU 50<br />

Oncorhynchus clarki Cutthro<strong>at</strong> Trout, North Island ESU 50<br />

Oncorhynchus clarki Cutthro<strong>at</strong> Trout, West Island ESU 50<br />

Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Pink Salmon, Odd-Year ESU not warranted 30<br />

Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Pink Salmon, East Island ESU 30<br />

Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Pink Salmon, North Island ESU 30<br />

Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Pink Salmon, West Island ESU 30<br />

Oncorhynchus keta Chum Salmon, East Island ESU 30<br />

Oncorhynchus keta Chum Salmon, North Island ESU 30<br />

Oncorhynchus keta Chum Salmon, West Island ESU 30<br />

Oncorhynchus keta pop 2 Chum Salmon, Hood Canal Summer Run ESU T 50<br />

Oncorhynchus keta pop 3 Chum Salmon, Columbia River ESU G5T3Q T 50<br />

Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU G5T3Q not warranted 30<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 3B, page 1 of 4

Global<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Scientific Name Common Name<br />

Rank Federal St<strong>at</strong>us Distribution Goal<br />

Oncorhynchus keta pop 5 Chum Salmon, Puget Sound/Strait ESU not warranted 30<br />

Oncorhynchus kisutch Coho Salmon, East Island ESU 30<br />

Oncorhynchus kisutch Coho Salmon, North Island ESU 30<br />

Oncorhynchus kisutch Coho Salmon, West Island ESU 30<br />

Oncorhynchus kisutch pop ? Coho Salmon, Puget Sound ESU G4T3Q Species of Concern 30<br />

Oncorhynchus kisutch pop ? Coho Salmon, Olympic Peninsula ESU G4T3Q not warranted 30<br />

Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU G4T2Q T 30<br />

Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 2 Coho Salmon, S <strong>Oregon</strong>/N California ESU G4T2Q T 50<br />

Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU G4T2Q Proposed T 50<br />

Oncorhynchus mykiss Steelhead Salmon, East Island ESU 30<br />

Oncorhynchus mykiss Summer Run Steelhead Salmon, East Island ESU 30<br />

Oncorhynchus mykiss Winter Run Steelhead Salmon, East Island ESU 30<br />

Oncorhynchus mykiss Steelhead Salmon, North Island ESU 30<br />

Oncorhynchus mykiss Steelhead Salmon, West Island ESU 30<br />

Oncorhynchus mykiss Summer Run Steelhead Salmon, West Island ESU 30<br />

Oncorhynchus mykiss Winter Run Steelhead Salmon, West Island ESU 30<br />

Summer Steelhead Salmon, Klam<strong>at</strong>h Mountains<br />

Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ?<br />

Province ESU G5T2Q not warranted 0<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Klam<strong>at</strong>h Mountains<br />

Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ?<br />

Province ESU G5T2Q not warranted 30<br />

Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? Winter Steelhead Salmon, Puget Sound ESU not warranted 30<br />

Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? Winter Steelhead Salmon, Lower Columbia ESU G5T2Q T 50<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Upper Willamette River<br />

Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ?<br />

ESU G5T2Q T 30<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Southwest Washington<br />

Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ?<br />

ESU G5T3Q not warranted 30<br />

Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? Winter Steelhead Salmon, Olympic Peninsula ESU not warranted 30<br />

Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 30 Summer Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU G5T3T3Q Species of Concern 30<br />

Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU G5T3T3Q Species of Concern 30<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 3B, page 2 of 4

Global<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Scientific Name Common Name<br />

Rank Federal St<strong>at</strong>us Distribution Goal<br />

Oncorhynchus nerka Sockeye Salmon, Ozette Lake ESU T 100<br />

Oncorhynchus nerka Sockeye Salmon, East Island ESU 30<br />

Oncorhynchus nerka Sockeye Salmon, North Island ESU 30<br />

Oncorhynchus nerka Sockeye Salmon, West Island ESU 30<br />

Oncorhynchus nerka pop 3 Sockeye Salmon, Lake Pleasant (portion) ESU not warranted 100<br />

Oncorhynchus nerka pop 4 Sockeye Salmon, Quinault Lake (portion) ESU not warranted 100<br />

Spring Chinook Salmon, Upper Willamette River<br />

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha<br />

ESU G5T2Q T 0<br />

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Fall Chinook Salmon, S <strong>Oregon</strong>/N California ESU G5T3Q not warranted 30<br />

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU not warranted 30<br />

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Spring Chinook Salmon, Puget Sound ESU T 0<br />

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Fall Chinook Salmon, Puget Sound ESU T 50<br />

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Fall Chinook Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU G5T2Q T 50<br />

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Chinook Salmon, East Island ESU 30<br />

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Chinook Salmon, North Island ESU 50<br />

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Chinook Salmon, West Island ESU 30<br />

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Fall Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU not warranted 30<br />

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Spring Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU not warranted 30<br />

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Summer Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU not warranted 30<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong>ichthys crameri <strong>Oregon</strong> chub G2 Endemic<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong>ichthys kalaw<strong>at</strong>seti Umpqua <strong>Oregon</strong> Chub G3 50<br />

Percopsis transmontana Sand Roller<br />

Prosopium coulteri Pygmy Whitefish G5 100<br />

Rhinichthys c<strong>at</strong>aractae sp 1 Millicoma Dace G5T3<br />

Rhinichthys evermanni Umpqua Dace G3<br />

Rhinichthys falc<strong>at</strong>us Leopard Dace<br />

Rhinichthys sp 4 Nooksak Dace G3<br />

Rhinichthys sp 4 Nooksack dace G3 Endemic<br />

Salvelinus confluentus Bull Trout G3<br />

Salvelinus confluentus Bull Trout Salmon, <strong>Coast</strong>al and Puget Sound ESU 50<br />

Salvelinus malma Dolly Varden G5<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 3B, page 3 of 4

Global<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Scientific Name Common Name<br />

Rank Federal St<strong>at</strong>us Distribution Goal<br />

Salvelinus malma Dolly Varden, East Island ESU 50<br />

Salvelinus malma Dolly Varden, North Island ESU 50<br />

Salvelinus malma Dolly Varden, West Island ESU 50<br />

Anodonta californiensis California flo<strong>at</strong>er (mussel) G3 Widespread<br />

Calopteryx aequabilis River jewelwing G5 Widespread<br />

Gomphus kurilis <strong>Pacific</strong> clubtail G4 Widespread<br />

Anodonta wahlametensis Willamette flo<strong>at</strong>er (mussel) G2Q Limited<br />

Fisherola nuttalli Giant Columbia River Limpet G2 Widespread<br />

Fluminicola columbiana Columbia pebblesnail G3 Widespread<br />

Gonidea angul<strong>at</strong>a Western ridgemussel G3 Widespread<br />

Juga hemphilli hemphilli Barren juga (snail) G2?T2 Endemic<br />

Lyogyrus sp 4 Columbia duskysnail G2 Endemic?<br />

Physella columbiana Rotund physa (snail) G2 Endemic<br />

Vorticifex neritoides Nerite ramshorn (snail) G1Q Endemic<br />

Elodea nuttallii Nuttall's W<strong>at</strong>erweed G5 Widespread<br />

Howellia aqu<strong>at</strong>ilis W<strong>at</strong>er Howellia G2 Limited<br />

Hydrocotyle verticill<strong>at</strong>a Whorled Pennywort G5 Widespread<br />

Marsilea vestita Hairy W<strong>at</strong>er-fern G5 Widespread<br />

Myriophyllum pinn<strong>at</strong>um Cut-leaf W<strong>at</strong>er Milfoil G5 Widespread<br />

Myriophyllum quitense (=M el<strong>at</strong>inoides) Myriophyllum quitense (=M el<strong>at</strong>inoides) G4? Widespread<br />

Myriophyllum ussuriense Ussurian W<strong>at</strong>er-milfoil G3 Limited?<br />

Nymphaea tetragona Pygmy W<strong>at</strong>erlilly G5 Widespread<br />

Potamogeton fibrillosus Fibrous Pondweed G5T2T4 Widespread<br />

Potamogeton oakesiansus Potamogeton oakesiansus G4 Widespread<br />

Potamogeton obtusifolius Blunt-leaf Pondweed G5 Widespread<br />

Wolffia columbiana Wolffia columbiana G5 Widespread<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 3B, page 4 of 4

Appendix 4A PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Shoreline Targets<br />

LANDFORM EXPOSURE LENGTH (M) GOAL<br />

Channel Undefined 2,295.9 20%<br />

Channel Protected 10,705.2 20%<br />

Estuary Wetland Undefined 199,682.8 30%<br />

Estuary Wetland Exposed 485,791.9 30%<br />

Estuary Wetland Protected 921,277.4 30%<br />

Estuary Wetland Very protected 103,161.7 30%<br />

Gravel Beach Undefined 21,885.9 20%<br />

Gravel Beach Exposed 67,647.0 20%<br />

Gravel Beach Protected 123,034.7 20%<br />

Gravel beach Very exposed 65,034.0 20%<br />

Gravel beach Very protected 11,500.4 20%<br />

Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Undefined 4,103.4 20%<br />

Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed 6,876.1 20%<br />

Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected 28,261.5 20%<br />

High Tide Lagoon Exposed 443.9 30%<br />

High Tide Lagoon Protected 9,109.7 30%<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> Undefined 20,827.3 20%<br />

Mud fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed 2,913.9 20%<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected 30,566.0 20%<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> Very protected 9,377.9 20%<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Undefined 126,133.3 20%<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Exposed 328,567.2 20%<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Protected 18,291.7 20%<br />

Rock pl<strong>at</strong>form Very exposed 23,165.2 20%<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Undefined 105,994.5 20%<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Exposed 219,792.0 20%<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Protected 661,417.5 20%<br />

Rock with gravel beach Very exposed 10,730.7 20%<br />

Rock with Sand & Gravel Beach Undefined 99,546.7 20%<br />

Rock with Sand & Gravel Beach Exposed 454,827.4 20%<br />

Rock with Sand & Gravel Beach Protected 457,772.3 20%<br />

Rock with Sand & Gravel Beach Very exposed 2,790.8 20%<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Undefined 10,767.5 20%<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Exposed 192,713.6 20%<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Protected 66,860.1 20%<br />

Rock with sand beach Very exposed 12,023.0 20%<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Undefined 393,448.9 20%<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Exposed 420,675.9 20%<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Protected 806,639.2 20%<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Exposed 81,362.1 20%<br />

Sand & Gravel Beach Undefined 38,685.1 20%<br />

Sand & Gravel Beach Exposed 78,392.5 20%<br />

Sand & Gravel Beach Protected 228,796.4 20%<br />

Sand & Gravel Beach Very exposed 120,978.7 20%<br />

Sand & Gravel Beach Very protected 7,526.3 20%<br />

Sand & Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Undefined 89,862.4 20%<br />

Sand & Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed 25,272.2 20%<br />

Sand & Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected 262,302.5 20%<br />

Sand Beach Undefined 68,241.7 20%<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 4A, page 1 of 2

LANDFORM EXPOSURE LENGTH (M) GOAL<br />

Sand Beach Exposed 204,142.8 20%<br />

Sand Beach Protected 70,027.1 20%<br />

Sand beach Very exposed 293,473.0 20%<br />

Sand Beach Very protected 8,148.4 20%<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Undefined 11,234.1 20%<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed 86,530.6 20%<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected 146,369.3 20%<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Very exposed 103,328.1 20%<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Very protected 3,971.5 20%<br />

Total 8,465,298.9<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 4A, page 2 of 2

Appendix 4B PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Intertidal Veget<strong>at</strong>ion Types<br />

Scientific Community ConservaConserva- Global Provincial<br />

DeclinImKey- Taxon<br />

name(s) Type tion Target tion Goal Rank Rank OR Rank WA Rank R<strong>at</strong>ionale ingperiledstone Endemic<br />

Rockweed Fucus intertidal Algal Bed 20% x<br />

Gigartina-<br />

Odonthalia-<br />

Mixed filamentous & Prionitisblade<br />

reds Polysiphonia intertidal Algal Bed 20%<br />

Hedophyllum,<br />

Egregia, L.<br />

setchellii,<br />

Eisenia,<br />

Phyllospadix intertidal,<br />

Nereocystis, shallow Rocky<br />

Rocky Intertidal* and rich reds subtidal Intertidal 30% x<br />

Dune<br />

Dune Grasses Leymus mollis supr<strong>at</strong>idal Grasses 20% G5 Not ranked x<br />

shallow<br />

Giant Kelp Macrocystis subtidal Kelp 30% x<br />

shallow<br />

Bull Kelp Nereocystis subtidal Kelp 30% x<br />

intertidal,<br />

shallow<br />

S4S5; not<br />

Surfgrass Phyllospadix subtidal Surfgrass 30% G4G5 ranked x<br />

supr<strong>at</strong>idal,<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ive Saltmarsh Salicornia intertidal Saltmarsh 30% G5 x<br />

Triglochin/Salic<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ive High ornia/Descham supr<strong>at</strong>idal,<br />

S3; not<br />

Saltmarsh psia/Distichylus intertidal Saltmarsh 30% G5 ranked x<br />

shallow<br />

Eelgrass Zostera marina subtidal Eelgrass 30% G5 Not ranked x x<br />

supr<strong>at</strong>idal,<br />

Sedges<br />

intertidal Saltmarsh 30% Not ranked x<br />

Gracilariophila<br />

Red Algae oryzoides low intertidal G3G4 S1 - rare rare rare CDC 2001 x<br />

Herposiphoia<br />

Red Algae verticill<strong>at</strong>a low intertidal G3G4 S1 - rare unknown rare CDC 2001 x<br />

Peyssonnelia<br />

S1 -<br />

Red Algae profunda subtidal G3 unknown rare rare CDC 2001 x<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 4B, page 1 of 3

Keystone<br />

Endemic<br />

Scientific Community ConservaConserva- Global Provincial<br />

DeclinIm- name(s) Type tion Target tion Goal Rank Rank OR Rank WA Rank R<strong>at</strong>ionale ingperiled Phycodrys<br />

riggii intertidal G4 S2 - rare unknown unknown CDC 2001 x<br />

Polysiphonia<br />

S1 - occaocca- macounii low intertidal G1?Q sionalsional unknown CDC 2001 x<br />

Tayloriella<br />

divaric<strong>at</strong>a subtidal G4G5 S1 - rare unknown unknown CDC 2001 x<br />

Taxon<br />

Red Algae<br />

Red Algae<br />

Red Algae<br />

Green Algae Codium ritteri low intertidal G4G5 S1 - rare unknown unknown CDC 2001 x<br />

Protomonostro<br />

ma undul<strong>at</strong>um estuaries G4G5 S1 - rare unknown unknown CDC 2001 x<br />

S1 - unknown/<br />

Pseudopringsh<br />

rare/overlo overlooke<br />

eimia apicul<strong>at</strong>a subtidal G3 oked d CDC 2001 x<br />

Cylindrocarpus intertidal<br />

rugosus rocks G3G4 S1 - rare common occasional CDC 2001 x<br />

Dictyoneuropsi<br />

s reticul<strong>at</strong>a low intertidal G4 S2 - rare rare unknown CDC 2001 x w<br />

Green Algae<br />

Green Algae<br />

Brown Algae<br />

Brown Algae<br />

Dictyoneurum<br />

californicum low intertidal G4G5 S2 - rare rare unknown CDC 2001 w<br />

Laminaria<br />

longipes low intertidal G5 S1 - rare unknown rare CDC 2001 x<br />

Brown Algae<br />

Brown Algae<br />

Postelsia<br />

palmaeformis intertidal common common common M. Dethier nw<br />

Sphaerotrichia<br />

divaric<strong>at</strong>a low intertidal G4G5 S1 - rare unknown rare CDC 2001 x<br />

Brown Algae<br />

Brown Algae<br />

* Habit<strong>at</strong> type 3 ala Morris 2001. assemblage of lower intertidal algae and mussels<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 4B, page 2 of 3

Intertidal Habit<strong>at</strong> Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets Used in the Assessment<br />

Total Linear<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Area in Eco-<br />

Target Goal region (m)<br />

Algal beds EST 20% 375,759<br />

Algal beds SHR 20% 3,131,019<br />

Dune grass EST 20% 208,124<br />

Dune grass SHR 20% 589,115<br />

Rocky intertidal<br />

habit<strong>at</strong> EST 30% 17,442<br />

Rocky intertidal<br />

habit<strong>at</strong> SHR 30% 982,182<br />

Kelp EST 30% 25,646<br />

Kelp SHR 30% 1,486,065<br />

Saltmarsh EST 30% 1,474,546<br />

Saltmarsh SHR 30% 547,141<br />

Surfgrass EST 30% 22,994<br />

Surfgrass SHR 30% 1,210,679<br />

Eelgrass EST 30% 566,136<br />

Eelgrass SHR 30% 624,409<br />

EST -- estuarine habit<strong>at</strong><br />

SHR -- shoreline habit<strong>at</strong> on the outer coasts<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 4B, page 3 of 3

Appendix 4C PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Estuarine Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets Based on Substr<strong>at</strong>es (Area in ha)<br />

Cape<br />

Pt Pt Queen Vancouver<br />

Cape Arago Arago Johnstone Grenville Grenville Charolotte Island<br />

TARGET Grand Total Goal North South Strait North South Strait Shelf<br />

Bedrock 65.3 20% 65.303<br />

Boulder 133.6 20% 132.824 0.739<br />

Cobble/Gravel 182.6 20% 125.864 56.711<br />

Cobble/Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> 199.5 20% 10.319 189.142<br />

Fl<strong>at</strong> 931.6 20% 861.476 0.686 52.922 16.548<br />

Mud 516.6 20% 505.612 10.954<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> 30,562.8 20% 1384.129 1.635 27704.663 1472.366<br />

Organics/fines 18,325.0 30% 14161.708 416.051 118.891 301.826 3146.065 180.423<br />

Rock 71.4 20% 70.308 1.074<br />

Sand 26,590.8 20% 26568.068 16.73 6.008<br />

Sand & Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> 716.9 20% 245.421 471.436<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> 10,229.4 20% 5790.791 11.759 128.155 2996.887 1301.817<br />

Sand/Mud 4,167.1 20% 4123.497 43.649<br />

Sand/Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> 8,501.8 20% 8458.245 43.592<br />

Shell 16.9 20% 16.894<br />

Unconsolid<strong>at</strong>ed 597.7 20% 487.91 109.74<br />

Undefined Beach/Bar 22.1 20% 2.555 3.723 15.808<br />

Wood Debris/Organic 25.5 30% 21.734 3.768<br />

Grand Total 101,856.4 62784.682 907.711 247.046 358.471 33887.053 245.421 3426.042<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 4C, page 1 of 1

Appendix 4D PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregion Fine Filter Marine Targets<br />

Global Federal<br />

Taxon Common name Scientific name Analysis zone D<strong>at</strong>a Rank St<strong>at</strong>us R<strong>at</strong>ionale & Comments<br />

Marine<br />

Both Near and<br />

Mammals Beaked whale<br />

Offshore N JCalambokidis: consider adding as target<br />

Marine Fin whale or Balaenopteridae Both Near and<br />

Mammals finback whale physalus<br />

Offshore N G3G4 E important migr<strong>at</strong>ion route through ecoregion<br />

Marine<br />

Both Near and<br />

Mammals Grampus<br />

Offshore N JC: consider adding as target<br />

Marine<br />

Eschrichtius Both Near and<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e listed or candid<strong>at</strong>e. Any occurrence, migr<strong>at</strong>ion,<br />

Mammals Gray whale robustus<br />

Offshore N G3G4<br />

routes.<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e listed or candid<strong>at</strong>e. Any occurrence, migr<strong>at</strong>ion,<br />

Marine<br />

Both Near and<br />

routes. Regular concententr<strong>at</strong>ions in foraging areas<br />

Mammals Harbor porpoise Phocoena phocoena Offshore N G4G5<br />

and migr<strong>at</strong>ion routes.<br />

Marine Humpback Megaptera<br />

Both Near and<br />

Mammals whale<br />

novaeangliae Offshore N G3 E important migr<strong>at</strong>ion route through ecoregion<br />

breeds in WA and BC, southern resident popul<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

in BC listed as endangered by COSEWIC, northern<br />

resident popul<strong>at</strong>ion thre<strong>at</strong>ened by COSEWIC. JC<br />

Both Near and<br />

consider the different ecotypes separ<strong>at</strong>ely (S and N<br />

Offshore N G4G5 SC resident, transient, and offshore)<br />

Both Near and<br />

Offshore N JC: consider adding as target<br />

Both Near and<br />

Offshore N JC: consider adding as target<br />

Both Near and<br />

Offshore N JC: consider adding as target<br />

Nearshore (0-<br />

50m) N G4 T extirp<strong>at</strong>ed in OR, declining, keystone species<br />

Marine Killer whale or<br />

Mammals orca Orcinus orca<br />

Marine<br />

Mammals Minke whale<br />

Marine Northern right-<br />

Mammals whale dolphin<br />

Marine <strong>Pacific</strong> white-<br />

Mammals sided dolphin<br />

Marine Sea otter<br />

Mammals (Northern) Enhydra lutris<br />

Nearshore (0-<br />

50m) Y G3 T haul outs throughout ecoregion, breeds in BC<br />

Both Near and<br />

Breeding areas, regular large concentr<strong>at</strong>ions. H<br />

Offshore Y ??? FC Weeks<br />

Nearshore (0-<br />

Food fish. Breeding areas, regular concentr<strong>at</strong>ions. H<br />

50m) Y G5<br />

Weeks<br />

Nearshore (0-<br />

50m) N G3 declining popul<strong>at</strong>ion numbers<br />

Steller (northern)<br />

sea lion Eumetopias jub<strong>at</strong>us<br />

Marine<br />

Mammals<br />

Marine Fish <strong>Pacific</strong> herring Clupea pallasi<br />

Hypomesus<br />

Marine Fish Surf smelt pretiosus<br />

Acipenser<br />

Marine Fish Green sturgeon meditostris<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 4D, page 1 of 7

Global Federal<br />

Taxon Common name Scientific name Analysis zone D<strong>at</strong>a Rank St<strong>at</strong>us R<strong>at</strong>ionale & Comments<br />

Acipenser<br />

Nearshore (0-<br />

Marine Fish White sturgeon transmontanus 50m) N G4 declining popul<strong>at</strong>ion numbers<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> Ammodytes Nearshore (0-<br />

Marine Fish sandlance hexapterus 50m) N ??? Food fish. Breeding areas, regular concentr<strong>at</strong>ions.<br />

Gadus<br />

Both Near and<br />

Marine Fish <strong>Pacific</strong> cod macrocephalus Offshore N ??? Food fish. Breeding areas, regular concentr<strong>at</strong>ions.<br />

Nearshore (0-<br />

Marine Fish <strong>Pacific</strong> lamprey Lampetra trident<strong>at</strong>a 50m) N G5 SC declining. H Weeks<br />

Lepidopsetta (aka<br />

Pleuronectes) Both Near and<br />

Marine Fish Rock sole biline<strong>at</strong>a<br />

Offshore N ??? Food fish. Breeding areas, regular concentr<strong>at</strong>ions.<br />

Both Near and<br />

Marine Fish <strong>Pacific</strong> hake Merluccius productus Offshore N ??? FC Food fish. Breeding areas, regular concentr<strong>at</strong>ions.<br />

Both Near and<br />

Marine Fish Lingcod Ophiodon elong<strong>at</strong>us Offshore N ??? overfished. H Weeks, W Wakefield<br />

Both Near and<br />

Marine Fish English sole Parophyrs vetulus Offshore N ??? Food fish. Breeding areas.<br />

Both Near and<br />

Marine Fish Copper rockfish Sebastes caurinus Offshore N ??? Food fish. Breeding areas, regular concentr<strong>at</strong>ions.<br />

Darkblotched<br />

Both Near and<br />

Marine Fish rockfish Sebastes crameri Offshore N ??? overfished. H Weeks, W Wakefield<br />

Greenstriped<br />

Both Near and<br />

Marine Fish rockfish Sebastes elong<strong>at</strong>us Offshore N ??? Food fish. Breeding areas, regular concentr<strong>at</strong>ions.<br />

Both Near and<br />

Marine Fish Widow rockfish Sebastes entomelas Offshore N ??? OPAC, M. Hixon, overfished. H Weeks, W Wakefield<br />

Quillback<br />

Both Near and<br />

Marine Fish rockfish Sebastes maliger Offshore N ??? Food fish. Breeding areas, regular concentr<strong>at</strong>ions.<br />

Both Near and<br />

Marine Fish China rockfish Sebastes nebulosus Offshore N ??? Food fish. Breeding areas, regular concentr<strong>at</strong>ions.<br />

Sebastes<br />

Both Near and<br />

Marine Fish Tiger rockfish nigrocinctus Offshore N ???<br />

Both Near and<br />

WDFW, OPAC, M. Hixon, overfished. H Weeks, W<br />

Marine Fish Bocaccio Sebastes paucispinis Offshore N ???<br />

Wakefield<br />

Both Near and<br />

WDFW, OPAC, M. Hixon, overfished. H Weeks, W<br />

Marine Fish Canary rockfish Sebastes pinniger Offshore N ???<br />

Wakefield<br />

Redstripe<br />

Both Near and<br />

Marine Fish rockfish Sebastes proriger Offshore N ??? Food fish. Breeding areas, regular concentr<strong>at</strong>ions.<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 4D, page 2 of 7

Global Federal<br />

Taxon Common name Scientific name Analysis zone D<strong>at</strong>a Rank St<strong>at</strong>us R<strong>at</strong>ionale & Comments<br />

T.Jagielo: recent assessment by F. Wallace <strong>at</strong><br />

Yelloweye<br />

Both Near and<br />

WDFW resulted in an overfished determin<strong>at</strong>ion by<br />

Marine Fish rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus Offshore N ??? SC PFMC; W.Wakefield<br />

Spirinchus<br />

Nearshore (0-<br />

Marine Fish Longfin smelt thaleichthys 50m) N G5 Food fish. Breeding areas, regular concentr<strong>at</strong>ions.<br />

Thaleichthys Both Near and<br />

Marine Fish Eulachon pacificus<br />

Offshore N G5 Food fish. Breeding areas, regular concentr<strong>at</strong>ions.<br />

Theragra<br />

Both Near and<br />

Marine Fish Walleye pollock chalocgrammaco Offshore N ??? Food fish. Breeding areas, regular concentr<strong>at</strong>ions.<br />

Terrestrial Target<br />

Federal<br />

St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

Global<br />

Rank<br />

Nearshore<br />

D<strong>at</strong>a<br />

Common name Scientific name<br />

fork-tailed storm- Oceanodroma<br />

Y, colony G5 Y<br />

Marine Birds petrel<br />

furc<strong>at</strong>a<br />

leach's storm- Oceanodroma<br />

Y, colony G5 Y<br />

Marine Birds petrel<br />

leucorhoa<br />

double-crested Phalacrocorax<br />

Y, colony G5 Y<br />

Marine Birds cormorant auritus<br />

brandt's Phalacrocorax<br />

Y, colony G5 Y<br />

Marine Birds cormorant penicill<strong>at</strong>us<br />

pelagic Phalacrocorax<br />

Y, colony G5 Y<br />

Marine Birds cormorant pelagicus<br />

Black<br />

Haem<strong>at</strong>opus<br />

Y, colony G5 Y. PIF 24B, 26W<br />

Marine Birds oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher bachmani<br />

Marine Birds caspian tern Sterna caspia Y, colony G5 Y<br />

common murre Uria aalge Y, colony G5 Y<br />

Marine Birds<br />

pigeon guillemot Cepphus columba Y, colony G5 Y<br />

Marine Birds<br />

Ptychoramphus<br />

cassin's auklet<br />

Y, colony G4 Y<br />

Marine Birds<br />

aleuticus<br />

rhinoceros Cerorhinca<br />

Y, colony G5 Y<br />

Marine Birds auklet<br />

monocer<strong>at</strong>a<br />

Marine Birds tufted puffin Fr<strong>at</strong>ercula cirrh<strong>at</strong>a Y, colony G5 Y<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 4D, page 3 of 7

Terrestrial Target<br />

Federal<br />

St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

Global<br />

Rank<br />

Nearshore<br />

D<strong>at</strong>a<br />

Common name Scientific name<br />

western snowy Charadrius<br />

Y G4T3 LT Y, PIF 24B, 26W<br />

plover<br />

alexandrinus nivosus<br />

Marine Birds<br />

Marine Birds common loon Gavia immer N G5 Y. PIF 16B, 20N<br />

Short-tailed<br />

Phoebastria alb<strong>at</strong>rus N G1 E N<br />

Marine Birds alb<strong>at</strong>ross<br />

Black-footed<br />

Phoebastria nigripes N G5 N<br />

Marine Birds alb<strong>at</strong>ross<br />

Laysan alb<strong>at</strong>ros<br />

Marine Birds<br />

Phoebastria<br />

N G3 N<br />

immutabilis<br />

Pelecanus<br />

brown pelican<br />

N G4 LE Y<br />

Marine Birds<br />

occidentalis<br />

gre<strong>at</strong>-blue heron Ardea herodias N G5 Y<br />

Marine Birds<br />

Marine Birds brant Branta bernicla N G5 Y<br />

aleutian canada Branta canadensis<br />

N G5T3 LT Y<br />

Marine Birds goose<br />

leucopareia<br />

harlequin duck<br />

Marine Birds<br />

Histrionicus<br />

N G4 SC/FC2 Y<br />

histrionicus<br />

Marine Birds Black scoter Melanitta nigra N G5 N<br />

Melanitta<br />

surf scoter<br />

N G5 Y<br />

Marine Birds<br />

perspicill<strong>at</strong>a<br />

common<br />

Bucephala clangula N G5 Y<br />

Marine Birds goldeneye<br />

barrow's<br />

Bucephala islandica N G5 Y<br />

Marine Birds goldeneye<br />

Haliaeetus<br />

bald eagle<br />

N G4 T Y<br />

Marine Birds<br />

leucocephalus<br />

peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus N G4 SC Y<br />

Marine Birds<br />

Arenaria<br />

Black Turnstone N G5 Y<br />

Marine Birds melanocephala<br />

Marine Birds Surfbird Aphriza virg<strong>at</strong>a N G5 Y<br />

Marine Birds Sanderling Calidris alba N G5 N. PIF 19W<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 4D, page 4 of 7

Terrestrial Target<br />

Federal<br />

St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

Global<br />

Rank<br />

Nearshore<br />

D<strong>at</strong>a<br />

Common name Scientific name<br />

Calidris mauri N G5 N. PIF 19W<br />

Western<br />

Sandpiper<br />

Marine Birds<br />

Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla N G5 N. PIF 20W<br />

Marine Birds<br />

Rock Sandpiper Calidris ptilocnemis N G5 Y<br />

Marine Birds<br />

Marine Birds Dunlin Calidris alpina N G5 Y<br />

short-billed Limnodromus<br />

N G5 N<br />

Marine Birds dowitcher griseus<br />

Marine Birds Western Gull Larus occidetalis N G5 Y-concentr<strong>at</strong>ion. PIF 22B, 22W<br />

Marbled Brachyramphus<br />

N G3G4 T Y<br />

Marine Birds murrelet marmor<strong>at</strong>us<br />

N G4 Y<br />

ancient murrelet Synthliboramphus<br />

antiquus<br />

Marine Birds<br />

Reviewers Comments<br />

Federal<br />

St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

D<strong>at</strong>a Global<br />

Rank<br />

Y<br />

Taxon Common name Scientific name Community<br />

Type<br />

Marine Mussels Mytilus californianus intertidal and<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

and trossulus subtidal<br />

Pollicipes polymerus rocky intertidal Y harvest for bait and food<br />

N Ecosystem engineer<br />

intertidal, shallow<br />

subtidal<br />

Neotrypaea<br />

californiensis and<br />

Upogebia<br />

pugettensis<br />

Gooseneck<br />

Barnacles<br />

Burrowing<br />

Shrimp<br />

Marine<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Marine<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

N ?? n<strong>at</strong>ive and thre<strong>at</strong>ened by introduced competitors and<br />

overharvest<br />

N FCo Any occurrence<br />

N M.Dethier, d. Pitkin, R. Lowe<br />

N eco engineer<br />

N declining issues; WDFW conserv<strong>at</strong>ion issues; UW<br />

surveys show decreases<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ive Oyster Ostreola conchaphila intertidal and<br />

subtidal<br />

Newcomb's Algamorda<br />

intertidal and<br />

littorine snail newcombiana subtidal<br />

Northern (Pinto) Haliotis<br />

intertidal and<br />

Abalone kamtsch<strong>at</strong>kana subtidal<br />

Sand Dollars Dendraster intertidal and<br />

excentricus subtidal<br />

Green Urchin Strongylocentrotus intertidal and<br />

drobachiensis subtidal<br />

Marine<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Marine<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Marine<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Marine<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Marine<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 4D, page 5 of 7

Tegula funebralis midlittoral zone N M.Dethier (abundant). S. Rumrill; rare snail, longlived<br />

Tegula brunnea lives lower in N not sure it is in ecoregion?. S. Rumrill: rare long-lived<br />

intertidal than<br />

snail<br />

black turbin snail<br />

Black Turban<br />

Snail<br />

Brown Turban<br />

Snail<br />

Marine<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Marine<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

N B. Menge per. Comm. P<strong>at</strong>chy distributions and only<br />

occur is soft areas between rocks<br />

intertidal,<br />

infralittoral fringe<br />

Strongylocentrotus<br />

purpur<strong>at</strong>us<br />

Purple Sea<br />

Urchin<br />

Marine<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

N loc<strong>at</strong>ed throughout range? Not north of <strong>Oregon</strong>. D.<br />

Pitkin, R. Lowe<br />

N ?? IUCN<br />

Red Abalone Haliotis rufescens infralittoral zoneoutercoast<br />

Starlet Sea Nem<strong>at</strong>ostella intertidal and<br />

Anemone vectensis<br />

subtidal<br />

Marine<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Marine<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Common<br />

name or<br />

Community<br />

Global Province<br />

Taxon group Scientific name(s) Type D<strong>at</strong>a Rank Rank<br />

Marine<br />

Gracilariophila<br />

Algae Red Algae oryzoides low intertidal N G3G4 S1 - rare<br />

Marine<br />

Herposiphoia<br />

Algae Red Algae verticill<strong>at</strong>a low intertidal N G3G4 S1 - rare<br />

Marine<br />

Peyssonnelia<br />

S1 -<br />

Algae Red Algae profunda subtidal N G3 unknown<br />

Marine<br />

Algae Red Algae Phycodrys riggii intertidal N G4 S2 - rare<br />

Marine<br />

Polysiphonia<br />

S1 -<br />

Algae Red Algae macounii low intertidal N G1?Q occasional<br />

Marine<br />

Tayloriella<br />

Algae Red Algae divaric<strong>at</strong>a subtidal N G4G5 S1 - rare<br />

Marine<br />

Algae Green Algae Codium ritteri low intertidal N G4G5 S1 - rare<br />

Marine<br />

Protomonostroma<br />

Algae Green Algae undul<strong>at</strong>um estuaries N G4G5 S1 - rare<br />

S1 -<br />

Marine<br />

Pseudopringsheimi<br />

rare/over-<br />

Algae Green Algae a apicul<strong>at</strong>a subtidal N G3 looked<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 4D, page 6 of 7

Common<br />

name or<br />

Community<br />

Global Province<br />

Taxon group Scientific name(s) Type D<strong>at</strong>a Rank Rank<br />

Marine<br />

Cylindrocarpus<br />

Algae Brown Algae rugosus intertidal rocks N G3G4 S1 - rare<br />

Marine<br />

Dictyoneuropsis<br />

Algae Brown Algae reticul<strong>at</strong>a low intertidal N G4 S2 - rare<br />

Marine<br />

Dictyoneurum<br />

Algae Brown Algae californicum low intertidal N G4G5 S2 - rare<br />

Marine<br />

Algae Brown Algae Laminaria longipes low intertidal N G5 S1 - rare<br />

Marine<br />

Postelsia<br />

Algae Brown Algae palmaeformis intertidal N common<br />

Marine<br />

Sphaerotrichia<br />

Algae Brown Algae divaric<strong>at</strong>a low intertidal N G4G5 S1 - rare<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 4D, page 7 of 7

Appendix 4E: Building a Benthic Habit<strong>at</strong> Model as Surrog<strong>at</strong>es<br />

for Ecosystem-Scale Targets<br />

This section describes the first steps in developing and comparing models for mapping offshore<br />

benthic habit<strong>at</strong>s in the <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregion. This, like all benthic models, is a work<br />

in progress. We utilized a topographic model and existing classific<strong>at</strong>ions th<strong>at</strong> characterize depth<br />

and benthic substr<strong>at</strong>e to model and gener<strong>at</strong>e offshore benthic conserv<strong>at</strong>ion targets. Use of the<br />

benthic habit<strong>at</strong> model assumes th<strong>at</strong> benthic habit<strong>at</strong> types can serve as a surrog<strong>at</strong>e or coarse filter<br />

for the conserv<strong>at</strong>ion of the majority of bottom-dwelling species in an ecoregion. The ideal d<strong>at</strong>a for<br />

mapping marine ecosystems is biological d<strong>at</strong>a on the distribution and abundance of species in the<br />

w<strong>at</strong>er and on the sea bottom. Unfortun<strong>at</strong>ely, these d<strong>at</strong>a are scarce offshore.<br />

Lacking regionally comprehensive biological d<strong>at</strong>a along the <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> (PNWC), the<br />

Conservancy has focused on the use of geophysical d<strong>at</strong>a. We predict th<strong>at</strong> many geophysical<br />

variables (e.g., temper<strong>at</strong>ure, depth and sediment type) can be correl<strong>at</strong>ed with the occurrence of<br />

different types of species. Geophysical inform<strong>at</strong>ion th<strong>at</strong> is most useful includes sea surface<br />

temper<strong>at</strong>ure, bottom temper<strong>at</strong>ure, depth, bottom sediment type, phytoplankton density<br />

(chlorophyll a), currents and b<strong>at</strong>hymetry (underw<strong>at</strong>er topography). Our current model presented<br />

here uses b<strong>at</strong>hymetry and marine geology to depict depth, geomorphology or bedforms, and<br />

substr<strong>at</strong>e type.<br />

It is our hope th<strong>at</strong> the benthic model will be predictive of habit<strong>at</strong> targets. Output of the model,<br />

however, needs to be tested against higher resolution d<strong>at</strong>a (i.e., multibeam) and underw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

surveys to determine the accuracy of identifying landforms on the seafloor. In addition, these d<strong>at</strong>a<br />

need to be correl<strong>at</strong>ed with biotic assemblages in determining community or habit<strong>at</strong> types. A<br />

recent study used local popul<strong>at</strong>ion density estim<strong>at</strong>es of juvenile demersal finfish from trawl survey<br />

d<strong>at</strong>a as a meaningful indic<strong>at</strong>or of habit<strong>at</strong> value (Cook and Auster 2005). We believe associ<strong>at</strong>ing<br />

species d<strong>at</strong>a with modeled d<strong>at</strong>a on benthic habit<strong>at</strong>s will ultim<strong>at</strong>ely give us a more accur<strong>at</strong>e sp<strong>at</strong>ial<br />

assessment of species-habit<strong>at</strong> utiliz<strong>at</strong>ion. Lastly, it should be noted th<strong>at</strong> this model cannot be used<br />

to predict surface or w<strong>at</strong>er column p<strong>at</strong>terns in diversity. Other models are required in examining<br />

the pelagic environment.<br />

4E.1 Classific<strong>at</strong>ion of the Benthic Environment<br />

In order to gener<strong>at</strong>e a continuous surface depicting the seafloor we used a number of regional<br />

b<strong>at</strong>hymetric d<strong>at</strong>a sets and examined interpol<strong>at</strong>ion techniques. Digital Elev<strong>at</strong>ion Models (DEMs)<br />

of the seafloor are distinct from terrestrial models in th<strong>at</strong> the survey efforts required to produce a<br />

continuous surface of depth across a region are often inconsistent temporally, sp<strong>at</strong>ially and<br />

methodologically. Therefore careful examin<strong>at</strong>ion of interpol<strong>at</strong>ion methods was conducted before<br />

an appropri<strong>at</strong>e surface was used to model benthic habit<strong>at</strong>s.<br />

After gener<strong>at</strong>ing a continuous surface depicting the seafloor, we examined several models th<strong>at</strong><br />

classify the benthic environment into distinct geomorphic types. The benthic model presented<br />

here has been used for marine ecoregional planning throughout the continental U.S., including the<br />

Southern and Northern California ecoregions, the Floridian and Carolinian on the east coast, as<br />

well as in the <strong>Northwest</strong> Atlantic <strong>Coast</strong>al and Marine region. In addition to developing an initial<br />

methodology and d<strong>at</strong>a for depicting benthic habit<strong>at</strong>s we have also used the b<strong>at</strong>hymetric source d<strong>at</strong>a<br />

to determine areas of bottom complexity. Although using the same source d<strong>at</strong>a, output from a<br />

complexity model complements the identific<strong>at</strong>ion of benthic habit<strong>at</strong>s and therefore will be<br />

addressed separ<strong>at</strong>ely. Both methodologies were conducted along the outer coasts of <strong>Oregon</strong> and<br />

Washington, part of the <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ecoregion (Figure 4E.3.1).<br />

The results of the benthic habit<strong>at</strong> model described below produce offshore marine conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

targets. This approach to modeling coarse scale habit<strong>at</strong>s provides promise in areas of the world<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 4E, page 1 of 8

where comprehensive them<strong>at</strong>ic mapping of the seafloor has not occurred. The benthic model<br />

combines three parameters: geomorphology, depth and substr<strong>at</strong>e. We initially examined six<br />

different geomorphic types to describe the seafloor (basins\canyons, lower slopes, middle slopes,<br />

upper slopes, fl<strong>at</strong>s, ridges) but l<strong>at</strong>er combined all the slope position types into one. We then<br />

combined the four geomorphic types (basins\canyons, slopes, fl<strong>at</strong>s, ridges) with four depth ranges:<br />

Class Definition<br />

Inner shelf 0-40m<br />

Mid shelf 40-200m<br />

Mesobenthal 200-700m<br />

B<strong>at</strong>hybenthal 700-5000m<br />

These depth classes were primarily based on Greene et al. 1999 but were also informed by others<br />

(Allen and Smith 1988, Zacharias et al. 1998). The modeling produced 16 potential bedforms<br />

(combined geomorphology and depth) which represented our initial list of benthic habit<strong>at</strong> types.<br />

The last step incorpor<strong>at</strong>ed lithology or substr<strong>at</strong>e. For the purposes of developing the benthic<br />

habit<strong>at</strong> model we identified the most common descriptions of bottom indur<strong>at</strong>ion types: “hard”,<br />

determined from rock and boulders classes; “soft”, determined from sand or mud bottoms; or<br />

“unclassified”. With this combin<strong>at</strong>ion of geomorphology, depth, and substr<strong>at</strong>e there were 48<br />

potential benthic habit<strong>at</strong> types.<br />

4E.2 Benthic Habit<strong>at</strong>s<br />

We applied a landscape position model described in Fel and Zobel (1995), and l<strong>at</strong>er described in<br />

detail by Weiss (2001) for mapping seafloor geomorphology. Since landscape classific<strong>at</strong>ions are<br />

not based on morphology alone but also on the position of the land surface in rel<strong>at</strong>ion to its<br />

surroundings, Fel (1994) developed a quantit<strong>at</strong>ive index of landscape position. Also called<br />

Topographic Position Index, or TPI, the basic algorithm compares the elev<strong>at</strong>ion of a given cell in a<br />

Digital Elev<strong>at</strong>ion Model (DEM) to the mean elev<strong>at</strong>ion of a specified neighborhood around th<strong>at</strong><br />

cell. Positive TPI values represent loc<strong>at</strong>ions th<strong>at</strong> are higher than the average of their surroundings,<br />

while neg<strong>at</strong>ive TPI values represent loc<strong>at</strong>ions th<strong>at</strong> are lower than their surroundings. TPI values<br />

near zero are fl<strong>at</strong> areas. This model was cre<strong>at</strong>ed to describe landforms in the terrestrial<br />

environment, but is easily adaptable to marine d<strong>at</strong>a.<br />

Topographic position is an inherently scale-dependent phenomenon. Scale of the source d<strong>at</strong>a and<br />

the landscape context are two important factors to consider when deciding the search radius of a<br />

specified neighborhood, or groups of cells evalu<strong>at</strong>ed in a specific GIS procedure (see Zeiler 1999<br />

for a good explan<strong>at</strong>ion of geosp<strong>at</strong>ial terminology).<br />

a) Scale of the source d<strong>at</strong>a determines the level of detail th<strong>at</strong> the model can depict. For instance, if<br />

the search radius is small then fe<strong>at</strong>ures within a small geography will be explicitly depicted given<br />

detailed source d<strong>at</strong>a; on the contrary, if the search radius is large then fe<strong>at</strong>ures may be missed or<br />

dissolved into larger c<strong>at</strong>egories. This scenario can also be true if the search radius is smaller than<br />

the source d<strong>at</strong>a can support. In other words, if the search radius is rel<strong>at</strong>ively small for coarse scale<br />

d<strong>at</strong>a then errors in interpol<strong>at</strong>ion may be mistaken for distinct fe<strong>at</strong>ures. To avoid these potential<br />

miscalcul<strong>at</strong>ions it is important to evalu<strong>at</strong>e the scales of the source d<strong>at</strong>a and examine different<br />

search radii to determine appropri<strong>at</strong>e output models.<br />

b) Seascape context determines the position of a distinct fe<strong>at</strong>ure in rel<strong>at</strong>ion to its surroundings.<br />

For example, a point in a basin may be coded as fl<strong>at</strong> when the search radius is small; with a large<br />

search radius th<strong>at</strong> same point may be considered <strong>at</strong> the bottom of a canyon if the surrounding area<br />

contains steep slopes th<strong>at</strong> rise dram<strong>at</strong>ically. Therefore, the n<strong>at</strong>ure of the broader land or seascape<br />

needs to be considered when setting the search radius in order to accur<strong>at</strong>ely represent vari<strong>at</strong>ion in<br />

habit<strong>at</strong>.<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 4E, page 2 of 8

As a general rule, the continuum of topographic position values sort out along a topographic<br />

gradient from depressions and canyon or valley bottoms, through to lower slopes, mid slopes,<br />

upper slopes, and up to ridge and hilltops. By determining thresholds for the continuous values<br />

they can be classified into distinct slope position c<strong>at</strong>egories (Figure 4E.3.2).<br />

Many physical and biological processes acting <strong>at</strong> a given loc<strong>at</strong>ion are highly correl<strong>at</strong>ed with the<br />

topographic position: a seamount, basin or canyon, ridge, fl<strong>at</strong> plain, upper slope, etc. These<br />

processes (i.e., soil deposition, hydrologic balance and response, wind or wave exposure) are often<br />

important predictors of veget<strong>at</strong>ion and other biota. Physical processes are difficult to model<br />

directly across large areas, but an index of topographic position can be used within a st<strong>at</strong>istical<br />

predictive modeling framework as a surrog<strong>at</strong>e variable to represent the sp<strong>at</strong>ial vari<strong>at</strong>ion of these<br />

processes. For this exercise we modeled benthic geomorphic types using the same principles and<br />

tools developed in terrestrial models (Figure 4E.3.3). In both environments a cell-based DEM is<br />

required, with cell values either representing elev<strong>at</strong>ion (positive) or depth (neg<strong>at</strong>ive).<br />

Recently marine practitioners have adopted this method for deriving landforms, calling this the<br />

B<strong>at</strong>hymetric Position Index, or BPI (Rinehart et al. 2004). Although the BPI model derives<br />

landforms on the seafloor, we have added depth classes (Figure 4E.3.4) and substr<strong>at</strong>e types<br />

(Figure 4E.3.5) th<strong>at</strong> further deline<strong>at</strong>e distinct marine form<strong>at</strong>ions.<br />

These modeling efforts were based on b<strong>at</strong>hymetry d<strong>at</strong>a from the N<strong>at</strong>ional Oceanic and<br />

Atmospheric Administr<strong>at</strong>ion (NOAA), Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW), and<br />

the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (MSRM) in British Columbia, Canada. The<br />

main issues to consider when assembling a mosaic of dispar<strong>at</strong>e d<strong>at</strong>a include scale of the source<br />

d<strong>at</strong>a and the search radius in depicting seafloor morphology mentioned above. B<strong>at</strong>hymetry d<strong>at</strong>a<br />

yields both the benthic geomorphology and depth of th<strong>at</strong> form<strong>at</strong>ion. We combined the<br />

geomorphology and depth d<strong>at</strong>a with lithology on the seafloor. The <strong>Oregon</strong> and Washington<br />

continental shelf geologic d<strong>at</strong>a set compiled and mapped by <strong>Oregon</strong> St<strong>at</strong>e <strong>University</strong> (Goldfinger<br />

et al. 2001) and others (Greene et al. 1999), as upd<strong>at</strong>ed for the Groundfish EFH-EIS process,<br />

incorpor<strong>at</strong>es available inform<strong>at</strong>ion on seafloor substr<strong>at</strong>e types for the region. In addition, geologic<br />

d<strong>at</strong>a was available for British Columbia (MSRM 2001). We used a simplified classific<strong>at</strong>ion of<br />

marine substr<strong>at</strong>e types (hard, soft, unclassified) in order to m<strong>at</strong>ch d<strong>at</strong>a across the region.<br />

The resultant grid after combining geomorphology and depth with substr<strong>at</strong>e types tracked all<br />

potential combin<strong>at</strong>ions of inputs resulting in 48 (4 landforms x 4 depth classes x 3 substr<strong>at</strong>e types)<br />

unique benthic habit<strong>at</strong> types for the <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ecoregion (Figure 4E.3.6). A final<br />

check was conducted to determine whether all 48 modeled benthic habit<strong>at</strong> types were present in<br />

the ecoregion; a few types were present but <strong>at</strong>

4E.3 Figures<br />

4E.3.1 BATHYMETRY OFF OF OREGON, PACIFIC NORTHWEST COAST ECOREGION<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 4E, page 4 of 8

4E.3.2 TOPOGRAPHIC POSITION INDEX (TPI) MODELS SPECIFIC LAND OR<br />

BENTHIC FEATURES ALONG A GRADIENT OF CONTINUOUS VALUES<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 4E, page 5 of 8

4E.3.3 GEOMORPHIC TYPES ON THE SEAFLOOR FOR HECETA BANK OFF THE<br />

SOUTHERN OREGON COAST<br />

4E.3.4 DEPTH CLASSES FOR HECETA BANK OFF THE SOUTHERN OREGON COAST<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 4E, page 6 of 8

4E.3.5 SUBSTRATE TYPES FOR HECETA BANK<br />

4E.3.6 FINAL BENTHIC HABITAT TYPES FOR HECETA BANK<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 4E, page 7 of 8

4E References<br />

Cook, R.R. and P.J. Auster. 2005. Use of Simul<strong>at</strong>ed Annealing for Identifying Essential Fish<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> in a Multispecies Context. Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Biology 19 (3): 876-886.<br />

Fels, J.E. 1994. Modeling and mapping potential veget<strong>at</strong>ion using digital terrain d<strong>at</strong>a: Applic<strong>at</strong>ions<br />

in the Ellicott Rock Wilderness of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Ph.D dissert<strong>at</strong>ion.<br />

North Carolina St<strong>at</strong>e <strong>University</strong>, Raleigh, NC.<br />

Fels, J.E. and R. Zobel. 1995. Landscape position and classified landtype mapping for st<strong>at</strong>ewide<br />

DRASTIC mapping project. North Carolina St<strong>at</strong>e <strong>University</strong> technical report VEL.95.1. North<br />

Carolina Department of Environment, Health and N<strong>at</strong>ural Resources, Division of Environmental<br />

Management, Raleigh.<br />

Goldfinger, C., Romsos, C., Robison, R., Milstein, R., and Myers B. 2001. Active Tectonics and<br />

Seafloor Mapping Labar<strong>at</strong>ory Public<strong>at</strong>ion 02-01. Interim Seafloor Lithology Maps for <strong>Oregon</strong> and<br />

Washington, Version 1.0. College of Oceanography and Atmospheric Sciences, <strong>Oregon</strong> St<strong>at</strong>e<br />

<strong>University</strong>, Corvallis, <strong>Oregon</strong>.<br />

Greene, H.G., M.M. Yoklavich, R.M. Starr, V.M. O’Connell, W.W. Wakefield, D.E. Sullivan, J.E.<br />

McRea Jr., and G.M. Cailliet. 1999. A classific<strong>at</strong>ion scheme for deep seafloor habit<strong>at</strong>s.<br />

Oceanologica 22:663-678.<br />

Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (MSRM) Decision Support Services. 2001. British<br />

Columbia Marine Ecological Classific<strong>at</strong>ion Upd<strong>at</strong>e. Prepared by AXYS Environmental<br />

Consulting Ltd. Sidney, BC. 36 pp.<br />

Rinehart, R.W., Wright, D.J., Lundblad, E.R., Larkin, E.M., Murphy, J., Cary-Kothera, L. 2004.<br />

ArcGIS 8.x Benthic Terrain Modeler: Analysis in American Samoa. Proceedings of the 24th<br />

Annual ESRI User Conference, San Diego, CA, Paper 1433.<br />

The N<strong>at</strong>ure Conservancy (TNC). 2005. Northern California Marine Ecoregional Assessment.<br />

Prepared by the California Field Office of The N<strong>at</strong>ure Conservancy. Working draft.<br />

Weiss, A. D., 2001, Topographic Position Index and Landforms Classific<strong>at</strong>ion. Indus Corpor<strong>at</strong>ion.<br />

Working draft.<br />

Zeiler, M. 1999. Modeling Our World: The ESRI Guide to Geod<strong>at</strong>abase Design, Environmental<br />

Systems Research Institute, Inc., Redlands, CA.<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 4E, page 8 of 8

Appendix 5A PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregion Protected Areas<br />

Level of<br />

Protected Area Size (ha) Managing Agency Section<br />

Protection<br />

Arbutus Grove Provincial Park 22.646 BC Provincial Government Lee Isle Mountains 2<br />

Artlish Cave Provincial Park 261.595 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

Big Bunsby Provincial Park 559.666 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

Bligh Island Provincial Park 1626.422 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

Brooks Peninsula Provincial Park 38457.707 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

Cape Scott Provincial Park 17556.415 BC Provincial Government Nahwitti Lowlands 2<br />

Carmanah Walbran Provincial Park 16133.283 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

C<strong>at</strong>ala Island Provincial Marine Park 262.25 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

Claud Elliot Provincial Park 862.174 BC Provincial Government North Isle Mountains 2<br />

Clayoquot Arm Provincial Park 3564.342 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

Clayoquot Pl<strong>at</strong>eau Provincial Park 3124.679 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

Cormorant Channel Provincial Marine Park 132.415 BC Provincial Government North Isle Mountains 2<br />

Cowichan River Provincial Park 53.571 BC Provincial Government Lee Isle Mountains 2<br />

Dawley Passage Provincial Marine Park 0.371 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

Dixie Cove Provincial Park 90.518 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

Englishman River Falls Provincial Park 98.437 BC Provincial Government Lee Isle Mountains 2<br />

Epper Passage Provincial Marine Park 53.743 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

Flores Provincial Marine Park 3937.458 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

Fossil Provincial Park 52.8 BC Provincial Government Lee Isle Mountains 2<br />

French Beach Provincial Park 312.126 BC Provincial Government Lee Isle Mountains 2<br />

Gibson Provincial Marine Park 121.206 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

God's Pocket Provincial Marine Park 576.833 BC Provincial Government Nahwitti Lowlands 2<br />

Gold Machal<strong>at</strong> Provincial Park 646.446 BC Provincial Government North Isle Mountains 2<br />

Gordon Bay Provincial Park 52.231 BC Provincial Government Lee Isle Mountains 2<br />

Haley Lake Provincial Park 114.145 BC Provincial Government Lee Isle Mountains 2<br />

Hesqui<strong>at</strong> Peninsula Provincial Marine Park 7393.699 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

Honeymoon Bay Provincial Park 6.365 BC Provincial Government Lee Isle Mountains 2<br />

Horne Lake Caves Provincial Park 128.497 BC Provincial Government Lee Isle Mountains 2<br />

Juan de Fuca Provincial Park 998.996 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

Kennedy Lake Provincial Park 109.727 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

Klanawa Lake Provincial Park 99.899 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

Koksilah River Provincial Park 260.277 BC Provincial Government Lee Isle Mountains 2<br />

Lawn Point Provincial Park 588.2 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 5A, page 1 of 6

Level of<br />

Protected Area Size (ha) Managing Agency Section<br />

Protection<br />

Little Qualicum Falls Provincial Park 488.932 BC Provincial Government Lee Isle Mountains 2<br />

Loveland Bay Provincial Park 13.602 BC Provincial Government Lee Isle Mountains 2<br />

Lower Nimpkish Provincial Park 232.127 BC Provincial Government North Isle Mountains 2<br />

MacMillan Grove Provincial Park 147.988 BC Provincial Government Lee Isle Mountains 2<br />

Maquinna Provincial Marine Park 39.38 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

Marble River Provincial Park 1040.737 BC Provincial Government North Isle Mountains 2<br />

Misty Lake Provincial Park 55.917 BC Provincial Government Nahwitti Lowlands 2<br />

Morton Lake Park 62.533 BC Provincial Government Lee Isle Mountains 2<br />

Nimpkish Lake Provincial Park 3915.794 BC Provincial Government North Isle Mountains 2<br />

Nitin<strong>at</strong> Lake Provincial Park 70.6 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

Nitin<strong>at</strong> River Provincial Park 153.735 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

Nuchaltlitz Provincial Marine Park 465.038 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

Protected Offshore Islands 10.877 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

Qu<strong>at</strong>sino Provincial Marine Park 560.984 BC Provincial Government Nahwitti Lowlands 2<br />

Raft Cove Provincial Park 500.606 BC Provincial Government Nahwitti Lowlands 2<br />

Robson Bight Provincial Park 5250.852 BC Provincial Government North Isle Mountains 2<br />

Rugged Point Provincial Marine Park 162.47 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

San Juan Ridge Provincial Park 89.893 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

Santa-Boca Provincial Park 333.207 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

Schoen Lake Provincial Park 8912.355 BC Provincial Government North Isle Mountains 2<br />

Sooke Mountain Provincial Park 452.561 BC Provincial Government Lee Isle Mountains 2<br />

Sooke Potholes Provincial Park 9.741 BC Provincial Government Lee Isle Mountains 2<br />

Spider Lake Provincial Park 60.274 BC Provincial Government Lee Isle Mountains 2<br />

Spro<strong>at</strong> Lake Provincial Park 43.17 BC Provincial Government Lee Isle Mountains 2<br />

Stamp Falls Provincial Park 303.323 BC Provincial Government Lee Isle Mountains 2<br />

Stamp River-Moneys Pool Provincial Park 233.641 BC Provincial Government Lee Isle Mountains 2<br />

Str<strong>at</strong>hcona Provincial Park 250682.891 BC Provincial Government North Isle Mountains 2<br />

Sulphur Passage Provincial Marine Park 1310.358 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

Sydney Inlet Provincial Marine Park 2001.97 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

Tahsish-Kwois Park 11016.073 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

Taylor Arm Provincial Park 83.317 BC Provincial Government Lee Isle Mountains 2<br />

Tranquil Creek Provincial Park 296.023 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

Tsitika River Provincial Park 125.242 BC Provincial Government North Isle Mountains 2<br />

Vargas Island Provincial Marine Park 1750.509 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 5A, page 2 of 6

Level of<br />

Protected Area Size (ha) Managing Agency Section<br />

Protection<br />

Weymer Creek Karst Provincial Park 309.845 BC Provincial Government Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

White River Pocket Wilderness Provincial Pa 66.107 BC Provincial Government Lee Isle Mountains 2<br />

Woss Lake Provincial Park 6491.582 BC Provincial Government North Isle Mountains 2<br />

Bobby Creek RNA 773.796 Bureau of Land Management <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Cherry Creek RNA 239.231 Bureau of Land Management <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

China Wall ACEC 82.488 Bureau of Land Management <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Elk Creek Bald Eagle ACEC 856.997 Bureau of Land Management <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Grass Mountain RNA 285.764 Bureau of Land Management <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

High Peak-Moon Creek RNA 603.192 Bureau of Land Management <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Hult Marsh ACEC 71.684 Bureau of Land Management <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Hunter Creek Bog ACEC 291.68 Bureau of Land Management <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Lake Creek Falls ACEC 21.962 Bureau of Land Management <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Little Grass Mountain ONA 17.88 Bureau of Land Management <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Lost Prairie ACEC 24.501 Bureau of Land Management <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Mary's Peak ONA 55.061 Bureau of Land Management <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Myrtle Island RNA 9.243 Bureau of Land Management <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Nestucca River ACEC 263.642 Bureau of Land Management <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

New River ACEC 459.399 Bureau of Land Management <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

North Fork Coquille River ACEC 125.707 Bureau of Land Management <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

North Fork/Hunter Creek ACEC 16.294 Bureau of Land Management <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

North Fork/Hunter Creek ACEC 762.213 Bureau of Land Management <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

North Spit ACEC 293.481 Bureau of Land Management <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Rickreall Ridge ACEC 72.239 Bureau of Land Management <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Saddleback Mountain RNA 62.067 Bureau of Land Management <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Sheridan Peak ACEC 123.679 Bureau of Land Management <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

South Fork Coos River ACEC 16.861 Bureau of Land Management <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Sutton Lake ACEC 85.068 Bureau of Land Management <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Umpqua River Wildlife Area (Martin Creek) 315.048 Bureau of Land Management <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Upper Rock Creek ACEC 190.968 Bureau of Land Management <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Valley of the Giants ONA 20.806 Bureau of Land Management <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Walker Fl<strong>at</strong> ACEC 4.258 Bureau of Land Management <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Wassen Creek ACEC 1373.893 Bureau of Land Management <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Yaquina Head ONA/ACEC 40.545 Bureau of Land Management <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

42.679 Bureau of Land Management Willapa Hills 2<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 5A, page 3 of 6

Level of<br />

Protected Area Size (ha) Managing Agency Section<br />

Protection<br />

42.894 Bureau of Land Management Willapa Hills 2<br />

66.894 Bureau of Land Management Willapa Hills 2<br />

237.692 Bureau of Land Management Willapa Hills 2<br />

267.914 Bureau of Land Management Willapa Hills 2<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> Rim N<strong>at</strong>ional Park 28964.866 Canadian N<strong>at</strong>ional Park Service Wind Isle Mountains 2<br />

Coos County Park 44.235 County Government <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Forest Park 1443.461 County Government Willapa Hills 2<br />

South Jetty County Park 30.141 County Government <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional Park 400241.023 N<strong>at</strong>ional Park Service Olympic 1<br />

South Slough NERR 1585.318 <strong>Oregon</strong> Division of St<strong>at</strong>e Lands <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

ODF Fund #52 65.895 <strong>Oregon</strong> Department of Forestry <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Bastendorff Bog Preserve 4.803 <strong>Oregon</strong> Division of St<strong>at</strong>e Lands <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Bandon Ocean St<strong>at</strong>e Wayside 29.225 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Beverly Beach St<strong>at</strong>e Park 65.619 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Boiler Bay St<strong>at</strong>e Scenic Viewpoint 20.218 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Buena Vista Ocean Wayside 27.694 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Bullards Beach St<strong>at</strong>e Park 570.617 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Cape Arago St<strong>at</strong>e Park 320.562 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Cape Blanco St<strong>at</strong>e Park 830.35 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Cape Kiwanda St<strong>at</strong>e Park 53.388 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Cape Lookout St<strong>at</strong>e Park 745.326 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Cape Meares St<strong>at</strong>e Park 107.557 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Cape Sebastian St<strong>at</strong>e Park 450.954 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Carl G Washburne Memorial St<strong>at</strong>e Park 801.726 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Devils Punch Bowl St<strong>at</strong>e N<strong>at</strong>ural Area 23.81 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Ecola St<strong>at</strong>e Park 1042.382 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department Willapa Hills 2<br />

Floras Lake St<strong>at</strong>e Park 511.129 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Fogarty Creek St<strong>at</strong>e Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Area 68.943 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Fort Stevens St<strong>at</strong>e Park 1381.461 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department Willapa Hills 2<br />

Humbug Mountain St<strong>at</strong>e Park 693.024 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Neptune St<strong>at</strong>e Park 124.005 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Netarts Bay St<strong>at</strong>e Park 343.099 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department Willapa Hills 2<br />

Ona Beach St<strong>at</strong>e Park 81.907 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Oswald West St<strong>at</strong>e Park 1155.346 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department Willapa Hills 2<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 5A, page 4 of 6

Level of<br />

Protected Area Size (ha) Managing Agency Section<br />

Protection<br />

Otter Point St<strong>at</strong>e Wayside 21.838 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Pistol River St<strong>at</strong>e Park 179.369 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Port Orford Head St<strong>at</strong>e Wayside 10.284 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Robert W Straub St<strong>at</strong>e Park 188.303 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Rocky Creek St<strong>at</strong>e Wayside 23.902 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Saddle Mountain St<strong>at</strong>e Park 1222.819 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department Willapa Hills 2<br />

Samuel H Boardman St<strong>at</strong>e Park 220.943 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

South Beach St<strong>at</strong>e Park 173.453 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Sunset Beach St<strong>at</strong>e Park 61.234 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Umpqua Lighthouse St<strong>at</strong>e Park 65.061 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

William M Tugman St<strong>at</strong>e Park 285.09 <strong>Oregon</strong> Parks and Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Department <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Fanno Meadows Preserve 241.326 Priv<strong>at</strong>e Property <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Gearhart Bog Preserve 103.555 Priv<strong>at</strong>e Property Willapa Hills 2<br />

Nesika Beach Preserve 31.299 Priv<strong>at</strong>e Property <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Onion Peak Preserve 52.359 Priv<strong>at</strong>e Property Willapa Hills 2<br />

Blind Slough Swamp Preserve 353.723 The N<strong>at</strong>ure Conservancy Willapa Hills 1<br />

Bradley Bog Preserve 19.328 The N<strong>at</strong>ure Conservancy <strong>Coast</strong> Range 1<br />

Cascade Head Preserve 121.522 The N<strong>at</strong>ure Conservancy <strong>Coast</strong> Range 1<br />

Copalis River Preserve 111.688 The N<strong>at</strong>ure Conservancy Olympic 1<br />

Cox Island Preserve 79.639 The N<strong>at</strong>ure Conservancy <strong>Coast</strong> Range 1<br />

Ellsworth Creek Preserve 3232.899 The N<strong>at</strong>ure Conservancy Willapa Hills 1<br />

Sutton Lake Marsh Preserve 7.163 The N<strong>at</strong>ure Conservancy <strong>Coast</strong> Range 1<br />

4.385 The N<strong>at</strong>ure Conservancy Willapa Hills 1<br />

8.028 The N<strong>at</strong>ure Conservancy Willapa Hills 1<br />

9.03 The N<strong>at</strong>ure Conservancy Willapa Hills 1<br />

11.156 The N<strong>at</strong>ure Conservancy Willapa Hills 1<br />

41.941 The N<strong>at</strong>ure Conservancy Willapa Hills 1<br />

Bandon Marsh NWR 411.221 United St<strong>at</strong>es Fish and Wildlife Service <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Columbia White-Tailed Deer NWR 3401.164 United St<strong>at</strong>es Fish and Wildlife Service Willapa Hills 2<br />

Copalis Rock NWR 12.013 United St<strong>at</strong>es Fish and Wildlife Service Olympic 2<br />

Fl<strong>at</strong>tery Rocks NWR 46.152 United St<strong>at</strong>es Fish and Wildlife Service Olympic 2<br />

Julia Butler Hansen NWR 458.238 United St<strong>at</strong>es Fish and Wildlife Service Willapa Hills 2<br />

Lewis and Clark NWR 2543.312 United St<strong>at</strong>es Fish and Wildlife Service Willapa Hills 2<br />

Neskowin NWR 168.282 United St<strong>at</strong>es Fish and Wildlife Service <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 5A, page 5 of 6

Level of<br />

Protected Area Size (ha) Managing Agency Section<br />

Protection<br />

Nestucca Bay NWR 1357.918 United St<strong>at</strong>es Fish and Wildlife Service <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong> Islands NWR 151.942 United St<strong>at</strong>es Fish and Wildlife Service <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Quillayute Needles NWR 79.945 United St<strong>at</strong>es Fish and Wildlife Service Olympic 2<br />

Willapa NWR 6825.822 United St<strong>at</strong>es Fish and Wildlife Service Willapa Hills 2<br />

598.307 United St<strong>at</strong>es Fish and Wildlife Service Willapa Hills 2<br />

Big Tree SIA 52.407 United St<strong>at</strong>es Forest Service <strong>Coast</strong> Range 1<br />

Cape Perpetua 381.395 United St<strong>at</strong>es Forest Service <strong>Coast</strong> Range 1<br />

Cascade Head Scenic Research Area 2735.908 United St<strong>at</strong>es Forest Service <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Coquille River Falls RNA 210.019 United St<strong>at</strong>es Forest Service <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Cummins Creek Wilderness 3667.36 United St<strong>at</strong>es Forest Service <strong>Coast</strong> Range 1<br />

Drift Creek Wilderness 2186.106 United St<strong>at</strong>es Forest Service <strong>Coast</strong> Range 1<br />

Flynn Creek RNA 256.622 United St<strong>at</strong>es Forest Service <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Grassy Knob Wilderness 6396.299 United St<strong>at</strong>es Forest Service <strong>Coast</strong> Range 1<br />

Iron Mountain SIA 714.159 United St<strong>at</strong>es Forest Service <strong>Coast</strong> Range 1<br />

Lobster Grove SIA 140.407 United St<strong>at</strong>es Forest Service <strong>Coast</strong> Range 1<br />

Neskowin Crest RNA 489.667 United St<strong>at</strong>es Forest Service <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong> Dunes NRA 2938.083 United St<strong>at</strong>es Forest Service <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Port Orford Cedar RNA 446.212 United St<strong>at</strong>es Forest Service <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Reneke Creek RNA 107.021 United St<strong>at</strong>es Forest Service <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Rock Creek Wilderness 2792.196 United St<strong>at</strong>es Forest Service <strong>Coast</strong> Range 1<br />

Stinking Lake RNA 101.988 United St<strong>at</strong>es Forest Service <strong>Coast</strong> Range 2<br />

Shipwreck Point NAP 202 Washington Department of N<strong>at</strong>ural Resourc Olympic 2<br />

86.026 Washington Department of N<strong>at</strong>ural Resourc Olympic 2<br />

120 Washington Department of N<strong>at</strong>ural Resourc Olympic 2<br />

934.979 Washington Department of N<strong>at</strong>ural Resourc Olympic 2<br />

103.173 Washington Department of N<strong>at</strong>ural Resourc Willapa Hills 2<br />

129.32 Washington Department of N<strong>at</strong>ural Resourc Willapa Hills 2<br />

371 Washington Department of N<strong>at</strong>ural Resourc Willapa Hills 2<br />

1242.583 Washington Department of N<strong>at</strong>ural Resourc Willapa Hills 2<br />

2440.085 Washington Department of N<strong>at</strong>ural Resourc Willapa Hills 2<br />

242 Washington St<strong>at</strong>e Parks Willapa Hills 2<br />

658.583 Washington St<strong>at</strong>e Parks Willapa Hills 2<br />

852855.994<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 5A, page 6 of 6

Appendix 5B Numbers of Targets Meeting Goals (by Quartile) in Existing Protected Areas<br />

Percent goal met by quartile in protected areas<br />

Number of<br />

Targets in<br />

Group<br />

% Targets<br />

protected<br />

>75% goal<br />

level<br />

Target Group 0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% No Goal set<br />

Fine Filter Targets<br />

Herptiles 5 1 2 3 1 12 25<br />

Birds 6 5 2 1 4 18 5.6<br />

Mammals 6 1 0 1 8 16 6.3<br />

Insects 2 3 1 5 5 16 31.3<br />

Mollusks 6 0 0 1 2 9 11.1<br />

Nonvascular Plants 2 4 0 4 0 10 40<br />

Vasc Plants 19 14 3 14 1 51 27.5<br />

Non Salmonid fishes 2 1 0 1 2 6 16.7<br />

Salmon-US 9 6 4 9 3 31 29.0<br />

Salmon-Canada 14 11 1 2 0 28 7.1<br />

Rare Communities 8 0 0 10 0 18 55.6<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong> Wetlands 5 5 0 10 0 20 50<br />

Mineral Springs 1 0 0 0 0 1 0<br />

Shore Bird Concentr<strong>at</strong>ion A 0 1 0 0 0 1 0<br />

Ecological Systems<br />

Wetlands 2 0 1 5 0 8 62.5<br />

Special Habit<strong>at</strong>s 3 0 0 4 0 7 57.1<br />

Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion Forest 5 0 1 0 0 6 0<br />

High Elev<strong>at</strong>ion Forest 0 0 0 3 0 3 100<br />

Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic Systems<br />

Willamette EDU 22 0 0 0 0 22 0<br />

Rogue EDU 7 0 0 0 0 7 0<br />

Puget EDU 37 2 0 2 0 41 4.9<br />

Olympic EDU 17 2 0 3 0 22 13.6<br />

Georgia St EDU 23 0 0 0 0 23 0<br />

Lower Columbia EDU 25 1 0 0 0 26 0<br />

OR <strong>Coast</strong> EDU 19 2 0 0 0 21 0<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 5B, page 1 of 1

Appendix 6A: The SITE Selection Algorithm<br />

6A.1 Background<br />

6A.2 SITES<br />

The selection of conserv<strong>at</strong>ion areas through the applic<strong>at</strong>ion of system<strong>at</strong>ic procedures has been a<br />

research topic for over 30 years (R<strong>at</strong>cliffe 1971, as discussed in Justus and Sarkar 2002). The<br />

motiv<strong>at</strong>ion for this research has been and continues to be the realiz<strong>at</strong>ion th<strong>at</strong> protecting every site<br />

of biological value is both economically and politically infeasible (Ando et al. 1998, Margules and<br />

Pressey 2000). Since the 1980s much research has concentr<strong>at</strong>ed on procedures th<strong>at</strong> maximize the<br />

represent<strong>at</strong>ion of biological diversity with the smallest number or smallest total area of<br />

conserv<strong>at</strong>ion sites. The most efficient set of conserv<strong>at</strong>ion sites, the optimal set, has the smallest<br />

area for a given level of biodiversity conserv<strong>at</strong>ion.<br />

Kirkp<strong>at</strong>rick (1983) and Margules et al (1988) are the earliest examples of using algorithms to<br />

address the problem of optimality. These algorithms were heuristic, i.e., they were iter<strong>at</strong>ive rulebased<br />

procedures. The desire for truly optimal solutions and advances in computer technology<br />

motiv<strong>at</strong>ed the development of more m<strong>at</strong>hem<strong>at</strong>ical algorithms (Cocklin 1989, Church et al. 1996).<br />

Over the past twenty years many different optimal site selection algorithms, both heuristic and<br />

m<strong>at</strong>hem<strong>at</strong>ical, have been developed and tested (Bedward et al. 1992, Underhill 1994, Pressey et al.<br />

1996, Pressey et al. 1997, Csuti et al. 1997, McDonnell et al. 2002). Most of these algorithms do<br />

not yield a truly optimal solution, only nearly optimal solutions. Nearly optimal solutions are<br />

considered s<strong>at</strong>isfactory for the practical purposes of conserv<strong>at</strong>ion planning. Optimal reserve<br />

selection algorithms have been applied to conserv<strong>at</strong>ion problems in Australia (Pressey and Nichols<br />

1989, Price et al. 1995), Europe (Margules and Austin 1994, Araujo and Williams 2000), the<br />

United St<strong>at</strong>es (Davis et al. 1996, Polasky et al. 2001, Noss et al. 2002), and in marine conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

(Sala et al. 2000, Leslie et al. 2003). See Pressey et al. (1996), Williams (1998), Possingham et al.<br />

(2000), and Cabeza and Moilanen (2001) for an overview of optimizing site selection algorithms<br />

and methodologies.<br />

TNC has developed considerable experience and expertise in the applic<strong>at</strong>ion of optimal site<br />

selection algorithms. TNC has applied the technique to numerous ecoregions including the<br />

Southern Rockies (Marshall et al. 2000), Gre<strong>at</strong> Basin (Nachlinger et al. 2001), Sonoran Desert<br />

(Neely et al. 2001), and Canadian Rockies (Rumsey et al. 2003). All of these ecoregional<br />

assessments used the computer software known as SITES. In addition, SITES or algorithms<br />

closely rel<strong>at</strong>ed to SITES, have been used for research applic<strong>at</strong>ions (Andelman and Willig 2002,<br />

Noss et al. 2002, McDonnell et al. 2002, Leslie et al 2003)<br />

SITES has five main input files (Table 6A.1) and 3 main input parameters (Table 6A.2). One file,<br />

BOUND.DAT, informs SITES on the sp<strong>at</strong>ial rel<strong>at</strong>ionships of the assessment units. The<br />

COST.DAT file has the suitability index values for every assessment unit. Chapter 6 explains the<br />

suitability index. Another file reports the biological contents of every assessment unit,<br />

PUVSPR.DAT. Th<strong>at</strong> is, it reports the loc<strong>at</strong>ion of every target occurrence by assessment unit. The<br />

main function of the PUSTAT.DAT file is to assign certain assessment units a special st<strong>at</strong>us. The<br />

selection of most assessment units is determined by the algorithm, but some assessment units may<br />

be locked into the solution or locked out of the solution with the PUSTAT.DAT file. Chapter 6.2<br />

explains the assessment units th<strong>at</strong> were locked in and out of the SITES analysis.<br />

The SPECIES.DAT file contains three pieces of inform<strong>at</strong>ion about every conserv<strong>at</strong>ion target: goal,<br />

minimum area, and penalty factor. The goal is simply a device to select conserv<strong>at</strong>ion priority<br />

areas. The goal is not a st<strong>at</strong>ement of wh<strong>at</strong> is necessary and sufficient for species survival (see<br />

Chapter 2). The goal is expressed as an integer corresponding to the desired number of species<br />

occurrences, or hectares which correspond to the amount of ecological system or habit<strong>at</strong> type th<strong>at</strong><br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 6A,, page 1 of 3

should be captured by the selected assessment units. Goals for all targets are explained in Chapters<br />

2, 3, and 4.<br />

Minimum area refers to the minimum amount of an ecological system or habit<strong>at</strong> type in a cluster<br />

of assessment units. However, minimum area does not refer to contiguous area. If several isol<strong>at</strong>ed<br />

p<strong>at</strong>ches occur in a single assessment unit, then they appear to SITES as a single p<strong>at</strong>ch. Likewise, if<br />

several isol<strong>at</strong>ed p<strong>at</strong>ches occur in a cluster of adjacent assessment units, then they appear to SITES<br />

as a single p<strong>at</strong>ch. Therefore, we applied minimum area criteria to our d<strong>at</strong>a before inclusion in the<br />

SITES tables so th<strong>at</strong> only the p<strong>at</strong>ches meeting minimum area requirements were counted towards<br />

goals.<br />

The penalty factor is applied to conserv<strong>at</strong>ion targets th<strong>at</strong> do not meet the goal. Every target can be<br />

assigned its own penalty factor. The higher a target’s penalty factor, the more the target will<br />

influence the solution of the optimiz<strong>at</strong>ion algorithm. The higher a target’s penalty factor, the more<br />

likely the solution will meet 100 % of the target’s goal. The penalty factor is used in the<br />

calcul<strong>at</strong>ion of the algorithm’s objective function. For our analysis we set the penalty factor of most<br />

targets to 1, the minimum value allowed by SITES.<br />

Table 6A.1. SITES Input Files<br />

Input File Name Function Main d<strong>at</strong>a fields<br />

BOUND.DAT<br />

1 record for adjacent pairs of<br />

assessment units<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 6A,, page 2 of 3<br />

common boundary length,<br />

unit ID, unit ID<br />

COST.DAT 1 record for each assessment unit unit ID, suitability index value<br />

PUVSPR.DAT 1 record for every target occurrence unit ID, target name, amount in unit<br />

PUSTAT.DAT 1 record for each assessment unit unit ID, st<strong>at</strong>us<br />

SPECIES.DAT 1 record for each conserv<strong>at</strong>ion target<br />

target name, goal, minimum area,<br />

penalty factor<br />

SITES has 3 main input parameters: the number of iter<strong>at</strong>ions, the number of replic<strong>at</strong>es, and the<br />

boundary modifier. The number of iter<strong>at</strong>ions significantly influences the ability of the algorithm to<br />

achieve an optimal or near optimal solution. The number of iter<strong>at</strong>ions also determines the<br />

execution time of SITES, which for typical applic<strong>at</strong>ions runs on the order of 30 minutes to 2<br />

hours. We explored a range of iter<strong>at</strong>ions from 1 to 10 million and found th<strong>at</strong> solutions gener<strong>at</strong>ed<br />

using different iter<strong>at</strong>ion values were indistinguishable above 5 million iter<strong>at</strong>ions. Hence, we used 5<br />

million iter<strong>at</strong>ions for our analyses.<br />

A single SITES run actually entails multiple individual replic<strong>at</strong>es using identical parameter values<br />

and input d<strong>at</strong>a. An input parameter determines how many replic<strong>at</strong>es comprise a single SITES run.<br />

Each replic<strong>at</strong>e yields a near optimal solution somewh<strong>at</strong> different than the rest. The replic<strong>at</strong>e with<br />

smallest objective function is the “best” solution, i.e., the set of assessment units th<strong>at</strong> meets the<br />

conserv<strong>at</strong>ion goals with the gre<strong>at</strong>est suitability. Vari<strong>at</strong>ion in the solutions (i.e., in the replic<strong>at</strong>e sets<br />

of selected units) reflects the degree of flexibility for achieving an optimal solution. Some<br />

assessment units will be included in every solution. These assessment units are irreplaceable.<br />

Other assessment units will be included in a subset of solutions. With respect to conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

targets and suitability, these assessment units are quite similar to some other assessment units. The<br />

frequency with which an assessment unit was selected strongly indic<strong>at</strong>es its importance for<br />

biodiversity conserv<strong>at</strong>ion. We refer to this selection frequency as assessment unit rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

importance. The "sum solution" output is the number of times an assessment unit was selected by<br />

multiple individual replic<strong>at</strong>es. We ran 10 replic<strong>at</strong>es per SITES run.

Table 6A.2. Values for SITES Parameters Used in Development of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Portfolio<br />

Parameter Function Value<br />

Algorithm Type of optimiz<strong>at</strong>ion routine simul<strong>at</strong>ed annealing<br />

Replic<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Number of times to repe<strong>at</strong> full<br />

optimiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

10<br />

Iter<strong>at</strong>ions<br />

Number of times to test new<br />

combin<strong>at</strong>ion of assessment units<br />

5,000,000<br />

Boundary modifier<br />

Weighting factor for “cost” of<br />

nonadjacent assessment units<br />

0.03<br />

Species penalty<br />

factor<br />

“cost” of not meeting a species’ goal<br />

1 for all fine filter targets<br />

1 for all coarse filter targets<br />

(1 = minimum allowed value)<br />

Assessment unit Initial st<strong>at</strong>e of each assessment 0 for all assessment units in<br />

st<strong>at</strong>us<br />

assessment unit<br />

initial runs.<br />

A third input parameter, the boundary modifier, controls the sp<strong>at</strong>ial arrangement of assessment<br />

units. This parameter can be used to promote clustering (or adjacency) of selected assessment<br />

units. Clustering will reduce fragment<strong>at</strong>ion and build larger conserv<strong>at</strong>ion areas. Clustering will<br />

also reduce edge length, and SITES tracks the degree of clustering by calcul<strong>at</strong>ing the amount of<br />

external edge (or boundary length) in the selected set of assessment units. The larger the boundary<br />

modifier value, the more important is the clustering of units. If the boundary modifier equals zero,<br />

then clustering is not considered in the objective function. Selecting the best value for boundary<br />

modifier involves some tradeoffs. If boundary modifier is too low, then selected assessment units<br />

may be too isol<strong>at</strong>ed. But, if the value is too high, then SITES will select assessment units with low<br />

biodiversity value or low suitability just to minimize external edge. We explored a range of values<br />

from 0.01 to 1.0, and arrived <strong>at</strong> a value of 0.03 which had a minimal effect on clustering. Given<br />

this low value, boundary length becomes a more influential factor when the algorithm has multiple<br />

options for meeting goals.<br />

6A.3 MARXAN<br />

For a number of reasons, the marine technical teams decided to use MARXAN instead of SITES.<br />

MARXAN was developed as an improved version of SITES. We determined th<strong>at</strong> MARXAN runs<br />

faster and accepts more assessment units than previous versions (e.g., SPEXAN and SITES), as<br />

was demonstr<strong>at</strong>ed in a British Columbia conserv<strong>at</strong>ion planning process conducted by the <strong>Coast</strong><br />

Inform<strong>at</strong>ion Team (see Rumsey et al. 2003). Further, there are more options in the selection of<br />

heuristic algorithms, iter<strong>at</strong>ive improvement, and adaptive annealing, and the input file form<strong>at</strong> has<br />

been clarified (see Ball et al. 2000).<br />

MARXAN requires th<strong>at</strong> the ecoregion be divided into a set of candid<strong>at</strong>e sites, or assessment units<br />

th<strong>at</strong> completely fill the region. These are the basic building blocks for assembling a conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

portfolio. At the core of reserve selection problems is the overall objective of minimizing the area<br />

encompassed with the network of reserves (Pressey et al. 1993). MARXAN uses a simul<strong>at</strong>ed<br />

annealing algorithm to evalu<strong>at</strong>e altern<strong>at</strong>ive site selection scenarios, comparing a very large number<br />

of altern<strong>at</strong>ives to identify a good solution. The procedure begins with a random set of assessment<br />

units, and then <strong>at</strong> each iter<strong>at</strong>ion swaps assessment units in and out of th<strong>at</strong> set and measures the<br />

change in "cost." Cost here does not mean dollars for land purchase, but the amount of area<br />

selected in the altern<strong>at</strong>ive. The algorithm's objective function is a nonlinear combin<strong>at</strong>ion of the<br />

total area and the boundary length of perimeter of the site selection output (Leslie et al. 2003). A<br />

boundary length modifier setting in the algorithm's parameters determines the rel<strong>at</strong>ive importance<br />

placed on minimizing the perimeter rel<strong>at</strong>ive to minimizing area. There is never just one “optimal”<br />

solution (e.g., the definitive set of conserv<strong>at</strong>ion areas) in regional planning, but it is possible to<br />

identify those areas th<strong>at</strong> are both essential and represent<strong>at</strong>ive as part of an ecological assessment.<br />

Siting algorithms provide a context for objective represent<strong>at</strong>ion th<strong>at</strong> is both measurable and<br />

sp<strong>at</strong>ially explicit.<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 6A,, page 3 of 3

Appendix 7A: Prioritiz<strong>at</strong>ion of Assessment Units<br />

A conserv<strong>at</strong>ion portfolio could serve as a conserv<strong>at</strong>ion plan to be implemented over time by<br />

nongovernmental organiz<strong>at</strong>ions, government agencies, and priv<strong>at</strong>e land owners. In reality, however, an<br />

entire portfolio cannot be protected immedi<strong>at</strong>ely and some conserv<strong>at</strong>ion areas in the portfolio may never be<br />

protected (Meir et al. 2004). Limited resources and other social or economic consider<strong>at</strong>ions may make<br />

protection of the entire portfolio impractical. This inescapable situ<strong>at</strong>ion can be addressed two ways. First,<br />

we should narrow our immedi<strong>at</strong>e <strong>at</strong>tention to the most important conserv<strong>at</strong>ion areas within the portfolio.<br />

This can be facilit<strong>at</strong>ed by prioritizing conserv<strong>at</strong>ion areas. Second, we should provide organiz<strong>at</strong>ions,<br />

agencies and land owners with the flexibility to pursue other options when portions of the portfolio are too<br />

difficult to protect. Assigning a rel<strong>at</strong>ive priority to all AUs in the ecoregion will inform everyone about<br />

their options for conserv<strong>at</strong>ion.<br />

The prioritiz<strong>at</strong>ion of potential conserv<strong>at</strong>ion areas is an essential element of conserv<strong>at</strong>ion planning<br />

(Margules and Pressey 2000). The importance of prioritiz<strong>at</strong>ion is made evident by the extensive research<br />

conducted to develop better prioritiz<strong>at</strong>ion techniques (e.g., Margules and Usher 1981, Anselin et al. 1989,<br />

Kershaw et al. 1995, Pressey et al. 1996, Freitag and Van Jaarsveld 1997, Benayas et al. 2003).<br />

Consequently, many different techniques are available for addressing the problem of prioritiz<strong>at</strong>ion. None<br />

are obviously better than the rest. We used two different techniques – an optimal site selection algorithm<br />

and a sc<strong>at</strong>terplot – th<strong>at</strong> together yielded four indices (irreplaceability, utility, and two Euclidean distances)<br />

each indicaing rel<strong>at</strong>ive priorities.<br />

Irreplaceability and conserv<strong>at</strong>ion utility scores were gener<strong>at</strong>ed for the integr<strong>at</strong>ed realms (terrestrial,<br />

freshw<strong>at</strong>er, and estuary) and for the terrestrial realm alone. A sensitivity analysis was done for only the<br />

terrestrial realm. The terrestrial realm was done separ<strong>at</strong>ely because: (1) the terrestrial d<strong>at</strong>a have a gre<strong>at</strong>er<br />

influence on the portfolio than the freshw<strong>at</strong>er d<strong>at</strong>a; (2) terrestrial environments and species have been more<br />

thoroughly studied, and therefore, our assumptions about terrestrial biodiversity are more robust than for<br />

estuary or freshw<strong>at</strong>er biodiversity; and (3) the terrestrial portfolio has the gre<strong>at</strong>est potential influence on<br />

land use planning and policy decisions affecting priv<strong>at</strong>e lands.<br />

The results of our prioritiz<strong>at</strong>ion should not be the only inform<strong>at</strong>ion used to direct conserv<strong>at</strong>ion action.<br />

Unforeseen opportunities have had and should continue to have a major influence on conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

decisions. Local <strong>at</strong>titudes toward conserv<strong>at</strong>ion can hinder or enhance conserv<strong>at</strong>ion action. Consider<strong>at</strong>ions<br />

such as these are difficult to incorpor<strong>at</strong>e into long-range priority setting, and hence, must be dealt with case<br />

by case.<br />

7A.1 Methods<br />

7A.1.1 Irreplaceability and Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Utility<br />

Irreplaceability has been defined a number of different ways (Pressey et al. 1994, Ferrier et al. 2000, Noss<br />

et al. 2002, Leslie et al. 2003, Stewart et al. 2003). However, the original oper<strong>at</strong>ional definition was given<br />

by Pressey <strong>at</strong> al. (1994). They defined irreplaceability of a site as the percentage of altern<strong>at</strong>ive reserve<br />

systems in which it occurs. Following this definition, Andelman and Willig (2002) and Leslie et al. (2003)<br />

each exploited the stochastic n<strong>at</strong>ure of the simul<strong>at</strong>ed annealing algorithm to calcul<strong>at</strong>e an irreplaceability<br />

index.<br />

Simul<strong>at</strong>ed annealing is a stochastic heuristic search for the global minimum of an objective function. Since<br />

it is stochastic, or random, simul<strong>at</strong>ed annealing can arrive <strong>at</strong> different answers for a single optimiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

problem. The algorithm may not converge on the optimal solution, i.e., the global minimum, but it will find<br />

local minima th<strong>at</strong> are nearly as good as the global minimum (McDonnell et al. 2002). The random search of<br />

simul<strong>at</strong>ed annealing enables it to find multiple nearly-optimal solutions, and an AU may belong to many<br />

different nearly optimal solutions.<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 7A, page 1 of 20

The number of simul<strong>at</strong>ed annealing solutions th<strong>at</strong> include a particular AU is a good indic<strong>at</strong>ion of th<strong>at</strong> AU’s<br />

irreplaceability. This is the assumption made by Andelman and Willig (2002) and Leslie et al. (2003) for<br />

their irreplaceability index. The index of Andelman and Willig (2002) was:<br />

n<br />

Ij = (1/n) si (1)<br />

i=1<br />

where I is rel<strong>at</strong>ive irreplaceability, n is the number of solutions, and si is a binary variable th<strong>at</strong> equals 1<br />

when AUj is selected but 0 otherwise. Ij have values between 0 and 1, and are obtained from a running the<br />

simul<strong>at</strong>ed annealing algorithm n times <strong>at</strong> a single represent<strong>at</strong>ion level.<br />

Irreplaceability is a function of the desired represent<strong>at</strong>ion level (Pressey et al. 1994, Warman et al. 2004).<br />

Changing the represent<strong>at</strong>ion level for target species often changes the number of AUs needed for the<br />

solution. For instance, low represent<strong>at</strong>ion levels typically yield a small number of AUs with high<br />

irreplaceability and many AUs with zero irreplaceability, but as the represent<strong>at</strong>ion level increases, some<br />

AUs <strong>at</strong>tain higher irreplaceablity scores. The fact th<strong>at</strong> some AUs go from zero irreplaceabilty to a positive<br />

irreplaceability demonstr<strong>at</strong>es a shortcoming of Willig and Andelman’s index – <strong>at</strong> low represent<strong>at</strong>ion levels,<br />

some AUs are shown as having no value for biodiversity conserv<strong>at</strong>ion. We cre<strong>at</strong>ed an index for rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

irreplaceabilty th<strong>at</strong> addresses this shortcoming. Our global irreplaceability index for AUj was defined as:<br />

m<br />

Gj = (1/m) Ijk (2)<br />

k=1<br />

where Ijk are rel<strong>at</strong>ive irreplaceability values as defined in equ<strong>at</strong>ion (2) and m is the number of<br />

represent<strong>at</strong>ion levels used in the site selection algorithm. Gj have values between 0 and 1. Each Ijk is<br />

rel<strong>at</strong>ive irreplaceability <strong>at</strong> a particular represent<strong>at</strong>ion level. We ran SITES <strong>at</strong> ten represent<strong>at</strong>ion. At the<br />

highest represent<strong>at</strong>ion level nearly all AUs <strong>at</strong>tained a positive values for global irreplaceability. Gj shall<br />

henceforth be called irreplaceability.<br />

Many applic<strong>at</strong>ions of “irreplaceability” have implicitly subsumed some type of conserv<strong>at</strong>ion efficiency<br />

(e.g., Andelman and Willig 2002, Noss et al. 2002, Leslie et al. 2003, Stewart et al. 2003). Efficiency is<br />

usually achieved by minimizing the total area needed to s<strong>at</strong>isfy the desired represent<strong>at</strong>ion level. We too<br />

had the selection algorithm minimize the total area of selected AUs. Th<strong>at</strong> is, the “cost” of each AU was its<br />

area. Consequently, efficiency is indirectly incorpor<strong>at</strong>ed into our estim<strong>at</strong>es of irreplaceability.<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Utility<br />

We expanded upon the concept of irreplaceability with conserv<strong>at</strong>ion utility, invented by Rumsey et al.<br />

(2004). Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion utility is defined by equ<strong>at</strong>ion (2), but the selection frequency is gener<strong>at</strong>ed with the<br />

AU costs incorpor<strong>at</strong>ing a suitability index. To cre<strong>at</strong>e a map of conserv<strong>at</strong>ion utility scores, AU “cost”<br />

reflects practical aspects of conserv<strong>at</strong>ion – current land uses, current management practices, habit<strong>at</strong><br />

condition, etc. (see section 6.5) In effect, conserv<strong>at</strong>ion utility is a function of both biodiversity value and<br />

the likelihood of successful conserv<strong>at</strong>ion.<br />

7A.1.2 Represent<strong>at</strong>ion Levels<br />

Each represent<strong>at</strong>ion level corresponds to a different degree of risk for species extinction. Although we<br />

cannot estim<strong>at</strong>e the actual degree of risk, we do know th<strong>at</strong> risk is not a linear function of represent<strong>at</strong>ion. It<br />

is roughly logarithmic.<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 7A, page 2 of 20

Coarse Filter<br />

We based the assumption th<strong>at</strong> there is a logarithmic rel<strong>at</strong>ionship between the risk of species extinction and<br />

the amount of habit<strong>at</strong> on the species-area curve. The species-area curve is arguably the most thoroughly<br />

established quantit<strong>at</strong>ive rel<strong>at</strong>ionship in all of ecology (Connor and McCoy 1979, Rosenzweig 1995). The<br />

curve is defined by the equ<strong>at</strong>ion S=cA z , where S is the number of species in a particular area, A is the given<br />

area, c and z are constants. The equ<strong>at</strong>ion says th<strong>at</strong> the number of species (S) found in a particular area<br />

increases as the habit<strong>at</strong> area (A) increases. The parameter z takes on a wide range of values depending on<br />

the taxa, region of the earth, and landscape setting of the study. Most values lie between 0.15 and 0.35<br />

(Wilson 1992). An oft cited rule-of-thumb for z’s value is called Darlington’s Rule (MacArthur and<br />

Wilson 1967, Morrison et al. 1998). The rule st<strong>at</strong>es th<strong>at</strong> a doubling of species occurs for every 10 fold<br />

increase in area, hence z = log(2) or 0.301. We used this rel<strong>at</strong>ionship to derive represent<strong>at</strong>ion levels th<strong>at</strong><br />

roughly correspond to equal increments of biodiversity.<br />

Coarse filter represent<strong>at</strong>ion levels specify a minimum area, i.e., hectares, of each habit<strong>at</strong> type to be captured<br />

within a set of conserv<strong>at</strong>ion areas. Other ecoregional assessments have used represent<strong>at</strong>ion levels th<strong>at</strong><br />

increased linearly. For instance, Rumsey et al. (2004) set levels <strong>at</strong> 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 percent of the<br />

currently extant area of each habit<strong>at</strong> type. Each of these represent<strong>at</strong>ion levels captured the same<br />

incremental area of habit<strong>at</strong>, but from the species-area curve we know th<strong>at</strong> each of these represent<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

levels captures smaller increments of total biodiversity. Th<strong>at</strong> is, the step from 30 to 40 percent may capture<br />

6 percent of all species but the step from 60 to 70 percent may capture about only 4 percent (assuming z =<br />

0.301). In effect, the first 10 percent of habit<strong>at</strong> is more important than the last 10 percent.<br />

We used the species-area rel<strong>at</strong>ionship to cre<strong>at</strong>e represent<strong>at</strong>ion levels th<strong>at</strong> correspond to equal increments of<br />

biodiversity – i.e., each increase in coarse filter area captured an additional 10% of species. The coarse<br />

filter represent<strong>at</strong>ion levels did not increase linearly but r<strong>at</strong>her according to a power function: S = A z . To<br />

derive the coarse filter levels, the desired amount of biodiversity was increased linearly (10, 20, 30, . . .,<br />

100 percent) and the corresponding area was calcul<strong>at</strong>ed for each (Table 7A.1).<br />

Table 7A.1. Coarse filter represent<strong>at</strong>ion levels derived from the species area curve with z = 0.3.<br />

Percent species 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100<br />

Represent<strong>at</strong>ion Level<br />

(percent extant area)<br />

0.05 0.5 1.8 4.8 10 18 31 48 70 100<br />

Fine Filter<br />

Fine filter represent<strong>at</strong>ion levels specify the number of species occurrences to be captured within a set of<br />

conserv<strong>at</strong>ion areas. The rel<strong>at</strong>ionship between species survival and number of isol<strong>at</strong>ed popul<strong>at</strong>ions is also a<br />

power function:<br />

Species Persistence Probability = 1 - [ 1 - pr(P) ] n<br />

where pr(P) is the persistence probability of each isol<strong>at</strong>ed popul<strong>at</strong>ion and n is the number of popul<strong>at</strong>ions.<br />

This equ<strong>at</strong>ion says, in effect, th<strong>at</strong> the first popul<strong>at</strong>ion (i.e., occurrence) is more important than the second<br />

popul<strong>at</strong>ion and much more important than the tenth popul<strong>at</strong>ion. According to this rel<strong>at</strong>ionship, if we want<br />

represent<strong>at</strong>ion levels to correspond to equal degrees of risk, then fine filter represent<strong>at</strong>ion levels should not<br />

increase linearly but logarithmically. However, the above equ<strong>at</strong>ion won’t work for our purposes. We don’t<br />

know pr(P).<br />

Luckily another rel<strong>at</strong>ionship was available to us – the criteria used by n<strong>at</strong>ural heritage programs to rank<br />

species. These criteria indic<strong>at</strong>e the degree of imperilment, i.e., the risk of extinction, and follow a<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 7A, page 3 of 20

logarithmic rel<strong>at</strong>ionship. For instance, one criterion rel<strong>at</strong>es the number of occurrences to degree of<br />

imperilment (Table 7A.2) (Master et al. 2003) 1 .<br />

Table 7A.2. C<strong>at</strong>egories for the known occurrence ranking criterion used by n<strong>at</strong>ureserve and n<strong>at</strong>ural<br />

heritage programs to assign species S ranks and G ranks.<br />

Condition<br />

St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

Number of Known Occurrences<br />

A 1 to 5<br />

B 6 to 20<br />

C 21 to 80<br />

D 81 to 300<br />

E >300<br />

This system expresses the idea th<strong>at</strong> the first 5 occurrences make about the same contribution toward species<br />

rank as the next 21 to 80 occurrences.<br />

If we assume equal imperilment intervals and equ<strong>at</strong>e A, B, C (a nominal scale) with 1, 2, 3 (an ordinal<br />

scale), then the rel<strong>at</strong>ionship in the above table can be modeled as a power function. We can use the<br />

function to interpol<strong>at</strong>e between 1, 2, and 3 to yield multiple regularly spaced steps for the fine filter levels.<br />

We did this to give 10 represent<strong>at</strong>ion levels; the same number as for the coarse filter.<br />

Table 7A.3 Represent<strong>at</strong>ion levels for popul<strong>at</strong>ion or sub-popul<strong>at</strong>ion type element occurrences.<br />

Condition St<strong>at</strong>us A B C D<br />

Regular steps within<br />

condition st<strong>at</strong>us<br />

1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 - 4<br />

Represent<strong>at</strong>ion Level<br />

(number of<br />

occurrences)<br />

2 3 5 8 13 20 31 49 80<br />

all<br />

occurrences<br />

Table 7A.3 is to be used for species for which EOs roughly correspond to popul<strong>at</strong>ions, subpopul<strong>at</strong>ions, or<br />

popul<strong>at</strong>ions segments. Fine filter represent<strong>at</strong>ion levels are complic<strong>at</strong>ed because the element occurrences<br />

currently in our d<strong>at</strong>abases do not have consistent meaning. Some EOs roughly represent a popul<strong>at</strong>ion or<br />

popul<strong>at</strong>ion segment (e.g., plant, invertebr<strong>at</strong>es, amphibians). Other EOs may simply represent a nest, a<br />

concentr<strong>at</strong>ion of nests, or a territory (e.g., raptors, marbled murrelets). EOs of this type must be dealt with<br />

somewh<strong>at</strong> differently. We followed the same approach as above but used a different G/S rank criterion th<strong>at</strong><br />

rel<strong>at</strong>es the number of individuals in a popul<strong>at</strong>ion to degree of imperilment (Table 7A.4) (L. Master, 2003;<br />

unpubl. report).<br />

1 Table2 is a modific<strong>at</strong>ion of the older system (Master 1994) for species ranking, where G1/S1 equaled 1 to 5<br />

occurrences, G2/S2 equaled 6 to 20 occurrences, and G3/S3 equaled 21 to 100 occurrences.<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 7A, page 4 of 20

Table 7A.4. C<strong>at</strong>egories for the number of individual ranking criterion used by n<strong>at</strong>ural heritage<br />

programs to assign species S ranks and G ranks. We derived the maximum number of nests or from<br />

the number of individuals.<br />

Condition<br />

St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

Number of Individuals<br />

Maximum Number of<br />

Nests or Dens<br />

A 1 to 50 25<br />

B 61 to 250 125<br />

C 251 to 1000 500<br />

D 1001 to 2500 1250<br />

We converted the number of individuals to number of nests simply by dividing by 2. Again, if we assume<br />

equal imperilment intervals and equ<strong>at</strong>e A, B, C with 1, 2, 3, then the rel<strong>at</strong>ionship in the above table can be<br />

modeled as a power function. We can use the function to interpol<strong>at</strong>e between 1, 2, and 3 to yield multiple<br />

regularly spaced steps for the fine filter levels. We cre<strong>at</strong>ed 10 represent<strong>at</strong>ion levels (Table 7A.5).<br />

Table 7A.5 Represent<strong>at</strong>ion levels for nest or den type element occurrences.<br />

Condition St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

Regular steps<br />

A B C<br />

within condition<br />

st<strong>at</strong>us<br />

Represent<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

¼ ½ ¾ 1 1¼ 1½ 1¾ 2 2¼ 2½ - 3<br />

Level<br />

(number of<br />

nests)<br />

8 12 18 25 38 55 80 125 170<br />

all<br />

occurrences<br />

We emphasize th<strong>at</strong> even though we used n<strong>at</strong>ural heritage program criteria for imperilment, the<br />

represent<strong>at</strong>ion levels should not be interpreted to reflect levels of imperilment. The numbers are just a<br />

device for cre<strong>at</strong>ing a map th<strong>at</strong> shows rel<strong>at</strong>ive priorities of all assessment units in an ecoregion. We used a<br />

power function (or logarithmic scale) in recognition of the fact th<strong>at</strong> risk of extinction is nonlinear. We did<br />

not have the resources to estim<strong>at</strong>e the actual risk, but we believe th<strong>at</strong> nonlinear represent<strong>at</strong>ion levels<br />

gener<strong>at</strong>ed a more useful prioritiz<strong>at</strong>ion of places.<br />

7A.1.3 Comparing Utility and Irreplaceability<br />

We compared the utility and irreplaceability maps several ways. First, three similarity measures were<br />

calcul<strong>at</strong>ed: mean absolute difference, Bray-Curtis similarity measure, and Spearman rank correl<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

(Krebs 1999; pp 379-386). The Bray-Curtis similarity measure normalizes the sum absolute difference to a<br />

scale from 0 to 1. Because utility and irreplaceability will be used for prioritizing AUs, rank correl<strong>at</strong>ion is<br />

a particularly inform<strong>at</strong>ive because it told us how the rel<strong>at</strong>ive AU priorities changed. We were especially<br />

interested in how the ranks of the most highly ranked AUs would change. To examine this, we also<br />

calcul<strong>at</strong>ed a weighted Spearman rank correl<strong>at</strong>ion using Savage scores (Zar 1996, pp. 393-395).<br />

Second, we determined whether the difference between utility and irreplaceability was significantly<br />

different. This was done by testing the following hypothesis for mean absolute difference:<br />

H01: difference between utility and irreplaceability maps is significantly less than the expected<br />

difference between the utility map and a random map;<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 7A, page 5 of 20

HA1: difference between utility and irreplaceability maps is equal to or significantly gre<strong>at</strong>er than<br />

the expected difference between the utility map and a random map,<br />

and for the Bray-Curtis similarity measure and Spearman rank correl<strong>at</strong>ion, this hypothesis:<br />

H02: similarity between the utility map and irreplaceability map is significantly gre<strong>at</strong>er than the<br />

expected similarity between the utility map and a random map;<br />

HA2: similarity between the utility map and irreplaceability map is equal to or significantly less<br />

than the expected similarity between the utility map and a random map.<br />

Both null hypotheses mean th<strong>at</strong> there is no significant difference between the utility and irreplaceability<br />

maps. If the observed similarity measure is significantly less than (or the distance is significantly gre<strong>at</strong>er<br />

than) th<strong>at</strong> expected from chance, then the null hypothesis is false, and we can say th<strong>at</strong> the utility and<br />

irreplaceability maps are different. For Spearman rank correl<strong>at</strong>ion, the altern<strong>at</strong>ive hypothesis is equivalent<br />

to r 0. The hypotheses were tested using a randomiz<strong>at</strong>ion test (Sokal and Rohlf 1995, pp. 808-810).<br />

Random utility maps were gener<strong>at</strong>ed by reshuffling the utility values among AUs (i.e., random sampling of<br />

utility values without replacement). One thousand random utility maps were compared to the real map<br />

using the four measures of similarity. The proportion of times th<strong>at</strong> the difference between the utility map<br />

and irreplaceability map is smaller (or the similarity is larger) than the difference between the utility map<br />

and the 1000 randomly gener<strong>at</strong>ed maps equals the probability th<strong>at</strong> utility map and irreplaceability map are<br />

significantly different. This technique is similar to th<strong>at</strong> employed by Warman et al. (2004). This was a<br />

one-tailed test of significance with = 0.05.<br />

Third, a contingency table analysis was done to compare the utility values and irreplaceability values of<br />

paired AUs. The log-likelihood r<strong>at</strong>io method (Zar 1996; pp. 502-503) was used to test the following<br />

hypotheses:<br />

H03: AU selection is independent of cost index (area versus suitability)<br />

HA3: AU selection is dependent on cost index<br />

Paired AUs were considered to be significantly different for P

was done <strong>at</strong> each of the ten represent<strong>at</strong>ion levels. Hence, a target could have a different PF <strong>at</strong> each<br />

represent<strong>at</strong>ion level. For the vast majority of targets, this process found the PF value in a reasonable<br />

amount of time. However, finding the PF value th<strong>at</strong> yields 100 % of the desired represent<strong>at</strong>ion level for<br />

every target took too much processing time. Hence, we termin<strong>at</strong>ed the PF search when only 96 % of a<br />

target’s represent<strong>at</strong>ion level was met. Other details about running SITES are summarized in Table 7A.6.<br />

Table 7A.6. Values for SITES parameters used for irreplaceablity and utility analyses.<br />

terrestrial integr<strong>at</strong>ed<br />

Parameter Function irreplaceability utility irreplaceability utility<br />

Algorithm<br />

Type of optimiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

routine<br />

Number of times to repe<strong>at</strong><br />

simul<strong>at</strong>ed annealing simul<strong>at</strong>ed annealing<br />

Replic<strong>at</strong>ions optimiz<strong>at</strong>ion per<br />

represent<strong>at</strong>ion level<br />

25 25<br />

Iter<strong>at</strong>ions<br />

Number of times to cre<strong>at</strong>e<br />

new combin<strong>at</strong>ion of AUs<br />

2,000,000 2,000,000<br />

Boundary<br />

modifier<br />

Target penalty<br />

factor<br />

AU st<strong>at</strong>us<br />

Suitability<br />

Index<br />

Weighting factor for “cost”<br />

of AU perimeter.<br />

Encourages clusters of<br />

AUs<br />

“cost” of not meeting a<br />

target’s represen-t<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

level<br />

Initial selection st<strong>at</strong>e of<br />

each AU<br />

indic<strong>at</strong>es likelihood of<br />

successful conserv<strong>at</strong>ion <strong>at</strong><br />

AU<br />

7A.1.5 Irreplaceability versus Vulnerability Sc<strong>at</strong>terplot<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 7A, page 7 of 20<br />

0<br />

0.1<br />

(same as in Chapter 9)<br />

autom<strong>at</strong>ically set autom<strong>at</strong>ically set<br />

0 for all hexagons<br />

(no “lock-ins”)<br />

0 for all hexagons<br />

normalized area see Chapter 6 normalized area see Chapter 6<br />

The irreplaceability versus vulnerability sc<strong>at</strong>terplot was first used by Pressey et al. (1996, as described by<br />

Margules and Pressey 2000) and was also recently used by Noss et al. (2002) and Lawler et al. (2003).<br />

These studies plotted irreplaceability versus vulnerability for a large number of potential conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

areas. We plotted irreplaceability versus vulnerability for every AU. Irreplaceability has been defined a<br />

number of different ways (Pressey et al. 1994, Ferrier et al. 2000, Noss et al. 2002, Leslie et al. 2003,<br />

Stewart et al. 2003). Our definition of irreplaceability (see Section 7.1.1) is similar to those of Andelman<br />

and Willig (2002) and Leslie et al. (2003). We used the irreplaceability values from the integr<strong>at</strong>ed<br />

terrestrial and freshw<strong>at</strong>er analysis.<br />

Margules and Pressey (2000) defined vulnerability as the risk of an area being transformed by extractive<br />

uses, but it could be defined more broadly as the risk of an area being transformed by degrad<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

processes. The broader definition encompasses adverse impacts from invasive species and fire suppression.<br />

Vulnerability could also be defined from the perspective of target species – the rel<strong>at</strong>ive likelihood th<strong>at</strong><br />

target species will be lost from an area. Since target persistence depends on habit<strong>at</strong>, a vulnerability index<br />

would be a function of current and likely future habit<strong>at</strong> conditions. Future habit<strong>at</strong> conditions are generally<br />

determined by the management practices and policies associ<strong>at</strong>ed with an area. Our suitability index<br />

incorpor<strong>at</strong>ed factors th<strong>at</strong> reflected both current habit<strong>at</strong> conditions and management. Therefore, for the<br />

purposes of prioritiz<strong>at</strong>ion, we assumed th<strong>at</strong> our suitability index could also be used as a vulnerability index.<br />

Recall th<strong>at</strong> the cost index was the weighted geometric mean of AU area and suitability. For the<br />

vulnerability index we used only the suitability. The integr<strong>at</strong>ed vulnerability index was calcul<strong>at</strong>ed by<br />

averaging the terrestrial and freshw<strong>at</strong>er suitability indices for each AU. Like the suitability index,<br />

vulnerability was normalized by dividing all values by the maximum value and multiplying by 100.<br />

Margules and Pressey (2000) and Noss et al. (2002) divided their sc<strong>at</strong>terplots into four quadrants which<br />

correspond to priority c<strong>at</strong>egories: high irreplaceability, high vulnerablity (Q1); high irreplaceability, low<br />

vulnerability (Q2); low irreplaceability, low vulnerability (Q3) and low irreplaceability, high vulnerability

(Q4). Margules and Pressey (2000) and Noss et al. (2002) believed potential conserv<strong>at</strong>ion areas in Q1<br />

should be the highest priority and potential areas in Q3 should be the lowest priority. However, this<br />

str<strong>at</strong>egy is deb<strong>at</strong>able (Pyke 2005). Some have argued th<strong>at</strong> the highest priorities should be potential<br />

conserv<strong>at</strong>ion areas in Q2 because such places have high biological value and a high likelihood of successful<br />

conserv<strong>at</strong>ion.<br />

The purpose of dividing the sc<strong>at</strong>terplot into quadrants is to assign AUs to priority c<strong>at</strong>egories. The<br />

sc<strong>at</strong>terplot can be divided many different ways; we utilized four. First, as done by Lawler et al. (2003), we<br />

divided the sc<strong>at</strong>terplot into 16 sub-quadrants using the quartile values for irreplaceability and vulnerability.<br />

Each sub-quadrant corresponds to a priority c<strong>at</strong>egory.<br />

The assessment covered 2442 AUs. Hence, roughly 611 AUs fell into each quadrant of the sc<strong>at</strong>terplot, and<br />

average number of AUs in each sub-quadrant was 153. For the purposes of directing conserv<strong>at</strong>ion action,<br />

this may be far too many AUs per c<strong>at</strong>egory. We were most interested in the small number AUs with the<br />

highest irreplaceability and the highest vulnerability. For th<strong>at</strong> reason, we divided the sc<strong>at</strong>terplot <strong>at</strong> the 99.5,<br />

99, 98, 96, 92, and 84 percentiles for both irreplaceability and vulnerability. This cre<strong>at</strong>ed 36 cells in upper<br />

right-hand corner of the sc<strong>at</strong>terplot.<br />

The third and fourth ways for subdividing the sc<strong>at</strong>terplot were based on Iso-euclidean distance contours. In<br />

theory, the highest priority possible is an AU with both irreplaceability and vulnerability equal to 100.<br />

Assuming th<strong>at</strong> the qualities of irreplaceability and vulnerability are equally important for determining AU<br />

priorities, the distance between an AU and the upper right-hand corner of the sc<strong>at</strong>terplot would determine<br />

its priority for conserv<strong>at</strong>ion. This distance is calcul<strong>at</strong>ed with the equ<strong>at</strong>ion:<br />

D = [ (100 - I) 2 + (100 - V) 2 ] 1/2<br />

where I is irreplaceability, V is vulnerability, and D is the Euclidean distance of an AU from the point (100,<br />

100). Our contours corresponded to percentiles – 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 8 percent of AUs.<br />

Some might argue th<strong>at</strong> the highest priorities for conserv<strong>at</strong>ion should be the AUs with the highest<br />

irreplaceability and the lowest vulnerability. These AUs have high biological value and are places where<br />

conserv<strong>at</strong>ion will most likely succeed. Following this str<strong>at</strong>egy, the distance between an AU and the upper<br />

left-hand corner of the sc<strong>at</strong>terplot would determine its priority for conserv<strong>at</strong>ion. This distance is calcul<strong>at</strong>ed<br />

with the equ<strong>at</strong>ion:<br />

D = [ (100 - I) 2 + V 2 ] 1/2<br />

The assumption th<strong>at</strong> irreplaceability and vulnerability are equally important does not hold over the entire<br />

sc<strong>at</strong>terplot. For instance, two AUs situ<strong>at</strong>ed <strong>at</strong> (100, 1) and (1, 100) are the same distance from the (100,<br />

100) corner of the sc<strong>at</strong>terplot, but certainly the AU <strong>at</strong> (1, 100) should be a much higher priority. However,<br />

in the immedi<strong>at</strong>e vicinity of the (100, 100) or (0, 100) corners, the Euclidean distance can be a useful index<br />

to sort out priorities. Incidentally, the divisions used by Margules and Pressey (2000) and Noss et al (2002)<br />

to divide their sc<strong>at</strong>terplots into quadrants imply th<strong>at</strong> irreplaceability and vulnerability are equally important.<br />

Lacking a strong r<strong>at</strong>ionale for favoring either axis we followed their convention.<br />

7A.2 Results<br />

How should our irreplaceability and conserv<strong>at</strong>ion utility indices be interpreted? These indices were<br />

constructed by running MARXAN <strong>at</strong> ten represent<strong>at</strong>ion levels. The first level captured a very small<br />

amount of each target and the last level captured everything, i.e., all known occurrences of all targets.<br />

Think of the first represent<strong>at</strong>ion level as the amount of biodiversity to be captured in an initial set of<br />

reserves, the second level as a additional amount to be captured by an enlarged set of reserves, the third<br />

level as an even gre<strong>at</strong>er additional amount, and so on. At each level, MARXAN’s output indic<strong>at</strong>es the<br />

rel<strong>at</strong>ive necessity of each AU for efficiently capturing th<strong>at</strong> particular amount of biodiversity. When the<br />

outputs from each level are summed together, the result specifies the most efficient sequence of AU<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 7A, page 8 of 20

protection for capturing all biodiversity. The sequence in which AUs should be protected is one way to<br />

gauge their rel<strong>at</strong>ive importance. AUs th<strong>at</strong> have the highest irreplaceability or utility scores should be<br />

protected first, and therefore, are the most important AUs for biodiversity conserv<strong>at</strong>ion.<br />

7A.2.1 Terrestrial Only Analysis<br />

The utility and irreplaceability maps for the terrestrial only analysis are shown in maps 1 and 2. The utility<br />

and irreplaceability scores are displayed two ways: (1) the distribution of nonzero values divided into<br />

deciles (10% quantiles); and (2) range of nonzero values divided into 10 equal intervals. The decile map<br />

answers the question, where are the AUs with a selection frequency, or score, in the top 10 percent of all<br />

AUs. The equal interval map answers the question where are the AUs with a score gre<strong>at</strong>er than 90 percent.<br />

By coincidence, the number of AUs in the top decile and with a score gre<strong>at</strong>er than 90 is about equal – 9.2<br />

and 9.1 percent of AUs had a score gre<strong>at</strong>er than 90 for utility and irreplaceability, respectively (Figure<br />

7A.1).<br />

AUs with scores equal to 100 are those selected in every replic<strong>at</strong>e <strong>at</strong> every represent<strong>at</strong>ion level. Seven<br />

percent of AUs had a utility score of 100, 7.1 percent had an irreplaceability score of 100 (Table 7A.7), and<br />

6.5 percent of AUs had both scores equal to 100. This large overlap between utility and irreplaceability <strong>at</strong><br />

the highest possible score is evident in maps 1 and 2.<br />

At the lowest represent<strong>at</strong>ion level (0.05 percent of the current amount of coarse filter targets, 2 occurrences<br />

of popul<strong>at</strong>ion type EOs, and 8 occurrences of nest type EOs), the best solutions for utility and<br />

irreplaceability consisted of 252 and 270 AUs, respectively. Perfect scores were <strong>at</strong>tained by 85 percent of<br />

the utility best solution and 83 percent of the irreplaceability best solution. The large proportion of AUs<br />

with scores equal to 100 demonstr<strong>at</strong>es how little flexibility existed even the lowest represent<strong>at</strong>ion level.<br />

Th<strong>at</strong> is, rare targets could only be captured <strong>at</strong> particular AUs.<br />

The distributions of utility and irreplaceability scores were bimodal and skewed-right (Figure 7A.1). The<br />

modes were loc<strong>at</strong>ed <strong>at</strong> the lowest and highest nonzero scores. The high mode corresponds to those AUs<br />

th<strong>at</strong> are selected in every replic<strong>at</strong>e <strong>at</strong> every represent<strong>at</strong>ion level. The low mode corresponds to the large<br />

number of AUs th<strong>at</strong> have nothing special to offer for biodiversity conserv<strong>at</strong>ion. AUs in between the modes<br />

are essentially interchangeable. They are selected <strong>at</strong> moder<strong>at</strong>e frequencies because they contribute toward<br />

meeting represent<strong>at</strong>ion levels but to the same degree as other AUs.<br />

The median and mean of irreplaceability scores (24, 34) are larger than those of utility scores (11, 28).<br />

When the cost of AUs is equal to area (i.e., irreplaceability), the selection algorithm prefers smaller AUs.<br />

A preference for smaller AUs means th<strong>at</strong> more AUs must be selected to meet the coarse filter<br />

represent<strong>at</strong>ion levels. As expected, the total area of best solutions for irreplaceability is less than the total<br />

area of best solutions for utility, but more AUs are needed for irreplaceability solutions. Because the<br />

algorithm selects more AUs for irreplaceability solutions than for utility solutions, I and G are larger for<br />

irreplaceability.<br />

7A.2.2 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Analysis<br />

Recall th<strong>at</strong> the d<strong>at</strong>a inputs to the selection algorithm consisted of three different layers: terrestrial,<br />

freshw<strong>at</strong>er class 1, and freshw<strong>at</strong>er classes 2 and 3. AU boundaries for terrestrial and freshw<strong>at</strong>er class 1<br />

were the same HUC w<strong>at</strong>ersheds, but some freshw<strong>at</strong>er class 1 AUs contained no occurrences. Utility and<br />

irreplaceability scores were computed for every AU in each layer. To calcul<strong>at</strong>e single scores for each<br />

HUC, we added the scores for terrestrial and freshw<strong>at</strong>er class 1 AUs. Freshw<strong>at</strong>er class 1 AUs with no<br />

occurrence d<strong>at</strong>a were never selected by the algorithm. Utility and irreplaceability scores for the<br />

corresponding terrestrial AU were normalized to 100. The utility and irreplaceability maps for the<br />

integr<strong>at</strong>ed analysis are shown in maps 7.3 and 7.4. The maps show the summed scores of terrestrial and<br />

freshw<strong>at</strong>er AUs, including the freshw<strong>at</strong>er AUs for which there were no occurrence d<strong>at</strong>a.<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 7A, page 9 of 20

If all AUs in every layer are viewed as separ<strong>at</strong>e AUs, then certain results are very similar to those of the<br />

terrestrial only analysis (Table 7A.7, Figure 7A.2). The percentage of AUs with high utility and<br />

irreplaceability scores and the distribution of scores are about the same as those from the terrestrial<br />

analysis. However, when terrestrial and freshw<strong>at</strong>er scores are combined then the proportion of AUs with<br />

high scores is much reduced (Figure 7A.3).<br />

Table 7A.7. Percentage of AUs with selection frequency equal to 100 percent and frequency gre<strong>at</strong>er than or<br />

equal to 95 percent.<br />

integr<strong>at</strong>ed analysis<br />

combined combined<br />

terrestrial class 1 terrestrial/ terrestrial/<br />

AUs, AUs; freshw<strong>at</strong>er; freshw<strong>at</strong>er;<br />

selection terrestrial all AUs terrestrial freshw<strong>at</strong>er include no exclude no<br />

frequency analysis all layers layer layer d<strong>at</strong>a AUs d<strong>at</strong>a AUs<br />

number of AUs 2707 5343 2707 2123 2707 2123<br />

utility<br />

100 %<br />

95 %<br />

7.0<br />

8.3<br />

7.8<br />

8.8<br />

7.2<br />

8.1<br />

6.7<br />

7.4<br />

1.4<br />

2.0<br />

0.6<br />

1.2<br />

irreplaceability<br />

100 %<br />

95 %<br />

7.1<br />

8.5<br />

7.9<br />

9.1<br />

7.4<br />

8.7<br />

6.5<br />

7.4<br />

1.9<br />

2.7<br />

1.0<br />

1.6<br />

7A.2.3 Utility versus Irreplaceability<br />

By all similarity measures, the utility and irreplaceability maps in the both the terrestrial only and<br />

integr<strong>at</strong>ed analyses were similar to a st<strong>at</strong>istically significant degree (Table 7A.8). Utility and<br />

irreplaceability maps in the terrestrial only analysis were more similar than those in the integr<strong>at</strong>ed analysis,<br />

but only slightly. The values for weighted Spearman rank correl<strong>at</strong>ion show th<strong>at</strong> differences between maps<br />

<strong>at</strong> high scores are less than differences <strong>at</strong> low scores.<br />

As demonstr<strong>at</strong>ed in Table 7A.8, the overall p<strong>at</strong>terns of utility and irreplaceabilty scores are very similar.<br />

Th<strong>at</strong> is, a side-by-side comparison shows th<strong>at</strong> the maps generally agree. If examined AU by AU, we find<br />

th<strong>at</strong> slightly more than 75 percent are different and th<strong>at</strong> slightly more than 40 percent have a significant<br />

difference between utility and irreplaceability (Table 7A.9). However, very few significant changes occur<br />

<strong>at</strong> high utility scores. Of all the AUs with significant differences between utility and irreplaceability, only 4<br />

percent have the highest utility scores. Three-quarters of the significant changes are for AUs with utility<br />

scores less than or equal to 20.<br />

In the terrestrial analysis, 7 percent of AUs had a utility score of 100, 7.1 percent had an irreplaceability<br />

score of 100, and 6.5 percent of AUs had both scores equal to 100. The large overlap indic<strong>at</strong>es th<strong>at</strong><br />

suitability had a small influence on which AUs <strong>at</strong>tained scores equal to 100. In other words, target<br />

loc<strong>at</strong>ions gre<strong>at</strong>ly determined which AUs <strong>at</strong>tained a perfect score. Such AUs contained rare targets, targets<br />

for which we had very little occurrence d<strong>at</strong>a, occurrences of multiple targets, or a large number of<br />

occurrences per target.<br />

In the integr<strong>at</strong>ed analysis, 1.4 percent of AUs had a utility score of 100, 1.9 percent had an irreplaceability<br />

score of 100, and 1.2 percent of AUs had both scores equal to 100. These percentages are much smaller<br />

than those for the terrestrial analysis but the degree of overlap between utility and irreplaceability is about<br />

the same. The reason for the smaller percentages is th<strong>at</strong> the scores are the combin<strong>at</strong>ion of terrestrial and<br />

freshw<strong>at</strong>er scores, and very few AUs <strong>at</strong>tain high scores for both freshw<strong>at</strong>er and terrestrial. Table 7A.10<br />

shows th<strong>at</strong> there is low degree of similarity between the freshw<strong>at</strong>er and terrestrial results; all similarity<br />

measures are much less those in Table 7A.8. However, null hypothesis was accepted for all similarity<br />

measures in Table 7A.10, i.e., the terrestrial and freshw<strong>at</strong>er parts of the integr<strong>at</strong>ed analysis are similar.<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 7A, page 10 of 20

Table 7A.8. Similarity measures for comparison of conserv<strong>at</strong>ion utility and irreplaceability maps. There<br />

was no significant difference between the utility and irreplaceability maps for any of the similarity<br />

measures (alpha = 0.05).<br />

terrestrial only integr<strong>at</strong>ed realms<br />

number of AUs 2707 5343<br />

mean absolute difference 8.9 9.1<br />

Bray-Curtis measure 0.855 0.845<br />

Spearman rank correl<strong>at</strong>ion 0.682 0.677<br />

weighted Spearman rank<br />

correl<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

0.877 0.842<br />

Table 7A.9. Comparison of conserv<strong>at</strong>ion utility and irreplaceability maps: percent of AUs th<strong>at</strong> are<br />

different between the two maps. Significant differences based on log-likelihood r<strong>at</strong>io method (alpha =<br />

0.05).<br />

terrestrial only integr<strong>at</strong>ed realms<br />

number of AUs 2707 5343<br />

percent AUs different 77.4 76.2<br />

percent significantly different 44.9 42.6<br />

Table 7A.10. Similarity measures for comparison of terrestrial and freshw<strong>at</strong>er class 1 scores. There<br />

were no st<strong>at</strong>istically significant difference between the terrestrial and freshw<strong>at</strong>er maps (alpha = 0.05) for<br />

any similarity measure. Percent AUs significantly different based on log-likelihood r<strong>at</strong>io method.<br />

Utility Irreplaceability<br />

number of AUs 2123 2123<br />

mean absolute difference 36.8 35.3<br />

Bray-Curtis measure 0.585 0.643<br />

Spearman rank correl<strong>at</strong>ion 0.368 0.321<br />

percent AUs different 76.1 83.8<br />

percent AUs significantly<br />

different<br />

59.5 57.1<br />

7A.2.4 Irreplaceability versus Vulnerability Sc<strong>at</strong>terplot<br />

The assessment covered 2442 AUs. Hence, roughly 611 AUs fell into each quadrant of the sc<strong>at</strong>terplot. The<br />

quartiles defining the sub-quadrants are given in Table 7A.11. The average number of AUs in each subquadrant<br />

was 153 but ranged from 112 to 202. The sc<strong>at</strong>terplot is shown in Figure 7A.4 and the same<br />

inform<strong>at</strong>ion is shown sp<strong>at</strong>ially in Map 7.5.<br />

The sc<strong>at</strong>terplot shows a very high density of AUs in the region below the third quartiles of irreplaceability<br />

and vulnerability. In effect, AUs in each of these sub-quadrants are very similar and are not distinct<br />

enough to warrant different priorities. AUs density decreases as irreplaceability and vulnerability increase.<br />

This separ<strong>at</strong>ion of AUs suggests real differences in AU priorities.<br />

Four sub-quadrants contain AUs with irreplaceability values in the top quartile. These four quadrants<br />

contain 608 AUs – far too many to be useful for prioritiz<strong>at</strong>ion. The 36 cells based on the 99.5, 99, 98, 96,<br />

92, and 84 percentiles for both irreplaceability and vulnerability contain 102 AUs, a more manageable<br />

number. How these AUs are distributed among cells is shown in Table 7A.12.<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 7A, page 11 of 20

The distribution of AUs rel<strong>at</strong>ive to iso-Euclidean distance contours is shown in Figure 7A.6 and 7A.7. The<br />

distribution of Euclidean distances from the (100, 100) corner is skewed (Figure 7A.5). The peak of the<br />

distribution corresponds to sub-quadrant with highest AU density – between the first and second quartiles<br />

for both irreplaceability and vulnerability. Many of those AUs closest to the upper right-hand corner of the<br />

sc<strong>at</strong>terplot can have rel<strong>at</strong>ively low values for irreplaceability and utility because when suitability is<br />

incorpor<strong>at</strong>ed into the optimal site selection algorithm, these AUs are a rel<strong>at</strong>ively poorer choice for<br />

conserving biodiversity (Table 7A.13). For the same reason, utility is usually lower than irreplaceability<br />

for these AUs. AUs closest to the upper left-hand corner of the sc<strong>at</strong>terplot have high values for both<br />

irreplaceability and utility (Table 7A.14).<br />

Table 7A.11 Summary st<strong>at</strong>istics for irreplaceability and vulnerability. The variance was excluded<br />

because the distributions were highly skewed.<br />

minimum 1 st quartile median mean 3 rd quartile maximum<br />

irreplaceability 0 15.0 24.4 31.3 42.5 100<br />

vulnerability 0 7.9 12.5 16.6 22.5 100<br />

Table 7A.12. Irreplaceability versus vulnerability percentile m<strong>at</strong>rix. M<strong>at</strong>rix shows the number of AUs<br />

in each irreplaceability versus vulnerability percentile c<strong>at</strong>egory. Values for vulnerability and<br />

irreplaceability <strong>at</strong> each percentile are shown in parentheses.<br />

Percentile for Vulnerability<br />

Percentile for 84 92 96 98 99 99.5<br />

Irreplaceability (28.0) (36.7) (41.1) (46.2) (52.0) (61.2) total<br />

99.5<br />

(100)<br />

-- -- -- -- -- -- --<br />

99<br />

(100)<br />

2 3 1 1 0 0 7<br />

98<br />

(95.0)<br />

3 0 0 0 0 0 3<br />

96<br />

(76.5)<br />

4 2 1 1 1 1 10<br />

92<br />

(62.8)<br />

11 7 5 2 0 1 26<br />

84<br />

(53.5)<br />

15 19 10 4 3 5 56<br />

total 35 31 17 8 4 7 102<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 7A, page 12 of 20

Table 7A.13 Assessment units within the 0.5 percentile for Euclidean distance from the (100,100)<br />

sc<strong>at</strong>terplot corner. AUs ordered by irreplaceability value. Irreplaceability and utility values are from the<br />

integr<strong>at</strong>ed freshw<strong>at</strong>er and terrestrial analysis.<br />

AU<br />

AU<br />

Euclidean<br />

number<br />

Name Irreplaceability Vulnerability distance Utility<br />

1902 Orveas Bay 100 51.5 48.5 100<br />

1701 Chemainus River 100 42.6 57.4 100<br />

1383 Qualicum River 100 39.9 60.1 100<br />

1656 Chemainus River 100 39.5 60.5 98.4<br />

2391 Camp Creek 84.4 66.6 36.9 71.0<br />

2394 Chehalis River, lower 81.2 48.9 54.5 75.8<br />

1274 Stamp River 73.6 59.4 48.4 73.8<br />

2473 Hazeldell 62.8 68.2 49.0 57.4<br />

1903 Sooke River 60.0 79.2 45.1 35.2<br />

1303 Qualicum River 58.0 62.8 56.1 55.5<br />

2484 Longview 56.0 94.1 44.4 30.0<br />

2588 Rock Creek/Tual<strong>at</strong>in River 55.2 90.2 45.9 55.0<br />

2573 Clackamas River 55.0 95.7 45.2 55.0<br />

mean 75.9 64.5 50.2 69.8<br />

standard<br />

devi<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

18.5 19.5 6.8 23.5<br />

Table 7A.14 Assessment units within the 0.5 percentile for Euclidean distance from the (0,100)<br />

sc<strong>at</strong>terplot corner. AUs ordered by irreplaceability value. Irreplaceability and utility values are from the<br />

integr<strong>at</strong>ed freshw<strong>at</strong>er and terrestrial analysis.<br />

AU<br />

AU<br />

Euclidean<br />

number<br />

Name Irreplaceability Vulnerability distance Utility<br />

2966 island in BC 100 1.0 1.0 100<br />

1650 island in BC 100 1.0 1.0 100<br />

2957 island in <strong>Oregon</strong> 100 1.0 1.0 100<br />

1135 Stamp River 100 4.3 4.3 100<br />

239 Marble River 100 1.8 1.8 55<br />

1939 Cape Alava 100 2.5 2.5 100<br />

1709 Tzartus Island 100 3.1 3.1 100<br />

1426 island in BC 100 3.1 3.1 100<br />

2945 Long Island, Willapa Bay 100 3.5 3.5 100<br />

54 Frisherman river 100 3.8 3.8 100<br />

571 Checleset Bay 99.6 4.3 4.4 100<br />

2155 Saghalie Creek 98.6 2.5 2.8 74.6<br />

1681 island in BC 96 1.0 4.1 100<br />

mean 99.6 2.5 2.8 94.6<br />

standard<br />

devi<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

1.1 1.2 1.2 13.3<br />

7A.3 DISCUSSION<br />

The selection algorithm gener<strong>at</strong>es a set of AUs corresponding to a local minimum of the objective function.<br />

AUs are included in a solution because they serve to minimize the objective function. Therefore, AUs with<br />

high utility or high irreplaceability scores are those th<strong>at</strong> (1) contain one or more rare targets, (2) contain a<br />

large number of target occurrences, and (3) have a low rel<strong>at</strong>ive cost. AUs with scores <strong>at</strong> or near 100 are<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 7A, page 13 of 20

those th<strong>at</strong> were selected in every replic<strong>at</strong>e <strong>at</strong> the lowest represent<strong>at</strong>ion level. To be chosen in every<br />

replic<strong>at</strong>e the AU must be unique. Th<strong>at</strong> is, the AU contained target occurrences th<strong>at</strong> were found in no other<br />

AU, contained a substantially larger number of occurrences than other AUs, or contained targets and had a<br />

substantially lower cost than other AUs.<br />

Table 7A.15 shows the main targets for the selection of some AUs with high utility scores. In some cases<br />

the AU had the only occurrence in the ecosection – AUs 2005, 2232, 2440. In nine of these examples, the<br />

AU had one of only two occurrences in the entire ecosection, and because the minimum represent<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

level equaled two occurrences per ecosection, these AU had a selection frequency of 100. In three<br />

instances – AUs 2123, 2285, 2341 – the AU had rel<strong>at</strong>ively high proportions of more than one target. Three<br />

of these example AUs had utility scores less than 100. In each case, the optimal selection algorithm had<br />

other AUs where the target could be captured. The other AUs contributed far less toward minimizing the<br />

objective function, but nevertheless, due to the random search of simul<strong>at</strong>ed annealing, these other AUs<br />

were selected a very small number of times.<br />

The preceding paragraph explains a surprising result of the analysis. Most AUs in the Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

Park, which protect some of the last remaining temper<strong>at</strong>e old-growth rain forests in the United St<strong>at</strong>es, had<br />

lower utilty and irreplaceability values than AUs in southwestern Washington, which consist mostly of<br />

priv<strong>at</strong>ely-owned, intensively-managed forest with very little old-growth. There are two reasons for this,<br />

one proximal and one ultim<strong>at</strong>e. First, the proximal reason is th<strong>at</strong> the target occurrence and suitability index<br />

d<strong>at</strong>a are r<strong>at</strong>her uniform across the park. Hence, the AUs are essentially interchangeable and very few have<br />

a high selection frequency. In contrast, some AUs in southwest Washington stand out as unique because of<br />

rare targets or a very high number of target occurrences. Second, the ultim<strong>at</strong>e reason is survey effort.<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e forest managers have funded wildlife surveys throughout southwest Washington, in particular for<br />

amphibians. This has lead to high d<strong>at</strong>a density in southwest Washington; the d<strong>at</strong>a density in Olympic<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Park is much lower. More surveys in the park might show more heterogeneity among AUs with<br />

respect to target occurrences.<br />

A similar but opposite p<strong>at</strong>tern is seen on Vancouver Island. Very few AUs on the island have high utility<br />

or irreplaceablity scores; they are essentially interchangeable. They appear to be interchangeable because<br />

very few surveys have been done on these lands which are leased by timber companies. One cluster of<br />

AUs with high scores is loc<strong>at</strong>ed in Str<strong>at</strong>hcona Provincial Park. In this park a small number of AUs contain<br />

alpine and sub-alpine communities found nowhere else on Vancouver Island. These rare communities have<br />

been intensively surveyed.<br />

The results on Vancouver Island and in Washington St<strong>at</strong>e call into question the reliability of utility and<br />

irreplaceability scores. These AU scores were strongly influenced by the uneven sp<strong>at</strong>ial distribution of<br />

survey effort. No or low survey may be effectively equivalent to false neg<strong>at</strong>ives. Th<strong>at</strong> is, according to the<br />

d<strong>at</strong>a, a species does not exist in an AU when it actually does exist there. As a consequence, the utility and<br />

irreplaceability scores do not reflect reality, and we may be missing some places important for biodiversity<br />

conserv<strong>at</strong>ion. A low cost method for overcoming the lack of occurrence d<strong>at</strong>a is to use species-habit<strong>at</strong><br />

models to predict species occurrences (Scott et al. 2002). However, there were a number of reasons we did<br />

not use predictive models. First, we did not have any reasonably accur<strong>at</strong>e species-specific habit<strong>at</strong> models.<br />

The ones available to us, (e.g., Cassidy et al. 1997), have low sp<strong>at</strong>ial precision and untested accuracy.<br />

Second, we did not have the resources needed to develop our own models for a large number of verterbr<strong>at</strong>e<br />

species. Third, species-specific habit<strong>at</strong> models have both false neg<strong>at</strong>ives and false positives. False positive<br />

errors are a major concern. We don't want to select places for conserv<strong>at</strong>ion where the species of concern<br />

don't actually exist. The prevailing opinion in the scientific liter<strong>at</strong>ure is th<strong>at</strong> false neg<strong>at</strong>ives inherent to<br />

survey d<strong>at</strong>a are likely to be less damaging than the false positives of habit<strong>at</strong> models. Freitag and Van<br />

Jaarsveld (1996) and Araujo and Williams (2000) recommend using only occurrence d<strong>at</strong>a because of the<br />

potential for false positives in habit<strong>at</strong> models. Loiselle, B.A (2003) recommends th<strong>at</strong> species-specific<br />

habit<strong>at</strong> models be used cautiously. Given the lack of readily available models of proven accuracy and our<br />

incapacity to develop our own models, we believed the most cautious approach was to use occurrence d<strong>at</strong>a<br />

(with the exception of marbled murrelets on Vancouver Island).<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 7A, page 14 of 20

Table 7A.15. Examples of main targets for selection of AUs with high utility scores. Example AUs were randomly selected from Olympic and Willapa<br />

Hills Ecosections. Number of occurrences and percentages refer to total amount in ecosection. AU names were taken from the U.S. Geological<br />

Service. HUC layer.<br />

Utility Number of<br />

AU name AU number Score Targets Main Target for Selection of AU<br />

Olympic Ecosection<br />

Big River 1935 100 6 1/2 Makah Copper occurrences<br />

1/4 cascades frog occurrences<br />

Upper Headw<strong>at</strong>ers Hoh River 2123 96.5 4<br />

14% of mesic alpine dwarf-shrubland and meadow<br />

Elwah River, upper 2127 100 10 1/2 Tisch’s saxifrage occurrences<br />

Winfield Creek 2136 100 7 1/2 Vaux’s swift occurrences<br />

Hoh River, South Fork lower 2139 100 10 1/2 Vaux’s swift occurrences<br />

Quinault River, North Fork middle 2193 97 10 1/4 cascades frog occurrences<br />

Elwah River below Lake Mills 2005 100 15 1/1 tall bugbane occurrences<br />

Hamma Hamma River, middle 2205 100 9 1/2 Brewer’s cliff-brake occurrences<br />

Quinault River above Lake<br />

2232 100 13 1/1 frigid shootingstar occurrences<br />

Quinault<br />

Willapa Hills Ecosection<br />

Humptulips River, East Fork upper 2263 100 8 100% of mountain hemlock forest<br />

Camp/Duck Creek 2264 100 12 97% of brandt’s cormorant nests<br />

4/9 warty jumping slug occurrences<br />

Wynocchee River, middle 2285 100 13 2/8 Burrington jumping slug occurrences<br />

19% of montane riparian woodland and shrubland<br />

S<strong>at</strong>sop River, West Fork upper 2309 100 6 1/3 harlequin duck occurrences<br />

Humptulips River, East Fork lower 2311 100 6 1/2 northern goshawk occurrences<br />

Wynoochee River below Schafer<br />

36% montane riparian woodland and shrubland<br />

2341 100 11<br />

Creek<br />

31% of oak woodland<br />

headw<strong>at</strong>ers, Willapa Bay 2412 100 10 1/2 northern goshawk occurrences<br />

Rock/Jones 2437 99.5 7 1/3 harlequin duck occurrences<br />

South Fork Chehalis 2440 100 8 1/1 Kincaids sulfur lupine occurrences<br />

1/2 Nelson’s checker-mallow occurrences<br />

Stillman Creek 2441 100 11<br />

1/2 valley silverspot occurrences<br />

main fork, Grays River 2452 100 12 1/2 frigid shootingstar occurrences<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 7A, page 15 of 20

The integr<strong>at</strong>ed portfolio combines freshw<strong>at</strong>er, terrestrial, and estuary AUs through a technique known as<br />

vertical stacking. Unlike the terrestrial only analysis, the boundary modifier (BM) parameter was gre<strong>at</strong>er<br />

then zero, and therefore, AUs were selected not only for their biodiversity value and suitability but also for<br />

their adjacency to other AUs. With BM gre<strong>at</strong>er than zero the algorithm will select larger contiguous areas,<br />

which, in theory, is better for biodiversity conserv<strong>at</strong>ion. On the other hand, the reasons for AU selection<br />

(biodiversity value or AU adjacency) are obscured. The scores for freshw<strong>at</strong>er class 1 AUs and terrestrial<br />

AUs were combined to yield a single utility score and single irreplaceability score for each AU. One result<br />

was th<strong>at</strong> fewer AUs had scores of 100 rel<strong>at</strong>ive to the terrestrial only analysis. This should help to further<br />

prioritze AUs. AUs th<strong>at</strong> score high for both freshw<strong>at</strong>er and terrestrial should be higher priorities for<br />

conserv<strong>at</strong>ion. When combining the scores for freshw<strong>at</strong>er class 1 and terrestrial AUs we weighted them<br />

equally. One could argue th<strong>at</strong> terrestrial AUs should be weighted more heavily because most of the<br />

terrestrial d<strong>at</strong>a are empirical (i.e., occurrences) as opposed to modeled (i.e., freshw<strong>at</strong>er macrohabit<strong>at</strong> types).<br />

The subjective assignment of weights through expert judgment is one shortcoming of our methods th<strong>at</strong><br />

must be addressed through the development of more rigorous methods and the collection of more empirical<br />

d<strong>at</strong>a.<br />

Utility and irreplaceability scores are different ways to prioritize places for conserv<strong>at</strong>ion. Irreplaceability<br />

has been the most commonly used index (e.g., Andelman and Willig 2002, Noss et al. 2002, Leslie et al.<br />

2003, Stewart et al. 2003), and it assumes th<strong>at</strong> land area is the sole consider<strong>at</strong>ion for efficient conserv<strong>at</strong>ion.<br />

Utility incorpor<strong>at</strong>es other factors th<strong>at</strong> can effect efficient conserv<strong>at</strong>ion such as land management st<strong>at</strong>us and<br />

current condition. Many AUs <strong>at</strong>tained scores of 100 for both utility and irreplaceability. Also, the values<br />

for weighted Spearman rank correl<strong>at</strong>ion showed th<strong>at</strong> differences between maps <strong>at</strong> high scores were less<br />

than differences <strong>at</strong> low scores. These results demonstr<strong>at</strong>e th<strong>at</strong> for scores <strong>at</strong> or near 100 the cost had little<br />

influence on selection frequency; occurrence d<strong>at</strong>a drove the results. More importantly, it demonstr<strong>at</strong>ed th<strong>at</strong><br />

the results are robust. Under two different assumptions about efficiency (area versus. suitability), the<br />

highest priority AUs were nearly identical.<br />

Utility and irreplaceability scores were significantly different for many individual AUs <strong>at</strong> the middle and<br />

low end of the utility score range (Figure 7A.5). This is useful inform<strong>at</strong>ion for prioritiz<strong>at</strong>ion. AUs <strong>at</strong> the<br />

low end of utility (or irreplaceabilty) typically are unremarkable in terms of biodiversity value. They<br />

contribute habit<strong>at</strong> or target occurrences, but they are interchangeable with other AUs. For these AUs,<br />

prioritizing on the basis of suitability r<strong>at</strong>her than biodiversity value makes most sense. If an AU can be<br />

distinguished from other AUs because conserv<strong>at</strong>ion there will be cheaper or more successful, then th<strong>at</strong> AU<br />

should be a higher priority for action. For these AUs, the utility score should be used for prioritiz<strong>at</strong>ion.<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 7A, page 16 of 20

percent of AUs<br />

percent of AUs<br />

40.0<br />

30.0<br />

20.0<br />

10.0<br />

0<br />

1-10<br />

11-20<br />

21-30<br />

31-40<br />

41-50<br />

51-60<br />

61-70<br />

71-80<br />

81-90<br />

91-100<br />

0.0<br />

40.0<br />

30.0<br />

20.0<br />

10.0<br />

0.0<br />

selection frequency (percent)<br />

0<br />

1-10<br />

11-20<br />

21-30<br />

31-40<br />

41-50<br />

51-60<br />

61-70<br />

71-80<br />

81-90<br />

91-100<br />

selection frequency (percent)<br />

utility<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 7A, page 17 of 20<br />

irreplaceability<br />

FIG 7A.1: Distribution of AU irreplaceability and utility scores for the terrestrial only analysis.<br />

utility<br />

irreplaceabilty<br />

FIG 7A.2: Distribution of AU irreplaceability and utility scores for the integr<strong>at</strong>ed<br />

analysis. Selection frequencies of overlapping terrestrial and aqu<strong>at</strong>ic AUs counted separ<strong>at</strong>ely.

percent of AUs<br />

40<br />

30<br />

20<br />

10<br />

0<br />

0<br />

1-10<br />

11-20<br />

21-30<br />

31-40<br />

41-50<br />

51-60<br />

61-70<br />

71-80<br />

81-90<br />

91-100<br />

100<br />

80<br />

60<br />

40<br />

20<br />

0<br />

selection frequency (percent)<br />

utility<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 7A, page 18 of 20<br />

irreplaceability<br />

Figure 7A.3: Distribution of AU irreplaceability and utility scores for the integr<strong>at</strong>ed<br />

analysis. Selection frequencies of overlapping terrestrial and aqu<strong>at</strong>ic AUs summed together.<br />

irreplaceability<br />

0 20 40 60 80 100<br />

vulnerability<br />

Figure 7A.4. Sc<strong>at</strong>terplot of irreplaceability versus vulnerability. Each point represents a single AU. Plot<br />

divided into quadrants using median values (solid lines) and into sixteen sub-quadrants using quartile<br />

values (dashed lines). AUs in the upper right-hand sub-quadrant should be considered the highest<br />

priority for conserv<strong>at</strong>ion.

Percent of AUs<br />

20<br />

15<br />

10<br />

5<br />

0<br />

100<br />

80<br />

60<br />

40<br />

20<br />

0<br />

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140<br />

Eucliean Distance<br />

Figure 7A.5. Distribution of distance values calcul<strong>at</strong>ed from the irreplaceability versus vulnerability plot.<br />

Distance calcul<strong>at</strong>ed from the upper right-hand corner of plot: (vulnerability, irreplaceability) = (100, 100).<br />

irreplaceability<br />

0.5%<br />

8%<br />

0 20 40 60 80 100<br />

vulnerability<br />

Figure 7A.6. Sc<strong>at</strong>terplot of irreplaceability versus vulnerability showing iso-Euclidean distance contours<br />

from the (100, 100) corner. The contours shown are the Euclidean distances th<strong>at</strong> encompass 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and<br />

8 percent of AUs. Plot is also divided into quadrants using median values (solid lines) and sub-quadrants<br />

using quartile values, but only the third quartiles are shown (dashed lines). Each point represents a single<br />

AU.<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 7A, page 19 of 20

irreplaceability<br />

100<br />

80<br />

60<br />

40<br />

20<br />

0<br />

0 20 40 60 80 100<br />

vulnerability<br />

Figure 7A.7. Sc<strong>at</strong>terplot of irreplaceability versus vulnerability showing iso-Euclidean distance contours<br />

from the (0, 100) corner. The contours shown are the Euclidean distances th<strong>at</strong> encompass 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 8<br />

percent of AUs. Plot is also divided into quadrants using median values (solid lines) and sub-quadrants<br />

using quartile values, but only the third quartiles are shown (dashed lines). Each point represents a single<br />

AU.<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 7A, page 20 of 20

Appendix 7B: Sensitivity Analysis for Terrestrial HUCs<br />

7B.1 Introduction<br />

A sensitivity analysis is necessary whenever there is considerable uncertainty regarding modeling<br />

assumptions or parameter values. A sensitivity analysis determines wh<strong>at</strong> happens to model outputs in<br />

response to a system<strong>at</strong>ic change of model inputs (Jorgensen and Bendoricchio 2001, pp. 59-61). Sensitivity<br />

analysis serves two main purposes: (1) to measure how much influence each parameter has on the model<br />

output; and (2) to evalu<strong>at</strong>e the effects of poor parameter estim<strong>at</strong>es or weak assumptions (Caswell 1989).<br />

Through a sensitivity analysis, we can ascertain the robustness of our results and judge how much<br />

confidence we should have in our conclusions.<br />

Appendix 6 explains the inputs to the site selection algorithm. The input with the gre<strong>at</strong>est uncertainty is the<br />

cost index. The cost index is not a st<strong>at</strong>istical model – variable selection and parameter estim<strong>at</strong>es for the<br />

index were based on professional judgment. For this reason, our sensitivity analysis focused on the index.<br />

Other assessments have incorpor<strong>at</strong>ed a cost index or something similar into an optimal site selection<br />

algorithm (Davis et al. 1996, Nantel et al. 1998, Stoms et al. 1998, Davis et al. 1999, Lawler et al. 2003).<br />

Only Davis et al. (1996) and Stoms et al. (1998) investig<strong>at</strong>ed the sensitivity of site selection to changes in<br />

their index.<br />

The sensitivity analysis was done only for the terrestrial portion of the conserv<strong>at</strong>ion utility maps because:<br />

(1) the terrestrial d<strong>at</strong>a have a gre<strong>at</strong>er influence on the portfolio than the freshw<strong>at</strong>er d<strong>at</strong>a; (2) terrestrial<br />

environments and species have been more thoroughly studied, and therefore, our assumptions about<br />

terrestrial biodiversity are more robust than for estuary or freshw<strong>at</strong>er biodiversity; and (3) the terrestrial<br />

portfolio has the gre<strong>at</strong>est potential influence on land use planning and policy decisions affecting priv<strong>at</strong>e<br />

lands.<br />

7B.2 Methods<br />

We explored sensitivity to the cost index by altering the index’s parameter values, running the selection<br />

algorithm with the new index, and then quantifying the resulting changes in the conserv<strong>at</strong>ion utility map.<br />

Recall th<strong>at</strong> the terrestrial cost index equ<strong>at</strong>ion is a weighted geometric mean:<br />

cost = [suitability a HUC area b ] ^ [1/(a+b)] (1)<br />

where a + b = 1, suitability and HUC area are normalized to a maximum value of 1, and<br />

suitability = d management st<strong>at</strong>us + e %converted land + f road density (2)<br />

where d + e + f = 1; and management st<strong>at</strong>us, %converted land, and road density are all normalized to a<br />

maximum value of 1.<br />

The values for parameters a, b, d, e, f were determined by expert opinion. These values along with the<br />

changes used in the sensitivity analysis are given in Table 7B.1. In total, 25 different tests were done. The<br />

adjusted parameter value could not exceed 1 and the other parameters were adjusted so th<strong>at</strong> they all still<br />

summed to 1. Only the cost index parameters were changed; none of other inputs to the selection algorithm<br />

used to produce the original utility map were changed. We changed only a one parameter <strong>at</strong> a time, and<br />

hence, did not investig<strong>at</strong>e interactions between or amongst index parameters. The utility map was<br />

gener<strong>at</strong>ed as explained in Chapter 7.<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 7B, page 1 of 13

Table 7B.1. Cost index parameter values and amount of change used for sensitivity analysis.<br />

parameter original value incremental changes<br />

a 0.75 ± 0.05, ±0.10, ±0.15, ±0.20, ±0.25<br />

b 0.25 ± 0.05, ±0.10, ±0.15, ±0.20, ±0.25, +0.50, +0.75<br />

d 0.48 ±0.10, ±0.20, ±0.30<br />

e 0.30 ±0.10, ±0.20, ±0.30<br />

f 0.22 ±0.10, ±0.20, +0.30, -0.22<br />

Resulting changes in the algorithms output were quantified several ways. First, three similarity measures<br />

were calcul<strong>at</strong>ed to compare the conserv<strong>at</strong>ion utility maps gener<strong>at</strong>ed: mean absolute difference in utility,<br />

Bray-Curtis similarity measure, and Spearman rank correl<strong>at</strong>ion (Krebs 1999; pp 379-386). The Bray-Curtis<br />

similarity measure normalizes the sum absolute difference to a scale from 0 to 1. Because utility will be<br />

used for prioritizing AUs, the rank correl<strong>at</strong>ion is particularly inform<strong>at</strong>ive. Rank correl<strong>at</strong>ion told us how the<br />

rel<strong>at</strong>ive AU priorities changed in response to changes in the cost index. Because we were interested in<br />

prioritizing AUs, we also calcul<strong>at</strong>ed and the mean absolute difference in rank. We were especially<br />

interested in how the ranks of the most highly ranked AUs (i.e., AUs with highest utility scores) would<br />

change. To examine this, we also calcul<strong>at</strong>ed: (1) a weighted Spearman rank correl<strong>at</strong>ion using Savage<br />

scores (Zar 1996, pp. 393-395) with highly ranked AUs contributing more heavily to the rank correl<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

value; and (2) the mean absolute change in rank for only AUs with original rank equal to 1. When<br />

calcul<strong>at</strong>ing rank correl<strong>at</strong>ion, AUs th<strong>at</strong> had tied ranks were given the mean of the ranks th<strong>at</strong> would have<br />

been assigned had they not been tied (Zar 1996, p. 150). When calcul<strong>at</strong>ing mean absolute difference in<br />

rank, all AUs th<strong>at</strong> had tied ranks were assigned the lowest rank and the next highest rank was assigned to<br />

the next AU th<strong>at</strong> was not tied to these AUs. Each similarity measure gives a single number th<strong>at</strong> indic<strong>at</strong>es<br />

the degree of change. They can be used to determine which cost index parameter has the most influence on<br />

the utility. Parameters with more influence will cause a larger change in the similarity measures.<br />

Second, we determined whether the degree of change caused by altering a cost index parameter was<br />

st<strong>at</strong>istically significant. This was done by testing the following hypothesis for mean absolute difference:<br />

H01: difference between map X and map Y is significantly less than the expected<br />

difference between the map X and a random map;<br />

HA1: difference between map X and map Y is equal to or significantly gre<strong>at</strong>er than the<br />

expected difference between the map X and a random map,<br />

and for the Bray-Curtis similarity measure and Spearman rank correl<strong>at</strong>ion, this hypothesis:<br />

H02: similarity between the map X and map Y is significantly gre<strong>at</strong>er than the expected<br />

similarity between the utility map and a random map;<br />

HA2: similarity between the map X and map Y is equal to or significantly less than the<br />

expected similarity between the map X and a random map,<br />

where map X and map Y are the original utility map and the altered utility map, respectively.<br />

Both null hypotheses mean th<strong>at</strong> there is no significant difference between the original and altered maps. If<br />

the observed similarity measure is significantly less than (or the distance significantly gre<strong>at</strong>er than) th<strong>at</strong><br />

expected from chance, then the null hypothesis is false, and we can say th<strong>at</strong> the original and altered maps<br />

are different. For Spearman rank correl<strong>at</strong>ion, the altern<strong>at</strong>ive hypothesis is equivalent to r 0. The<br />

hypotheses were tested using a randomiz<strong>at</strong>ion test (Sokal and Rohlf 1995, pp. 808-810). Random utility<br />

maps were gener<strong>at</strong>ed by reshuffling the utility values among AUs (i.e., random sampling of utility values<br />

without replacement). One thousand random utility maps were compared to the real map using the four<br />

measures of similarity. The proportion of times th<strong>at</strong> the difference between the original utility map and<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 7B, page 2 of 13

altered map is smaller (or the similarity is larger) than the difference between the utility map and the 1000<br />

randomly gener<strong>at</strong>ed maps equals the probability th<strong>at</strong> original map and altered map are significantly<br />

different. This is similar to the technique employed by Warman et al. (2004). This was a one-tailed test of<br />

significance with = 0.05. Values for other inputs to the algorithm are given in Table 7B.2.<br />

Third, a contingency table analysis was done to compare the utility values of paired AUs from the original<br />

and altered maps. The log-likelihood r<strong>at</strong>io method (Zar 1996; pp. 502-503) was used to test the following<br />

hypotheses:<br />

H03: AU selection is independent on cost index parameter value<br />

HA3: AU selection is dependent on cost index parameter value<br />

Paired AUs were considered to be significantly different for P

(Figures 7B.2, 7B.3, 7B.4). For all incremental changes to all parameters, the null hypothesis was accepted<br />

for all similarity measures. The differences between the original utility map and the altered map were<br />

minor for all parameter changes except one: b + 0.75. For this parameter change, the mean absolute<br />

difference equaled 23 and the Spearman rank correl<strong>at</strong>ion equaled 0.684 but the randomiz<strong>at</strong>ion test accepted<br />

the null hypotheses nevertheless.<br />

Spearman rank correl<strong>at</strong>ions between the original and altered utility maps were gre<strong>at</strong>er than 0.925 for all<br />

parameter changes except one: b + 0.75 (Figure 7B.4). Gre<strong>at</strong>er than 0.925 is an extremely high correl<strong>at</strong>ion,<br />

and the weighted Spearman rank correl<strong>at</strong>ion shows th<strong>at</strong> correl<strong>at</strong>ions were even higher among AUs with<br />

high rank (Table 7B.3).<br />

Upon examining distributions for mean absolute difference in utility, the results for the similarity measures<br />

were not surprising (Figure 7B.5). Each was a steep exponential distribution. Changes in parameter a of<br />

±0.25 caused no utility score change in over half of AUs (53% for -0.25, 61% for +0.25), and over 75% of<br />

AUs changed utility by ±2.0 or less (77% for -0.25, 81% for +0.25). Even for the largest change in a (-<br />

0.75), 68% of the AUs changed utility by 10 or less.<br />

Table 7B.3. Comparison of Spearman rank correl<strong>at</strong>ion and weighted Spearman rank correl<strong>at</strong>ion for a<br />

subset of suitability index parameter changes. For parameters d, e, and f, changes of smaller<br />

magnitude resulted in larger values for rank correl<strong>at</strong>ion.<br />

parameter<br />

Spearman rank weighted Spearman<br />

change parameter values<br />

correl<strong>at</strong>ion rank correl<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

b - 0.25 a = 1, b = 0 0.965 0.980<br />

b + 0.25 a = 0.5, b = 0.5 0.964 0.988<br />

b + 0.50 a = 0.25, b= 0.75 0.927 0.970<br />

b +0.75 a = 0, b = 1 0.684 0.878<br />

d + 0.3 d= 0.78, e= 0.127, f= 0.093 0.985 0.992<br />

e + 0.3 d= 0.274, e= 0.60, f= 0.126 0.984 0.992<br />

f + 0.3 d= 0.295, e= 0.185, f= 0.52 0.982 0.990<br />

d - 0.3 d= 0.18, e= 0.473, f= 0.347 0.973 0.986<br />

e - 0.3 d= 0.686, e= 0, f= 0.314 0.989 0.996<br />

f - 0.3 d= 0.615, e= 0.385, f= 0 0.986 0.993<br />

According to the similarity measures there was little overall difference between the original and altered<br />

utility maps. However, many individual AUs did change and some showed st<strong>at</strong>istically significant changes<br />

in utility (Figure 7B.6). A plus or minus 0.25 change in parameters a or b caused 47% of AUs (n=2707) to<br />

change utility scores, but only 7.8 percent of AUs had a st<strong>at</strong>istically significant change. When b was<br />

changed by 0.75 (a=0, b=1), over three-quarters of AUs change utility score and nearly half (45.8%) had a<br />

st<strong>at</strong>istically significant change. Utility scores were much less sensitive to changes in parameters d, e, and f<br />

(Figure 7B.7). For the biggest changes in d, e, and f (±0.3), between 33.4 and 39.0 AUs changed utility<br />

score, but only between 1.2 and 6.4 percent had significant changes. Utility scores were least sensitive to<br />

changes in e.<br />

Since utility will be used to prioritize AUs for conserv<strong>at</strong>ion, the sensitivity of AU rank to changes in the<br />

cost index is especially important. We restricted this analysis to AUs th<strong>at</strong> were highly ranked. For AUs<br />

with rank gre<strong>at</strong>er than 100 (lowest possible rank was 197), changes to a and b produced symmetric results<br />

in mean absolute change in rank for changes up to ±0.20 (Figure 7B.8). Th<strong>at</strong> is, equal incremental changes<br />

in a and b produced nearly the same mean absolute change in rank. Changes to parameters a or b caused<br />

bigger changes in rank than those caused by d, e, or f. Amongst parameters d, e, and f, no parameter<br />

consistently caused the biggest or smallest mean absolute change in rank, and the rel<strong>at</strong>ionship between<br />

changes in parameter values and change in rank were nonlinear. A -0.3 change to d caused the biggest<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 7B, page 4 of 13

change in mean absolute rank amongst all changes to d, e, and f. In contrast, the mean absolute change in<br />

rank was smaller for a 0.3 change in d than for 0.3 changes to e and f.<br />

For AUs with the rank equal to 1 (i.e., utility = 100), equal changes to a and b produced asymmetric results,<br />

i.e, the response was nonlinear (Figure 7B.9). Increasing the influence of area and decreasing the influence<br />

of suitability (i.e., increasing b, decreasing a) had little effect on mean absolute change in rank up to a<br />

change of 0.25, but decreasing the influence of area and increasing had a much gre<strong>at</strong>er effect on rank.<br />

Changes to d, e, and f resulted in small changes in rank. Mean absolute change in rank was less than 1.0<br />

for all changes except one: -0.3 change to d, which resulted in a value of 1.2. Increases in a (or decreases<br />

in b) resulted in mean absolute changes in rank th<strong>at</strong> were 2 to 3 times gre<strong>at</strong>er than those produced by<br />

comparable changes to d, e, or f. However, most of the change in rank caused by increases in a were due to<br />

a small number of AUs undergoing large changes in rank. For instance, a 2.1 mean absolute change in rank<br />

was produced by a change in only 11 of 189 AUs (5.8%). In fact, very few AUs with rank equal to 1<br />

changed rank in response to changes in any of the parameters (Figure 7B.10). The gre<strong>at</strong>est number of topranked<br />

AUs th<strong>at</strong> changed was 15 of 189 (7.9%) in response to a 0.25 increase in a (0.25 decrease in b).<br />

Changes in utility due to changes in the cost index can also be examined sp<strong>at</strong>ially. Maps 1 and 2 show<br />

changes in utility in response to changing parameter a (and b) plus and minus 0.25, respectively. As<br />

expected, changes to AU utility are of opposite sign on maps 1 and 2 in most cases (55%). The objective<br />

function of the selection algorithm has two terms – one dealing with AU cost and one dealing with target<br />

represent<strong>at</strong>ion. The map depicts AU sensitivity to the former term. Many AUs (28%) had no change in<br />

utility on either map. These AUs are insensitive to this degree of change in a, and, in effect, the targets are<br />

the main drivers for selection of these AUs. In Washington, AUs th<strong>at</strong> change utility are mainly<br />

concentr<strong>at</strong>ed in the Olympic Peninsula. There are two reasons for this, one proximal and one ultim<strong>at</strong>e.<br />

First, the proximal reason is th<strong>at</strong> the target occurrence and suitability index d<strong>at</strong>a are r<strong>at</strong>her uniform across<br />

the park. Changes in rel<strong>at</strong>ive utility are mostly due to changing the rel<strong>at</strong>ive importance of the suitability<br />

and area factors in the cost index. Second, the ultim<strong>at</strong>e reason is occurrence d<strong>at</strong>a. Ecological distinctions<br />

among AUs are based mostly on occurrence d<strong>at</strong>a, but the d<strong>at</strong>a density in Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional Park is r<strong>at</strong>her<br />

low. In short, for these AUs the cost term of the objective function is domin<strong>at</strong>ing the target represent<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

term. Similar but opposite reasoning explain why some AUs did not change utility scores to this degree of<br />

a change in parameter a (and b).<br />

The sensitivity of rank to changes in cost is nonlinear. A closer look <strong>at</strong> the rel<strong>at</strong>ionship between cost,<br />

utility, rank, and target occurrences for a subset of AUs (Table 7B.4) reveals the basis for the nonlinear<br />

rel<strong>at</strong>ionship. Some AUs do not change utility or rank regardless of the degree of change in cost. In some<br />

cases, such AUs had the only occurrence in the ecosection (AUs 2005, 2232 in Table 7B.4). In four of the<br />

examples, the AU had one of only two occurrences in the entire ecosection, and because the minimum<br />

represent<strong>at</strong>ion level equaled two occurrences per ecosection, these AU had a selection frequency of 100. In<br />

another example – AU 2285 – the AU had rel<strong>at</strong>ively high proportions of more than one target. Some AUs<br />

can be highly sensitive to changes in cost. For instance, the normalized cost of AU 2098 changed by 0.4<br />

but its rank went from 61 to 6 (375 AUs had a rank higher than 61, 207 AUs had a rank higher than 6). In<br />

contrast, other AUs were insensitive to changes in cost. The normalized cost of AU 2200 changed by 34.4<br />

but its rank changed by 1, from 58 to 59. Some AUs have low cost and rel<strong>at</strong>ively rare targets but still have<br />

a low rank (e.g., AU 2089). Again, this is due to its cost rel<strong>at</strong>ive to AUs with an intersecting subset of<br />

targets and also the value of its total biological contents rel<strong>at</strong>ive to other AUs with an intersecting subset of<br />

targets. For a small number of AUs (15 percent), changes in cost and utility had the same sign (e.g., AUs<br />

2098 and 2122). Again, this happens because AUs with an intersecting subset of targets had larger<br />

increases in cost.<br />

The sensitivity of rank to changes in cost is nonlinear but oper<strong>at</strong>ion of the algorithm is not counterintuitive.<br />

As already demonstr<strong>at</strong>ed in (Figure 7B.1), the examples in Table 7B.4 show th<strong>at</strong> changes in cost<br />

and utility are most often inversely rel<strong>at</strong>ed. Rank nearly always changes in the same direction as utility.<br />

AUs with moder<strong>at</strong>e normalized cost and moder<strong>at</strong>ely rare targets have moder<strong>at</strong>e rank (AU 2435). AUs with<br />

very little biological value had low rank regardless of cost (AUs 2122 and 2455), and AUs with rare targets<br />

have high rank regardless of cost (e.g., AUs 1935, 2309, 2452).<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 7B, page 5 of 13

7B.4 Discussion<br />

The basic conclusion of the sensitivity analysis is th<strong>at</strong> AU utility and rank change in response to changes in<br />

the suitability index. Similarity measures th<strong>at</strong> compare “before” and “after” utility maps of the entire<br />

ecoregion indic<strong>at</strong>e th<strong>at</strong> the overall map is rel<strong>at</strong>ively insensitive to changes in suitability index parameters.<br />

Th<strong>at</strong> is, the average change over all AUs is small. However, the utility and rank of many AUs do change<br />

and some exhibit significant changes. The number of AUs th<strong>at</strong> change depends of which index parameter<br />

is changed and the amount of change to th<strong>at</strong> parameter. Of the five index parameters, a and b (which are<br />

complementary) have the biggest effect on utility.<br />

We investig<strong>at</strong>ed the sensitivity of the utility map to changes in the cost index because of our uncertainty<br />

about the index. The variable selection and parameter estim<strong>at</strong>es for the index were based on professional<br />

judgment. The results of the sensitivity analysis have two implic<strong>at</strong>ions for conserv<strong>at</strong>ion planning. First,<br />

highest priority AUs (about ranks 1 through 10; the top 218 AUs) are r<strong>at</strong>her robust to changes in the<br />

suitability index. Therefore, regardless of the uncertainties in the cost index, we can be confident about the<br />

most highly ranked AUs. These AUs were selected mainly for their rel<strong>at</strong>ive biological value, not rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

cost. For similar reasons, the lowest ranked AUs (rank less than about 100), tend to be robust to changes in<br />

the cost index – they maintain a low rank because they have little rel<strong>at</strong>ive biological value. Second, the<br />

utility of moder<strong>at</strong>ely ranked AUs (rank less than 10 and gre<strong>at</strong>er than 100; about 319 AUs), is sensitive to<br />

changes in the cost index. When choosing among AUs of moder<strong>at</strong>e rank we must explore how our<br />

assumptions about cost and suitability affect rank.<br />

The results of the sensitivity analysis put extra emphasis on the proper use of SITES or any optimal site<br />

selection algorithm. AU priorities are influenced by the cost index, but the cost index relies heavily on<br />

subjective judgments. Software like SITES is often referred to as “decision support tools.” Such tools can<br />

best support decisions by enabling us to explore the effect of various assumptions and differing opinions.<br />

Both Davis et al. (1996) and Stoms et al. (1998) did the equivalent of a sensitivity analysis for their<br />

suitability indices. However, they referred to their different indices as “model vari<strong>at</strong>ions” or “altern<strong>at</strong>ives”;<br />

an implicit recognition th<strong>at</strong> different sets of assumptions had equal validity. To address uncertainties in<br />

cost indices, AU priorities, especially for moder<strong>at</strong>ely ranked AUs, should be derived from several different<br />

analyses using different indices. This will enhance the robustness of analytical results and lead to more<br />

confident decision making.<br />

The other major source of uncertainty in this assessment was the biological d<strong>at</strong>a – both the ecological<br />

systems map and the target occurrence d<strong>at</strong>a. The potential consequences for optimal site selection of<br />

incomplete (Freitag and Van Jaarsfeld 1998, Gaston and Rodrigues 2003, Gladstone and Davis 2003) or<br />

inaccur<strong>at</strong>e (Fl<strong>at</strong>her et al. 1997, Polasky et al. 2000) biological d<strong>at</strong>a have been investig<strong>at</strong>ed. Not<br />

surprisingly, each study found th<strong>at</strong> inaccur<strong>at</strong>e d<strong>at</strong>a will substantially alter the results of site selection.<br />

However, Gaston and Rodrigues found th<strong>at</strong> incomplete species surveys, th<strong>at</strong> is, surveys with low or zero<br />

survey effort in portions of a region, may not substantially alter the results of site selection. This is because<br />

biologists bias surveys toward places where they think species will be found and such places tend to have<br />

peaks in species abundance. While we are not completely certain about the occurrence d<strong>at</strong>a, it is the best<br />

inform<strong>at</strong>ion we have. Survey d<strong>at</strong>a have errors, but recent d<strong>at</strong>a (less than about 5 years old) are more likely<br />

to have false neg<strong>at</strong>ives than false positives. False neg<strong>at</strong>ives are preferred over false positives, because we<br />

don't want to select places for conserv<strong>at</strong>ion where targets don’t actually exist (Freitag and Van Jaarsveld<br />

1996, Araujo and Williams 2000). In short, we have to work with the occurrence d<strong>at</strong>a we have, and unlike<br />

the cost index, we cannot readily alter the occurrence d<strong>at</strong>a in a way th<strong>at</strong> will give us gre<strong>at</strong>er confidence in<br />

AU prioritiz<strong>at</strong>ion.<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 7B, page 6 of 13

Table 7B.4. Examples of change in cost, change in utility scores, and targets for some AUs. Change in cost index parameter was b+0.75 (a=0, b=1). Example<br />

AUs were randomly selected from Olympic and Willapa Hills Ecosections. Number of occurrences and percentages refer to total amount in ecosection. AU<br />

names were taken from the U.S. Geological Service. HUC layer. * means st<strong>at</strong>istically significant change ( = 0.05). Lowest rank for original utility map (a=0.75,<br />

b= 0.25) was 197.<br />

change<br />

change<br />

original in original in<br />

number<br />

AU cost, normalized utility utility original new of<br />

AU name number normalized cost score score rank rank targets Main Targets for Selection of AU<br />

Big River 1935 47.1 -16.0 100 0 1 1 6 1/2 Makah Copper occurrences<br />

S<strong>at</strong>sop River, West<br />

2309 37.3 -15.8 100 0 1 1 6 1/3 harlequin duck occurrences<br />

Fork upper<br />

main fork, Grays River 2452 36.6 -14.4 100 0 1 1 12 1/2 frigid shootingstar occurrences<br />

4/9 warty jumping slug occurrences<br />

Wynocchee River,<br />

2285 25.7 22.8 100 0 1 1 13 2/8 Burrington jumping slug occurrences<br />

middle<br />

19% of montane riparian woodland and shrubland<br />

Hoh River, South Fork<br />

2139 9.0 26.0 100 0 1 1 10 1/2 Vaux’s swift occurrences<br />

lower<br />

Quinault River above<br />

2232 6.0 26.1 100 0 1 1 13 1/1 frigid shootingstar occurrences<br />

Lake Quinault<br />

Elwah River below<br />

2005 5.6 27.7 100 0 1 1 15 1/1 tall bugbane occurrences<br />

Lake Mills<br />

Goodman Creek 2102 21.7 36.0 100 0 1 1 19 1/2 mineral spring occurrences<br />

Upper Headw<strong>at</strong>ers<br />

1/4 cascades frog occurrences<br />

2123 4.3 26.0 96.5 -10* 9 29 4<br />

Hoh River<br />

14% of mesic alpine dwarf-shrubland and meadow<br />

Elwah River below<br />

2073 3.8 9.8 95 -27.5* 12 61 9 1/16 northern goshawk occurrences<br />

Lillian Creek<br />

1/16 northern goshawk occurrences<br />

Dosewallips River,<br />

2160 7.6 22.3 86.5 -26* 30 78 13 1/35 warty jumping slug occurrences<br />

middle<br />

1/59 harlequin duck occurrences<br />

1/8 Boisduval’s blue butterfly occurrences<br />

Slide Creek 2089 3.3 6.7 75 -5 51 58 11<br />

10% of coastal herbaceous bald and bluff<br />

Coal Creek 2006 22.8 13.2 70 -20* 58 104 19 5/28 peregrine falcon occurrences<br />

1/8 Alaska plantain occurrences<br />

Tacoma Creek 2200 10.9 34.3 70 -0.5 58 59 13<br />

4/51 Cope’s giant salamander occurrences<br />

Bungalow / Skookum<br />

1/16 northern goshawk occurrences<br />

2098 6.1 0.4 69 29* 61 6 9<br />

Creek<br />

2% of coastal herbaceous bald and bluff<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 7B, page 7 of 13

Table 7B.4 (continued). Examples of change in cost, change in utility scores, and targets for some AUs. Change in cost index parameter was b+0.75 (a=0, b=1).<br />

Example AUs were randomly selected from Olympic and Willapa Hills Ecosections. Number of occurrences and percentages refer to total amount in<br />

ecosection. AU names were taken from the U.S. Geological Service. HUC layer. * means st<strong>at</strong>istically significant change ( = 0.05). Lowest rank for original<br />

utility map (a=0.75, b= 0.25) was 197.<br />

change<br />

change<br />

original in original in<br />

number<br />

AU Cost, normalized utility utility original new of<br />

AU name number normalized cost score score rank rank targets Main Targets for Selection of AU<br />

8% of riparian woodland and shrubland<br />

Lake Crescent frontal 1976 8.1 38.8 66 -16.5* 66 104 13<br />

3/76 Olympic torrent salamander<br />

5/26 queen-of-the-forest occurrences<br />

Upper Willapa River 2435 49.8 32.6 61 -4.5 73 88 15 7/63 Columbia torrent salamander occurrences<br />

5/52 Dunn’s salamander occurrences<br />

Potl<strong>at</strong>ch Creek 2287 27.2 -16.8 53.5 5 87 83 2 1/19 of mineral spring occurrences<br />

1/16 northern goshawk occurrences<br />

Village/Beach Creek 1906 42.8 -33.3 50 34.5* 96 31 10<br />

1/59 harlequin duck occurrences<br />

Quillayute river 2091 14.0 -3.8 46 15.5* 106 75 8 11% of tidal salt march<br />

Elk Creek 2213 15.3 3.6 44.5 -21.5* 110 171 5 13% of tidal salt marsh<br />

Fir Creek 2296 7.9 -4.2 41 33* 119 51 5 1/35 warty jumping slug occurrences<br />

Smith Creek 2414 73.7 18.4 40 -20* 121 178 7 1/21 gre<strong>at</strong> blue heron colony occurrences<br />

Twin Peak Creek 2225 6.4 -4.3 37 19* 129 90 6 1/34 Burrington jumping slug<br />

4/76 Olympic torrent salamander occurrences<br />

Alder Creek 2124 16.2 32.5 31 -1 143 153 12 2/51 Cope’s giant salamander occurrences<br />

1/34 Burrington jumping slug occurrences<br />

McDonald Creek 2202 12.2 -9.0 30.5 52.5* 145 34 6 1/35 warty jumping slug occurrences<br />

1/59 harlequin duck occurrences<br />

Pysht River 1936 36.3 39.1 25 -5 158 178 10<br />

12% of tidal salt march<br />

headw<strong>at</strong>ers Bogachiel<br />

2097 4.6 33.5 21 -9* 168 198 6 no obvious main target<br />

River<br />

Goldie River 2122 4.6 33.9 12 6.5* 191 182 7 no obvious main target<br />

Salmon Creek 2455 42.6 -33.3 0 18.5* 197 182 1 1/176 bald eagle occurrences<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 7B, page 8 of 13

change in utility score<br />

mean absolute difference<br />

170<br />

140<br />

110<br />

80<br />

50<br />

20<br />

-10<br />

-90 -70 -50 -30 -10<br />

-40<br />

10 30 50 70 90 110 130<br />

4.0<br />

3.0<br />

2.0<br />

1.0<br />

-70<br />

-100<br />

-130<br />

-160<br />

-190<br />

percent change in suitability index<br />

Figure 7B.1 Rel<strong>at</strong>ionship between percent change in cost index and change in utility score for a<br />

=0.25, b=0.75. One point for each AU; 2707 total points. Light gray points correspond to AUs with<br />

significant change in utility score. Dark line: regression for AUs with change in utility score (r 2 =0.20,<br />

p

Bray-Curtis measure<br />

1.0<br />

0.8<br />

0.6<br />

0.4<br />

0.2<br />

0.0<br />

0 0.25 0.5 0.75<br />

change in parameter value<br />

Figure 7B.3 Comparison using Bray-Curtis measure of similarity of original utility map and map<br />

resulting from changes to cost index parameters. Bray-Curtis values for d, e, and f are nearly the<br />

same. Since a+b =1, a change to parameter a equals the opposite change in b.<br />

Spearman rank correl<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

1.0<br />

0.8<br />

0.6<br />

0.4<br />

0.2<br />

0.0<br />

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75<br />

change in parameter value<br />

Figure 7B.4. Comparison using Spearman rank correl<strong>at</strong>ion of original utility map and map resulting<br />

from changes to cost index parameters. Spearman rank correl<strong>at</strong>ion values for d, e, and f are nearly<br />

the same. Since a+b =1, change to parameter a equals the opposite change in b.<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 7B, page 10 of 13<br />

a<br />

b<br />

d<br />

e<br />

f<br />

a<br />

b<br />

d<br />

e<br />

f

number of AUs<br />

1600<br />

1400<br />

1200<br />

1000<br />

800<br />

600<br />

400<br />

200<br />

0<br />

0 10 20 30 40 50<br />

absolute difference in utility<br />

percent of AUs th<strong>at</strong> changed<br />

80<br />

70<br />

60<br />

50<br />

40<br />

30<br />

20<br />

10<br />

0<br />

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75<br />

change in parameter value<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 7B, page 11 of 13<br />

a<br />

b<br />

a<br />

b<br />

a=1<br />

a=0.50<br />

a=0.25<br />

a=0<br />

Figure 7B.5. Distribution of values for absolute difference in utility for four values of cost index<br />

parameter a. Original parameter value was a =0.75. Total number of AUs equals 2707. Since a+b =1,<br />

change to parameter a equals the opposite change in b.<br />

Figure 7B.6. Percent of all AUs with changed utility values as a result of changing cost index<br />

parameters a and b. dashed lines: percent of AUs th<strong>at</strong> changed; solid lines: percent of AUs with<br />

significant change. Since a+b =1, change to parameter a equals the opposite change in b.

percent of AUs th<strong>at</strong> changed<br />

40<br />

30<br />

20<br />

10<br />

0<br />

-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3<br />

change in parameter<br />

Figure 7B.7. Percent of all AUs with changed utility values as a result of changing cost index<br />

parameters d, e, and f. dashed lines: percent of AUs th<strong>at</strong> changed; solid lines: percent of AUs with<br />

significant change.<br />

mean absolute change in rank<br />

12<br />

10<br />

8<br />

6<br />

4<br />

2<br />

0<br />

-0.30 -0.10 0.10 0.30 0.50 0.70<br />

change in parameter value<br />

Figure 7B.8. Mean absolute change in rank in response to changing each cost index parameter; only<br />

AUs with rank equal to or gre<strong>at</strong>er than 100 (537 AUs; lowest possible rank was 197). Since a+b =1,<br />

change to parameter a equals the opposite change in b.<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 7B, page 12 of 13<br />

d<br />

e<br />

f<br />

d<br />

e<br />

f<br />

a<br />

b<br />

d<br />

e<br />

f

mean absolute change in rank<br />

4.0<br />

3.0<br />

2.0<br />

1.0<br />

0.0<br />

-0.30 -0.10 0.10 0.30 0.50 0.70<br />

change in parameter<br />

Figure 7B.9. Mean absolute change in rank in response to changing each cost index parameter; only<br />

AUs with original rank equal to 1 (utility score equal to 100). 189 AUs had original rank equal to 1.<br />

Since a+b =1, change to parameter a equals the opposite change in b.<br />

percent of AUs th<strong>at</strong> change rank<br />

8.0<br />

6.0<br />

4.0<br />

2.0<br />

0.0<br />

-0.30 -0.10 0.10 0.30 0.50 0.70<br />

change in parameter value<br />

Figure 7B.10. Percent of AUs th<strong>at</strong> changed rank in response to changing each cost index parameter;<br />

only AUs with original rank equal to 1 (utility score equal to 100). 189 AUs had original rank equal to<br />

1. Since a+b =1, change to parameter a equals the opposite change in b.<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 7B, page 13 of 13<br />

a<br />

b<br />

d<br />

e<br />

f<br />

a<br />

b<br />

d<br />

e<br />

f

Appendix 8A: Autom<strong>at</strong>ed Integr<strong>at</strong>ion of Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic and<br />

Terrestrial Site Selection<br />

8A.1 Introduction<br />

Efficiency has emerged as one of the fundamental principles in conserv<strong>at</strong>ion planning. As planning has<br />

evolved, a wider variety of targets (i.e., species and veget<strong>at</strong>ion/habit<strong>at</strong> types) have been brought into the<br />

process. Whereas the earliest conserv<strong>at</strong>ion plans focused only on imperiled species, l<strong>at</strong>er plans have<br />

focused on all known species and/or veget<strong>at</strong>ion types, both terrestrial and aqu<strong>at</strong>ic. To deal with this<br />

complexity, some sort of autom<strong>at</strong>ed site selection algorithm like SITES or MARXAN is commonly used to<br />

cre<strong>at</strong>e a map of conserv<strong>at</strong>ion priority areas (Andelman et al. 1999, Ball et al. 2000, Possingham et al.<br />

2000).<br />

One challenges to conserv<strong>at</strong>ion planning is how to efficiently protect both aqu<strong>at</strong>ic and terrestrial targets<br />

into a single suite of conserv<strong>at</strong>ion areas. Some plans have analyzed terrestrial and aqu<strong>at</strong>ic species and<br />

systems separ<strong>at</strong>ely then <strong>at</strong>tempted to merge the results through expert judgments. Others have analyzed<br />

both target types together in one layer of assessment units (AUs) and allowed the computer to find an<br />

optimal solution. A third approach is to merely overlay the outputs of a terrestrial and aqu<strong>at</strong>ic assessment.<br />

These three approaches have serious shortcomings. The expert integr<strong>at</strong>ion may be feasible for small areas,<br />

but large-scale planning efforts often cover millions of hectares. It is simply impossible for humans to<br />

synthesize enough inform<strong>at</strong>ion to ensure efficient outcomes. Analyzing both aqu<strong>at</strong>ic and terrestrial realms<br />

with the one-layer approach pushes some portion of the solution into unsuitable sites for some targets. Site<br />

selection algorithms look <strong>at</strong> the world through the lens of a suitability index which incorpor<strong>at</strong>es a<br />

combin<strong>at</strong>ion of factors such as road density, percent land conversion or monetary value. An index crafted<br />

for an aqu<strong>at</strong>ic species will have little relevance for upland terrestrial systems. Similarly, an index crafted<br />

for both realms will tend to mask impacts specific to a single realm. The simple overlay of the independent<br />

assessments is perhaps the most robust solution, but often leads to a massive conserv<strong>at</strong>ion portfolio. As<br />

identifying areas where it makes good sense to work on both aqu<strong>at</strong>ic and terrestrial systems <strong>at</strong> the same<br />

time is not an explicit criterion, any opportunities for efficiency will be overlooked.<br />

For the PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment we used a technique th<strong>at</strong> allows planners to analyze different<br />

target types simultaneously by using multiple layers of AUs crafted to m<strong>at</strong>ch the n<strong>at</strong>ural boundaries of the<br />

targets being assessed with suitability indices incorpor<strong>at</strong>ing impacts specific to those targets. This<br />

technique, vertical integr<strong>at</strong>ion, enables planners to identify a conserv<strong>at</strong>ion portfolio which capture the best<br />

locales for each target group, while simultaneously looking for efficiencies by seeking overlap in areas<br />

where multiple target types may be effectively conserved <strong>at</strong> once.<br />

8A.1.1 The Vertical Integr<strong>at</strong>ion Concept<br />

SITES require th<strong>at</strong> all species and ecological system inform<strong>at</strong>ion for a planning area be <strong>at</strong>tributed to wallto-wall<br />

coverages of AUs, usually small-scale w<strong>at</strong>ersheds or hexagons of several thousand hectares. A<br />

computer then examines millions of AU combin<strong>at</strong>ions, and chooses the best combin<strong>at</strong>ion from among them<br />

th<strong>at</strong> meet the goals <strong>at</strong> the smallest cost. The best output of the site selection algorithm then becomes the<br />

departure point for human planners to review and modify to craft a final conserv<strong>at</strong>ion portfolio. This cost<br />

is the combin<strong>at</strong>ion of the sum of the suitability index for all the selected AUs and the sum of penalties for<br />

not achieving desired goal levels combined with the sum of the boundary length, a measure of the outer<br />

perimeter of all selected AUs. Boundary length is proportional to fragment<strong>at</strong>ion. A conserv<strong>at</strong>ion portfolio<br />

comprised of many small, isol<strong>at</strong>ed p<strong>at</strong>ches will have a larger boundary length than one comprised of fewer,<br />

large p<strong>at</strong>ches.<br />

One concern of conserv<strong>at</strong>ion area planning is preserve fragment<strong>at</strong>ion. In order to address this concern,<br />

autom<strong>at</strong>ed assessments utilize the length of the conserv<strong>at</strong>ion area perimeter to apply a penalty for<br />

PNW Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8A, page 1 of 10

fragment<strong>at</strong>ion. Groupings of contiguous AUs have a shorter total perimeter, as the edge/area r<strong>at</strong>io is<br />

smaller than in a conserv<strong>at</strong>ion area comprised of isol<strong>at</strong>ed AUs (Figure 8A.1). SITES utilize a “boundary<br />

modifier” parameter to control the degree of clustering. This works by altering the penalty for<br />

fragment<strong>at</strong>ion. As the computer examines possible AU combin<strong>at</strong>ions, the tendency to prefer solutions with<br />

contiguous groupings of AUs increases as the boundary modifier is increased.<br />

Figure 8A.1: Both of these selections of AUs have the same area. The right hand<br />

grouping has a perimeter more than twice as long as the left grouping.<br />

In vertical integr<strong>at</strong>ion, the boundary rel<strong>at</strong>ions between AUs are used to allow the model to recognize th<strong>at</strong><br />

two or more polygons stacked upon each other are also adjacent. In these situ<strong>at</strong>ions the model <strong>at</strong>tempts to<br />

minimize the length of the total solution boundary by clustering vertically through a stack of AUs (Figure<br />

8A.2). If the boundary modifier is set to 0, the solution will pick the minimum number of AUs from each<br />

layer to meet the goals with no regard for adjacency. As the boundary modifier is increased, the<br />

importance of clustering, horizontally as well as vertically, is increased. This 3-dimensional approach<br />

mimics GIS analysis though no sp<strong>at</strong>ial analysis is involved in the selection algorithms.<br />

Figure 8A.2: A schem<strong>at</strong>ic demonstr<strong>at</strong>ing the boundary rel<strong>at</strong>ions between stacked and<br />

horizontally adjacent AUs. Each AU must rel<strong>at</strong>e to all other AUs above or below it, and in<br />

some cases, from side to side.<br />

PNW Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8A, page 2 of 10

A major advantage of vertical integr<strong>at</strong>ion is th<strong>at</strong> it frees planners from using the same AU polygons for all<br />

targets. It is often quite useful to use polygons which more closely m<strong>at</strong>ch the n<strong>at</strong>ural expression of a target<br />

type. Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic systems, for example, are often classified as nesting polygons of increasing w<strong>at</strong>ershed size.<br />

Tributary and headw<strong>at</strong>er drainages (Class 1) nest within small river drainages (Class 2), which in turn nest<br />

within large river drainages (Class 3). These classes of w<strong>at</strong>ershed can all be represented by polygons<br />

depicting their full contributing area. Their nesting is utilized with the vertical analysis so th<strong>at</strong> each<br />

polygon is aware of all the polygons contributing to it, or which it contributes to. This larger, landscape<br />

scale context is a key advantage of this technique. The selection of the larger w<strong>at</strong>ersheds is gre<strong>at</strong>ly<br />

influenced by their <strong>at</strong>traction to basins with a gre<strong>at</strong>er selected proportion of their constituent tributaries.<br />

Techniques which rely on only one layer of AUs will often only select isol<strong>at</strong>ed reaches with no regard for<br />

their rel<strong>at</strong>ion to the larger stream network.<br />

Multiple AU layers allow specific, relevant inform<strong>at</strong>ion for each target group to be factored into the<br />

suitability index. In the one-layer approach, a single suitability value was expected to account for all<br />

conditions which may impact any target group. This works well for pristine or heavily degraded AUs with<br />

similar degrees of impact to all targets, but fails where impacts are specific to one target group. A fish<br />

h<strong>at</strong>chery, for example, may thre<strong>at</strong>en a wild salmon stock but present no danger <strong>at</strong> all to a ridgeline plant<br />

species. In the one-layer approach several AUs can have similar suitability values, but each may be<br />

inappropri<strong>at</strong>e for one target group while well suited for conserv<strong>at</strong>ion of another. With vertical integr<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

the aqu<strong>at</strong>ic suitability index can factor in the h<strong>at</strong>chery while the terrestrial index is free to ignore it.<br />

The majority of AUs for any target group are interchangeable in th<strong>at</strong> many different combin<strong>at</strong>ions of AUs<br />

can meet similar proportions of goals <strong>at</strong> similar costs. Vertical integr<strong>at</strong>ion <strong>at</strong>tempts to maximize the<br />

overlap between layers, allowing the site selection algorithm to actively seek efficiencies while maintaining<br />

the discrimin<strong>at</strong>ion to avoid sites where conditions are unsuitable for a specific target group. The outputs<br />

from a vertically integr<strong>at</strong>ed solution offer more specific inform<strong>at</strong>ion about the conserv<strong>at</strong>ion portfolio.<br />

Where does it make sense to capture all targets or to capture target groups individually?<br />

8A.1.2 The Mechanics of Vertical Integr<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

SITES utilizes a file th<strong>at</strong> contains the lengths of shared boundaries between adjacent AUs to determine how<br />

to cluster AUs into conserv<strong>at</strong>ion areas. This file is the key to the proper functioning of vertical integr<strong>at</strong>ion.<br />

Let’s examine the simplest vertical integr<strong>at</strong>ion, two sp<strong>at</strong>ially identical AU layers: one for aqu<strong>at</strong>ic and<br />

another for terrestrial targets. The length of each boundary between all adjacent terrestrial AUs is<br />

measured. These rel<strong>at</strong>ions are then stored in the boundary rel<strong>at</strong>ions file. The aqu<strong>at</strong>ic AUs will then be<br />

rel<strong>at</strong>ed to the terrestrial AUs they overlap. In this case the aqu<strong>at</strong>ic and terrestrial AUs are sp<strong>at</strong>ially<br />

identical; the length of their shared boundaries could be measured as the area of the polygons, or set <strong>at</strong><br />

some synthetic value. We will initially set all of the aqu<strong>at</strong>ic-terrestrial boundaries <strong>at</strong> the mean of the<br />

terrestrial to terrestrial boundaries, so the model will generally be as likely to clump upwards through the<br />

stack as from side to side within a layer. These rel<strong>at</strong>ions will also be stored to the boundary rel<strong>at</strong>ions file.<br />

Two components will be part of the complete boundary rel<strong>at</strong>ions file; the traditional boundary rel<strong>at</strong>ions<br />

between the terrestrial AUs, and the rel<strong>at</strong>ions of the aqu<strong>at</strong>ic AUs to the terrestrial AUs they overlap.<br />

An iter<strong>at</strong>ion of SITES begins with any "locked in" AUs th<strong>at</strong> should be part of any conserv<strong>at</strong>ion area, and a<br />

partial random selection of additional AUs. All selected AUs will then be scored for how well they meet<br />

target goals, the total cost of the solution, and total length of boundary. All exposed boundaries of selected<br />

AUs are included in the boundary length score. In vertical integr<strong>at</strong>ion, those exposed boundaries will also<br />

include the values rel<strong>at</strong>ing a selected AU with other non-selected AUs above or below it. For example, we<br />

are using 2 layers of AUs stacked in our analysis. If a terrestrial AU and the aqu<strong>at</strong>ic unit above it are both<br />

selected, there will be no penalty in the vertical plane, while a terrestrial unit selected without any<br />

corresponding aqu<strong>at</strong>ic AU would accrue a penalty. Similarly, the aqu<strong>at</strong>ic AUs would accumul<strong>at</strong>e penalties<br />

for the unselected terrestrial AUs bene<strong>at</strong>h them. Solutions which maximize the overlap between AU layers<br />

will be favored by the algorithm. However, the algorithm is not forced to select overlapping AUs in all<br />

cases. If the costs of an AU are prohibitive, or if the conserv<strong>at</strong>ion targets in an AU are no longer required<br />

to meet goals, the algorithm can choose to forgo its selection even when the unit above or below it has been<br />

selected.<br />

PNW Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8A, page 3 of 10

The boundary modifier parameter determines the strength of associ<strong>at</strong>ion between layers. If the weighting is<br />

set to 0, AUs required to meet the goals <strong>at</strong> a low cost are selected without regard for adjacency. At low<br />

weightings the effects of clustering will begin to be seen. A high weighting will clump so tightly th<strong>at</strong><br />

virtually every selected terrestrial AU will correspond with a selected aqu<strong>at</strong>ic unit, and the p<strong>at</strong>ch size of the<br />

terrestrial conserv<strong>at</strong>ion areas will increase dram<strong>at</strong>ically. It is important to remember th<strong>at</strong> as the weighting<br />

increases more extraneous AUs will be selected merely to reduce the exposed boundary of the conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

area. Iter<strong>at</strong>ive runs, with increasing boundary penalty weightings, will allow the planning team to select the<br />

level <strong>at</strong> which clustering is appropri<strong>at</strong>ely balanced with the size of the total conserv<strong>at</strong>ion area.<br />

8A.2 Methods<br />

Targets were broken into several groups, terrestrial, estuarine, freshw<strong>at</strong>er aqu<strong>at</strong>ics (3 size classes), and<br />

near-shore marine. Assessment units were crafted for each group and separ<strong>at</strong>e suitability indices were<br />

calcul<strong>at</strong>ed for each. Each target group was analyzed in a stand-alone fashion to see wh<strong>at</strong> the ideal<br />

autom<strong>at</strong>ed solution might be for th<strong>at</strong> group. All target groups were then run in a vertically integr<strong>at</strong>ed<br />

analysis, the solutions decomposed into their constituent layers and compared back to their original standalone<br />

runs to gauge the sacrifices made by any target group to accommod<strong>at</strong>e integr<strong>at</strong>ion with the others.<br />

Iter<strong>at</strong>ive runs also allowed us to weight the groups appropri<strong>at</strong>ely (by scaling their suitability and boundary<br />

values) so no one target group was domin<strong>at</strong>ing the outcomes. The final conserv<strong>at</strong>ion portfolio met goals<br />

for virtually every target, with all targets having an influence in the outcome.<br />

The terrestrial group was <strong>at</strong>tributed to small-scale w<strong>at</strong>ersheds approxim<strong>at</strong>ely 2,500 ha in size. These were<br />

chosen because they cover the full extent of the ecoregion and make ecological sense to many of our<br />

partners and reviewers.<br />

The aqu<strong>at</strong>ic group was represented by three classes of nesting polygonal w<strong>at</strong>ersheds, tributary and<br />

headw<strong>at</strong>er drainages less than 100 km² (Class 1), small river drainages between 100 - 1000 km² (Class 2),<br />

and large river drainages more than 1000 km² (Class 3). These three classes of w<strong>at</strong>ershed were all<br />

represented by polygons depicting their full contributing area. The Class 3 polygons contain the Class 1<br />

and 2 polygons contributing to them, and the Class 2 polygons encompass the Class 1 polygons which<br />

contribute to them. Some w<strong>at</strong>ersheds do not drain into others, for example, when a small coastal creek<br />

flows directly into the ocean. For the vast majority of w<strong>at</strong>ersheds, however, this nesting was a key to the<br />

analysis as each polygon was made aware of all the polygons contributing to it, or which it contributed to.<br />

The near-shore marine AUs were line segments corresponding to reaches of shore-zone habit<strong>at</strong>; unique<br />

combin<strong>at</strong>ions of substr<strong>at</strong>e, wave exposure, and biotic assemblage. Their length of overlap (in meters) with<br />

the terrestrial or estuarine polygon they were nearest was used as the length of shared boundary in the<br />

boundary file.<br />

Estuaries were represented by polygons. In the US portion of the ecoregion, those polygons were defined<br />

by salinity zones and estuarine veget<strong>at</strong>ion. On Vancouver Island they were merely polygonal depictions of<br />

the extent of each estuary. Vancouver Island estuaries tend to be quite small, as they often occur <strong>at</strong> the<br />

heads of narrow fjords, and are fed by smaller streams. To give our model the context to discrimin<strong>at</strong>e<br />

between these estuaries the sum of the shore-zone habit<strong>at</strong>s intersecting each was <strong>at</strong>tributed to the polygons.<br />

Each of these planning unit layers had suitability inform<strong>at</strong>ion tailored specifically for the targets within<br />

them. Each group was run in a stand-alone analysis, with the "best" output of each (10 runs, 5,000,000<br />

iter<strong>at</strong>ions each, boundary modifier 0.1) saved as the benchmark to gauge future solutions during the<br />

integr<strong>at</strong>ion process.<br />

All target layers were combined into one analysis using the "vertical integr<strong>at</strong>ion" technique. We had earlier<br />

determined th<strong>at</strong> a boundary modifier of 0.1 was optimal to achieve appropri<strong>at</strong>ely sized clumps in our<br />

terrestrial solution without many extraneous AUs. However, we wished to ensure th<strong>at</strong> the overlap between<br />

layers was maximized in the integr<strong>at</strong>ed solution without sweeping lots of extraneous AUs into the solution.<br />

PNW Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8A, page 4 of 10

Increasing the boundary modifier would unfortun<strong>at</strong>ely have th<strong>at</strong> effect. Instead, we held the boundary<br />

modifier <strong>at</strong> 0.1, and increased the boundary values between layers in the boundary rel<strong>at</strong>ions file. The initial<br />

boundaries between layers were set <strong>at</strong> the overlap of AU polygons in hectares. Boundary values between<br />

the terrestrial and aqu<strong>at</strong>ic assessment unit layers were set <strong>at</strong> 10,000 for run 1 and increased by 20% for each<br />

successive run. As the values increased, the overlap between layers also increased to reduce the exposed<br />

boundary of the stacked layers. This iter<strong>at</strong>ive process was repe<strong>at</strong>ed until the costs of one of the constituent<br />

solution layers began to spike (Figure 8A.3). The run previous to th<strong>at</strong> spike, in this case the fourth<br />

iter<strong>at</strong>ion, was then used to identify the integr<strong>at</strong>ed conserv<strong>at</strong>ion area. As the values of the boundaries<br />

between layers increased, the area of overlap between layers also increased, while the costs of the solutions<br />

remained fairly fl<strong>at</strong>. The solutions were shifting to allow targets, for which multiple combin<strong>at</strong>ions of<br />

planning units <strong>at</strong> similar costs could meet goals, to accommod<strong>at</strong>e integr<strong>at</strong>ion. As a comparison, all targets<br />

were <strong>at</strong>tributed to a single layer of AUs for a traditional one-layer analysis. Suitability values for these<br />

AUs were set <strong>at</strong> the average of the corresponding terrestrial and aqu<strong>at</strong>ic AU’s suitability scores. All other<br />

weightings and settings were held constant. The outputs for both scenarios were compared for the Olympic<br />

sub-section of the PNWC assessment. This subsection was chosen <strong>at</strong> it had the tightest coincidence<br />

between the aqu<strong>at</strong>ic and terrestrial sub-sectional boundaries (Figure 8A.4).<br />

SITES only sees the cost of the total solution, but decomposing the vertical solution into its constituent<br />

layers allows the tracking of the costs of all layers in the solution (Figure 8A.3). The costs of the solutions<br />

remain fairly fl<strong>at</strong> until the point <strong>at</strong> which the increased boundaries between layers begin to have a gre<strong>at</strong>er<br />

influence in the objective function than the suitability values of the assessment units. In this case run 6<br />

represents a local minima with the costs of the aqu<strong>at</strong>ic and terrestrial solutions as low or lower than in the<br />

stand-alone runs for those realms, followed by rapidly increasing costs as the boundary values begin to<br />

overwhelm costs in the Objective function. The overlap between layers will continue to increase as long as<br />

the boundary values between layers do, but after run 6 those gains in overlap are more than offset by the<br />

increase of the costs of the solution, representing the increasing proportion of sub-optimal assessment units<br />

in the solutions to maximize overlap. Run 6 was chosen as the starting point for integr<strong>at</strong>ion.<br />

PNW Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8A, page 5 of 10

Hectares<br />

Total Cost<br />

Total Cost<br />

1750000<br />

1700000<br />

1650000<br />

1600000<br />

1550000<br />

1500000<br />

1450000<br />

1400000<br />

1350000<br />

11150000<br />

11100000<br />

11050000<br />

11000000<br />

10950000<br />

10900000<br />

10850000<br />

10800000<br />

10750000<br />

10700000<br />

10650000<br />

15700000<br />

15600000<br />

15500000<br />

15400000<br />

15300000<br />

15200000<br />

15100000<br />

Overlap (hectares) between Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic and Terrestrial Solutions<br />

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10<br />

Run Number<br />

Cost of Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic Portion of Solution<br />

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10<br />

Run Number<br />

Cost of Terrestrial Portion of Solution<br />

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10<br />

Run Number<br />

Figure 3: Change in “cost” for terrestrial and aqu<strong>at</strong>ic portions of “best” solution and<br />

increase in overlap of terrestrial and aqu<strong>at</strong>ic portions as BM is increased.<br />

PNW Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8A, page 6 of 10

Figure 8A.4: Comparison between vertically-integr<strong>at</strong>ed and one-layer autom<strong>at</strong>ed site<br />

selection methods. Area shown is Olympic Peninsula in the <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong><br />

Ecoreigon.<br />

PNW Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8A, page 7 of 10

The goals were generally met well by both analyses (Table 8C.1). The combined footprint of the vertically<br />

integr<strong>at</strong>ed terrestrial and aqu<strong>at</strong>ic conserv<strong>at</strong>ions area within the Olympic Peninsula sub-region was 521,677<br />

ha. The footprint for the one-layer conserv<strong>at</strong>ion area was 558,202 ha, 7% larger (Figure 8A.4). A better<br />

comparison of the performance of the different analysis may be the Elwa River. The vast majority of the<br />

Elwa River drainage is within Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional Park. The uplands surrounding the river are in exquisite<br />

condition with large tracts of old growth forest. Unfortun<strong>at</strong>ely, one of the largest dams in the PNWC sits<br />

low in the w<strong>at</strong>ershed, providing hydropower for the region. 25,000 ha of the Elwa w<strong>at</strong>ershed were selected<br />

by the one-layer methodology, applying all of the aqu<strong>at</strong>ic systems they contained towards the goals. In the<br />

vertically integr<strong>at</strong>ed approach none of the Elwa appears in the aqu<strong>at</strong>ic solution, but large portions are in the<br />

terrestrial portion of the solution. This is a classic example of the blindness of a suitability index crafted<br />

for all targets to appropri<strong>at</strong>ely assess impacts for an individual target group.<br />

8A.3 Discussion<br />

Vertical integr<strong>at</strong>ion, since its inception 2 years ago, has been used by several planning teams in the United<br />

St<strong>at</strong>es and Canada. Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic planning teams, most specifically, have found it beneficial because it has<br />

solved the problem of connectivity. In the one-layer approach, no AU is aware of any other AU it does not<br />

touch. The one-layer approach is inherently unable to link many contributing w<strong>at</strong>ersheds together to form<br />

continuous aqu<strong>at</strong>ic conserv<strong>at</strong>ion areas. Because the vertical integr<strong>at</strong>ion technique, when used with nesting<br />

w<strong>at</strong>ersheds, cre<strong>at</strong>es rel<strong>at</strong>ionships between larger size classes and all of their smaller contributing<br />

w<strong>at</strong>ersheds, it is able to build these connections. There are, however, some consider<strong>at</strong>ions a team must be<br />

aware of when <strong>at</strong>tempting to utilize this technique.<br />

An autom<strong>at</strong>ed portfolio is a m<strong>at</strong>hem<strong>at</strong>ical solution for a conserv<strong>at</strong>ion area design problem. Planners must<br />

realize th<strong>at</strong> any autom<strong>at</strong>ed output only represents the solution with the smallest value of the objective<br />

function. The numeric value of the objective function is largely a dynamic tension between the sums of the<br />

suitability scores and sums of the boundary penalties. If either factor is weighted too heavily it will<br />

domin<strong>at</strong>e the outcome. Therefore, planners are urged to look <strong>at</strong> the tabular outputs of their analysis,<br />

specifically the component values of the objective function. If, for example, a solution has nearly perfect<br />

overlap between selected terrestrial and aqu<strong>at</strong>ic AUs, the boundary values in the objective function will<br />

probably far exceed the suitability scores. In this case, the team may also notice the aqu<strong>at</strong>ic targets are also<br />

far exceeding their goals.<br />

Similarly, AU layers with gre<strong>at</strong>est rel<strong>at</strong>ive costs will have the largest impact on the value of the objective<br />

function, and therefore have the gre<strong>at</strong>est influence on the conserv<strong>at</strong>ion area design. Therefore, when<br />

designing your analysis layers which contain the most robust inform<strong>at</strong>ion, or layers of special conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

interest, may be weighted more heavily to allow them more influence in the outcome. The actual influence<br />

a layer has can somewh<strong>at</strong> be gauged by the cost shift of the other AU layers when compared against their<br />

stand-alone runs. In the PNWC analysis, for example, we didn’t want the shore-zone segments to have a<br />

very large influence on the conserv<strong>at</strong>ion area design. Costs were scaled down rel<strong>at</strong>ive to the terrestrial and<br />

aqu<strong>at</strong>ic AUs. During the integr<strong>at</strong>ed runs, the costs of the aqu<strong>at</strong>ic and terrestrial components of the vertical<br />

solution showed no significant difference compared to the stand-alone runs for those layers. The shorezone<br />

portion of the vertical solution, on the other hand, showed an average 23% increase in costs compared<br />

to its stand-alone counterpart. The shore-zone component of the vertical solution was being forced into less<br />

favorable areas to accommod<strong>at</strong>e integr<strong>at</strong>ion with the aqu<strong>at</strong>ic and terrestrial layers.<br />

The geometries of AUs can also gre<strong>at</strong>ly influence the outcome. Hexagons, for example, cluster much more<br />

easily, and <strong>at</strong> lower boundary modifier levels, than irregularly shaped AUs like w<strong>at</strong>ersheds. It is<br />

important th<strong>at</strong> planners build the terrestrial AU boundaries and experiment with ranges of boundary<br />

modifiers and suitability values th<strong>at</strong> will produce reasonable outcomes. Boundary rel<strong>at</strong>ions and suitability<br />

values for other layers may then be based upon the ranges established in the terrestrial analysis. For aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

analysis it is beneficial to utilize synthetic values for boundary lengths. Because any w<strong>at</strong>ershed of a type<br />

counts toward goals as much as any other w<strong>at</strong>ershed of th<strong>at</strong> same type, area need not be a factor in the<br />

boundary rel<strong>at</strong>ions. Basing aqu<strong>at</strong>ic boundary values upon the mean of the terrestrial boundary lengths<br />

produces a more robust integr<strong>at</strong>ed solution. For example, if the mean of the terrestrial boundaries is 3000,<br />

PNW Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8A, page 8 of 10

any Class 1 to terrestrial AU, Class1 to Class 2, or Class 1 to Class 3 boundary rel<strong>at</strong>ion should be set near<br />

3000, Class 2 to Class 3 rel<strong>at</strong>ions perhaps twice as much. In the stand-alone aqu<strong>at</strong>ic solutions, the<br />

suitability values can then be scaled up or down until they are appropri<strong>at</strong>ely balanced against the boundary<br />

values of the objective function. Class 2 and 3 suitability values need not necessarily be the sums of their<br />

constituent Class 1s, they can be scaled independently such th<strong>at</strong> the average Class 2 is twice the cost of the<br />

average Class1, and the average of the Class 3s three times the cost of the average Class 1. Iter<strong>at</strong>ive runs,<br />

with careful scrutiny of the objective function constituents and goal <strong>at</strong>tainment of the solutions, will assist<br />

the planner in achieving the appropri<strong>at</strong>e balance.<br />

Linear fe<strong>at</strong>ures, like the shore-zone habit<strong>at</strong>s used in the PNWC analysis, can also be used as layer in a<br />

vertical analysis. As line fe<strong>at</strong>ures have no true area, boundary rel<strong>at</strong>ions should be proportional to the length<br />

of the segment’s intersection with other AU layers, and scaled to be appropri<strong>at</strong>ely balanced against those<br />

other layers.<br />

An early criticism, partially based upon fears th<strong>at</strong> vertically integr<strong>at</strong>ed solutions would be less efficient,<br />

was th<strong>at</strong> if targets are split between multiple AU layers, the algorithm would only receive credit for th<strong>at</strong><br />

portion of the targets in the selected AUs. In other words, if an area is selected only for terrestrial targets,<br />

and conserv<strong>at</strong>ion resources will be applied to those targets, wouldn’t the aqu<strong>at</strong>ic resources there also<br />

benefit, and therefore shouldn’t they be counted towards goals as well? As our Elwa example demonstr<strong>at</strong>es,<br />

it is not necessarily advantageous to count all targets which occur on the landscape every time an AU is<br />

selected. In fact, this is a chief failing of the one-layer methodology; areas are often selected for one group<br />

of targets th<strong>at</strong> may be unsuitable for another group. Additionally, the specificity of the vertical outputs is<br />

very useful inform<strong>at</strong>ion. The overlap between terrestrial and aqu<strong>at</strong>ic solutions is the area where it does<br />

make sense to work on both target groups. AUs which appear in only one portion of a solution may have<br />

management and conserv<strong>at</strong>ion str<strong>at</strong>egies applied to them which are specific to those targets. In a world<br />

where human and financial resources are tight, tailoring conserv<strong>at</strong>ion solutions efficiently and appropri<strong>at</strong>ely<br />

is paramount.<br />

Stand alone analysis for terrestrial and aqu<strong>at</strong>ic realms are valuable exercises in themselves. They reveal<br />

p<strong>at</strong>terns of biodiversity, possible conserv<strong>at</strong>ion opportunities for targets, and help identify thre<strong>at</strong>s to those<br />

same resources. If AUs and target d<strong>at</strong>a are built with integr<strong>at</strong>ion in mind, the boundary rel<strong>at</strong>ions between<br />

AU layers is the only additional d<strong>at</strong>a required for integr<strong>at</strong>ion. All other tables can be cut and pasted<br />

together with no additional modific<strong>at</strong>ion. This is much easier than having to rebuild all d<strong>at</strong>a from scr<strong>at</strong>ch to<br />

fit all targets into a single AU layer.<br />

Finally, it should be noted th<strong>at</strong> any autom<strong>at</strong>ed output is only as good as the inform<strong>at</strong>ion the algorithm was<br />

given. D<strong>at</strong>a is a snapshot in time, often a snapshot taken 10 years ago. Peer review of any autom<strong>at</strong>ed<br />

output is critical if we wish the conserv<strong>at</strong>ion area design to truly meet the needs of the targets over time.<br />

PNW Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8A, page 9 of 10

Table 8C.1. Comparison of goal <strong>at</strong>tainment between vertically integr<strong>at</strong>ed, and one layer site selection model for the PNWC<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Target<br />

Amount<br />

Available<br />

Goal Proportion of<br />

Goal Captured<br />

by "One-<br />

PNW Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8A, page 10 of 10<br />

Layer"<br />

Proportion of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

"Vertical<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ion"<br />

Astragalus australis var olympicus 9 5 140.000 140.000<br />

Astragalus microcystis 2 2 100.000 100.000<br />

Carex pluriflora 3 3 100.000 100.000<br />

Cimicifuga el<strong>at</strong>a 1 1 100.000 100.000<br />

Dodec<strong>at</strong>heon austrofrigidum 1 1 100.000 100.000<br />

Pellaea breweri 2 2 100.000 100.000<br />

Plantago macrocarpa 8 7 114.286 114.286<br />

Saxifraga tischii 2 2 100.000 100.000<br />

Sparganium fluctuans 2 1 200.000 200.000<br />

Synthyris pinn<strong>at</strong>ifida var lanugino 19 17 105.882 105.882<br />

Accipiter gentilis 16 9 111.111 144.444<br />

Ardea herodias fannini 2 1 100.000 100.000<br />

Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 670 338 126.627 111.243<br />

Dicamptodon copei 51 8 412.500 450.000<br />

Euphydryas chalcedona perdiccas 15 13 107.692 100.000<br />

Falco peregrinus 28 13 146.154 146.154<br />

Haliaeetus leucocephalus 197 67 179.104 150.746<br />

Hemphillia burringtoni 31 10 150.000 100.000<br />

Hemphillia glandulosa glandulosa 33 5 300.000 240.000<br />

Histrionicus histrionicus 51 4 800.000 800.000<br />

Icaricia icarioides blackmorei 8 6 116.667 133.333<br />

Incisalia mossii mossii 2 1 200.000 200.000<br />

Lycaena mariposa charlottensis 2 1 100.000 200.000<br />

Oeneis chryxus valer<strong>at</strong>a 10 8 125.000 112.500<br />

Parnassius smintheus olympianus 13 13 100.000 100.000<br />

Plebejus acmon spangel<strong>at</strong>us 2 1 200.000 200.000<br />

Plethodon vandykei 20 9 166.667 144.444<br />

Progne subis 3 1 200.000 200.000<br />

Rana cascadae 4 4 100.000 100.000<br />

Rhyacotriton olympicus 76 24 225.000 237.500<br />

Speyeria zerene bremnerii 5 4 125.000 125.000<br />

Strix occidentalis caurina 232 119 125.210 113.445<br />

Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 122941 36882 173.998 73.431<br />

Oncorhynchus keta pop ? 155532 77766 40.469 34.914<br />

Oncorhynchus keta pop ? 228952 68686 58.846 43.953<br />

Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 2279730 683919 11.577 12.091<br />

Oncorhynchus kisutch pop ? 698498 209549 81.268 47.260<br />

Oncorhynchus kisutch pop ? 1953219 585966 130.269 135.326<br />

Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 4698839 1409652 1.266 2.072<br />

Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 1155963 346789 146.647 157.535<br />

Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 452456 135737 125.869 78.464<br />

Oncorhynchus nerka 34400 34400 81.728 93.534<br />

Oncorhynchus nerka 6107 6107 99.995 99.995<br />

Oncorhynchus nerka 84075 84075 100.000 100.000<br />

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 3092704 927811 51.340 56.318<br />

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 1042244 312673 122.810 145.621<br />

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 486454 145936 158.147 182.357<br />

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 199922 99961 96.824 72.409<br />

Salvelinus confluentus 135223 67611 160.153 168.345<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong>al Herbaceous Bald And Bluff 23 3 600.000 500.000<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-shrubland And Meadow 22749 2275 718.683 648.902<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 295795 88739 124.509 133.719<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-mesic Doug Fir-western Hemlock Forest 195965 58790 170.906 135.374<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-mesic Doug Fir-western Hemlock Forest 241841 72552 148.667 136.164<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Montane Riparian Woodland And Shrubland 3 3 100.000 66.667<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest 125003 25001 320.145 316.606<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-silver Fir Forest 196807 39361 312.743 285.359<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Tributaries - Outwash, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient 32 11 63.636 54.545<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Upland - Glacial Till, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Low Gradient 42 14 107.143 135.714<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Upland - Sandstones, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient 40 13 69.231 100.000<br />

Olympics - Sandstones, High Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, High Gradient 12 4 275.000 300.000<br />

Olympics - Sandstones, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, High Gradient 31 10 190.000 150.000<br />

Puget Lowlands - Outwash, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient 9 5 60.000 40.000<br />

Haliaeetus leucocephalus wintering area 1 1 100.000 100.000

Appendix 8B Peer Review Comments and Comment Disposition<br />

Action<br />

Suggest-ed Action taken Comment taken on 28 Comment<br />

Planning St<strong>at</strong>e/<br />

edits to on 7 June on 7 June June SITES on 28 June<br />

D<strong>at</strong>e unit Prov. Targets<br />

SITES SITES run SITES run run SITES run Comments<br />

Chinook, Chum,<br />

Coho, Cuthro<strong>at</strong>, Dolly<br />

Varden, Winter<br />

12/18/2003 1517 BC Steelhead A A Y Nanaimo River, Identified as priority<br />

Chinook, Chum,<br />

Coho, Cuthro<strong>at</strong>, Dolly<br />

Varden, Winter<br />

12/18/2003 1526 BC Steelhead A A Y Nanaimo River, Identified as priority<br />

12/18/2003 1597 BC Ecological Systems D D Y Lots of logging<br />

12/18/2003 1637 BC Ecological Systems D Y Y Lots of logging<br />

12/18/2003 1649 BC Ecological Systems D D Y Lots of logging<br />

12/18/2003 1673 BC Ecological Systems D Y Y Lots of logging<br />

Stream from Lake Cowichan one of the most important<br />

salmon streams on Vani.<br />

Chinook, Chum,<br />

Coho, Cuthro<strong>at</strong>, Dolly<br />

Varden, Winter<br />

Steelhead A A Y<br />

12/18/2003 1729 BC<br />

Stream from Lake Cowichan one of the most important<br />

salmon streams on Vani.<br />

Chinook, Chum,<br />

Coho, Cuthro<strong>at</strong>, Dolly<br />

Varden, Winter<br />

12/18/2003 1755 BC Steelhead A A Y<br />

4/6/2004 1928 WA D Y Y – Sekiu River<br />

4/6/2004 1936 WA D D Y – Physt River<br />

– Umbrella Creek : very important tributary to Lake Ozette;<br />

spawning area for endangered Lake Ozette sockeye; headw<strong>at</strong>ers<br />

are in NHP community EO’s for wetlands and bogs; would<br />

expand effective area of coastal strip <strong>at</strong> a key site; public land<br />

survey records show the area had some of the highest basal area<br />

and biomass recordings known (with a significant portion from<br />

4/6/2004 1937 WA A Y Y<br />

grand fir).<br />

old growth species - spow, mamu, harle, amphibs, b<strong>at</strong>s,<br />

3/24/2004 1940 WA old growth A? N N<br />

etc.<br />

4/4/2004 1944 WA A N N Taylor's checkerspot<br />

should be<br />

4/4/2004 1944 WA A? N N point site occurrence of rare plant community FERO-CEAR-KOMA<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8B, page 1 of 23

Comment<br />

on 28 June<br />

SITES run Comments<br />

Action<br />

taken on 28<br />

June SITES<br />

run<br />

Comment<br />

on 7 June<br />

SITES run<br />

Action taken<br />

on 7 June<br />

SITES run<br />

Suggest-ed<br />

edits to<br />

SITES<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/<br />

Prov. Targets<br />

Planning<br />

unit<br />

D<strong>at</strong>e<br />

– Crooked Creek – similar to Umbrella Creek in its significance<br />

to the Lake Ozette area; also contains old-growth forest stands<br />

and nesting marbled murrelets.<br />

4/6/2004 1950 WA A A A<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> brant, chinook<br />

& chum<br />

salmon,Taylor's<br />

not in Dungeness River, 7 listed or candid<strong>at</strong>e fed. T&E sp.<br />

1/27/2004 1951 WA Checkermallow A N N ecoregion (including Taylor's checkerspot, bull trout)<br />

4/6/2004 1959 WA D N N – Lake Pleasant<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> brant, chinook<br />

& chum<br />

salmon,Taylor's<br />

not in Dungeness River, 7 listed or candid<strong>at</strong>e fed. T&E sp.<br />

1/27/2004 1965 WA Checkermallow A N N ecoregion (including Taylor's checkerspot, bull trout)<br />

4/6/2004 1992 WA D Y Y – DNR block near Forks<br />

4/6/2004 1998 WA D Y Y – West Fork Dickey Creek<br />

Dungeness River, 7 listed or candid<strong>at</strong>e fed. T&E sp.<br />

1/27/2004 2003 WA<br />

(including Taylor's checkerspot, bull trout)<br />

old growth species - spow, mamu, harle, amphibs, b<strong>at</strong>s,<br />

3/24/2004 2023 WA old growth A? N N<br />

etc.<br />

added as<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> brant, chinook<br />

class 2 # Dungeness River, 7 listed or candid<strong>at</strong>e fed. T&E sp.<br />

1/27/2004 2030 WA & chum salmon A N AC2 17157 (including Taylor's checkerspot, bull trout)<br />

3/24/2004 2032 WA Salmon A? A<br />

5/19/2004 2038 WA special wetland A N N P<strong>at</strong>'s Prairie; Section 29, T29N, R4W<br />

1/27/2004 2043 WA G OUT OUT Snow & Salmon Cr. restor<strong>at</strong>ion sites<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> brant, chinook<br />

& chum<br />

salmon,Taylor's<br />

Checkermallow A N N<br />

– South Fork Calahwah River : one of the most significant<br />

popul<strong>at</strong>ion areas for spotted owls on the Olympic Peninsula; owls<br />

have the highest popul<strong>at</strong>ion persistence here in models over time;<br />

contains USFS roadless area; partly within ONP.<br />

4/6/2004 2059 WA A A A<br />

old growth species - spow, mamu, harle, amphibs, b<strong>at</strong>s,<br />

etc.<br />

3/24/2004 2059 WA old growth A? A A<br />

3/24/2004 2064 WA Salmon A? A<br />

Dungeness River, 7 listed or candid<strong>at</strong>e fed. T&E sp.<br />

(including Taylor's checkerspot, bull trout)<br />

added as<br />

class 2 #<br />

17157<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> brant, chinook<br />

& chum salmon A N AC2<br />

1/27/2004 2068 WA<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8B, page 2 of 23

Action<br />

Suggest-ed Action taken Comment taken on 28 Comment<br />

Planning St<strong>at</strong>e/<br />

edits to on 7 June on 7 June June SITES on 28 June<br />

D<strong>at</strong>e unit Prov. Targets<br />

SITES SITES run SITES run run SITES run Comments<br />

added as<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> brant, chinook<br />

class 2 # Dungeness River, 7 listed or candid<strong>at</strong>e fed. T&E sp.<br />

1/27/2004 2069 WA & chum salmon A N AC2 17157 (including Taylor's checkerspot, bull trout)<br />

3/24/2004 2070 WA Salmon A? A<br />

3/24/2004 2072 WA Salmon A N Elk Creek as extremely high quality salmon habit<strong>at</strong><br />

old growth species - spow, mamu, harle, amphibs, b<strong>at</strong>s,<br />

3/24/2004 2072 WA old growth A? N<br />

etc.<br />

– South Fork Calahwah River : one of the most significant<br />

popul<strong>at</strong>ion areas for spotted owls on the Olympic Peninsula; owls<br />

have the highest popul<strong>at</strong>ion persistence here in models over time;<br />

contains USFS roadless area; partly within ONP.<br />

4/6/2004 2074 WA A A A<br />

– South Fork Calahwah River : one of the most significant<br />

popul<strong>at</strong>ion areas for spotted owls on the Olympic Peninsula; owls<br />

have the highest popul<strong>at</strong>ion persistence here in models over time;<br />

contains USFS roadless area; partly within ONP.<br />

4/6/2004 2076 WA A A A<br />

old growth species - spow, mamu, harle, amphibs, b<strong>at</strong>s,<br />

etc.<br />

3/24/2004 2076 WA old growth A? A A<br />

– South Fork Calahwah River : one of the most significant<br />

popul<strong>at</strong>ion areas for spotted owls on the Olympic Peninsula; owls<br />

have the highest popul<strong>at</strong>ion persistence here in models over time;<br />

4/6/2004 2080 WA A Y Y<br />

contains USFS roadless area; partly within ONP.<br />

old growth species - spow, mamu, harle, amphibs, b<strong>at</strong>s,<br />

3/24/2004 2080 WA old growth A? Y Y<br />

etc.<br />

4/4/2004 2084 WA A N N southend, continu<strong>at</strong>ion of oldgrowth from 2101, 2084<br />

– Maxfield Creek : area of significant importance for potential<br />

connectivity between Olympic Mountains and coastal strip;<br />

riddled with NHP community EO’s (old-growth forest types,<br />

wetlands, bogs), murrelets, and owls; adjacent to important<br />

Goodman Creek block of DNR land.<br />

4/6/2004 2084 WA A N N<br />

– South Fork Calahwah River : one of the most significant<br />

popul<strong>at</strong>ion areas for spotted owls on the Olympic Peninsula; owls<br />

have the highest popul<strong>at</strong>ion persistence here in models over time;<br />

contains USFS roadless area; partly within ONP.<br />

4/6/2004 2085 WA A N Y<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8B, page 3 of 23

Comment<br />

on 28 June<br />

SITES run Comments<br />

Action<br />

taken on 28<br />

June SITES<br />

run<br />

Comment<br />

on 7 June<br />

SITES run<br />

Action taken<br />

on 7 June<br />

SITES run<br />

Suggest-ed<br />

edits to<br />

SITES<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/<br />

Prov. Targets<br />

Planning<br />

unit<br />

D<strong>at</strong>e<br />

– South Fork Calahwah River : one of the most significant<br />

popul<strong>at</strong>ion areas for spotted owls on the Olympic Peninsula; owls<br />

have the highest popul<strong>at</strong>ion persistence here in models over time;<br />

contains USFS roadless area; partly within ONP.<br />

old growth species - spow, mamu, harle, amphibs, b<strong>at</strong>s,<br />

etc.<br />

old growth species - spow, mamu, harle, amphibs, b<strong>at</strong>s,<br />

etc.<br />

4/6/2004 2085 WA A Y Y<br />

3/24/2004 2085 WA old growth A? Y Y<br />

3/24/2004 2085 WA old growth A? Y Y<br />

4/4/2004 2087 WA A N N old-growth cedar/skunkcabbage, coastal plain oldgrowth<br />

– Maxfield Creek : area of significant importance for potential<br />

connectivity between Olympic Mountains and coastal strip;<br />

riddled with NHP community EO’s (old-growth forest types,<br />

wetlands, bogs), murrelets, and owls; adjacent to important<br />

4/6/2004 2087 WA A N N<br />

Goodman Creek block of DNR land.<br />

5/12/2004 2087 OR D Y Y Bogachiel River - in bad shape - big h<strong>at</strong>chery<br />

5/12/2004 2091 WA salmon A A Quillayute River<br />

– South Fork Calahwah River : one of the most significant<br />

popul<strong>at</strong>ion areas for spotted owls on the Olympic Peninsula; owls<br />

have the highest popul<strong>at</strong>ion persistence here in models over time;<br />

contains USFS roadless area; partly within ONP.<br />

4/6/2004 2092 WA A N Y<br />

– South Fork Calahwah River : one of the most significant<br />

popul<strong>at</strong>ion areas for spotted owls on the Olympic Peninsula; owls<br />

have the highest popul<strong>at</strong>ion persistence here in models over time;<br />

4/6/2004 2092 WA A Y Y<br />

contains USFS roadless area; partly within ONP.<br />

old growth species - spow, mamu, harle, amphibs, b<strong>at</strong>s,<br />

3/24/2004 2092 WA old growth A? Y Y<br />

etc.<br />

4/4/2004 2101 WA A Y Y oldgrowth from 2101, 2084<br />

Devils Lake; Section 36, T27N, R2W, N<strong>at</strong>ural Resource<br />

5/19/2004 2141 WA special wetland A Y Y<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area<br />

4/4/2004 2153 WA A Y Y Rare plant associ<strong>at</strong>ions with G2 forest types<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8B, page 4 of 23

Comment<br />

on 28 June<br />

SITES run Comments<br />

Action<br />

taken on 28<br />

June SITES<br />

run<br />

Comment<br />

on 7 June<br />

SITES run<br />

Action taken<br />

on 7 June<br />

SITES run<br />

Suggest-ed<br />

edits to<br />

SITES<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/<br />

Prov. Targets<br />

Planning<br />

unit<br />

D<strong>at</strong>e<br />

– Queets/Stillw<strong>at</strong>er divide: addition to important low-elev<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

old-growth forest area; significant area for persistence of marbled<br />

murrelets and owls on the peninsula; mostly st<strong>at</strong>e lands;<br />

4/6/2004 2189 WA A N N<br />

popul<strong>at</strong>ions of rare plant (Erythronium revolutum ).<br />

4/4/2004 2210 WA A Y Y small p<strong>at</strong>ch rare plant community FERO-CEAR-KOMA<br />

– Quinalt Indian Reserv<strong>at</strong>ion (North Boundary) – Some of the<br />

largest low-elev<strong>at</strong>ion old-growth forest stands remaining outside<br />

ONP; contain regionally significant marbled murrelet<br />

popul<strong>at</strong>ions; contains rare plant (Erythronium revolutum)<br />

popul<strong>at</strong>ions; large parcels are currently targeted for a land<br />

exchange with the USFS or purchase through LWCF.<br />

Lilliwaup Swamp; Section 12, T23N, R4W, DNR Special<br />

Management Area<br />

4/6/2004 2238 WA A A A<br />

5/19/2004 2244 WA special wetland A Y Y<br />

– Quinalt Indian Reserv<strong>at</strong>ion (North Boundary) – Some of the<br />

largest low-elev<strong>at</strong>ion old-growth forest stands remaining outside<br />

ONP; contain regionally significant marbled murrelet<br />

popul<strong>at</strong>ions; contains rare plant (Erythronium revolutum)<br />

popul<strong>at</strong>ions; large parcels are currently targeted for a land<br />

exchange with the USFS or purchase through LWCF.<br />

4/6/2004 2245 WA A A A<br />

– Quinalt Indian Reserv<strong>at</strong>ion (North Boundary) – Some of the<br />

largest low-elev<strong>at</strong>ion old-growth forest stands remaining outside<br />

ONP; contain regionally significant marbled murrelet<br />

popul<strong>at</strong>ions; contains rare plant (Erythronium revolutum)<br />

popul<strong>at</strong>ions; large parcels are currently targeted for a land<br />

4/6/2004 2248 WA A A A<br />

exchange with the USFS or purchase through LWCF.<br />

4/6/2004 2295 WA D Y Y – Hwy 101 near Humptulips<br />

4/6/2004 2311 WA D Y Y – Upper Humptulips River area<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8B, page 5 of 23

Comment<br />

on 28 June<br />

SITES run Comments<br />

Action<br />

taken on 28<br />

June SITES<br />

run<br />

Comment<br />

on 7 June<br />

SITES run<br />

Action taken<br />

on 7 June<br />

SITES run<br />

Suggest-ed<br />

edits to<br />

SITES<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/<br />

Prov. Targets<br />

Planning<br />

unit<br />

D<strong>at</strong>e<br />

– Copalis River : has connectivity to the upper basin which was<br />

selected; is already selected for salmon; contains the Carlisle Bog<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ural Area Preserve; contains significant County property;<br />

contains Olympic muddminnow popul<strong>at</strong>ion; is centrally loc<strong>at</strong>ed<br />

within a significant ecoregional landscape (coastal plain);<br />

contains unique forest types; was selected by WAFO as a 3-5<br />

year action area.<br />

4/6/2004 2327 WA A Y A<br />

Add<br />

Protected<br />

Point Site Carlise Bog NAP- DNR, Copalis Preserve TNC<br />

4/4/2004 2370 WA A A N<br />

4/4/2004 2394 WA A? Y A Chehalis Surge Plain NAP or is it part of aqu<strong>at</strong>ic "site"?<br />

1/27/2004 2395 WA G OUT restor<strong>at</strong>ion site<br />

added<br />

estuary<br />

4/4/2004 2403 WA A N N (3161) Largest high quality esturary in WA, Elk River NAP<br />

4/6/2004 2410 WA D Y Y – North River<br />

3/23/2004 2414 WA mamu I OUT OUT known occ. Site<br />

Final Recommend<strong>at</strong>ions: Add 2444, 2435, 2459, 2460,<br />

2417 WA D Y Y<br />

and remove 2417, 2428, 2437, 2467.<br />

Add<br />

Protected<br />

4/4/2004 2428 WA A? N N Point Site Bone Niawaukum NAPs part of Willapa Site?<br />

Final Recommend<strong>at</strong>ions: Add 2444, 2435, 2459, 2460,<br />

2428 WA D Y D<br />

and remove 2417, 2428, 2437, 2467.<br />

2435 still has 250 acre og remnant on both sides of Ellis<br />

Ck, midstream (sect 28). Several rare plant comms in the<br />

2435 WA A Y A<br />

headw<strong>at</strong>ers.<br />

Long, narrow system with strips of habit<strong>at</strong>: Long Beach<br />

Peninsula 1) Dunes along the ocean domin<strong>at</strong>ed by nonn<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

grasses. Mostly degraded, except for a few small<br />

p<strong>at</strong>ches. Thre<strong>at</strong>s: 2A & 2B along oean beaches, 3F, 4C,<br />

4E ongoing problem in marshes, 7A entire unit, 8A major<br />

problem along ocean.<br />

2/17/2004 2436 WA A Y Y<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8B, page 6 of 23

Comment<br />

on 28 June<br />

SITES run Comments<br />

2) Freshw<strong>at</strong>er wetlands important for aquifer recharge &<br />

and in some areas (esp. Hines Marsh & Loomis Lake<br />

complex) exhibit sheet flow of w<strong>at</strong>er during high flow<br />

periods. Partially degraded and important.Washington<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e Parks owns several 100 acres in the Loomis Lake<br />

system.<br />

Action<br />

taken on 28<br />

June SITES<br />

run<br />

Comment<br />

on 7 June<br />

SITES run<br />

Action taken<br />

on 7 June<br />

SITES run<br />

Suggest-ed<br />

edits to<br />

SITES<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/<br />

Prov. Targets<br />

Planning<br />

unit<br />

D<strong>at</strong>e<br />

2436 WA wetlands A Y Y<br />

4/6/2004 2437 WA D D Y – East Fork Chehalis River<br />

Final Recommend<strong>at</strong>ions: Add 2444, 2435, 2459, 2460,<br />

2437 WA D D Y<br />

and remove 2417, 2428, 2437, 2467.<br />

Rare plant concentr<strong>at</strong>ion Boistfort, only loc<strong>at</strong>ion in<br />

4/4/2004 2440 WA A Y Y<br />

ecoregion of G2<br />

3/23/2004 2443 WA mamu I OUT known occ. Site<br />

2444 contains several rare oak woodland types and ~ 30<br />

2444 WA A N N<br />

acres l<strong>at</strong>e seral DF.<br />

– Naselle River : w<strong>at</strong>ershed is already selected for salmon;<br />

contains many rare plant EO’s; contains well known old-growth<br />

forest p<strong>at</strong>ch on Weyco land; provides connectivity to surrounding<br />

selected Huc’s; one of the best condition w<strong>at</strong>erhsheds in the<br />

4/6/2004 2447 WA A A Y<br />

Willapa Hills.<br />

3/23/2004 2448 WA mamu A? A Y DNR MAMU reserve<br />

add as<br />

class 2 fw<br />

#17006 Grays River WA<br />

1/27/2004 2456 WA ? A A AC2<br />

add as<br />

class 2 fw<br />

#17006 Grey's River important restor<strong>at</strong>ion site<br />

listed salmon<br />

popul<strong>at</strong>ions A A AC2<br />

1/27/2004 2456 WA<br />

– Bear River : w<strong>at</strong>ershed is already selected for salmon and<br />

identified as highest quality salmon stream in Willapa Bay;<br />

landscape connectivity to surrounding selected Huc’s including<br />

Ellsworth Creek; contains significant portion of the Willapa<br />

NWR; the city dam and reservoir in this w<strong>at</strong>ershed are largely<br />

4/6/2004 2457 WA A A A<br />

insignificant on a w<strong>at</strong>ershed scale.<br />

2/17/2004 2457<br />

G A A Indian Creek dam has a fish ladder and only a small part of<br />

WA<br />

the Bear River w<strong>at</strong>ershed affected. (2457)<br />

3/23/2004 2457 WA mamu I A A known occ. Site<br />

3/23/2004 2458 WA mamu I OUT OUT Ellsworth - known occupied site<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8B, page 7 of 23

Action<br />

Suggest-ed Action taken Comment taken on 28 Comment<br />

Planning St<strong>at</strong>e/<br />

edits to on 7 June on 7 June June SITES on 28 June<br />

unit Prov. Targets<br />

SITES SITES run SITES run run SITES run Comments<br />

Final Recommend<strong>at</strong>ions: Add 2444, 2435, 2459, 2460,<br />

2459 WA A A Y<br />

and remove 2417, 2428, 2437, 2467.<br />

2459 WA G A Y 2459 similar to 2460 wo noblr fir.<br />

Final Recommend<strong>at</strong>ions: Add 2444, 2435, 2459, 2460,<br />

2460 WA A N N<br />

and remove 2417, 2428, 2437, 2467.<br />

D<strong>at</strong>e<br />

2460 has a lot of l<strong>at</strong>e seral removed. Still contains 10 acre<br />

occ of old growth Noble Fir.Rubeckia occidentalis occurs<br />

with its n<strong>at</strong>ural comm and upland bogs. Marsh marigold,<br />

Poa laxiflora.<br />

2460 WA G N OUT<br />

West of Skamokawa.These 3 units have meadow to oak<br />

savannahs or douglas fir woodland sites with a collection of<br />

herbaceous vascular plants th<strong>at</strong> reflect the High diversity of<br />

the Columbia River Gorge. Locally botanists call them<br />

2/17/2004 2464 WA A N Y<br />

"Lower Gorge plant communities".<br />

Final Recommend<strong>at</strong>ions: Add 2444, 2435, 2459, 2460,<br />

2467 WA D D Y<br />

and remove 2417, 2428, 2437, 2467.<br />

4/6/2004 2468 WA D D Y – East of Elochoman Creek<br />

1/27/2004 2474 WA G IN OUT Germany Creek h<strong>at</strong>chery<br />

5/12/2004 2496 OR salmon A Y Y Fishhawk Creek (Nehalem) productive<br />

1/27/2004 2497 OR Saddle Mountain A Y Y Positive feedback th<strong>at</strong> this is a good site.<br />

Chinnok, Coho,<br />

9/30/2003 2508 OR Steelhead. G OUT Decent for inland stream<br />

1/27/2004 2509 OR Saddle Mountain A Y Y Positive feedback th<strong>at</strong> this is a good site.<br />

Chinnok, Coho,<br />

9/30/2003 2512 OR Steelhead. G OUT Decent for inland stream<br />

5/12/2004 2521 OR salmon A N N Humbug Creek (Nehalem) productive<br />

2/17/2004 2524 OR A Y Y Columbia City<br />

in as Class<br />

5/12/2004 2532 OR salmon A N in as Class 2 N 2 Rock Creek (Nehalem) productive<br />

in as Class<br />

5/12/2004 2534 OR salmon A N in as Class 2 N 2 Rock Creek (Nehalem) productive<br />

in as Class<br />

5/12/2004 2535 OR salmon A N in as Class 2 N 2 Rock Creek (Nehalem) productive<br />

5/12/2004 2536 OR salmon A Y Y Lost Creek (Nehalem) productive<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8B, page 8 of 23

Comment<br />

on 28 June<br />

SITES run Comments<br />

Action<br />

taken on 28<br />

June SITES<br />

run<br />

Comment<br />

on 7 June<br />

SITES run<br />

Action taken<br />

on 7 June<br />

SITES run<br />

Suggest-ed<br />

edits to<br />

SITES<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/<br />

Prov. Targets<br />

Planning<br />

unit<br />

D<strong>at</strong>e<br />

St. Helens. Landscape context: In some areas these are<br />

directly associ<strong>at</strong>ed with forest areas, grading fomr meadow<br />

outside to savannah/woodland to forest.Thre<strong>at</strong>: 1D, 2A, 2D, 7A,<br />

2/17/2004 2538 OR A N N ecoregion 8A. 2A & 2D are major problems in St. Helens area.<br />

in as Class<br />

5/12/2004 2545 OR salmon A A N 2 Wolf Creek (Nehalem) productive<br />

Chum, Chinnok,<br />

in as Class<br />

9/30/2003 2545 OR Coho, Steelhead A A N 2 Wolf Creek, trib of Nehalem River, good producer<br />

Chinook, Coho,<br />

North Fork Salmonberry, Better than South Fork, local<br />

9/30/2003 2546 OR Steelhead A N N<br />

priority for steelhead particularly<br />

5/12/2004 2547 OR salmon A A N Wolf Creek (Nehalem) productive<br />

Chum, Chinnok,<br />

Wolf Creek, Priority multi-species site. trib of Nehalem<br />

9/30/2003 2547 OR Coho, Steelhead A A N<br />

River, good producer<br />

9/30/2003 2569 OR A N N Miami River, Priority multi-species site.<br />

9/30/2003 2576 OR salmon A N N Miami River, Priority multi-species site.<br />

Little North Fk Wilson River. 75% of chum in Tillamook<br />

system found in stream. Best North <strong>Coast</strong> Stream<br />

coho, chum,<br />

steelhead A Y Y<br />

9/30/2003 2584 OR<br />

Bay Ocean Spit adjacent to Tillamook Bay. <strong>Coast</strong>al sand<br />

spit with spruce / shorepine forest, open dunes, tide fl<strong>at</strong>s,<br />

freshw<strong>at</strong>er lake.Habit<strong>at</strong> in good condition, but has<br />

significant public use (hiking, hunting, horseback<br />

riding).Mostly owned by Tillamook County, zoned<br />

recre<strong>at</strong>ion management.Faces significant development<br />

pressure.Area is extremely important for shorebirds and<br />

migr<strong>at</strong>ory birds. Landscape context: Connected to ocean<br />

beach & Tillamook Bay, close to Cape Mears S.P. &<br />

NWR.Current conserv<strong>at</strong>ion work: Area recognized as and<br />

"Important Bird Area".Thre<strong>at</strong>s: 2A, 2B, 5C, 6A.<br />

2/17/2004 2585 OR A A A<br />

BayOcean Spit Site should be terrestrial as well as salmon.<br />

Contact Fred Seavey USFWS 541-867-4558 x 239 for<br />

more info about site.<br />

Cedar or Clear Creek, tribs of Wilson River. Priority for<br />

Wilson R<br />

historic snowy plover<br />

critical habit<strong>at</strong> &<br />

recovery plan A A A<br />

1/29/2004 2585 OR<br />

9/30/2003 2586 OR salmon A N N<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8B, page 9 of 23

Action<br />

Suggest-ed Action taken Comment taken on 28 Comment<br />

Planning St<strong>at</strong>e/<br />

edits to on 7 June on 7 June June SITES on 28 June<br />

D<strong>at</strong>e unit Prov. Targets<br />

SITES SITES run SITES run run SITES run Comments<br />

Only 1 creek (Whiskey), with a h<strong>at</strong>chery - doesn't make<br />

1/27/2004 2596 OR Salmon D N N<br />

sense for salmon.<br />

1/27/2004 2596 OR Salmon D N N Doesn't make sense. Only 1 creek, has h<strong>at</strong>chery.<br />

1/27/2004 2602 OR Coho A N N Is better for Coho - good production!<br />

Add as<br />

class 2 fw<br />

#17320 Nestucca River, Good stream, diverse<br />

Coho, Chinook,<br />

Steelhead A A Class 2 FW AC2<br />

9/30/2003 2612 OR<br />

1/27/2004 2613 OR Salmon D N N Doesn't make sense. Upper Nestucca would be better.<br />

2626 makes more sense than 2613 from a fisheries<br />

1/27/2004 2613 OR Salmon D? N N<br />

perspective.<br />

Sand Lake Estuary & W<strong>at</strong>ershed. Contains rearing and<br />

migr<strong>at</strong>ion habit<strong>at</strong> for coho, chum, chinook, steelhead &<br />

coastal cutthro<strong>at</strong> trout.Habit<strong>at</strong> is largely intact <strong>at</strong> western<br />

edges and si in agricultural use <strong>at</strong> eastern edge.Esturary<br />

should be identified as important salmon streams the same<br />

as Sand Lake tributaries.<br />

2613 OR A Y Y<br />

Sand Lake Estuary & W<strong>at</strong>ershed. Rel<strong>at</strong>ively pristine<br />

estuary and adjacent undeveloped snad spit and st<strong>at</strong>e park<br />

- salt marsh and freshw<strong>at</strong>er marsh.Landscape context: Part<br />

of estuary affected by tidal constriction <strong>at</strong> tideg<strong>at</strong>e.Current<br />

conserv<strong>at</strong>ion work: OWEB recently purchased land th<strong>at</strong><br />

was turned into a st<strong>at</strong>e park.Undeveloped sand spit faces<br />

pressure to develop as golf course. As one of <strong>Oregon</strong>'s<br />

least developed estuaries, preserv<strong>at</strong>ion of spit and<br />

surrounding areas would preserve ecological<br />

integrity.Thre<strong>at</strong>s: 2C (golf course, clubhouse, sewage), 3F,<br />

3G, 4F (fertilizer & pesticides), 6A (golf course), 9A<br />

Coho Salmon, bald<br />

eagle A Y Y<br />

2613 OR<br />

Sand Lake Estuary Site should be shown as an estuary as<br />

well as terrestrial; she sent John Christy's inventory of the<br />

Whalen Island St<strong>at</strong>e N<strong>at</strong>. Area from May 2001 as well<br />

snowy plover<br />

recovery plan, bald<br />

eagles I Y Y<br />

1/29/2004 2613 OR<br />

add as<br />

class 2 fw #<br />

17320 Nestucca River,<br />

Coho, Chinook,<br />

Steelhead A A Class 2 FW AC2<br />

9/30/2003 2615 OR<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8B, page 10 of 23

Action<br />

Suggest-ed Action taken Comment taken on 28 Comment<br />

Planning St<strong>at</strong>e/<br />

edits to on 7 June on 7 June June SITES on 28 June<br />

D<strong>at</strong>e unit Prov. Targets<br />

SITES SITES run SITES run run SITES run Comments<br />

coho, chinook,<br />

9/30/2003 2618 OR steelhead A y Y Nestucca River, diverse fisheries<br />

add as<br />

Coho, Chinook,<br />

class 2 fw #<br />

9/30/2003 2619 OR Steelhead A A Class 2 FW AC2 17320 Nestucca River,<br />

add as<br />

coho, chinook,<br />

class 2 fw #<br />

9/30/2003 2621 OR steelhead A A Class 2 FW AC2 17320 Nestucca River, diverse fisheries<br />

add as<br />

coho, chinook,<br />

class 2 fw #<br />

9/30/2003 2623 OR steelhead A A Class 2 FW AC2 17320 Nestucca River, diverse fisheries<br />

coho, chinook,<br />

9/30/2003 2626 OR steelhead A Y Y Nestucca River, diverse fisheries<br />

2626 makes more sense than 2613 from a fisheries<br />

1/27/2004 2626 OR Salmon A? Y Y<br />

perspective.<br />

Three River Subbasin--part of Nestucca River Basin.<br />

Silverspot Butterfly: Successfully managed site in ridgetop<br />

of this HUC.Fawn Lily: Talk to W/FS experts to determine<br />

if there is enough difference to make it a target. Warty<br />

Jumping Slug: High numbers of identified sites are likely to<br />

be associ<strong>at</strong>ed with alder in uplands and the "young<br />

plant<strong>at</strong>ions" both of which are unlikely to be retained by FS.<br />

Landscape context. This is a highly altered landscape -<br />

more so than any other HUC around it. Three man-caused<br />

fires within 100-year period.Thre<strong>at</strong>s to this site (Nestucca<br />

River) table, Thre<strong>at</strong> Code #8, Biological. Not a n<strong>at</strong>ural<br />

condition & not likely sustainable.<br />

Silverspot Butterfly,<br />

Fawn Lily, Warty<br />

Jumping Slug G IN IN<br />

1/27/2004 2628 OR<br />

Addition comment. From overall terrestrial species<br />

standpoint, Little Nestucca HUCs might be a better<br />

1/27/2004 2635 OR A A N<br />

selection.<br />

9/30/2003 2635 OR D N Y Little Nestucca River, h<strong>at</strong>chery impacts<br />

Addition comment. From overall terrestrial species<br />

standpoint, Little Nestucca HUCs might be a better<br />

1/27/2004 2640 OR A N N<br />

selection.<br />

9/30/2003 2640 OR D Y Y Little Nestucca River, h<strong>at</strong>chery impacts<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8B, page 11 of 23

Action<br />

Suggest-ed Action taken Comment taken on 28 Comment<br />

Planning St<strong>at</strong>e/<br />

edits to on 7 June on 7 June June SITES on 28 June<br />

D<strong>at</strong>e unit Prov. Targets<br />

SITES SITES run SITES run run SITES run Comments<br />

Site Description: Heavily impacted by Salmon River<br />

H<strong>at</strong>chery; better choice with more diversity would be HUC<br />

2649 OR D N N<br />

2664 - Drift Creek of Siletz.<br />

1/27/2004 2649 OR Salmon A Y Y Positive feedback th<strong>at</strong> these were picked.<br />

Site Description: Heavily impacted by Salmon River<br />

H<strong>at</strong>chery; better choice with more diversity would be HUC<br />

2650 OR D N N<br />

2664 - Drift Creek of Siletz.<br />

Make sure Lost Prairie ACEC. Frittilaria camch<strong>at</strong>ka should be a target -<br />

1/27/2004 2650 OR M Y N ACEC is in. disjunct pop.<br />

1/27/2004 2650 OR Salmon A Y N OUT Positive feedback th<strong>at</strong> these were picked.<br />

1/27/2004 2650 OR Chum I Y N OUT No Chum here, or <strong>at</strong> least very poor habit<strong>at</strong>.<br />

Upper N & S Forks of Siletz: gre<strong>at</strong> habit<strong>at</strong> for<br />

1/27/2004 2663 OR A N N<br />

everything.Plum Creek, Boise Cascade<br />

Drift Creek-Siletz. Landscape context. Would be a better<br />

selection for aqu<strong>at</strong>ic species than Salmon River 5th<br />

field.Coho - some of best intact habit<strong>at</strong> in this portion of the<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Range. Current observ<strong>at</strong>ion work. This<br />

HUC is a high priority for fish habit<strong>at</strong> improvement in<br />

Siuslaw N<strong>at</strong>ional Forest.Thre<strong>at</strong>s to this site table, Other.<br />

1/27/2004 2664 OR coho A Y Y<br />

Add aquaculture.<br />

eelgrass and<br />

estuary #<br />

1/27/2004 2665 OR fisheries A OUT N 3256 is in Lower Siletz, eelgrass beds - important habit<strong>at</strong> for salmon<br />

Upper N & S Forks of Siletz: gre<strong>at</strong> habit<strong>at</strong> for<br />

1/27/2004 2670 OR A N N<br />

everything.Plum Creek, Boise Cascade<br />

salmon, Queen of the<br />

why is this one picked??? Only priv<strong>at</strong>e, surrounded by<br />

11/19/2003 2677 OR Forest G IN IN priv<strong>at</strong>e.<br />

9/30/2003 2706 OR salmon A Y Drift Creek (Alsea drainage), important fishery<br />

9/30/2003 2713 OR salmon A Y Y Drift Creek (Alsea drainage), important fishery<br />

1/27/2004 2718 OR Summer Steelhead A N N estuary is in Alsea River. W<strong>at</strong>erfowl Wintering<br />

1/27/2004 2720 OR Summer Steelhead A Y A Alsea River. W<strong>at</strong>erfowl Wintering<br />

1/27/2004 2721 OR Summer Steelhead A Y Y Alsea River. W<strong>at</strong>erfowl Wintering<br />

9/30/2003 2767 OR multi-species A Y N Smith River, Healthy Stocks<br />

Smith River, multi-<br />

9/30/2003 2777 OR species A N in as Class 2 N Healthy Stocks<br />

9/16/2003 2790 OR all I IN Wassen Creek LSR, check management st<strong>at</strong>us<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8B, page 12 of 23

Action<br />

Suggest-ed Action taken Comment taken on 28 Comment<br />

Planning St<strong>at</strong>e/<br />

edits to on 7 June on 7 June June SITES on 28 June<br />

D<strong>at</strong>e unit Prov. Targets<br />

SITES SITES run SITES run run SITES run Comments<br />

1/27/2004 2794 OR G IN IN Dean Creek. restor<strong>at</strong>ion site<br />

9/16/2003 2794 OR habit<strong>at</strong> I IN IN Deans Creek ACEC, check on island in Umpqua River<br />

Coos, Millicoma, Tenmile lake tribs. strongholds for coho,<br />

steelhead, searun cutthro<strong>at</strong>. Elliot Forest streams<br />

9/15/2003 2805 OR anadromous fish A Y Y<br />

Coos, Millicoma, Tenmile lake tribs. strongholds for coho,<br />

steelhead, searun cutthro<strong>at</strong>. Elliot Forest streams<br />

9/15/2003 2809 OR anadromous fish A Y Y<br />

Coos, Millicoma, Tenmile lake tribs. strongholds for coho,<br />

steelhead, searun cutthro<strong>at</strong>. Elliot Forest streams<br />

9/15/2003 2811 OR anadromous fish A Y Y<br />

Coos, Millicoma, Tenmile lake tribs. strongholds for coho,<br />

9/15/2003 2817 OR anadromous fish A N N<br />

steelhead, searun cutthro<strong>at</strong>. Elliot Forest streams<br />

no anadromous fish above barrier in 2817, Millicoma R.,<br />

9/15/2003 2817 OR anadromous fish G N N<br />

good resident cutthro<strong>at</strong> above barrier<br />

Chum and coho<br />

9/15/2003 2817 OR salmon G N N spawning in Marlow Creek<br />

CBNS - need to add - best plover nesting area in the<br />

5/27/2004 2819 OR snpl A A A<br />

ecoregion.<br />

CoosBayNorthSpit - Should be terrestrial as well as<br />

salmon; most productive site for snowy plovers currently,<br />

critical habit<strong>at</strong> in ESA and ID in recovery plan. Contact<br />

Kerrie Palermo, BLM for more info on site<br />

1/29/2004 2819 OR snowy plover A A A<br />

(kerrie_palermo@or.blm.org)<br />

coho, resident<br />

9/15/2003 2825 OR cutthro<strong>at</strong> A N N East Fk Millicoma, good habit<strong>at</strong> and pops<br />

Coos, Millicoma, Tenmile lake tribs. strongholds for coho,<br />

9/15/2003 2827 OR anadromous fish A N in as Class 3 Y<br />

steelhead, searun cutthro<strong>at</strong>. Elliot Forest streams<br />

Sue thought this is probably an important area we didn't<br />

2832 OR shorebirds A Y Y<br />

capture - just N. end of pu.<br />

9/16/2003 2840 OR old growth forest A Y Y Tioga Creek<br />

9/16/2003 2842 OR anadromous fish A N N N Fk Coquille, add for fish<br />

Coquille River mile 1-30 all priv<strong>at</strong>ely owned and mged as<br />

lg concentr<strong>at</strong>ion of<br />

pasture; oppt.: Mike Kiser, Bandon Dunes interested in<br />

1/27/2004 2848 OR wintering w<strong>at</strong>erfowl A N N<br />

picking up land for conserv<strong>at</strong>ion.<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8B, page 13 of 23

Action<br />

Suggest-ed Action taken Comment taken on 28 Comment<br />

Planning St<strong>at</strong>e/<br />

edits to on 7 June on 7 June June SITES on 28 June<br />

D<strong>at</strong>e unit Prov. Targets<br />

SITES SITES run SITES run run SITES run Comments<br />

9/15/2003 2848 OR marsh G N N Beaver Slough above Coquille, OR<br />

1/27/2004 2848 OR A N N Coquille River<br />

9/16/2003 2849 OR old growth forest A Y Y good habit<strong>at</strong>, in draft portfolio<br />

Coquille River mile 1-30 all priv<strong>at</strong>ely owned and mged as<br />

lg concentr<strong>at</strong>ion of<br />

pasture; oppt.: Mike Kiser, Bandon Dunes interested in<br />

1/27/2004 2850 OR wintering w<strong>at</strong>erfowl A A A<br />

picking up land for conserv<strong>at</strong>ion.<br />

9/15/2003 2850 OR anadromous fish A A A Lampa Creek, good pops, habit<strong>at</strong> restor<strong>at</strong>ion begun<br />

1/27/2004 2850 OR A A A Coquille River<br />

Coquille River mile 1-30 all priv<strong>at</strong>ely owned and mged as<br />

lg concentr<strong>at</strong>ion of<br />

pasture; oppt.: Mike Kiser, Bandon Dunes interested in<br />

1/27/2004 2851 OR wintering w<strong>at</strong>erfowl A Y Y<br />

picking up land for conserv<strong>at</strong>ion.<br />

1/27/2004 2851 OR A Y Y Coquille River<br />

9/16/2003 2857 OR anadromous fish A N N N Fk Coquille, add for fish<br />

Coquille River mile 1-30 all priv<strong>at</strong>ely owned and mged as<br />

lg concentr<strong>at</strong>ion of<br />

pasture; oppt.: Mike Kiser, Bandon Dunes interested in<br />

1/27/2004 2860 OR wintering w<strong>at</strong>erfowl A N N<br />

picking up land for conserv<strong>at</strong>ion.<br />

1/27/2004 2860 OR A N N Coquille River<br />

9/15/2003 2862 OR anadromous fish A Y Y Lower Coquille-Bear Creek. Diverse fish pops, in portfolio<br />

Bandon Site should be in portfolio; snowy plover recovery<br />

snowy plover, pink<br />

plan (wintering, breeding, foraging), re-introducing sand<br />

1/29/2004 2864 OR sand verbena A Y Y<br />

verbena, restored 50 ac beach habit<strong>at</strong><br />

Middle Fk Coquille. In portfolio, many species present. Big<br />

9/15/2003 2865 OR anadromous fish G OUT N<br />

Creek.<br />

Upper Rock Creek, not in portfolio but has good pops.<br />

9/15/2003 2868 OR coho and steelhead A N OUT A<br />

Searun cutts possible<br />

9/15/2003 2869 OR coho G OUT N C<strong>at</strong>ching Creek, S Fk Coquille<br />

9/15/2003 2870 OR coho, steelhead A N OUT N could be added, good producers<br />

9/15/2003 2872 OR coho, steelhead A N OUT N could be added, good producers<br />

Site should be in portfolio; snowy plover recovery plan<br />

(wintering, breeding, foraging), re-introducing sand<br />

snowy plover, pink<br />

verbena, restored 50 ac beach habit<strong>at</strong>, sm. Western lily<br />

1/29/2004 2873 OR sand verbena, W. lily A N A<br />

pop. recently discovered<br />

1/27/2004 2873 OR Snowy Plover A N A New River, 4 Mile Creek. Why not lower bay?<br />

9/15/2003 2876 OR G OUT OUT barrier restricts anadromous but resident trout above it.<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8B, page 14 of 23

Action<br />

Suggest-ed Action taken Comment taken on 28 Comment<br />

Planning St<strong>at</strong>e/<br />

edits to on 7 June on 7 June June SITES on 28 June<br />

D<strong>at</strong>e unit Prov. Targets<br />

SITES SITES run SITES run run SITES run Comments<br />

no h<strong>at</strong>chery plants in Middle Fk Coquille. High gradient<br />

9/15/2003 2876 OR steelhead, coho G OUT OUT stream<br />

1/27/2004 2877 OR Snowy Plover A Y Y New River, 4 Mile Creek. Why not lower bay?<br />

in as CLASS<br />

9/30/2003 2883 OR Floras Creek A N 2 N Very important<br />

11/19/2003 2887 OR various D N N these 'sheds are not in good shape - why are they picked?<br />

add in as<br />

class 2 fw #<br />

9/30/2003 2888 OR South Fork Coquille A N AC2 17348 Good resident trout.<br />

9/30/2003 2891 OR coho, salmon A N A Upper S Fk Coquille, above Powers<br />

9/15/2003 2891 OR rainbow trout A N A rare occurrences, found above S Fk Coquille Falls<br />

The Sixes, multispecies<br />

A Y Y Very important<br />

9/30/2003 2895 OR<br />

11/19/2003 2896 OR various D N N these 'sheds are not in good shape - why are they picked?<br />

The Sixes, multi-<br />

9/30/2003 2896 OR species A Y Y Very important<br />

9/30/2003 2900 OR coho, salmon A Y Y Upper S Fk Coquille, above Powers<br />

9/30/2003 2901 OR Elk Creek A N N Good resident trout.<br />

9/30/2003 2922 OR coho A Y Y Lobster Creek, strong coho producer<br />

9/30/2003 2925 OR coho A N N Lobster Creek, strong coho producer<br />

The Sixes, multi-<br />

9/30/2003 2934 OR species A Y Y Very important<br />

9/16/2003 2934 OR oak habit<strong>at</strong> A Y Y in portfolio, above Hunter creek drainage<br />

The Sixes, multi-<br />

9/30/2003 2936 OR species A Y Y Very important<br />

9/16/2003 2936 OR oak habit<strong>at</strong> A Y Y in portfolio, above Hunter creek drainage<br />

South Willapa Bay, intertidal mud fl<strong>at</strong>s important for<br />

shorebirds & w<strong>at</strong>erfowl. Kevin Kilp<strong>at</strong>ric, USFWS, wants<br />

1/27/2004 2945 WA shorebirds, w<strong>at</strong>erfowl A Y Y<br />

map.<br />

1/27/2004 2977 OR Queen of the Forest D Y OUT Is this a good enough reason for this site to be picked?<br />

4/4/2004 3158 WA A A Y Migr<strong>at</strong>ory birds, shorebird concentr<strong>at</strong>ion Bowerman Basin<br />

Grays Harbor should be included for shorebirds -<br />

1/27/2004 3158 WA A A Y<br />

Hemisphere IBA<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8B, page 15 of 23

Action<br />

Suggest-ed Action taken Comment taken on 28 Comment<br />

Planning St<strong>at</strong>e/<br />

edits to on 7 June on 7 June June SITES on 28 June<br />

D<strong>at</strong>e unit Prov. Targets<br />

SITES SITES run SITES run run SITES run Comments<br />

4/4/2004 3161 WA A A A Largest high quality esturary in WA, Elk River NAP<br />

South Willapa Bay, intertidal mud fl<strong>at</strong>s important for<br />

1/27/2004 3168 WA shorebirds, w<strong>at</strong>erfowl A A A<br />

shorebirds & w<strong>at</strong>erfowl<br />

make sure East Sand Island is in portfolio for nest shore<br />

and seabirds. No goals were set for Caspian Terns (old<br />

3174 OR/WA Caspian Terns A A Y<br />

nesting sites in WA).<br />

Sand Lake Estuary & W<strong>at</strong>ershed. Contains rearing and<br />

migr<strong>at</strong>ion habit<strong>at</strong> for coho, chum, chinook, steelhead &<br />

coastal cutthro<strong>at</strong> trout.Habit<strong>at</strong> is largely intact <strong>at</strong> western<br />

edges and si in agricultural use <strong>at</strong> eastern edge.Esturary<br />

should be identified as important salmon streams the same<br />

as Sand Lake tributaries.<br />

3252 OR A Y Y<br />

Sand Lake Estuary & W<strong>at</strong>ershed. Rel<strong>at</strong>ively pristine<br />

estuary and adjacent undeveloped snad spit and st<strong>at</strong>e park<br />

- salt marsh and freshw<strong>at</strong>er marsh.Landscape context: Part<br />

of estuary affected by tidal constriction <strong>at</strong> tideg<strong>at</strong>e.Current<br />

conserv<strong>at</strong>ion work: OWEB recently purchased land th<strong>at</strong><br />

was turned into a st<strong>at</strong>e park.Undeveloped sand spit faces<br />

pressure to develop as golf course. As one of <strong>Oregon</strong>'s<br />

least developed estuaries, preserv<strong>at</strong>ion of spit and<br />

surrounding areas would preserve ecological<br />

Coho Salmon, bald<br />

integrity.Thre<strong>at</strong>s: 2C (golf course, clubhouse, sewage), 3F,<br />

3252 OR eagle A Y Y<br />

3G, 4F (fertilizer & pesticides), 6A (golf course), 9A<br />

eelgrass and<br />

1/27/2004 3258 OR fisheries A Y Y Upper Yaquina Bay/estuary<br />

eelgrass and<br />

1/27/2004 3258 OR fisheries A Y Y Upper Yaquina Bay/estuary<br />

lots of eelgrass,<br />

1/27/2004 3278 OR historically Brants A Y Y Coos Bay estuary<br />

Sue thought this is probably an important area we didn't<br />

3278 OR shorebirds A Y Y<br />

capture - esp. int/ with 2832<br />

Coos River, add to connect Millicoma and S Fk Coos River<br />

9/15/2003 17392 OR Class3, estuary A Y<br />

to estuary - within 2827<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8B, page 16 of 23

Comment<br />

on 28 June<br />

SITES run Comments<br />

Action<br />

taken on 28<br />

June SITES<br />

run<br />

Comment<br />

on 7 June<br />

SITES run<br />

Action taken<br />

on 7 June<br />

SITES run<br />

Suggest-ed<br />

edits to<br />

SITES<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/<br />

Prov. Targets<br />

Planning<br />

unit<br />

D<strong>at</strong>e<br />

Out of<br />

Ecoregion Squim, n<strong>at</strong>ive clam<br />

2037,<br />

estuary pu WA G<br />

1/27/2004<br />

2046,<br />

others<br />

upstream WA salmon A OUT Dickey River<br />

5/12/2004<br />

2064,<br />

others<br />

upstream WA salmon A ? Calawah River<br />

2070,<br />

others<br />

5/12/2004 upstream WA summer coho A ? Soleduck River, rare summer coho run,<br />

1/27/2004 2471 WA G IN Elochoman River, restor<strong>at</strong>ion site<br />

IN AS<br />

1/27/2004 2460 WA G<br />

CLASS 2 Elochoman River, restor<strong>at</strong>ion site<br />

1/27/2004 2476 WA G IN Elochoman River, restor<strong>at</strong>ion site<br />

2628,<br />

fish listed as being released is not correct. 2628 - Cedar<br />

2596,<br />

Creek does not release Chum. 2596 - h<strong>at</strong>chery here does<br />

1/27/2004 others OR H<strong>at</strong>cheries I<br />

release Chum.<br />

2812,<br />

2806,<br />

9/16/2003 2810 OR all I check ownership, Lake Creek off Umpqua River<br />

2845,<br />

fall chinook,<br />

IN AS S Fk Coos River, Tioga & Williams Creeks. Major<br />

9/15/2003 2834 OR steelhead, coho G<br />

CLASS 2 producer of anadromous fish<br />

2861,<br />

East Fk Coquille, barrier restricts anadromous, good<br />

9/15/2003 2855 OR anadromous fish G<br />

resident fish<br />

2962,<br />

11/19/2003 2963? OR I Don't see Grand Rhonde ownership on map<br />

West of Tofino, the Estuaries are identified with a RI of<br />

3308-<br />

Very High for shorebirds, dabbling ducks, and geese in<br />

4/5/2004 3313? BC A<br />

GIS d<strong>at</strong>a from Zach and CWS.<br />

9/15/2003 all OR anadromous fish G restor<strong>at</strong>ion aimed <strong>at</strong> chinook and coho salmon<br />

5/12/2004<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8B, page 17 of 23

Comment<br />

on 28 June<br />

SITES run Comments<br />

Action<br />

taken on 28<br />

June SITES<br />

run<br />

Comment<br />

on 7 June<br />

SITES run<br />

Action taken<br />

on 7 June<br />

SITES run<br />

Suggest-ed<br />

edits to<br />

SITES<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/<br />

Prov. Targets<br />

Planning<br />

unit<br />

D<strong>at</strong>e<br />

All estuaries on OR coast should be recognized as top<br />

conserv<strong>at</strong>ion priorities because:1) They are rare - small<br />

portion of coastline.2) They are essential landscape<br />

fe<strong>at</strong>ures for connectivity between terrestrial, aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, and<br />

marine ecosystems.3) They are exceptionally productive<br />

areas for a wide diversity of species.4) They are essential<br />

transition areas for salmon - key component of salmon life<br />

history.<br />

All<br />

estuaries<br />

on <strong>Oregon</strong><br />

coast. OR G<br />

2/17/2004<br />

Alsea and<br />

no areas identified in portfolio - need some! The model<br />

1/27/2004 Siletz OR Salmon A<br />

has centered on coastal hucs.<br />

Camp<br />

11/19/2003 Rilea OR I this shows up as GAP1 - should it be?<br />

Columbia<br />

Est.Islands -<br />

Crimms,<br />

Wallace,<br />

Fisher,<br />

2/24/2004 Lord OR/WA CWTD I concerned th<strong>at</strong> d<strong>at</strong>a was only for USFWS refuge<br />

Columbia River Estuary up to RM 46. This is the zone of<br />

salt influence, above RMU 46 is freshw<strong>at</strong>er influence.Many<br />

dollars are being spent on salmonoids and estuaries to<br />

Columbia<br />

learn about the linkage fo life histories of juvenile<br />

Estuary OR/WA A<br />

salmonoids.<br />

Coos<br />

Coos River. strong run. Use large estuary but system is<br />

9/15/2003 River OR Fall Chinook G<br />

gravel poor upstream due to splash dams<br />

Coos<br />

9/15/2003 River OR Chum salmon I few present due to lack of gravels in lower river<br />

Coquille<br />

minor estuary, needs rearing habit<strong>at</strong>, lots of gravels<br />

9/15/2003 River OR anadromous fish G<br />

present upstream<br />

Coquille<br />

9/15/2003 River OR G check BLM ownership<br />

Coquille,<br />

1/27/2004 Netarts. OR G<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8B, page 18 of 23

Comment<br />

on 28 June<br />

SITES run Comments<br />

Action<br />

taken on 28<br />

June SITES<br />

run<br />

Comment<br />

on 7 June<br />

SITES run<br />

Action taken<br />

on 7 June<br />

SITES run<br />

Suggest-ed<br />

edits to<br />

SITES<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/<br />

Prov. Targets<br />

Planning<br />

unit<br />

D<strong>at</strong>e<br />

Deer<br />

Creek WA WA A<br />

1/27/2004<br />

Dungeness River system – important for salmon; one of the<br />

highest environmental gradients in the ecoregion; significant<br />

headw<strong>at</strong>ers with numerous rare and endemic plants; significant<br />

estuary and spit system <strong>at</strong> its mouth; focus for conserv<strong>at</strong>ionists<br />

working to protect its lowland riparian areas; slected by WAFO<br />

as a 3-5 year action area.<br />

Dungenes<br />

s River WA A<br />

4/6/2004<br />

Elwha River system – very important area for salmon recovery<br />

and the largest valley system in the Olympic Mountains;<br />

Elwha<br />

probably discounted in suitability index because of the dams;<br />

4/6/2004 River WA A<br />

dams are sl<strong>at</strong>ed to go; heavy focus for conserv<strong>at</strong>ionists.<br />

Grays<br />

1/27/2004 Harbor, WA G<br />

Humptulip<br />

1/27/2004 River WA A All<br />

Jimmy-<br />

Come-<br />

L<strong>at</strong>ely<br />

Creek,<br />

1/27/2004 WA WA A salmon<br />

Lost<br />

Fritillaria<br />

1/27/2004 Prairie OR kamch<strong>at</strong>ensis G<br />

1/27/2004 Mid-coast OR Coho G Contacts: Paul Burns and John Yogerhorst.<br />

Nehalem OR Summer Chinook A G Nehalem is only remaining run of summer chinook salmon.<br />

OR Dunes<br />

9/16/2003 NRA OR I management st<strong>at</strong>us check<br />

OR<br />

Islands<br />

1/27/2004 NWR OR A USFWS concept plan for w<strong>at</strong>erfowl.<br />

Saddle<br />

11/19/2003 Mtn. OR G General interest here - wh<strong>at</strong> is GAP st<strong>at</strong>us?<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8B, page 19 of 23

Action<br />

Suggest-ed Action taken Comment taken on 28 Comment<br />

Planning St<strong>at</strong>e/<br />

edits to on 7 June on 7 June June SITES on 28 June<br />

D<strong>at</strong>e unit Prov. Targets<br />

SITES SITES run SITES run run SITES run Comments<br />

Salmon River H<strong>at</strong>chery shows Summer & Winter<br />

Salmon<br />

Steelhead produced but trucked to other w<strong>at</strong>ersheds -<br />

1/27/2004 River OR G<br />

unreliable.<br />

Snow<br />

Creek,<br />

1/27/2004 WA WA White Sturgeon A good site for salmon<br />

need to address this either in site delin<strong>at</strong>ion (blockout<br />

urban areas in the landuse or UGBs, or by explan<strong>at</strong>ion in<br />

4/12/2004 various urban areas M<br />

the report<br />

5/27/2004 various mamu A need to check final portfolio against mamu concentr<strong>at</strong>ions<br />

5/27/2004 various spow A need to check final portfolio against spow concentr<strong>at</strong>ions<br />

need to address this either in site delin<strong>at</strong>ion or explan<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

in the report<br />

Thre<strong>at</strong>s to this site table, Other: add 10A, Aquaculture -<br />

oyster industry.<br />

Concern th<strong>at</strong> sampling is uneven - suggests dropping all<br />

animal d<strong>at</strong>a.<br />

ridgeline targets<br />

(butterflies, WT<br />

4/12/2004 various<br />

Ptarmigan) G<br />

Willapa<br />

1/27/2004 Bay, WA G<br />

Willapa<br />

3/24/2004 Hills WA herps G<br />

These 3 rivers contain remaining stocks of spring chinook<br />

salmon on North <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong>. Spring chinook are<br />

lumped into the fall chinook ESU although they should not<br />

be.<br />

Wilson,<br />

Trask<br />

Nestucca<br />

Rivers OR Spring Chinook A G<br />

1/27/2004 Yaquina OR A Stable over time.<br />

Still real strong for Coho. Siuslaw W<strong>at</strong>ershed Council and<br />

Mid-coast W.C.: rapid biological assessment. Mid-coast<br />

1/27/2004 Yaquina OR Coho A<br />

W.C. has website.<br />

Yaquina &<br />

Comment: Submerged aqu<strong>at</strong>ic veget<strong>at</strong>ion habit<strong>at</strong> types<br />

1/27/2004 Siletz, OR G<br />

may not be represented on map.<br />

Questioned why 2 design<strong>at</strong>ions for FWS ownership -<br />

1/27/2004 M<br />

shouldn't it all be refuges?<br />

2/17/2004<br />

John Day estuary full of house bo<strong>at</strong>s. DEQ in talks to<br />

modify w<strong>at</strong>er quality regs for them, but housebo<strong>at</strong>ers<br />

fighting. Young's Bay has a terminal h<strong>at</strong>chery for Chinook.<br />

CEDC Fisheries runs the h<strong>at</strong>chery. N<strong>at</strong>ive fish returning to<br />

streams through Young's Bay must navig<strong>at</strong>e fisherman<br />

OR G<br />

c<strong>at</strong>ching Chinook.<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8B, page 20 of 23

Action<br />

Suggest-ed Action taken Comment taken on 28 Comment<br />

Planning St<strong>at</strong>e/<br />

edits to on 7 June on 7 June June SITES on 28 June<br />

D<strong>at</strong>e unit Prov. Targets<br />

SITES SITES run SITES run run SITES run Comments<br />

2/17/2004 OR G<br />

Warrenton has w<strong>at</strong>er rights in excess of 100% of Lewis<br />

and Clark river flow. Summer flows are a trickle.<br />

Soil and W<strong>at</strong>er Cons Service has a comprehensive weed<br />

OR G<br />

d<strong>at</strong>abase (GIS) for Cl<strong>at</strong>sop county.<br />

5/12/2004 OR Summer Steelhead A Rogue, good runs<br />

Summer Steelhead,<br />

5/12/2004 OR spring chinook A Umpqua, strong runs<br />

5/12/2004 OR Summer Steelhead A Siletz, robust runs<br />

5/12/2004 OR D Necanicum River<br />

5/12/2004 OR D Salmon River, less important than other streams<br />

5/12/2004 OR A Nestucca River, better stream for inclusion<br />

Contact Marcia Hines,ODF, st<strong>at</strong>ewide wildlife biologist, re:<br />

1/27/2004 OR Marbled Murrelet I<br />

habit<strong>at</strong> management areas.<br />

concerned th<strong>at</strong> l<strong>at</strong>e seral may not be best represented.<br />

Need d<strong>at</strong>a from Simpson on amphibs. Also need better<br />

2/25/2004 WA l<strong>at</strong>e seral G<br />

Oly mudminnow d<strong>at</strong>a.<br />

Higher diversity along Willapa and Grays divide, we have<br />

WA G<br />

too much selected near Willapa Bay.<br />

9/30/2003 OR salmon G Siuslaw River, check with Charlie Dewberry, Ecotrust<br />

11/19/2003 OR I Also, wh<strong>at</strong> is GAP1 area south of here - Fort Stevens?<br />

3) Strips of old 2nd growth or old growth timber usually<br />

Sitka Spruce, but also including Douglas Fir. Only a few<br />

timbered blocks remain, are very important now as coastal<br />

forest habit<strong>at</strong>.Current conserv<strong>at</strong>ion work: Columbia Land<br />

Trust is working to aquire foestlands & protet marshes,<br />

ecological systems G<br />

lakes, & swamps.<br />

11/19/2003 OR I Also don't see Siletz Tribal lands further south.<br />

9/16/2003 b<strong>at</strong>s G need more snags<br />

9/16/2003 OR Black oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher I call Liz Kelly, ODFW 867-4558. More thre<strong>at</strong>ened<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8B, page 21 of 23

Action<br />

Suggest-ed Action taken Comment taken on 28 Comment<br />

Planning St<strong>at</strong>e/<br />

edits to on 7 June on 7 June June SITES on 28 June<br />

D<strong>at</strong>e unit Prov. Targets<br />

SITES SITES run SITES run run SITES run Comments<br />

Kip Wright and Kerry concerned. Disappearing due to fire<br />

9/16/2003 OR bandtailed pigeons I<br />

suppression and habit<strong>at</strong> loss<br />

10/8/2003 G Not much real review of assessment.<br />

1/27/2004 OR I Coquille Tribal lands not represented on map<br />

All areas of landscapes have ecological value - reflect this<br />

on an eco-regional map r<strong>at</strong>ing or prioritizing w<strong>at</strong>ershed subbasins<br />

on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being best system with<br />

1/27/2004 M<br />

biodiversity, and 5 being lowest.<br />

This type assessment/prioritiz<strong>at</strong>ion map would provide<br />

opportunity to observe p<strong>at</strong>terns of landscape health,<br />

p<strong>at</strong>terns of opportunity for preserv<strong>at</strong>ion and restor<strong>at</strong>ion,<br />

and areas of landscape where conserv<strong>at</strong>ion <strong>at</strong>tention<br />

1/27/2004 M<br />

should be focused.<br />

Comment: Look <strong>at</strong> w<strong>at</strong>ershed basin assessment and<br />

prioritiz<strong>at</strong>ion mapping we did <strong>at</strong> the Siuslaw W<strong>at</strong>ershed<br />

1/27/2004 OR M<br />

Council in 2002-2003.<br />

G Was more of a present<strong>at</strong>ion of our methods.<br />

1/27/2004 G<br />

Salmon habit<strong>at</strong> is too clumped - it is not correle<strong>at</strong>ed with<br />

1/27/2004 G<br />

highe species diversity and productivity.<br />

6/15/2004 3262 OR I I Probably no Umpqua OR Chub in 3262<br />

make sure<br />

TNC<br />

preserve is<br />

in as<br />

protected 2656 and 2666 are better than 2673 (except for Fanno<br />

6/15/2004 2673 D D D site Meadow)<br />

USFS just purchased upper Alsea Estuary lands of about<br />

6/15/2004 G<br />

1000 ac.<br />

6/15/2004 G Stan Vetterling of the Siletz tribe has lamprey d<strong>at</strong>a.<br />

Mary's Peak needs to be in - highest point in OR<br />

6/15/2004 2708 A Y<br />

Cascades, etc.<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8B, page 22 of 23

Action<br />

Suggest-ed Action taken Comment taken on 28 Comment<br />

Planning St<strong>at</strong>e/<br />

edits to on 7 June on 7 June June SITES on 28 June<br />

D<strong>at</strong>e unit Prov. Targets<br />

SITES SITES run SITES run run SITES run Comments<br />

Red Fir in AUs is probably wrong (as of 6/30, TNC fixed<br />

6/15/2004 G<br />

this error).<br />

is in portfolio as a class 2 in Nestucca Drainage - not a lot<br />

6/30/2004 2616 D D<br />

of highly ranked terrestrial targets<br />

Has a Willamette Class 1 system - not need for PNW<br />

6/30/2004 2632 D D<br />

<strong>Coast</strong><br />

6/30/2004 3260 A A Beaver Creek Estuary is of high value<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8B, page 23 of 23

Appendix 8C PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregion Portfolio Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Areas<br />

CONSERVATION AREA NAME STATE SIZE (HA) SITE INTEGRATION REALMS<br />

Adam and Eve River (Marine) British Columbia 1200 Marine Site Marine Only<br />

Adam River British Columbia 89 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Alsea Bay-Drift Creek <strong>Oregon</strong> 8697 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial,Small & Large Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Alsea-Five Rivers <strong>Oregon</strong> 35273 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Beaver Creek Marsh <strong>Oregon</strong> 10403 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Beverly Beach St<strong>at</strong>e Park <strong>Oregon</strong> 66 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Black River (Freshw<strong>at</strong>er) Washington 14589 Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Site (class 2) Large-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Blind Slough Swamp <strong>Oregon</strong> 9797 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial,Small & Large Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Bobby Creek RNA <strong>Oregon</strong> 776 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Boiler Bay St<strong>at</strong>e Scenic Viewpoint <strong>Oregon</strong> 20 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Boistfort Washington 25957 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Bojo Point (Marine) British Columbia 2800 Marine Site Marine Only<br />

Brads Creek ACEC <strong>Oregon</strong> 67 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Broken Group British Columbia 3175 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Brooks Peninsula British Columbia 81141 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Campbell River (Freshw<strong>at</strong>er) British Columbia 2270 Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Site (class 2) Large-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Campbell-Quadra British Columbia 16709 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Cape Arago-South Slough <strong>Oregon</strong> 16009 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Cape Blanco-Elk River <strong>Oregon</strong> 44238 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Cape Elizabeth Washington 5120 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Cape Falcon-Lower Nehalem <strong>Oregon</strong> 23754 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Cape Ferrelo <strong>Oregon</strong> 9422 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Cape Lookout-Sandlake <strong>Oregon</strong> 13121 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Cape Scott-Port Hardy British Columbia 118523 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Cape Sebastian-Hunter Creek <strong>Oregon</strong> 9262 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial,Small & Large Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Capital St<strong>at</strong>e Forest Washington 15262 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Cascade Head-Salmon River <strong>Oregon</strong> 19975 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Castle Rock Washington 11601 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Chehalis River Washington 30987 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial,Small & Large Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Chemainus-Cowichan British Columbia 59489 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Chetco River (Klam<strong>at</strong>h Mtns) <strong>Oregon</strong> 400 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

China Wall ACEC <strong>Oregon</strong> 82 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Chinook River BLM Site Washington 43 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8C, page 1 of 5

CONSERVATION AREA NAME STATE SIZE (HA) SITE INTEGRATION REALMS<br />

Clallam Bay - Clallam River (Marine) Washington 2400 Marine Site Marine Only<br />

Cl<strong>at</strong>skanie River Washington 8872 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Cl<strong>at</strong>sop Plains-Necanicum River <strong>Oregon</strong> 17649 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Clayoquot-Alberni British Columbia 176444 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Clearw<strong>at</strong>er River Washington 21433 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Cloquallum River Washington 8418 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial,Small & Large Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Coer d'Alene Creek (Marine) British Columbia 400 Marine Site Marine Only<br />

Columbia Mainstem Islands <strong>Oregon</strong>/Washington 2903 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Columbia Refuge Islands <strong>Oregon</strong>/Washington 6253 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Columbia River Estuary <strong>Oregon</strong>/Washington 19170 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Columbia River Mainstem <strong>Oregon</strong>/Washington 34216 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Coos Mtn <strong>Oregon</strong> 13135 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Coos-Millacoma Rivers <strong>Oregon</strong> 62395 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial,Small & Large Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Copalis River Washington 12155 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Copalis River (TNC) Washington 112 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Copalis Rock NWR Washington 12 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Cougar Creek ACEC <strong>Oregon</strong> 117 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Cowichan River (Freshw<strong>at</strong>er) British Columbia 1778 Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Site (class 2) Large-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Cummins-Rock Creek <strong>Oregon</strong> 22034 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Deep Creek - West Twin River (Marine) Washington 1200 Marine Site Marine Only<br />

Devils Punch Bowl St<strong>at</strong>e N<strong>at</strong>ural Area <strong>Oregon</strong> 24 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Doty Hills Washington 25439 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Duckabush River Washington 5100 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Dungeness River (Freshw<strong>at</strong>er) Washington 2377 Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Site (class 2) Large-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

East Fork Hoquiam River Washington 5880 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial,Small & Large Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

East Fork Humptulips River Washington 11285 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Elk Creek (Umpqua) <strong>Oregon</strong> 11192 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial,Small & Large Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Ellsworth Creek Washington 13829 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Elochoman River Washington 19502 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial,Small & Large Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Fanno Meadows (Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Easement) <strong>Oregon</strong> 241 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Fl<strong>at</strong>tery Rocks NWR Washington 446 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Flynn Creek RNA <strong>Oregon</strong> 257 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Fogarty Creek St<strong>at</strong>e Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Area <strong>Oregon</strong> 69 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Forest Park <strong>Oregon</strong> 1443 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8C, page 2 of 5

CONSERVATION AREA NAME STATE SIZE (HA) SITE INTEGRATION REALMS<br />

Gold River-Nootka British Columbia 156675 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Golden Bar ACEC <strong>Oregon</strong> 30 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Goodman Creek Washington 9052 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Grays Harbor Washington 29166 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Grays River Washington 11077 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial,Small & Large Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Hamma Hamma River Washington 8894 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Hesqui<strong>at</strong> British Columbia 57522 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Hoh River Washington 23842 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial,Small & Large Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Hoko River (Marine) Washington 1600 Marine Site Marine<br />

Hult Marsh ACEC <strong>Oregon</strong> 72 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Humbug Mtn-Nesika Beach <strong>Oregon</strong> 11563 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Juan de Fuca British Columbia 15504 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Keogh River (Marine) British Columbia 2400 Marine Site Marine<br />

Lake Crescent Washington 8406 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Long Beach Peninsula Washington 8762 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Lost Creek ACEC <strong>Oregon</strong> 35 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Lost Prairie ACEC <strong>Oregon</strong> 25 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Lower Coquille River <strong>Oregon</strong> 21111 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Lower Rogue River <strong>Oregon</strong> 21428 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Lower Umpqua River <strong>Oregon</strong> 18245 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial,Small & Large Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Luckiamute River <strong>Oregon</strong> 17111 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Martin Creek ACEC <strong>Oregon</strong> 66 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Marys Peak <strong>Oregon</strong> 8826 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Marys River <strong>Oregon</strong> 15069 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Mill Creek <strong>Oregon</strong> 13885 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Milton Creek <strong>Oregon</strong> 8017 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Mt. Townsend Washington 1114 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Myrtle Island RNA <strong>Oregon</strong> 9 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Nacelle River Washington 19881 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial,Small & Large Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Naka Creek (Marine) British Columbia 400 Marine Site Marine<br />

Nanaimo River British Columbia 40934 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Nestucca River <strong>Oregon</strong> 31765 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial,Small & Large Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

New River <strong>Oregon</strong> 21324 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial,Small & Large Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Nimpkish-Tahsish British Columbia 126260 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8C, page 3 of 5

CONSERVATION AREA NAME STATE SIZE (HA) SITE INTEGRATION REALMS<br />

Nimpkish-Zeballos British Columbia 33546 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Nitin<strong>at</strong>-Carmanah-Walbran British Columbia 93396 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

North Fork Coquille River ACEC <strong>Oregon</strong> 126 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

North Fork Siletz River <strong>Oregon</strong> 21475 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

North Fork/Hunter Creek ACEC <strong>Oregon</strong> 762 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

North River Headw<strong>at</strong>ers Washington 8078 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional Park Washington 420223 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial,Small & Large Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Olympic NP-<strong>Coast</strong>al Unit / Ozette Lake Washington 34399 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong> Islands NWR <strong>Oregon</strong> 163 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Point Grenville - Grenville Bay (Marine) Washington 800 Marine Site Marine<br />

Pysht River (Marine) Washington 800 Marine Site Marine<br />

Quilcene River-Dabob Bay Washington 5371 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Quillayute Needles NWR Washington 80 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Quillayute-Sol Duc River Washington 6754 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial,Small & Large Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Quinault River Washington 12482 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial,Small & Large Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Rock Creek (Coquille) <strong>Oregon</strong> 7414 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Rocky Creek St<strong>at</strong>e Wayside <strong>Oregon</strong> 24 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Saddle Mountain <strong>Oregon</strong> 16870 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Salmon River British Columbia 45965 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Salmon River (Queets) Washington 6921 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Salmon River plus (Marine) British Columbia 4800 Marine Site Marine Only<br />

S<strong>at</strong>sop W<strong>at</strong>ershed Washington 12270 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Scappoose Creek <strong>Oregon</strong> 15226 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Scott Islands (Marine) British Columbia 1600 Marine Site Marine Only<br />

Seal and Sail Rocks (Marine) Washington 400 Marine Site Marine Only<br />

Sequim Bay Washington 4839 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Shelton-South Sound Washington 4201 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Shipwreck Point NAP Washington 202 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Siletz Bay-Drift Creek <strong>Oregon</strong> 10363 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial,Small & Large Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Siuslaw River <strong>Oregon</strong> 157099 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial,Small & Large Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Skamokowa Washington 8214 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Skokomish River Washington 7058 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial,Small & Large Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Smith River (OR) <strong>Oregon</strong> 46253 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Somas (Marine) British Columbia 1600 Marine Site Marine Only<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8C, page 4 of 5

CONSERVATION AREA NAME STATE SIZE (HA) SITE INTEGRATION REALMS<br />

Sooke British Columbia 6384 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

South Beach St<strong>at</strong>e Park <strong>Oregon</strong> 573 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

South Fork Coos River <strong>Oregon</strong> 25384 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial,Small & Large Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

South Fork Coquille River <strong>Oregon</strong> 26463 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial,Small & Large Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

South Yamhill River <strong>Oregon</strong> 9446 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Str<strong>at</strong>hcona British Columbia 320854 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Sutton Lake <strong>Oregon</strong> 5799 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Tahkenitch-Siltcoos Lakes <strong>Oregon</strong> 32851 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial,Small & Large Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Tenmile Lake <strong>Oregon</strong> 25012 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Tillamook Bay-Kilchis River <strong>Oregon</strong> 30007 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial,Small & Large Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Trask Mountain <strong>Oregon</strong> 11997 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Tsable-Stamp-Qualicum British Columbia 79892 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Tsitika-Nimpkish British Columbia 46389 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Twin Rocks (Marine) <strong>Oregon</strong> 400 Marine Site Marine Only<br />

Umpqua Lighthouse St<strong>at</strong>e Park <strong>Oregon</strong> 65 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Umpqua River tributaries <strong>Oregon</strong> 16432 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Upper Nehalem River <strong>Oregon</strong> 56150 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial,Small & Large Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Waadah Island - Neah Bay (Marine) Washington 1600 Marine Site Marine Only<br />

Wa<strong>at</strong>ch Point - Wa<strong>at</strong>ch River (Marine) Washington 1600 Marine Site Marine Only<br />

West Koitiah Point (Marine) Washington 800 Marine Site Marine Only<br />

Whale Creek (Marine) Washington 400 Marine Site Marine Only<br />

Willapa Bay Washington 48453 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Willapa Hills Washington 21731 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Wilson River <strong>Oregon</strong> 12097 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Wreck Creek (Marine) Washington 400 Marine Site Marine Only<br />

Wynoochee River Washington 30804 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial,Small & Large Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Yach<strong>at</strong>s River <strong>Oregon</strong> 11464 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial,Small & Large Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

Yaquina Bay <strong>Oregon</strong> 1620 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic<br />

Yaquina Head ONA/ACEC <strong>Oregon</strong> 41 Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site Terrestrial, Small-Scale Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic, Marine<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8C, page 5 of 5

Appendix 8D: Summaries of Portfolio Sites in the <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> Ecoregion<br />

December 2006<br />

Column Notes:<br />

a) G Rank: global rank of species conserv<strong>at</strong>ion target as determined by N<strong>at</strong>ureServe.<br />

b) Abundance: amount of target present <strong>at</strong> portfolio site.<br />

c) % of Total Known: amount of target known <strong>at</strong> site expressed as a percent of the total amount of the target in the<br />

ecoregion.<br />

d) Rel<strong>at</strong>ive Abundance: an area-weighted measure of local target abundance. RA is the percent of abundance of the<br />

target in the ecoregion th<strong>at</strong> is found within the site divided by the percent of area of the ecoregion represented by the site.<br />

An RA > 1.0 indic<strong>at</strong>es th<strong>at</strong> the abundance of the target is high for an area of this size in this ecoregion. RA < 1.0 indic<strong>at</strong>es<br />

th<strong>at</strong> while the target is present <strong>at</strong> the site, it can be found <strong>at</strong> higher abundance <strong>at</strong> other loc<strong>at</strong>ions in the ecoregion.<br />

e) Contribution to Goal: percent of the conserv<strong>at</strong>ion goal for the target th<strong>at</strong> is captured <strong>at</strong> the portfolio site.<br />

f) Ecoregion Goal: overall ecoregional conserv<strong>at</strong>ion goal for the target.<br />

g) % of Goal Captured by Portfolio: percent of the ecoregional conserv<strong>at</strong>ion goal for the target th<strong>at</strong> is captured in all<br />

portfolio sites in this ecoregion. 100% or above denotes th<strong>at</strong> the conserv<strong>at</strong>ion goal for the target was fully met in the<br />

conserv<strong>at</strong>ion portfolio.

Summaries of Portfolio Sites in the <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregion<br />

Adam and Eve River (Marine)<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

British Columbia<br />

Marine Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 1,200 ha Developed 0 %<br />

2,964 ac Undeveloped 0 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er 100 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marine<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) 46 ha 0.2 % 17.2 0.8 % 5,844 ha 105 %<br />

Kelp Shore 4293 m 0.3 % 21.1 1.0 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Saltmarsh Shore 326 m 0.1 % 4.3 0.2 % 164,143 m<br />

118 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Shoreline<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1052 m 0.2 % 11.9 0.5 % 193,399 m<br />

88 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 687 m 0.1 % 6.6 0.3 % 226,193 m<br />

102 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2395 m 1.2 % 90.0 4.1 % 58,215 m<br />

98 %<br />

Sand Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 385 m 1.0 % 72.1 3.3 % 11,673 m<br />

104 %<br />

Page 1 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Adam River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Adam River<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 19 %<br />

GAP 4 3 %<br />

British Columbia<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: 3 %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: 19 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 44 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

56 %<br />

89 ha<br />

220 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 147,425 ha 110 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP2) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 2 ha 0.0 % 0.5 0.0 % 302,959 ha 108 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP1) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 8 ha 0.0 4.2 0.0<br />

Marine<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Kelp Estuary 365 m 1.4 % 1420.4 4.8 % 7,567 m<br />

214 %<br />

Kelp Shore 1110 m 0.1 % 73.3 0.2 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 4677 m 0.3 % 311.3 1.1 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Shoreline<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) 4677 m 0.6 % 575.1 2.0 % 239,478 m<br />

223 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 6 m 0.0 % 0.9 0.0 % 193,399 m<br />

88 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1838 m 0.2 % 239.3 0.8 % 226,193 m<br />

102 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 715 m 0.4 % 361.5 1.2 % 58,215 m<br />

98 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) 199 m 0.4 % 347.1 1.2 % 16,881 m<br />

144 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Page 2 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Adam River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Fishes<br />

Chinook Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 1428 m 0.2 % 4337.9 0.8 % 184,827 m<br />

154 %<br />

Chum Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus keta 1428 m 0.3 % 4804.0 0.9 % 166,896 m<br />

78 %<br />

Coho Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus kisutch 1428 m 0.1 % 1453.2 0.3 % 551,718 m<br />

122 %<br />

Cutthro<strong>at</strong> Trout, East Island Oncorhynchus clarki 1428 m 0.2 % 2122.0 0.4 % 377,832 m<br />

69 %<br />

Dolly Varden, East Island Salvelinus malma G5 1428 m 0.5 % 5220.9 0.9 % 153,568 m<br />

123 %<br />

Pink Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 1428 m 0.5 % 9429.2 1.7 % 85,030 m<br />

56 %<br />

Sockeye Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus nerka 1428 m 0.5 % 9226.7 1.6 % 86,896 m<br />

177 %<br />

Summer Run Steelhead Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus mykiss 1428 m 0.1 % 1816.7 0.3 % 441,335 m<br />

133 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Macrohabit<strong>at</strong>s<br />

113 m 0.0 % 492.1 0.1 % 128,956 m<br />

253 %<br />

526 m 0.1 % 3115.4 0.6 % 94,768 m<br />

220 %<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Page 3 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Alsea Bay-Drift Creek<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Alsea Bay-Drift Creek<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 13 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 81 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 26 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 54 %<br />

GAP 4 13 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 8,697 ha Developed 0 %<br />

21,482 ac Undeveloped 95 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

4 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 1479 ha 0.2 % 6.2 0.8 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 971 ha 0.1 % 2.3 0.3 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 5195 ha 0.2 % 5.5 0.7 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 6 occ 0.6 % 9.8 1.2 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 6 occ 0.3 5.6 0.7<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Mineral Spring 1 occ 1.6 % 41.2 5.0 % 20 occ 150 %<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis G4 1 occ 14.3 % % occ<br />

%<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus 1 occ 0.3 % 3.2 1.1 % 95 occ 163 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 1 occ 0.3 % 2.6 0.9 % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Shorebird Concentr<strong>at</strong>ion Area 1 occ 4.3 % 18.9 6.3 % 16 occ 119 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Page 4 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Alsea Bay-Drift Creek<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Algal Beds (ha) 83 ha 0.7 % 7.4 2.5 % 3,384 ha 330 %<br />

Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic Bed (ha) 76 ha 11.5 % 115.6 38.3 % 198 ha 258 %<br />

Eelgrass Estuary 11609 m 2.1 % 20.6 6.8 % 169,841 m<br />

224 %<br />

Intertidal Salt Marshes (Salvir Disspi Trimar) Salvir - disspi - trimar - (jaucar) 4 occ 5.9 % 54.9 18.2 % 22 occ 250 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 403 ha 3.8 % 38.4 12.7 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 21875 m 1.5 % 14.9 4.9 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Seagrass (ha) 70 ha 0.2 % 2.1 0.7 % 9,868 ha 294 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Cobble/Gravel (ha) 9 ha 5.2 % 52.0 17.2 % 55 ha 282 %<br />

Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 64 ha 6.9 % 69.6 23.1 % 279 ha 116 %<br />

Mud (ha) 1 ha 0.1 % 1.5 0.5 % 155 ha 244 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 56 ha 0.2 % 1.8 0.6 % 9,168 ha 287 %<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 454 ha 2.5 % 24.9 8.3 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Sand (ha) 16 ha 0.1 % 0.6 0.2 % 7,977 ha 239 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 141 ha 1.4 % 13.8 4.6 % 3,069 ha 224 %<br />

Sand/Mud (ha) 173 ha 4.2 % 41.8 13.9 % 1,250 ha 246 %<br />

Sand/Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 29 ha 0.3 % 3.4 1.1 % 2,550 ha 256 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) 269 m 0.4 % 4.2 1.4 % 19,507 m<br />

226 %<br />

Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) 308 m 1.9 % 18.9 6.2 % 4,933 m<br />

278 %<br />

Organics/fines (Embayment) 1096 m 0.7 % 7.3 2.4 % 45,204 m<br />

218 %<br />

Organics/fines Exposed (Embayment) 18045 m 3.7 % 37.6 12.5 % 144,777 m<br />

215 %<br />

Organics/fines Very Protected (Embayment) 2366 m 2.4 % 23.8 7.9 % 30,025 m<br />

194 %<br />

Rock With Sand Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) 572 m 100.0 % 1003.1 332.5 % 172 m<br />

333 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Exposed (Embayment) 3604 m 3.6 % 36.7 12.2 % 29,625 m<br />

198 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Protected (Embayment) 887 m 1.7 % 16.9 5.6 % 15,799 m<br />

247 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Very Exposed (Embayment) 22 m 2.2 % 22.1 7.3 % 304 m<br />

334 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) 4073 m 7.2 % 72.7 24.1 % 16,915 m<br />

247 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) 1992 m 20.2 % 202.8 67.2 % 2,963 m<br />

231 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) 546 m 0.6 % 5.7 1.9 % 29,156 m<br />

255 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) 1040 m 4.1 % 41.2 13.7 % 7,615 m<br />

309 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 3010 m 1.1 % 11.3 3.7 % 80,427 m<br />

122 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Page 5 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Alsea Bay-Drift Creek<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 3621 m 0.2 % 28.9 0.5 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 55060 m 0.6 % 70.5 1.2 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 46838 m 1.1 % 202.8 3.5 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 56883 m 0.7 % 131.7 2.3 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Range small rivers - sedimentary, low to mid elev<strong>at</strong>ion 1 occ 4.5 % 822.9 14.3 % 7 occ 129 %<br />

Page 6 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Alsea-Five Rivers<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Alsea-Five Rivers<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 82 %<br />

GAP 4 18 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 18 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 82 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 100 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

35,273 ha<br />

87,125 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 1 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 244 ha 0.0 % 0.3 0.1 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 3110 ha 0.3 % 1.8 0.9 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 31900 ha 1.2 % 8.4 4.1 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 1 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Northern Red-Legged Frog Rana aurora aurora T4 1 occ 1.0 % 29.0 14.3 % 7 occ 671 %<br />

Birds<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 77 occ 4.4 % 17.8 8.8 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 15 occ 1.5 % 6.1 3.0 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> Sideband(Ssp. Canyonville) Monadenia fidelis 3 occ 60.0 % 122.0 60.0 % 5 occ<br />

60 %<br />

Nonvascular Plants<br />

Lichen Treepelt (Erioderma) Erioderma soredi<strong>at</strong>um 1 occ 16.7 % 16.9 8.3 % 12 occ<br />

42 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Page 7 of 328<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Alsea-Five Rivers<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 26608 m 1.1 % 52.3 3.7 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 226611 m 2.5 % 71.6 5.0 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 121173 m 2.7 % 129.4 9.1 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 221452 m 2.7 % 126.5 8.9 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

Inland Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sediment 3 occ 5.1 % 236.7 16.7 % 18 occ 106 %<br />

Page 8 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Beaver Creek Marsh<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Beaver Creek Marsh<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 58 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 40 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 2 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 1 %<br />

GAP 3 41 %<br />

GAP 4 58 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Area: 10,403 ha Developed 2 %<br />

25,696 ac Undeveloped 97 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

1 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 7335 ha 1.1 % 25.9 3.8 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 417 ha 0.0 % 0.8 0.1 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 2488 ha 0.1 % 2.2 0.3 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Northern Red-Legged Frog Rana aurora aurora T4 3 occ 3.1 % 295.4 42.9 % 7 occ 671 %<br />

Birds<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1 occ 0.1 % 0.8 0.1 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 1 occ 0.1 % 0.8 0.1 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Nonvascular Plants<br />

Lichen Treepelt (Erioderma) Erioderma soredi<strong>at</strong>um 1 occ 16.7 % 57.4 8.3 % 12 occ<br />

42 %<br />

1 occ 10.0 % 30.0 4.3 % 23 occ<br />

30 %<br />

Abronia umbell<strong>at</strong>a ssp<br />

breviflora<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Pink Sandverbena<br />

Seaside Gilia Gilia millefoli<strong>at</strong>a 1 occ 33.3 % 53.0 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

23 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Sphagnum Bogs And Poor Fens (Ledgla / Carobn / Sphagn)Ledgla / carobn / sphagn 1 occ 8.3 % 114.9 16.7 % 6 occ 117 %<br />

Page 9 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Beaver Creek Marsh<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marine<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Intertidal Salt Marshes (Desces Junbal Tidal) Desces - junbal tidal 2 occ 25.0 % 252.2 100.0 % 2 occ 100 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 41 ha 0.4 % 3.3 1.3 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 42 ha 0.2 % 1.9 0.8 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Unconsolid<strong>at</strong>ed (ha) 10 ha 3.4 % 28.4 11.3 % 91 ha 121 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) 1261 m 1.2 % 9.8 3.9 % 32,500 m<br />

106 %<br />

Gravel Beach Very Protected (Embayment) 1020 m 55.4 % 466.1 184.8 % 552 m<br />

334 %<br />

Organics/fines Very Protected (Embayment) 4164 m 4.2 % 35.0 13.9 % 30,025 m<br />

194 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 43 m 0.0 % 0.3 0.1 % 33,330 m<br />

119 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 582 m 0.2 % 1.8 0.7 % 80,427 m<br />

122 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 58971 m 0.7 % 63.2 1.3 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 18792 m 0.4 % 68.0 1.4 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 56112 m 0.7 % 108.6 2.3 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sediment 1 occ 8.3 % 1204.0 25.0 % 4 occ 200 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Ocean Tributaries - Sediment 1 occ 6.3 % 963.2 20.0 % 5 occ 220 %<br />

Page 10 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Beverly Beach St<strong>at</strong>e Park<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Beverly Beach St<strong>at</strong>e Park<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 100 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 100 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 92 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

5 %<br />

66 ha<br />

162 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 57 ha 0.0 % 31.7 0.0 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 2 ha 0.0 % 0.7 0.0 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 4 ha 0.0 % 0.5 0.0 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 1326 m 0.0 % 225.2 0.0 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 1326 m 0.0 % 407.2 0.1 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Page 11 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Black River (Freshw<strong>at</strong>er)<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Black River (Freshw<strong>at</strong>er)<br />

Indigenous: 0 %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 0 %<br />

NGO 0 %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 0 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: 0 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: 0 %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 0 %<br />

Local: 0 %<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 0 %<br />

GAP 2 0 %<br />

GAP 3 0 %<br />

GAP 4 0 %<br />

Washington<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Site (cl Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 14,589 ha Developed 0 %<br />

36,035 ac Undeveloped 0 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

Chehalis Headw<strong>at</strong>er Small Rivers - Outwash, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Low Gradient 1 occ 100.0 % % occ<br />

%<br />

Page 12 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Blind Slough Swamp<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Blind Slough Swamp<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 43 %<br />

NGO 3 %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 54 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 3 %<br />

GAP 2 1 %<br />

GAP 3 54 %<br />

GAP 4 42 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 14 %<br />

Area: 9,797 ha Developed 0 %<br />

24,198 ac Undeveloped 85 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

Klam<strong>at</strong>h-Siskiyou Lower Montane Serpentine Mixed Conifer Woodland 5 occ 41.7 % 609.9 83.3 % 6 occ 117 %<br />

Mediterranean California Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest And Woodland 14 ha 0.4 % 29.3 4.0 % 348 ha 500 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 4335 ha 0.7 % 16.2 2.2 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 304 ha 0.0 % 0.6 0.1 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 1312 ha 0.1 % 1.2 0.2 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Oak Woodland 62 ha 57.2 % 2054.0 280.6 % 22 ha 305 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 643 ha 0.0 % 1.5 0.2 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest 29 ha 0.0 % 0.6 0.1 % 37,848 ha 140 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 2 occ 0.1 1.7 0.2<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Sphagnum Bogs And Poor Fens (Caraqud) Caraqud 1 occ 100.0 % 244.0 33.3 % 3 occ<br />

33 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 3 19770 m 5.8 % 593.6 11.6 % 170,194 m<br />

133 %<br />

Page 13 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Blind Slough Swamp<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 33808 m 0.7 % 120.0 2.3 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 6118 m 1.1 % 117.5 2.3 % 266,114 m<br />

86 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Southwest Washington ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 23031 m 0.7 % 115.7 2.3 % 1,017,511 m<br />

137 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

Lower Columbia Tributary Small Rivers - Sedimentary 1 occ 50.0 % 5109.8 100.0 % 1 occ 100 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

1 occ 5.6 % 1022.0 20.0 % 5 occ 160 %<br />

Columbia Estuary Tributaries - Sedimentary, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e<br />

Gradient<br />

Page 14 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Bobby Creek RNA<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Bobby Creek RNA<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 100 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 100 %<br />

GAP 3 0 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 100 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

%<br />

776 ha<br />

1,916 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

Mediterranean California Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest And Woodland 20 ha 0.6 % 540.3 5.8 % 348 ha 500 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 146 ha 0.0 % 3.9 0.0 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest 643 ha 0.3 % 157.0 1.7 % 37,848 ha 140 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Clouded Salamander Aneides ferreus G3 2 occ 12.5 % 2641.1 28.6 % 7 occ<br />

86 %<br />

Southern Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton varieg<strong>at</strong>us G3 1 occ 2.4 % 711.1 7.7 % 13 occ 192 %<br />

Tailed Frog Ascaphus truei 1 occ 2.0 % 1320.6 14.3 % 7 occ 343 %<br />

Birds<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 2 occ 0.2 % 36.8 0.4 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 736 m 0.0 % 10.6 0.0 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 2464 m 0.0 % 64.0 0.1 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Page 15 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Boiler Bay St<strong>at</strong>e Scenic Viewpoint<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Boiler Bay St<strong>at</strong>e Scenic Viewpoint<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 100 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 100 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 83 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

12 %<br />

20 ha<br />

50 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 13 ha 0.0 % 22.9 0.0 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

Page 16 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Boistfort<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Boistfort<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 100 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 0 %<br />

GAP 4 100 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 9 %<br />

Area: 25,957 ha Developed 0 %<br />

64,113 ac Undeveloped 90 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 14497 ha 1.3 % 11.6 4.2 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 9263 ha 0.4 % 3.3 1.2 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 26 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Columbia Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton kezeri 6 occ 7.3 % 66.3 24.0 % 25 occ 188 %<br />

Cope's Giant Salamander Dicamptodon copei 5 occ 5.7 % 106.2 38.5 % 13 occ 415 %<br />

Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni G4 7 occ 10.9 % 276.2 100.0 % 7 occ 586 %<br />

Tailed Frog Ascaphus truei 3 occ 5.9 % 118.4 42.9 % 7 occ 343 %<br />

Birds<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 2 occ 0.1 % 0.7 0.2 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Valley Silverspot Butterfly Speyeria zerene bremnerii 1 occ 8.3 % 21.2 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

85 %<br />

T2 3 occ 11.1 % 63.7 23.1 % 13 occ<br />

77 %<br />

Lupinus sulphureus var<br />

kincaidii<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Kincaid's Sulfur Lupine<br />

Nelson's Checker-Mallow Sidalcea nelsoniana g2 1 occ 2.3 % 92.1 33.3 % 3 occ 267 %<br />

Tall Bugbane Cimicifuga el<strong>at</strong>a 3 occ 6.0 % 118.4 42.9 % 7 occ 257 %<br />

Thin-Leaved Peavine L<strong>at</strong>hyrus holochlorus 1 occ 14.3 % 39.5 14.3 % 7 occ<br />

14 %<br />

Page 17 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Boistfort<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 69768 m 1.5 % 93.4 4.8 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 81592 m 1.7 % 109.3 5.7 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 24196 m 0.8 % 49.5 2.6 % 943,067 m<br />

129 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 4706 m 0.1 % 9.6 0.5 % 943,067 m<br />

129 %<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> Lamprey Lampetra trident<strong>at</strong>a G5 1 occ 3.0 % % occ<br />

%<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> Lamprey Lampetra trident<strong>at</strong>a G5 1 occ 3.0 % % occ<br />

%<br />

Spring Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 27629 m 2.7 % 170.4 8.8 % 312,652 m<br />

187 %<br />

Spring Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 10447 m 1.0 % 64.4 3.3 % 312,652 m<br />

187 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Southwest Washington ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 58326 m 1.7 % 110.5 5.7 % 1,017,511 m<br />

137 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Southwest Washington ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 63943 m 1.9 % 121.2 6.3 % 1,017,511 m<br />

137 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Upland - Sandstones, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient 2 occ 5.0 % 321.4 16.7 % 12 occ 133 %<br />

Willapa Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ions, High Gradients 1 occ 3.3 % 214.2 11.1 % 9 occ 133 %<br />

Willapa Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sandstones, Low To Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e/Low<br />

1 occ 2.6 % 175.3 9.1 % 11 occ 100 %<br />

Gradient<br />

Page 18 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Bojo Point (Marine)<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Bojo Point (Marine)<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

British Columbia<br />

Marine Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 2,800 ha Developed 0 %<br />

6,916 ac Undeveloped 0 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er 100 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Herring Spawning High Cover 3623 m 1.3 % 40.3 4.3 % 84,336 m<br />

169 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Mussels and barnacles 1717 m 0.2 % 4.8 0.5 % 337,346 m<br />

132 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) 1220 ha 6.3 % 195.6 20.9 % 5,844 ha 105 %<br />

Kelp Shore 3843 m 0.3 % 8.1 0.9 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Surfgrass Shore 3930 m 0.3 % 10.1 1.1 % 363,205 m<br />

131 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Shoreline<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 87 m 0.0 % 0.8 0.1 % 96,940 m<br />

112 %<br />

Rocky intertidal habit<strong>at</strong> (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 470 m 0.0 % 1.5 0.2 % 294,655 m<br />

123 %<br />

Page 19 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Brads Creek ACEC<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Brads Creek ACEC<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 100 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 100 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 99 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

1 %<br />

67 ha<br />

166 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

Mediterranean California Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest And Woodland 2 ha 0.1 % 579.8 0.5 % 348 ha 500 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 24 ha 0.0 % 7.4 0.0 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 39 ha 0.0 % 5.4 0.0 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1 occ 0.1 % 127.2 0.1 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 1 occ 0.1 % 121.3 0.1 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Page 20 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Broken Group<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Broken Group<br />

British Columbia<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: 8 %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 5 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: 62 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 40 %<br />

GAP 3 22 %<br />

GAP 4 14 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 100 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

3,175 ha<br />

7,843 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 1530 ha 0.3 % 21.3 0.9 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 27 ha 0.0 % 0.3 0.0 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 394 ha 0.0 % 2.7 0.1 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Yellow Cedar Forest 46 ha 0.1 % 13.6 0.6 % 7,569 ha 262 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 72 occ 3.8 % 193.8 8.6 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Bald Eagle Wintering Area<br />

Haliaeetus leucocephalus<br />

1 occ 7.1 % 161.3 7.1 % 14 occ<br />

29 %<br />

wintering area<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP1) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 1 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 147,425 ha 110 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP2) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 16 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 302,959 ha 108 %<br />

Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicill<strong>at</strong>a G5 4 occ 57.1 % 3010.9 133.3 % 3 occ 133 %<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Hairy Goldfields Lasthenia maritima 1 occ 50.0 % 173.7 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

15 %<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani 5 occ 1.4 % 38.3 4.6 % 108 occ 159 %<br />

Page 21 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Broken Group<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus 4 occ 1.3 % 34.8 4.2 % 95 occ 163 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 1 occ 0.3 % 7.1 0.9 % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Fishes<br />

Herring Spawning High Cover 20389 m 7.3 % 199.8 24.2 % 84,336 m<br />

169 %<br />

Herring Spawning Low Cover 13957 m 1.9 % 51.1 6.2 % 225,517 m<br />

146 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Eelgrass (Ha) 44 ha 3.0 % 82.4 10.0 % 443 ha 120 %<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) 589 ha 3.0 % 83.3 10.1 % 5,844 ha 105 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Intertidal Habit<strong>at</strong><br />

Rocky intertidal habit<strong>at</strong> (Embayment) 886 m 5.1 % 139.9 16.9 % 5,233 m<br />

199 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Gravel Beach (Embayment) 467 m 7.6 % 210.0 25.4 % 1,837 m<br />

333 %<br />

Gravel Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 3115 m 28.4 % 783.5 94.8 % 3,285 m<br />

158 %<br />

Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 779 m 19.0 % 523.2 63.3 % 1,231 m<br />

63 %<br />

Organics/fines (Embayment) 14515 m 9.6 % 265.4 32.1 % 45,204 m<br />

218 %<br />

Organics/fines (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 5001 m 10.2 % 281.1 34.0 % 14,702 m<br />

34 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form (Embayment) 449 m 99.9 % 2746.4 332.3 % 135 m<br />

333 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 9797 m 7.8 % 214.7 26.0 % 37,705 m<br />

65 %<br />

Rock With Gravel Beach (Embayment) 860 m 42.6 % 1172.9 141.9 % 606 m<br />

142 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 34557 m 33.2 % 915.5 110.8 % 31,193 m<br />

113 %<br />

Rock With Sand And Gravel Beach (Embayment) 1427 m 100.0 % 2755.6 333.4 % 428 m<br />

333 %<br />

Rock with Sand and Gravel Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 14509 m 14.8 % 407.4 49.3 % 29,435 m<br />

65 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1113 m 10.3 % 284.6 34.4 % 3,231 m<br />

195 %<br />

Rocky intertidal habit<strong>at</strong> (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 24729 m 2.5 % 69.4 8.4 % 294,655 m<br />

123 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 101172 m 26.0 % 714.8 86.5 % 116,959 m<br />

119 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 5821 m 16.1 % 443.5 53.7 % 10,847 m<br />

58 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> (Embayment) 9738 m 51.9 % 1430.9 173.1 % 5,624 m<br />

173 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 10184 m 14.7 % 403.9 48.9 % 20,837 m<br />

57 %<br />

Sand Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 3344 m 5.2 % 142.1 17.2 % 19,455 m<br />

89 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chinook Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 1065 m 0.1 % 60.6 0.4 % 276,806 m<br />

176 %<br />

Chum Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus keta 3070 m 0.3 % 177.0 1.1 % 273,258 m<br />

144 %<br />

Coho Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus kisutch 3070 m 0.1 % 71.8 0.5 % 673,874 m<br />

155 %<br />

Page 22 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Broken Group<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Cutthro<strong>at</strong> Trout, West Island Oncorhynchus clarki 1065 m 0.1 % 43.8 0.3 % 382,902 m<br />

102 %<br />

Dolly Varden, West Island Salvelinus malma G5 984 m 0.5 % 151.1 1.0 % 102,560 m<br />

148 %<br />

Pink Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 82 m 0.0 % 11.3 0.1 % 114,095 m<br />

160 %<br />

Sockeye Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus nerka 984 m 0.1 % 70.4 0.4 % 220,095 m<br />

191 %<br />

Winter Run Steelhead Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus mykiss 1976 m 0.1 % 51.1 0.3 % 609,198 m<br />

168 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Macrohabit<strong>at</strong>s<br />

2281 m 0.2 % 283.8 1.8 % 126,642 m<br />

294 %<br />

67 m 0.0 % 20.1 0.1 % 52,799 m<br />

132 %<br />

1393 m 0.2 % 130.0 0.8 % 168,906 m<br />

119 %<br />

1158 m 0.5 % 423.9 2.7 % 43,046 m<br />

162 %<br />

1805 m 0.9 % 675.6 4.3 % 42,081 m<br />

141 %<br />

17 m 0.0 % 2.4 0.0 % 110,483 m<br />

407 %<br />

3 m 0.0 % 0.8 0.0 % 56,327 m<br />

151 %<br />

470 m 0.0 % 38.3 0.2 % 193,048 m<br />

265 %<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Page 23 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Brooks Peninsula<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Brooks Peninsula<br />

British Columbia<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: 99 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 56 %<br />

GAP 3 43 %<br />

GAP 4 0 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 98 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

1 %<br />

81,141 ha<br />

200,418 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

Boreal Wet Meadow 14 occ 3.7 % 103.1 116.7 % 12 occ 1833 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Avalanche Chute And Talus Shrubland 9 occ 2.3 % 88.4 100.0 % 9 occ 2956 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Coniferous Swamp 1 occ 0.7 % 7.4 8.3 % 12 occ 650 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Deciduous Swamp 1 ha 0.1 % 0.4 0.4 % 332 ha 230 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 72 ha 0.2 % 1.9 2.2 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 33845 ha 6.3 % 18.4 20.9 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 311 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.2 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Lowland Riparian Forest And Shrubland 1 occ 0.6 % 9.8 11.1 % 9 occ 1067 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest 1187 ha 0.3 % 1.4 1.6 % 76,367 ha 375 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 26357 ha 1.6 % 7.2 8.1 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Yellow Cedar Forest 5127 ha 13.5 % 59.9 67.7 % 7,569 ha 262 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP1) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 25566 ha 8.7 % 15.3 17.3 % 147,425 ha 110 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP2) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 25002 ha 4.1 % 7.3 8.3 % 302,959 ha 108 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 59 occ 3.1 6.2 7.0<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Hairy Goldfields Lasthenia maritima 1 occ 50.0 % 6.8 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

15 %<br />

Smooth Douglasia Douglasia laevig<strong>at</strong>a var ciliol<strong>at</strong>a 3 occ 37.5 % 20.4 23.1 % 13 occ<br />

62 %<br />

Page 24 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Brooks Peninsula<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 108 occ 159 %<br />

Leach's Storm-Petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa 3 occ 8.3 % 8.8 27.3 % 11 occ 200 %<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus 9 occ 2.8 % 3.1 9.5 % 95 occ 163 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 14 occ 3.6 % 3.9 12.1 % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Tufted Puffin Fr<strong>at</strong>ercula cirrh<strong>at</strong>a 4 occ 4.3 % 4.3 13.3 % 30 occ 190 %<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani 15 occ 4.2 4.5 13.9<br />

Fishes<br />

Herring Spawning High Cover 1453 m 0.5 % 0.6 1.7 % 84,336 m<br />

169 %<br />

Herring Spawning Low Cover 88210 m 11.7 % 12.6 39.1 % 225,517 m<br />

146 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Mussels and barnacles 184525 m 16.4 % 17.7 54.7 % 337,346 m<br />

132 %<br />

Mammals<br />

Stellar's Sea Lion haulout 1 occ 2.4 % 2.5 7.7 % 13 occ 223 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds Estuary 18347 m 4.9 % 5.3 16.3 % 112,601 m<br />

179 %<br />

Algal Beds Shore 375057 m 12.0 % 12.9 39.9 % 939,089 m<br />

119 %<br />

Dune grass Estuary 7758 m 3.7 % 4.0 12.4 % 62,438 m<br />

224 %<br />

Dune grass Shore 43240 m 7.3 % 7.9 24.5 % 176,736 m<br />

109 %<br />

Eelgrass (Ha) 69 ha 4.7 % 5.0 15.5 % 443 ha 120 %<br />

Eelgrass Estuary 7861 m 1.4 % 1.5 4.6 % 169,841 m<br />

224 %<br />

Eelgrass Shore 104468 m 16.7 % 18.0 55.8 % 187,323 m<br />

146 %<br />

Kelp Estuary 4631 m 18.4 % 19.8 61.2 % 7,567 m<br />

214 %<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) 946 ha 4.9 % 5.2 16.2 % 5,844 ha 105 %<br />

Kelp Shore 292054 m 19.6 % 21.2 65.5 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 22 ha 0.2 % 0.2 0.7 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 32077 m 2.2 % 2.3 7.3 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Saltmarsh Shore 45815 m 8.4 % 9.0 27.9 % 164,143 m<br />

118 %<br />

Seashore Lupine Dunes<br />

Lupinus littoralis (dune<br />

1 occ 14.3 % 32.3 100.0 % 1 occ 200 %<br />

community)<br />

Surfgrass Estuary 6352 m 27.6 % 29.8 92.1 % 6,898 m<br />

215 %<br />

Surfgrass Shore 258152 m 21.3 % 23.0 71.1 % 363,205 m<br />

131 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 22 ha 0.1 % 0.1 0.4 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites<br />

Page 25 of 328

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Brooks Peninsula<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 47 ha 6.5 % 7.1 21.8 % 215 ha 185 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 149 ha 1.5 % 1.6 4.8 % 3,069 ha 224 %<br />

Intertidal Habit<strong>at</strong><br />

Rocky intertidal habit<strong>at</strong> (Embayment) 3421 m 19.6 % 21.1 65.4 % 5,233 m<br />

199 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Channel Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 976 m 7.5 % 8.1 25.0 % 3,901 m<br />

74 %<br />

Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) 1319 m 1.2 % 1.3 4.1 % 32,500 m<br />

106 %<br />

High Tide Lagoon Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 444 m 100.0 % 107.9 333.7 % 133 m<br />

334 %<br />

High Tide lagoon Protected (Embayment) 1194 m 100.0 % 107.9 333.7 % 358 m<br />

334 %<br />

High Tide Lagoon protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 4369 m 55.2 % 59.5 184.0 % 2,375 m<br />

227 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 718 m 6.6 % 7.1 21.9 % 3,276 m<br />

118 %<br />

Organics/fines Exposed (Embayment) 701 m 0.1 % 0.2 0.5 % 144,777 m<br />

215 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) 25595 m 3.2 % 3.5 10.7 % 239,478 m<br />

223 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 4578 m 3.7 % 4.0 12.4 % 36,906 m<br />

137 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Exposed (Embayment) 475 m 8.1 % 8.7 26.9 % 1,767 m<br />

293 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 32495 m 10.1 % 10.8 33.5 % 96,940 m<br />

112 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2726 m 14.9 % 16.1 49.7 % 5,487 m<br />

160 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) 744 m 20.9 % 22.6 69.7 % 1,067 m<br />

155 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 37126 m 17.2 % 18.5 57.2 % 64,871 m<br />

114 %<br />

Rock With Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) 1965 m 11.7 % 12.6 39.1 % 5,027 m<br />

117 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 45852 m 7.1 % 7.7 23.7 % 193,399 m<br />

88 %<br />

Rock With Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) 1488 m 12.7 % 13.7 42.3 % 3,518 m<br />

186 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 28471 m 15.7 % 17.0 52.4 % 54,295 m<br />

137 %<br />

Rock With Sand Beach Protected (Embayment) 1323 m 30.5 % 32.9 101.7 % 1,300 m<br />

131 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 26925 m 43.1 % 46.4 143.5 % 18,758 m<br />

216 %<br />

Rocky intertidal habit<strong>at</strong> (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 205052 m 20.9 % 22.5 69.6 % 294,655 m<br />

123 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Exposed (Embayment) 566 m 0.6 % 0.6 1.9 % 29,625 m<br />

198 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Protected (Embayment) 1272 m 2.4 % 2.6 8.1 % 15,799 m<br />

247 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 33226 m 10.3 % 11.1 34.4 % 96,577 m<br />

110 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 24010 m 3.2 % 3.4 10.6 % 226,193 m<br />

102 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) 1014 m 1.8 % 1.9 6.0 % 16,915 m<br />

247 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 818 m 3.7 % 4.0 12.4 % 6,602 m<br />

153 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) 1887 m 5.5 % 5.9 18.4 % 10,283 m<br />

243 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 14695 m 7.6 % 8.2 25.2 % 58,215 m<br />

98 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2901 m 13.0 % 14.0 43.3 % 6,697 m<br />

79 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) 1774 m 3.2 % 3.4 10.5 % 16,881 m<br />

144 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 9297 m 4.5 % 4.9 15.1 % 61,723 m<br />

94 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) 2086 m 2.1 % 2.3 7.2 % 29,156 m<br />

255 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 5953 m 5.6 % 6.0 18.6 % 32,087 m<br />

121 %<br />

Page 26 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Brooks Peninsula<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Sand Beach Protected (Embayment) 2633 m 8.5 % 9.1 28.2 % 9,335 m<br />

278 %<br />

Sand Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 6968 m 17.9 % 19.3 59.7 % 11,673 m<br />

104 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Embayment) 274 m 1.5 % 1.6 4.9 % 5,586 m<br />

244 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 3373 m 5.0 % 5.4 16.6 % 20,374 m<br />

125 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) 2442 m 4.2 % 4.5 13.9 % 17,529 m<br />

230 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 16255 m 18.5 % 19.9 61.6 % 26,382 m<br />

139 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chinook Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 34385 m 3.7 % 76.6 12.4 % 276,806 m<br />

176 %<br />

Chum Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus keta 49620 m 5.4 % 111.9 18.2 % 273,258 m<br />

144 %<br />

Coho Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus kisutch 58995 m 2.6 % 54.0 8.8 % 673,874 m<br />

155 %<br />

Cutthro<strong>at</strong> Trout, West Island Oncorhynchus clarki 3255 m 0.4 % 5.2 0.8 % 382,902 m<br />

102 %<br />

Pink Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 29758 m 7.8 % 160.8 26.1 % 114,095 m<br />

160 %<br />

Sockeye Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus nerka 14772 m 2.0 % 41.4 6.7 % 220,095 m<br />

191 %<br />

Winter Run Steelhead Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus mykiss 25630 m 1.3 % 25.9 4.2 % 609,198 m<br />

168 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Macrohabit<strong>at</strong>s<br />

4127 m 16.2 % 498.3 80.8 % 5,105 m<br />

500 %<br />

58332 m 4.6 % 283.9 46.1 % 126,642 m<br />

294 %<br />

1685 m 0.8 % 26.0 4.2 % 39,958 m<br />

283 %<br />

55082 m 1.4 % 89.2 14.5 % 380,781 m<br />

457 %<br />

1004 m 7.4 % 229.1 37.2 % 2,703 m<br />

330 %<br />

6622 m 2.5 % 77.3 12.5 % 52,799 m<br />

132 %<br />

877 m 2.0 % 61.4 10.0 % 8,808 m<br />

264 %<br />

16324 m 1.4 % 85.1 13.8 % 118,230 m<br />

459 %<br />

29241 m 3.5 % 106.7 17.3 % 168,906 m<br />

119 %<br />

58 m 0.0 % 1.2 0.2 % 28,683 m<br />

269 %<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Page 27 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Brooks Peninsula<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

41795 m 1.4 % 84.1 13.6 % 306,396 m<br />

448 %<br />

11304 m 5.3 % 161.9 26.3 % 43,046 m<br />

162 %<br />

1883 m 3.3 % 102.2 16.6 % 11,357 m<br />

211 %<br />

9758 m 0.7 % 44.0 7.1 % 136,816 m<br />

433 %<br />

318101 m 12.9 % 797.5 129.4 % 245,882 m<br />

329 %<br />

3428 m 0.8 % 24.3 3.9 % 87,042 m<br />

187 %<br />

99809 m 1.2 % 75.2 12.2 % 818,034 m<br />

586 %<br />

9301 m 17.0 % 524.9 85.2 % 10,922 m<br />

211 %<br />

4226 m 2.0 % 61.9 10.0 % 42,081 m<br />

141 %<br />

3539 m 0.3 % 19.7 3.2 % 110,483 m<br />

407 %<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

2044 m 14.8 % 456.1 74.0 % 2,763 m<br />

162 %<br />

16430 m 9.0 % 277.3 45.0 % 36,520 m<br />

129 %<br />

12554 m 1.3 % 27.0 4.4 % 287,102 m<br />

162 %<br />

6447 m 5.0 % 153.6 24.9 % 25,878 m<br />

114 %<br />

7224 m 0.7 % 22.4 3.6 % 199,007 m<br />

240 %<br />

21608 m 13.9 % 428.7 69.5 % 31,071 m<br />

163 %<br />

7270 m 0.9 % 18.2 3.0 % 246,148 m<br />

186 %<br />

28804 m 10.2 % 315.2 51.1 % 56,327 m<br />

151 %<br />

17678 m 1.8 % 56.5 9.2 % 193,048 m<br />

265 %<br />

Page 28 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Campbell River (Freshw<strong>at</strong>er)<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Campbell River (Freshw<strong>at</strong>er)<br />

Indigenous: 0 %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 0 %<br />

NGO 0 %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 0 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: 0 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: 0 %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 0 %<br />

Local: 0 %<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 0 %<br />

GAP 2 0 %<br />

GAP 3 0 %<br />

GAP 4 0 %<br />

British Columbia<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Site (cl Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 2,270 ha Developed 0 %<br />

5,607 ac Undeveloped 0 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

Unclassified Class 2 Freshw<strong>at</strong>er System 1 occ 50.0 % 22035.3 100.0 % 1 occ 200 %<br />

Page 29 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Campbell-Quadra<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Campbell-Quadra<br />

British Columbia<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 1 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: 99 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 1 %<br />

GAP 3 99 %<br />

GAP 4 1 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 92 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

8 %<br />

16,709 ha<br />

41,271 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 2922 ha 0.5 % 7.7 1.8 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Lowland Riparian Forest And Shrubland 1 occ 0.6 % 47.7 11.1 % 9 occ 1067 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 8523 ha 0.3 % 4.7 1.1 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest 126 ha 0.0 % 0.7 0.2 % 76,367 ha 375 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 1824 ha 0.1 % 2.4 0.6 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP1) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 77 ha 0.0 % 0.2 0.1 % 147,425 ha 110 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP2) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 399 ha 0.1 % 0.6 0.1 % 302,959 ha 108 %<br />

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis G5 3 occ 5.7 % 64.4 15.0 % 20 occ 105 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 6 occ 0.3 3.1 0.7<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er Bur-Reed Sparganium fluctuans 2 occ 33.3 % 66.0 15.4 % 13 occ<br />

38 %<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Mussels and barnacles 3244 m 0.3 % 1.5 1.0 % 337,346 m<br />

132 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Page 30 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Campbell-Quadra<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Eelgrass (Ha) 24 ha 1.6 % 8.6 5.4 % 443 ha 120 %<br />

Eelgrass Estuary 986 m 0.2 % 0.9 0.6 % 169,841 m<br />

224 %<br />

Eelgrass Shore 1548 m 0.2 % 1.3 0.8 % 187,323 m<br />

146 %<br />

Kelp Estuary 760 m 3.0 % 15.8 10.0 % 7,567 m<br />

214 %<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) 36 ha 0.2 % 1.0 0.6 % 5,844 ha 105 %<br />

Kelp Shore 15583 m 1.0 % 5.5 3.5 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 2749 m 0.2 % 1.0 0.6 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Saltmarsh Shore 3374 m 0.6 % 3.2 2.1 % 164,143 m<br />

118 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Shoreline<br />

Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2679 m 18.2 % 95.4 60.8 % 4,409 m<br />

124 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 397 m 3.6 % 19.1 12.1 % 3,276 m<br />

118 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) 986 m 0.1 % 0.6 0.4 % 239,478 m<br />

223 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 629 m 0.5 % 2.7 1.7 % 36,906 m<br />

137 %<br />

Rock With Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) 760 m 4.5 % 23.8 15.1 % 5,027 m<br />

117 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 3987 m 0.6 % 3.2 2.1 % 193,399 m<br />

88 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 9728 m 1.3 % 6.8 4.3 % 226,193 m<br />

102 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 307 m 0.2 % 0.8 0.5 % 58,215 m<br />

98 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) 2055 m 3.7 % 19.1 12.2 % 16,881 m<br />

144 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 4387 m 2.1 % 11.2 7.1 % 61,723 m<br />

94 %<br />

Sand Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 177 m 0.5 % 2.4 1.5 % 11,673 m<br />

104 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 519 m 0.6 % 3.1 2.0 % 26,382 m<br />

139 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Macrohabit<strong>at</strong>s<br />

11927 m 0.3 % 93.8 3.1 % 380,781 m<br />

457 %<br />

7329 m 0.6 % 185.6 6.2 % 118,230 m<br />

459 %<br />

29629 m 1.0 % 289.5 9.7 % 306,396 m<br />

448 %<br />

19443 m 1.4 % 425.4 14.2 % 136,816 m<br />

433 %<br />

9810 m 0.1 % 35.9 1.2 % 818,034 m<br />

586 %<br />

4262 m 0.4 % 115.5 3.9 % 110,483 m<br />

407 %<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Page 31 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Campbell-Quadra<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

3084 m 0.3 % 32.2 1.1 % 287,102 m<br />

162 %<br />

2716 m 0.3 % 40.9 1.4 % 199,007 m<br />

240 %<br />

12474 m 1.5 % 151.7 5.1 % 246,148 m<br />

186 %<br />

2057 m 0.2 % 31.9 1.1 % 193,048 m<br />

265 %<br />

1083 m 1.4 % 210.9 7.0 % 15,371 m<br />

211 %<br />

12079 m 1.9 % 280.4 9.4 % 128,956 m<br />

253 %<br />

3059 m 0.6 % 96.6 3.2 % 94,768 m<br />

220 %<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Page 32 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cape Arago-South Slough<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Cape Arago-South Slough<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 69 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 16 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 0 %<br />

GAP 2 13 %<br />

GAP 3 5 %<br />

GAP 4 68 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 1 %<br />

Area: 16,009 ha Developed 1 %<br />

39,543 ac Undeveloped 85 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

12 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 757 ha 0.1 % 1.7 0.4 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime <strong>Coast</strong>al Sand Dune 5 occ 2.0 % 373.2 83.3 % 6 occ 3850 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 49 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 12501 ha 0.5 % 7.2 1.6 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest 4 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 37,848 ha 140 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Purple Martin Progne subis G5 1 occ 1.2 % 49.8 11.1 % 9 occ 367 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1 occ 0.1 0.5 0.1<br />

T3 1 occ 1.3 % 49.8 11.1 % 9 occ 122 %<br />

Clemmys marmor<strong>at</strong>a<br />

marmor<strong>at</strong>a<br />

Reptiles<br />

<strong>Northwest</strong>ern Pond Turtle<br />

7 occ 35.0 % 125.4 28.0 % 25 occ<br />

60 %<br />

Cordylanthus maritimus ssp<br />

palustris<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Salt-Marsh Bird's-Beak<br />

Silvery Phacelia Phacelia argentea 1 occ 5.9 % 34.5 7.7 % 13 occ 123 %<br />

Western Lily Lilium occidentale 2 occ 11.1 % 35.8 8.0 % 25 occ<br />

72 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Page 33 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cape Arago-South Slough<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Sphagnum Bogs And Poor Fens (Carobn / Sphagn) Carobn / sphagn 1 occ 100.0 % 149.3 33.3 % 3 occ<br />

33 %<br />

Sphagnum Bogs and Poor Fens (Ledgla / Darcal / Sphagn)Ledgla / darcal / sphagn 2 occ 22.2 % 298.6 66.7 % 3 occ 233 %<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 108 occ 159 %<br />

Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis G4 1 occ 14.3 % % occ<br />

%<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus 9 occ 2.8 % 15.5 9.5 % 95 occ 163 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 11 occ 2.8 % 15.5 9.5 % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Shorebird Concentr<strong>at</strong>ion Area 1 occ 4.3 % 10.2 6.3 % 16 occ 119 %<br />

Western Snowy Plover<br />

Charadrius alexandrinus<br />

1 occ 7.1 % 14.9 9.1 % 11 occ 100 %<br />

nivosus<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani 6 occ 1.7 9.1 5.6<br />

Mammals<br />

Stellar's Sea Lion Eumetopias jub<strong>at</strong>us 2 occ 5.9 % 27.3 16.7 % 12 occ 217 %<br />

Stellar's Sea Lion haulout 2 occ 4.9 % 25.2 15.4 % 13 occ 223 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds (ha) 88 ha 0.8 % 4.3 2.6 % 3,384 ha 330 %<br />

Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic Bed (ha) 183 ha 27.7 % 151.1 92.2 % 198 ha 258 %<br />

Bedrock (ha) 25 ha 38.1 % 203.1 123.9 % 20 ha 210 %<br />

Eelgrass Estuary 20789 m 3.7 % 20.1 12.2 % 169,841 m<br />

224 %<br />

Kelp Estuary 425 m 1.7 % 9.2 5.6 % 7,567 m<br />

214 %<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) 106 ha 0.5 % 3.0 1.8 % 5,844 ha 105 %<br />

Kelp Shore 14338 m 1.0 % 5.3 3.2 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Old-Growth Sitka Spruce/Creek Dogwood Tideland SwampPicsit/corser tideland swamp 3 occ 100.0 % 491.7 300.0 % 1 occ 300 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 112 ha 1.1 % 5.8 3.5 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 35256 m 2.4 % 13.1 8.0 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Seagrass (ha) 132 ha 0.4 % 2.2 1.3 % 9,868 ha 294 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Boulder (ha) 1 ha 0.5 % 2.8 1.7 % 40 ha 283 %<br />

Cobble/Gravel (ha) 17 ha 9.1 % 49.7 30.3 % 55 ha 282 %<br />

Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 25 ha 2.7 % 14.8 9.1 % 279 ha 116 %<br />

Mud (ha) 27 ha 5.1 % 28.1 17.1 % 155 ha 244 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 58 ha 0.2 % 1.0 0.6 % 9,168 ha 287 %<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 449 ha 2.4 % 13.4 8.2 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Rock (ha) 3 ha 3.9 % 21.8 13.3 % 21 ha 338 %<br />

Page 34 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cape Arago-South Slough<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Sand (ha) 133 ha 0.5 % 2.7 1.7 % 7,977 ha 239 %<br />

Sand/Mud (ha) 51 ha 1.2 % 6.7 4.1 % 1,250 ha 246 %<br />

Sand/Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 388 ha 4.6 % 24.9 15.2 % 2,550 ha 256 %<br />

Unconsolid<strong>at</strong>ed (ha) 5 ha 1.5 % 8.2 5.0 % 91 ha 121 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) 2756 m 4.2 % 23.2 14.1 % 19,507 m<br />

226 %<br />

Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) 3597 m 21.9 % 119.5 72.9 % 4,933 m<br />

278 %<br />

Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1258 m 2.6 % 14.1 8.6 % 14,577 m<br />

89 %<br />

Gravel Beach Very Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 228 m 4.9 % 26.7 16.3 % 1,401 m<br />

263 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Embayment) 2194 m 75.3 % 411.5 251.0 % 874 m<br />

267 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) 61 m 0.3 % 1.7 1.0 % 5,894 m<br />

224 %<br />

Organics/fines Exposed (Embayment) 26702 m 5.5 % 30.2 18.4 % 144,777 m<br />

215 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) 4958 m 0.6 % 3.4 2.1 % 239,478 m<br />

223 %<br />

Organics/fines Very Protected (Embayment) 6728 m 6.7 % 36.7 22.4 % 30,025 m<br />

194 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 3305 m 2.6 % 14.4 8.8 % 37,705 m<br />

65 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Exposed (Embayment) 1487 m 25.2 % 138.0 84.2 % 1,767 m<br />

293 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 71 m 0.0 % 0.1 0.1 % 96,940 m<br />

112 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2120 m 9.3 % 51.0 31.1 % 6,812 m<br />

102 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) 182 m 5.1 % 28.0 17.1 % 1,067 m<br />

155 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 439 m 4.1 % 22.4 13.7 % 3,219 m<br />

124 %<br />

Rock With Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) 388 m 3.3 % 18.1 11.0 % 3,518 m<br />

186 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 134 m 1.2 % 6.4 3.9 % 3,436 m<br />

132 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Exposed (Embayment) 6121 m 6.2 % 33.9 20.7 % 29,625 m<br />

198 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Protected (Embayment) 141 m 0.3 % 1.5 0.9 % 15,799 m<br />

247 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Very Exposed (Embayment) 642 m 63.3 % 346.3 211.3 % 304 m<br />

334 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 4514 m 1.2 % 6.3 3.9 % 116,959 m<br />

119 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 3981 m 5.0 % 27.1 16.5 % 24,105 m<br />

129 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 170 m 0.5 % 2.6 1.6 % 10,847 m<br />

58 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) 4481 m 7.9 % 43.4 26.5 % 16,915 m<br />

247 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) 213 m 2.2 % 11.8 7.2 % 2,963 m<br />

231 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1938 m 1.7 % 9.5 5.8 % 33,330 m<br />

119 %<br />

Sand Beach (Embayment) 1634 m 48.2 % 263.4 160.7 % 1,017 m<br />

311 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) 20107 m 20.7 % 113.0 69.0 % 29,156 m<br />

255 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) 783 m 3.1 % 16.9 10.3 % 7,615 m<br />

309 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 11529 m 4.3 % 23.5 14.3 % 80,427 m<br />

122 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (Embayment) 793 m 23.4 % 128.0 78.1 % 1,015 m<br />

280 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Embayment) 1519 m 8.2 % 44.6 27.2 % 5,586 m<br />

244 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Page 35 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cape Arago-South Slough<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 44492 m 0.5 % 31.0 1.0 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 34906 m 0.8 % 82.1 2.6 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 53844 m 0.6 % 67.7 2.2 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sediment 1 occ 8.3 % 782.4 25.0 % 4 occ 200 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Ocean Tributaries - Sediment 1 occ 6.3 % 625.9 20.0 % 5 occ 220 %<br />

Page 36 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cape Blanco-Elk River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Cape Blanco-Elk River<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 47 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 51 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 2 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 16 %<br />

GAP 2 2 %<br />

GAP 3 35 %<br />

GAP 4 47 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 6 %<br />

Area: 44,238 ha Developed 0 %<br />

109,269 ac Undeveloped 93 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 186 ha 0.0 % 0.2 0.1 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 5575 ha 0.2 % 1.2 0.7 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest 21276 ha 11.2 % 91.1 56.2 % 37,848 ha 140 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Del Norte Salamander Plethodon elong<strong>at</strong>us G4 8 occ 11.1 % 99.7 61.5 % 13 occ 138 %<br />

Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Rana boylii 3 occ 27.3 % 69.5 42.9 % 7 occ<br />

86 %<br />

Birds<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 28 occ 1.6 % 5.2 3.2 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 7 occ 0.7 % 2.3 1.4 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Blue-Gray Taildropper Prophysaon coeruleum 5 occ 3.0 % 62.3 38.5 % 13 occ 454 %<br />

Mammals<br />

American Marten Martes americana G5 1 occ 10.0 % 54.0 33.3 % 3 occ 133 %<br />

Red Tree Vole Arborimus longicaudus G3 5 occ 3.3 % 62.3 38.5 % 13 occ 308 %<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Checker Bloom Sidalcea malviflora ssp p<strong>at</strong>ula 2 occ 25.0 % 24.9 15.4 % 13 occ<br />

46 %<br />

Hairy Manzanita Arctostaphylos hispidula 3 occ 10.7 % 37.4 23.1 % 13 occ<br />

92 %<br />

Page 37 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cape Blanco-Elk River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

1 occ 10.0 % 6.5 4.0 % 25 occ<br />

40 %<br />

Lasthenia macrantha ssp<br />

prisca<br />

Large-Flowered Goldfields<br />

1 occ 10.0 % 7.0 4.3 % 23 occ<br />

30 %<br />

Abronia umbell<strong>at</strong>a ssp<br />

breviflora<br />

Pink Sandverbena<br />

Silvery Phacelia Phacelia argentea 2 occ 11.8 % 24.9 15.4 % 13 occ 123 %<br />

Western Lily Lilium occidentale 1 occ 5.6 % 6.5 4.0 % 25 occ<br />

72 %<br />

Wolf's Evening-Primrose Oenothera wolfii 1 occ 14.3 % 6.5 4.0 % 25 occ<br />

20 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Lowland Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Wetlands (Mineral Soils Calnut) 1 occ 100.0 % 54.0 33.3 % 3 occ<br />

33 %<br />

Lowland Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Wetlands (Mineral Soils Salhoo Malfus / Carobn<br />

1 occ 14.3 % 54.0 33.3 % 3 occ 133 %<br />

Lysame)<br />

Lowland Coniferous Forested Wetlands (Picsit / Carobn Lysame) 2 occ 25.0 % 54.0 33.3 % 6 occ 117 %<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 108 occ 159 %<br />

Brandt's Cormorant Phalacrocorax penicill<strong>at</strong>us 1 occ 1.0 % 1.9 3.2 % 31 occ 168 %<br />

Common Murre 1 occ 1.0 % 2.0 3.3 % 30 occ 187 %<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus 4 occ 1.3 % 2.5 4.2 % 95 occ 163 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 3 occ 0.8 % 1.5 2.6 % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Tufted Puffin Fr<strong>at</strong>ercula cirrh<strong>at</strong>a 1 occ 1.1 % 2.0 3.3 % 30 occ 190 %<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani 4 occ 1.1 2.2 3.7<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) 13 ha 0.1 % 0.1 0.2 % 5,844 ha 105 %<br />

Kelp Shore 3574 m 0.2 % 0.5 0.8 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 1 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 3 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.1 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Unconsolid<strong>at</strong>ed (ha) 2 ha 0.8 % 1.5 2.6 % 91 ha 121 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 435 m 0.9 % 1.8 3.0 % 14,577 m<br />

89 %<br />

Organics/fines Exposed (Embayment) 1641 m 0.3 % 0.7 1.1 % 144,777 m<br />

215 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) 259 m 0.0 % 0.1 0.1 % 239,478 m<br />

223 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 890 m 0.7 % 1.4 2.4 % 37,705 m<br />

65 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 775 m 3.4 % 6.7 11.4 % 6,812 m<br />

102 %<br />

Page 38 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cape Blanco-Elk River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Rocky/Cliff (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1054 m 0.3 % 0.5 0.9 % 116,959 m<br />

119 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 747 m 0.9 % 1.8 3.1 % 24,105 m<br />

129 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) 1920 m 3.4 % 6.7 11.4 % 16,915 m<br />

247 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) 104 m 1.1 % 2.1 3.5 % 2,963 m<br />

231 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 22 m 0.0 % 0.0 0.1 % 33,330 m<br />

119 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1940 m 0.7 % 1.4 2.4 % 80,427 m<br />

122 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 52523 m 0.6 % 13.2 1.2 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Coho Salmon, S <strong>Oregon</strong>/N California ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 2 71415 m 34.6 % 783.3 69.2 % 103,258 m<br />

95 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 118559 m 2.7 % 100.9 8.9 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, S <strong>Oregon</strong>/N California ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 35 m 0.0 % 0.5 0.0 % 75,962 m<br />

91 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Klam<strong>at</strong>h Mountains Province ESUOncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 102969 m 22.1 % 834.6 73.7 % 139,717 m<br />

157 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 64703 m 0.8 % 29.5 2.6 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Range small rivers - sedimentary, low to mid elev<strong>at</strong>ion 1 occ 4.5 % 161.8 14.3 % 7 occ 129 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

Inland Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sediment 1 occ 1.7 % 62.9 5.6 % 18 occ 106 %<br />

Page 39 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cape Elizabeth<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Cape Elizabeth<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 100 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

Agriculture % GAP 1 %<br />

Developed % GAP 2 %<br />

Undeveloped 100 % GAP 3 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 % GAP 4 100 %<br />

5,120 ha<br />

12,647 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 4426 ha 0.7 % 31.7 2.3 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 157 ha 0.0 % 0.6 0.0 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 484 ha 0.0 % 0.9 0.1 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus an<strong>at</strong>um 1 occ 5.6 % 82.4 5.9 % 17 occ<br />

65 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 3 occ 0.2 % 5.0 0.4 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Tributaries - Outwash, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradients 2 occ 6.1 % 1954.6 20.0 % 10 occ 120 %<br />

Page 40 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cape Falcon-Lower Nehalem<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Cape Falcon-Lower Nehalem<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 70 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 27 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 0 %<br />

GAP 2 7 %<br />

GAP 3 21 %<br />

GAP 4 69 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 3 %<br />

Area: 23,754 ha Developed 1 %<br />

58,673 ac Undeveloped 92 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

4 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 5 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 13986 ha 2.1 % 21.6 7.2 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 1467 ha 0.1 % 1.3 0.4 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 6413 ha 0.2 % 2.5 0.8 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 16 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Gre<strong>at</strong>-Blue Heron Ardea herodias 1 occ 1.4 % 33.5 11.1 % 9 occ 144 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 16 occ 0.9 % 5.5 1.8 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 4 occ 0.4 % 2.4 0.8 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Purple Martin Progne subis G5 5 occ 6.0 % 167.7 55.6 % 9 occ 367 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 2 occ 0.1 0.7 0.2<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Cascade Head C<strong>at</strong>chfly Silene douglasii var oraria 3 occ 60.0 % 69.7 23.1 % 13 occ<br />

38 %<br />

Chamber's Paintbrush Castilleja chambersii 2 occ 66.7 % 24.1 8.0 % 25 occ<br />

12 %<br />

Flett Groundsel Senecio flettii G4 1 occ 33.3 % 12.1 4.0 % 25 occ<br />

12 %<br />

Hairy-Stemmed Checker-Mallow Sidalcea hirtipes 1 occ 6.7 % 12.1 4.0 % 25 occ<br />

48 %<br />

Saddle Mt. Saxifrage Saxifraga hitchcockiana 1 occ 33.3 % 12.1 4.0 % 25 occ<br />

12 %<br />

Page 41 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cape Falcon-Lower Nehalem<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

T2 1 occ 33.3 % 23.2 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

23 %<br />

Erigeron peregrinus ssp<br />

peregrinus<br />

Wandering Daisy<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Lowland Coniferous Forested Wetlands (Picsit / Carobn Lysame) 1 occ 12.5 % 50.3 16.7 % 6 occ 117 %<br />

Mineral Spring 1 occ 1.6 % 15.1 5.0 % 20 occ 150 %<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 108 occ 159 %<br />

Brandt's Cormorant Phalacrocorax penicill<strong>at</strong>us 2 occ 2.0 % 7.1 6.5 % 31 occ 168 %<br />

Common Murre 1 occ 1.0 % 3.7 3.3 % 30 occ 187 %<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus 5 occ 1.6 % 5.8 5.3 % 95 occ 163 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 9 occ 2.3 % 8.6 7.8 % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Shorebird Concentr<strong>at</strong>ion Area 1 occ 4.3 % 6.9 6.3 % 16 occ 119 %<br />

Tufted Puffin Fr<strong>at</strong>ercula cirrh<strong>at</strong>a 1 occ 1.1 % 3.7 3.3 % 30 occ 190 %<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani 4 occ 1.1 4.1 3.7<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds (ha) 34 ha 0.3 % 1.1 1.0 % 3,384 ha 330 %<br />

Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic Bed (ha) 134 ha 20.3 % 74.7 67.6 % 198 ha 258 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Willow Defl<strong>at</strong>ion Plain Wetland Salhoc-myrcal 1 occ 100.0 % 110.5 100.0 % 1 occ 100 %<br />

Eelgrass Estuary 16724 m 3.0 % 10.9 9.8 % 169,841 m<br />

224 %<br />

Intertidal Salt Marshes (Salvir Disspi Trimar) Salvir - disspi - trimar - (jaucar) 7 occ 10.3 % 35.1 31.8 % 22 occ 250 %<br />

Low Intertidal High Salinity Sandy Saltmarsh 1 occ 100.0 % 110.5 100.0 % 1 occ 100 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 412 ha 3.9 % 14.4 13.0 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 31232 m 2.1 % 7.8 7.1 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Seagrass (ha) 95 ha 0.3 % 1.1 1.0 % 9,868 ha 294 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Boulder (ha) 5 ha 3.9 % 14.6 13.2 % 40 ha 283 %<br />

Cobble/Gravel (ha) 7 ha 3.9 % 14.2 12.9 % 55 ha 282 %<br />

Cobble/Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 2 ha 1.0 % 3.6 3.2 % 60 ha 332 %<br />

Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 1 ha 0.1 % 0.5 0.4 % 279 ha 116 %<br />

Mud (ha) 9 ha 1.8 % 6.6 6.0 % 155 ha 244 %<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 672 ha 3.7 % 13.5 12.2 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Sand (ha) 44 ha 0.2 % 0.6 0.6 % 7,977 ha 239 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 128 ha 1.3 % 4.6 4.2 % 3,069 ha 224 %<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites<br />

Page 42 of 328

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cape Falcon-Lower Nehalem<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Sand/Mud (ha) 14 ha 0.3 % 1.3 1.1 % 1,250 ha 246 %<br />

Sand/Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 31 ha 0.4 % 1.3 1.2 % 2,550 ha 256 %<br />

Unconsolid<strong>at</strong>ed (ha) 2 ha 0.6 % 2.1 1.9 % 91 ha 121 %<br />

Wood Debris/Organic (ha) 3 ha 11.6 % 41.6 37.6 % 8 ha 163 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Gravel Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 166 m 1.5 % 5.6 5.1 % 3,285 m<br />

158 %<br />

Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) 373 m 0.6 % 2.1 1.9 % 19,507 m<br />

226 %<br />

Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 168 m 6.4 % 23.6 21.4 % 788 m<br />

90 %<br />

Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 394 m 2.7 % 9.9 8.9 % 4,409 m<br />

124 %<br />

Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) 289 m 1.8 % 6.5 5.9 % 4,933 m<br />

278 %<br />

Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 255 m 0.5 % 1.9 1.7 % 14,577 m<br />

89 %<br />

Gravel Beach Very Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 687 m 14.7 % 54.1 49.0 % 1,401 m<br />

263 %<br />

Organics/fines (Embayment) 7045 m 4.7 % 17.2 15.6 % 45,204 m<br />

218 %<br />

Organics/fines Exposed (Embayment) 29975 m 6.2 % 22.9 20.7 % 144,777 m<br />

215 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) 1494 m 0.2 % 0.7 0.6 % 239,478 m<br />

223 %<br />

Organics/fines Very Protected (Embayment) 5288 m 5.3 % 19.5 17.6 % 30,025 m<br />

194 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 661 m 2.9 % 10.7 9.7 % 6,812 m<br />

102 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 751 m 6.6 % 24.1 21.9 % 3,436 m<br />

132 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff (Embayment) 278 m 7.8 % 28.6 25.9 % 1,075 m<br />

264 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Exposed (Embayment) 6891 m 7.0 % 25.7 23.3 % 29,625 m<br />

198 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Protected (Embayment) 877 m 1.7 % 6.1 5.6 % 15,799 m<br />

247 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Very Exposed (Embayment) 73 m 7.2 % 26.6 24.1 % 304 m<br />

334 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 741 m 0.2 % 0.7 0.6 % 116,959 m<br />

119 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1359 m 1.7 % 6.2 5.6 % 24,105 m<br />

129 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) 651 m 1.2 % 4.3 3.9 % 16,915 m<br />

247 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2233 m 2.0 % 7.4 6.7 % 33,330 m<br />

119 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) 5356 m 5.5 % 20.3 18.4 % 29,156 m<br />

255 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) 1478 m 5.8 % 21.4 19.4 % 7,615 m<br />

309 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 8095 m 3.0 % 11.1 10.1 % 80,427 m<br />

122 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 53617 m 2.2 % 156.6 7.4 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 127187 m 1.4 % 59.7 2.8 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 86417 m 1.9 % 137.0 6.5 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 60522 m 0.7 % 51.3 2.4 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

Page 43 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cape Falcon-Lower Nehalem<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Ocean Tributaries - Sediment 1 occ 6.3 % 421.8 20.0 % 5 occ 220 %<br />

Page 44 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cape Ferrelo<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Cape Ferrelo<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 71 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 4 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 4 %<br />

GAP 3 0 %<br />

GAP 4 71 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 9,422 ha Developed 2 %<br />

23,272 ac Undeveloped 96 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

1 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime <strong>Coast</strong>al Sand Dune 7 occ 2.9 % 887.9 116.7 % 6 occ 3850 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 3825 ha 0.1 % 3.8 0.5 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest 857 ha 0.5 % 17.2 2.3 % 37,848 ha 140 %<br />

Species<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Sagewort Artemisia pycnocephala 1 occ 100.0 % 58.5 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

8 %<br />

Large-Flowered Goldfields<br />

Lasthenia macrantha ssp<br />

2 occ 20.0 % 60.9 8.0 % 25 occ<br />

40 %<br />

prisca<br />

Pink Sandverbena<br />

Abronia umbell<strong>at</strong>a ssp<br />

1 occ 10.0 % 33.1 4.3 % 23 occ<br />

30 %<br />

breviflora<br />

San Francisco Bluegrass Poa unil<strong>at</strong>eralis 1 occ 16.7 % 108.7 14.3 % 7 occ<br />

86 %<br />

Seaside Gilia Gilia millefoli<strong>at</strong>a 1 occ 33.3 % 58.5 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

23 %<br />

Silvery Phacelia Phacelia argentea 2 occ 11.8 % 117.1 15.4 % 13 occ 123 %<br />

Wolf's Evening-Primrose Oenothera wolfii 1 occ 14.3 % 30.4 4.0 % 25 occ<br />

20 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Sphagnum Bogs and Poor Fens (Ledgla / sanoff / sphagn) Ledgla / sanoff / sphagn 2 occ 100.0 % 761.0 100.0 % 2 occ 100 %<br />

Marine<br />

Page 45 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cape Ferrelo<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Aleutian Canada Goose Branta canadensis leucopareia 2 occ 11.1 % 92.8 33.3 % 6 occ 133 %<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani 12 occ 3.4 % 30.9 11.1 % 108 occ 159 %<br />

Cassin's Auklet Ptychoramphus aleuticus 1 occ 5.6 % 46.4 16.7 % 6 occ 150 %<br />

Common Murre 1 occ 1.0 % 9.3 3.3 % 30 occ 187 %<br />

Double-Crested Cormorant Phalacroscorax auritus 5 occ 10.0 % 92.8 33.3 % 15 occ 200 %<br />

Leach's Storm-Petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa 7 occ 19.4 % 177.2 63.6 % 11 occ 200 %<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus 12 occ 3.8 % 35.2 12.6 % 95 occ 163 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 16 occ 4.1 % 38.4 13.8 % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Tufted Puffin Fr<strong>at</strong>ercula cirrh<strong>at</strong>a 4 occ 4.3 % 37.1 13.3 % 30 occ 190 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) 87 ha 0.4 % 4.1 1.5 % 5,844 ha 105 %<br />

Kelp Shore 9602 m 0.6 % 6.0 2.2 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 2 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Unconsolid<strong>at</strong>ed (ha) 1 ha 0.4 % 3.9 1.4 % 91 ha 121 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) 2778 m 4.3 % 39.7 14.2 % 19,507 m<br />

226 %<br />

Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 291 m 2.0 % 18.4 6.6 % 4,409 m<br />

124 %<br />

Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 481 m 1.0 % 9.2 3.3 % 14,577 m<br />

89 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 4987 m 1.3 % 11.9 4.3 % 116,959 m<br />

119 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1407 m 1.8 % 16.3 5.8 % 24,105 m<br />

129 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 303 m 0.8 % 7.8 2.8 % 10,847 m<br />

58 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 6248 m 5.6 % 52.2 18.7 % 33,330 m<br />

119 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach Very Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 651 m 15.1 % 140.6 50.5 % 1,289 m<br />

140 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Klam<strong>at</strong>h Mountains Province ESUOncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 6796 m 1.5 % 258.7 4.9 % 139,717 m<br />

157 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Ocean Tributaries - Serpentine 1 occ 50.0 % 5317.5 100.0 % 1 occ 200 %<br />

Page 46 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cape Lookout-Sandlake<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Cape Lookout-Sandlake<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 58 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 22 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 7 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 0 %<br />

GAP 2 9 %<br />

GAP 3 21 %<br />

GAP 4 58 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 2 %<br />

Area: 13,121 ha Developed 1 %<br />

32,409 ac Undeveloped 85 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

9 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 9244 ha 1.4 % 25.9 4.7 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime <strong>Coast</strong>al Sand Dune 7 occ 2.9 % 637.6 116.7 % 6 occ 3850 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 311 ha 0.0 % 0.5 0.1 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 1311 ha 0.1 % 0.9 0.2 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Northern Red-Legged Frog Rana aurora aurora T4 1 occ 1.0 % 78.1 14.3 % 7 occ 671 %<br />

Birds<br />

American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus an<strong>at</strong>um 2 occ 11.1 % 64.3 11.8 % 17 occ<br />

65 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 4 occ 0.2 % 2.6 0.5 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Gre<strong>at</strong>-Blue Heron Ardea herodias 1 occ 1.4 % 60.7 11.1 % 9 occ 144 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 5 occ 0.3 % 3.1 0.6 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

1 occ 1.4 % 42.0 7.7 % 13 occ 200 %<br />

Hemphillia glandulosa<br />

glandulosa<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Warty Jumping-Slug<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Cascade Head C<strong>at</strong>chfly Silene douglasii var oraria 1 occ 20.0 % 42.0 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

38 %<br />

Salt-Marsh Bird's-Beak<br />

Cordylanthus maritimus ssp<br />

1 occ 5.0 % 21.9 4.0 % 25 occ<br />

60 %<br />

palustris<br />

Page 47 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cape Lookout-Sandlake<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Lowland Coniferous Forested Wetlands (Picsit / Carobn Lysame) 1 occ 12.5 % 91.1 16.7 % 6 occ 117 %<br />

Sphagnum Bogs And Poor Fens (Ledgla / Carobn / Sphagn)Ledgla / carobn / sphagn 3 occ 25.0 % 273.2 50.0 % 6 occ 117 %<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Aleutian Canada Goose Branta canadensis leucopareia 1 occ 5.6 % 33.3 16.7 % 6 occ 133 %<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani 15 occ 4.2 % 27.8 13.9 % 108 occ 159 %<br />

Brandt's Cormorant Phalacrocorax penicill<strong>at</strong>us 5 occ 5.0 % 32.3 16.1 % 31 occ 168 %<br />

Common Murre 7 occ 6.9 % 46.7 23.3 % 30 occ 187 %<br />

Double-Crested Cormorant Phalacroscorax auritus 1 occ 2.0 % 13.3 6.7 % 15 occ 200 %<br />

Leach's Storm-Petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa 2 occ 5.6 % 36.4 18.2 % 11 occ 200 %<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus 11 occ 3.5 % 23.2 11.6 % 95 occ 163 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 16 occ 4.1 % 27.6 13.8 % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Rhinoceros Auklet Cerorhinca monocer<strong>at</strong>a 1 occ 6.3 % 40.0 20.0 % 5 occ 180 %<br />

Shorebird Concentr<strong>at</strong>ion Area 2 occ 8.7 % 25.0 12.5 % 16 occ 119 %<br />

Tufted Puffin Fr<strong>at</strong>ercula cirrh<strong>at</strong>a 8 occ 8.5 % 53.3 26.7 % 30 occ 190 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds (ha) 8 ha 0.1 % 0.5 0.2 % 3,384 ha 330 %<br />

Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic Bed (ha) 5 ha 0.8 % 5.2 2.6 % 198 ha 258 %<br />

Eelgrass Estuary 12740 m 2.3 % 15.0 7.5 % 169,841 m<br />

224 %<br />

Intertidal Salt Marshes (Salvir Disspi Trimar) Salvir - disspi - trimar - (jaucar) 10 occ 14.7 % 90.9 45.5 % 22 occ 250 %<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) 13 ha 0.1 % 0.5 0.2 % 5,844 ha 105 %<br />

Kelp Shore 3954 m 0.3 % 1.8 0.9 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Mixed Fine: Partly Enclosed Eulittoral, Polyhaline (Marsh) OpSilty, moder<strong>at</strong>e salinity, low<br />

1 occ 100.0 % 200.0 100.0 % 1 occ 100 %<br />

marsh op<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 307 ha 2.9 % 19.4 9.7 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 26281 m 1.8 % 11.9 5.9 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Seagrass (ha) 401 ha 1.2 % 8.1 4.1 % 9,868 ha 294 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Cobble/Gravel (ha) 24 ha 12.9 % 85.7 42.8 % 55 ha 282 %<br />

Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 31 ha 3.3 % 22.0 11.0 % 279 ha 116 %<br />

Mud (ha) 141 ha 27.3 % 182.0 91.0 % 155 ha 244 %<br />

Page 48 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cape Lookout-Sandlake<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 61 ha 0.2 % 1.3 0.7 % 9,168 ha 287 %<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 368 ha 2.0 % 13.4 6.7 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Sand (ha) 177 ha 0.7 % 4.4 2.2 % 7,977 ha 239 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 362 ha 3.5 % 23.6 11.8 % 3,069 ha 224 %<br />

Sand/Mud (ha) 220 ha 5.3 % 35.3 17.6 % 1,250 ha 246 %<br />

Sand/Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 91 ha 1.1 % 7.1 3.6 % 2,550 ha 256 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1434 m 3.0 % 19.7 9.8 % 14,577 m<br />

89 %<br />

Gravel Beach Very Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 601 m 12.9 % 85.8 42.9 % 1,401 m<br />

263 %<br />

Organics/fines (Embayment) 4204 m 2.8 % 18.6 9.3 % 45,204 m<br />

218 %<br />

Organics/fines Exposed (Embayment) 19283 m 4.0 % 26.6 13.3 % 144,777 m<br />

215 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 251 m 2.3 % 15.6 7.8 % 3,219 m<br />

124 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 279 m 2.4 % 16.2 8.1 % 3,436 m<br />

132 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Exposed (Embayment) 4344 m 4.4 % 29.3 14.7 % 29,625 m<br />

198 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1240 m 0.3 % 2.1 1.1 % 116,959 m<br />

119 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 6720 m 8.4 % 55.8 27.9 % 24,105 m<br />

129 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) 1221 m 2.2 % 14.4 7.2 % 16,915 m<br />

247 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) 1433 m 14.5 % 96.7 48.4 % 2,963 m<br />

231 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 6360 m 5.7 % 38.2 19.1 % 33,330 m<br />

119 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach Very Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 366 m 8.5 % 56.7 28.4 % 1,289 m<br />

140 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) 3712 m 3.8 % 25.5 12.7 % 29,156 m<br />

255 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) 2817 m 11.1 % 74.0 37.0 % 7,615 m<br />

309 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 11440 m 4.3 % 28.4 14.2 % 80,427 m<br />

122 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 18884 m 0.8 % 99.8 2.6 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 36342 m 0.4 % 30.9 0.8 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 14636 m 0.3 % 42.0 1.1 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 20101 m 0.2 % 30.9 0.8 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Ocean Tributaries - Sediment 2 occ 12.5 % 1527.3 40.0 % 5 occ 220 %<br />

Page 49 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cape Scott-Port Hardy<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Cape Scott-Port Hardy<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 2 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: 97 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 16 %<br />

GAP 3 81 %<br />

GAP 4 2 %<br />

British Columbia<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Area: 118,523 ha Developed 0 %<br />

292,752 ac Undeveloped 99 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

1 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

Boreal Wet Meadow 1 occ 0.3 % 5.0 8.3 % 12 occ 1833 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Coniferous Swamp 11 occ 7.5 % 55.5 91.7 % 12 occ 650 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 71837 ha 13.3 % 26.8 44.3 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 935 ha 0.1 % 0.3 0.5 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest 8 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 76,367 ha 375 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 26475 ha 1.6 % 4.9 8.2 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Yellow Cedar Forest 8070 ha 21.3 % 64.5 106.6 % 7,569 ha 262 %<br />

Temper<strong>at</strong>e <strong>Pacific</strong> Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Emergent Marsh 4 occ 5.1 % 20.2 33.3 % 12 occ 267 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP1) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 3979 ha 1.3 % 1.6 2.7 % 147,425 ha 110 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP2) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 48045 ha 7.9 % 9.6 15.9 % 302,959 ha 108 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 103 occ 5.5 7.4 12.3<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 1 occ 0.3 0.2 0.9<br />

Fishes<br />

Page 50 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cape Scott-Port Hardy<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Herring Spawning High Cover 9374 m 3.3 % 2.5 11.1 % 84,336 m<br />

169 %<br />

Herring Spawning Low Cover 34969 m 4.7 % 3.4 15.5 % 225,517 m<br />

146 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Mussels and barnacles 18291 m 1.6 % 1.2 5.4 % 337,346 m<br />

132 %<br />

Mammals<br />

Sea Lion (California) Zalophus californianus G5 1 occ 20.0 % % occ<br />

%<br />

Stellar's Sea Lion haulout 1 occ 2.4 % 1.7 7.7 % 13 occ 223 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds Estuary 25265 m 6.7 % 5.0 22.4 % 112,601 m<br />

179 %<br />

Algal Beds Shore 57949 m 1.9 % 1.4 6.2 % 939,089 m<br />

119 %<br />

Dune grass Estuary 7048 m 3.4 % 2.5 11.3 % 62,438 m<br />

224 %<br />

Dune grass Shore 9806 m 1.7 % 1.2 5.5 % 176,736 m<br />

109 %<br />

Eelgrass (Ha) 83 ha 5.6 % 4.2 18.8 % 443 ha 120 %<br />

Eelgrass Estuary 20952 m 3.7 % 2.7 12.3 % 169,841 m<br />

224 %<br />

Eelgrass Shore 10152 m 1.6 % 1.2 5.4 % 187,323 m<br />

146 %<br />

Kelp Estuary 4205 m 16.7 % 12.3 55.6 % 7,567 m<br />

214 %<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) 682 ha 3.5 % 2.6 11.7 % 5,844 ha 105 %<br />

Kelp Shore 53476 m 3.6 % 2.7 12.0 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 24997 m 1.7 % 1.3 5.7 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Saltmarsh Shore 11013 m 2.0 % 1.5 6.7 % 164,143 m<br />

118 %<br />

Surfgrass Estuary 3180 m 13.8 % 10.2 46.1 % 6,898 m<br />

215 %<br />

Surfgrass Shore 39608 m 3.3 % 2.4 10.9 % 363,205 m<br />

131 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 75 ha 0.7 % 0.5 2.5 % 3,069 ha 224 %<br />

Intertidal Habit<strong>at</strong><br />

Rocky intertidal habit<strong>at</strong> (Embayment) 3180 m 18.2 % 13.5 60.8 % 5,233 m<br />

199 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) 3499 m 17.8 % 13.1 59.4 % 5,894 m<br />

224 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 688 m 6.3 % 4.7 21.0 % 3,276 m<br />

118 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) 18235 m 2.3 % 1.7 7.6 % 239,478 m<br />

223 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 211 m 0.2 % 0.1 0.6 % 36,906 m<br />

137 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 7879 m 2.4 % 1.8 8.1 % 96,940 m<br />

112 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1975 m 10.8 % 8.0 36.0 % 5,487 m<br />

160 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 5407 m 2.5 % 1.8 8.3 % 64,871 m<br />

114 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 3319 m 0.5 % 0.4 1.7 % 193,399 m<br />

88 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 3774 m 2.1 % 1.5 7.0 % 54,295 m<br />

137 %<br />

Page 51 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cape Scott-Port Hardy<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2429 m 3.9 % 2.9 12.9 % 18,758 m<br />

216 %<br />

Rocky intertidal habit<strong>at</strong> (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 48523 m 4.9 % 3.6 16.5 % 294,655 m<br />

123 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 6297 m 2.0 % 1.4 6.5 % 96,577 m<br />

110 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 11372 m 1.5 % 1.1 5.0 % 226,193 m<br />

102 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 5598 m 25.4 % 18.8 84.8 % 6,602 m<br />

153 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) 3448 m 10.1 % 7.4 33.5 % 10,283 m<br />

243 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1792 m 0.9 % 0.7 3.1 % 58,215 m<br />

98 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Embayment) 856 m 29.0 % 21.4 96.7 % 886 m<br />

221 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) 1305 m 2.3 % 1.7 7.7 % 16,881 m<br />

144 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2556 m 1.2 % 0.9 4.1 % 61,723 m<br />

94 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) 5486 m 5.6 % 4.2 18.8 % 29,156 m<br />

255 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 5432 m 5.1 % 3.7 16.9 % 32,087 m<br />

121 %<br />

Sand Beach Protected (Embayment) 1664 m 5.3 % 3.9 17.8 % 9,335 m<br />

278 %<br />

Sand Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 256 m 0.7 % 0.5 2.2 % 11,673 m<br />

104 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Embayment) 801 m 4.3 % 3.2 14.3 % 5,586 m<br />

244 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) 12250 m 21.0 % 15.5 69.9 % 17,529 m<br />

230 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 5933 m 6.7 % 5.0 22.5 % 26,382 m<br />

139 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chinook Salmon, North Island Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 506 m 19.0 % 160.0 37.9 % 1,334 m<br />

96 %<br />

Chum Salmon, North Island Oncorhynchus keta 66134 m 42.7 % 600.5 142.3 % 46,478 m<br />

162 %<br />

Coho Salmon, North Island Oncorhynchus kisutch 179455 m 46.2 % 649.5 153.9 % 116,598 m<br />

192 %<br />

Cutthro<strong>at</strong> Trout, North Island Oncorhynchus clarki 31350 m 41.0 % 346.4 82.1 % 38,200 m<br />

101 %<br />

Dolly Varden, North Island Salvelinus malma G5 2657 m 32.3 % 272.6 64.6 % 4,114 m<br />

196 %<br />

Pink Salmon, North Island Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 72607 m 46.8 % 658.5 156.0 % 46,536 m<br />

207 %<br />

Sockeye Salmon, North Island Oncorhynchus nerka 85977 m 99.2 % 1395.0 330.6 % 26,010 m<br />

331 %<br />

Steelhead Salmon, North Island Oncorhynchus mykiss 73703 m 54.1 % 761.0 180.3 % 40,876 m<br />

273 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Macrohabit<strong>at</strong>s<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone 954 m 29.1 % 245.7 58.2 % 1,638 m<br />

102 %<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

108658 m 8.6 % 362.1 85.8 % 126,642 m<br />

294 %<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

18907 m 9.5 % 199.7 47.3 % 39,958 m<br />

283 %<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

241401 m 6.3 % 267.6 63.4 % 380,781 m<br />

457 %<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Page 52 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cape Scott-Port Hardy<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

3250 m 6.3 % 132.1 31.3 % 10,385 m<br />

301 %<br />

30501 m 49.3 % 1039.8 246.4 % 12,380 m<br />

279 %<br />

36355 m 13.8 % 290.6 68.9 % 52,799 m<br />

132 %<br />

9674 m 22.0 % 463.5 109.8 % 8,808 m<br />

264 %<br />

157728 m 13.3 % 563.0 133.4 % 118,230 m<br />

459 %<br />

3502 m 62.6 % 528.5 125.2 % 2,796 m<br />

127 %<br />

16347 m 51.5 % 1085.8 257.3 % 6,354 m<br />

258 %<br />

75909 m 9.0 % 189.7 44.9 % 168,906 m<br />

119 %<br />

18749 m 13.1 % 275.9 65.4 % 28,683 m<br />

269 %<br />

360673 m 11.8 % 496.8 117.7 % 306,396 m<br />

448 %<br />

3502 m 8.5 % 179.4 42.5 % 8,237 m<br />

415 %<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Sandstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Siltstone Geology<br />

28602 m 47.5 % 1003.0 237.7 % 12,035 m<br />

267 %<br />

14942 m 6.9 % 146.5 34.7 % 43,046 m<br />

162 %<br />

10818 m 19.0 % 402.0 95.3 % 11,357 m<br />

211 %<br />

94377 m 6.9 % 291.1 69.0 % 136,816 m<br />

433 %<br />

252 m 5.4 % 45.5 10.8 % 2,340 m<br />

72 %<br />

10165 m 58.4 % 1232.3 292.0 % 3,481 m<br />

301 %<br />

102417 m 4.2 % 175.8 41.7 % 245,882 m<br />

329 %<br />

6594 m 1.5 % 32.0 7.6 % 87,042 m<br />

187 %<br />

97657 m 1.2 % 50.4 11.9 % 818,034 m<br />

586 %<br />

201 m 0.5 % 11.1 2.6 % 7,607 m<br />

332 %<br />

30493 m 31.1 % 656.2 155.5 % 19,612 m<br />

257 %<br />

Page 53 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cape Scott-Port Hardy<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

27648 m 13.1 % 277.3 65.7 % 42,081 m<br />

141 %<br />

16157 m 38.8 % 819.0 194.1 % 8,325 m<br />

331 %<br />

100565 m 9.1 % 384.1 91.0 % 110,483 m<br />

407 %<br />

324 m 7.0 % 59.5 14.1 % 2,300 m<br />

103 %<br />

18156 m 61.1 % 1288.8 305.4 % 5,945 m<br />

307 %<br />

76 m 0.0 % 0.8 0.2 % 39,552 m<br />

297 %<br />

3567 m 2.0 % 41.2 9.8 % 36,520 m<br />

129 %<br />

22827 m 2.4 % 33.6 8.0 % 287,102 m<br />

162 %<br />

9018 m 100.0 % 843.6 199.9 % 4,511 m<br />

200 %<br />

2986 m 2.3 % 48.7 11.5 % 25,878 m<br />

114 %<br />

19 m 0.0 % 0.9 0.2 % 9,455 m<br />

116 %<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Sandstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Siltstone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Siltstone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Siltstone Geology<br />

15779 m 1.6 % 33.5 7.9 % 199,007 m<br />

240 %<br />

1958 m 99.3 % 837.9 198.5 % 986 m<br />

199 %<br />

8292 m 5.3 % 112.6 26.7 % 31,071 m<br />

163 %<br />

21 m 0.1 % 2.4 0.6 % 3,681 m<br />

299 %<br />

60466 m 7.4 % 103.7 24.6 % 246,148 m<br />

186 %<br />

4544 m 100.0 % 844.1 200.0 % 2,272 m<br />

200 %<br />

101 m 0.4 % 7.9 1.9 % 5,369 m<br />

317 %<br />

16392 m 5.8 % 122.8 29.1 % 56,327 m<br />

151 %<br />

311 m 0.5 % 10.7 2.5 % 12,283 m<br />

125 %<br />

42971 m 4.5 % 93.9 22.3 % 193,048 m<br />

265 %<br />

7302 m 97.8 % 825.8 195.7 % 3,732 m<br />

196 %<br />

Page 54 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cape Scott-Port Hardy<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

29 m 3.2 % 26.6 6.3 % 454 m<br />

126 %<br />

682 m 0.9 % 18.7 4.4 % 15,371 m<br />

211 %<br />

313 m 1.3 % 27.9 6.6 % 4,738 m<br />

239 %<br />

1263 m 1.7 % 35.1 8.3 % 15,189 m<br />

295 %<br />

7128 m 1.1 % 23.3 5.5 % 128,956 m<br />

253 %<br />

3811 m 98.0 % 827.4 196.1 % 1,944 m<br />

196 %<br />

13458 m 2.8 % 59.9 14.2 % 94,768 m<br />

220 %<br />

Third Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Page 55 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cape Sebastian-Hunter Creek<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Cape Sebastian-Hunter Creek<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 84 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 8 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 5 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 8 %<br />

GAP 3 5 %<br />

GAP 4 84 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 9,262 ha Developed 1 %<br />

22,878 ac Undeveloped 97 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

1 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 4991 ha 0.2 % 5.0 0.6 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest 3109 ha 1.6 % 63.6 8.2 % 37,848 ha 140 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Purple Martin Progne subis G5 1 occ 1.2 % 86.0 11.1 % 9 occ 367 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 1 occ 0.1 0.9 0.1<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Checker Bloom Sidalcea malviflora ssp p<strong>at</strong>ula 2 occ 25.0 % 119.1 15.4 % 13 occ<br />

46 %<br />

Hairy Manzanita Arctostaphylos hispidula 1 occ 3.6 % 59.5 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

92 %<br />

Pink Sandverbena<br />

Abronia umbell<strong>at</strong>a ssp<br />

1 occ 10.0 % 33.7 4.3 % 23 occ<br />

30 %<br />

breviflora<br />

Scurvygrass Cochlearia officinalis 1 occ 33.3 % 59.5 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

8 %<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Aleutian Canada Goose Branta canadensis leucopareia 1 occ 5.6 % 47.2 16.7 % 6 occ 133 %<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani 2 occ 0.6 % 5.2 1.9 % 108 occ 159 %<br />

Brandt's Cormorant Phalacrocorax penicill<strong>at</strong>us 1 occ 1.0 % 9.1 3.2 % 31 occ 168 %<br />

Page 56 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cape Sebastian-Hunter Creek<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis G4 1 occ 14.3 % % occ<br />

%<br />

Cassin's Auklet Ptychoramphus aleuticus 1 occ 5.6 % 47.2 16.7 % 6 occ 150 %<br />

Double-Crested Cormorant Phalacroscorax auritus 1 occ 2.0 % 18.9 6.7 % 15 occ 200 %<br />

Leach's Storm-Petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa 1 occ 2.8 % 25.8 9.1 % 11 occ 200 %<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus 1 occ 0.3 % 3.0 1.1 % 95 occ 163 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 1 occ 0.3 % 2.4 0.9 % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Rhinoceros Auklet Cerorhinca monocer<strong>at</strong>a 1 occ 6.3 % 56.7 20.0 % 5 occ 180 %<br />

Tufted Puffin Fr<strong>at</strong>ercula cirrh<strong>at</strong>a 1 occ 1.1 % 9.4 3.3 % 30 occ 190 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) 4 ha 0.0 % 0.2 0.1 % 5,844 ha 105 %<br />

Kelp Shore 1377 m 0.1 % 0.9 0.3 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 2 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 9 ha 0.0 % 0.4 0.2 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Unconsolid<strong>at</strong>ed (ha) 9 ha 2.9 % 27.9 9.9 % 91 ha 121 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) 1768 m 2.7 % 25.7 9.1 % 19,507 m<br />

226 %<br />

Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 256 m 9.8 % 92.1 32.5 % 788 m<br />

90 %<br />

Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 115 m 0.2 % 2.2 0.8 % 14,577 m<br />

89 %<br />

Organics/fines Exposed (Embayment) 1983 m 0.4 % 3.9 1.4 % 144,777 m<br />

215 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 147 m 0.6 % 6.1 2.2 % 6,812 m<br />

102 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1377 m 1.7 % 16.2 5.7 % 24,105 m<br />

129 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 3278 m 3.0 % 27.9 9.8 % 33,330 m<br />

119 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach Very Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 312 m 7.2 % 68.5 24.2 % 1,289 m<br />

140 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 153 m 0.1 % 0.5 0.2 % 80,427 m<br />

122 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, S <strong>Oregon</strong>/N California ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 2 13033 m 6.3 % 682.7 12.6 % 103,258 m<br />

95 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, S <strong>Oregon</strong>/N California ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 11999 m 4.7 % 854.4 15.8 % 75,962 m<br />

91 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Klam<strong>at</strong>h Mountains Province ESUOncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 22743 m 4.9 % 880.5 16.3 % 139,717 m<br />

157 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Range small rivers - serpentine, low to mid elev<strong>at</strong>ion 1 occ 50.0 % 5409.0 100.0 % 1 occ 100 %<br />

Page 57 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cape Sebastian-Hunter Creek<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Ocean Tributaries - Serpentine 1 occ 50.0 % 5409.0 100.0 % 1 occ 200 %<br />

Page 58 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Capital St<strong>at</strong>e Forest<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Capital St<strong>at</strong>e Forest<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 8 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 92 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 1 %<br />

GAP 3 91 %<br />

GAP 4 8 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 2 %<br />

Area: 15,262 ha Developed 1 %<br />

37,696 ac Undeveloped 97 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 9345 ha 0.8 % 12.7 2.7 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 5517 ha 0.2 % 3.3 0.7 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Tailed Frog Ascaphus truei 1 occ 2.0 % 67.1 14.3 % 7 occ 343 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 4990 m 0.2 % 22.7 0.7 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 77748 m 1.6 % 177.0 5.4 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 22693 m 0.7 % 78.9 2.4 % 943,067 m<br />

129 %<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> Lamprey Lampetra trident<strong>at</strong>a G5 1 occ 3.0 % % occ<br />

%<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Southwest Washington ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 67798 m 2.0 % 218.5 6.7 % 1,017,511 m<br />

137 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

Willapa Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ions, High Gradients 2 occ 6.7 % 728.6 22.2 % 9 occ 133 %<br />

Page 59 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cascade Head-Salmon River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Cascade Head-Salmon River<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 47 %<br />

NGO 1 %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 52 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 1 %<br />

GAP 2 17 %<br />

GAP 3 35 %<br />

GAP 4 47 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 2 %<br />

Area: 19,975 ha Developed 1 %<br />

49,338 ac Undeveloped 95 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

1 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 1 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 12204 ha 1.9 % 22.4 6.2 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 994 ha 0.1 % 1.0 0.3 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 5658 ha 0.2 % 2.6 0.7 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 135 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Northern Red-Legged Frog Rana aurora aurora T4 2 occ 2.1 % 102.6 28.6 % 7 occ 671 %<br />

Birds<br />

American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus an<strong>at</strong>um 1 occ 5.6 % 21.1 5.9 % 17 occ<br />

65 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 3 occ 0.2 % 1.3 0.4 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 18 occ 1.0 % 7.3 2.0 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 6 occ 0.6 % 4.3 1.2 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Blue-Gray Taildropper Prophysaon coeruleum 1 occ 0.6 % 27.6 7.7 % 13 occ 454 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong> Silverspot Butterfly Speyeria zerene hippolyta T1 1 occ 12.5 % 14.4 4.0 % 25 occ<br />

28 %<br />

Warty Jumping-Slug<br />

Hemphillia glandulosa<br />

1 occ 1.4 % 27.6 7.7 % 13 occ 200 %<br />

glandulosa<br />

Nonvascular Plants<br />

Page 60 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cascade Head-Salmon River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Moss (Pohlia) Pohlia sphagnicola 1 occ 100.0 % 51.3 14.3 % 7 occ<br />

14 %<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Cascade Head C<strong>at</strong>chfly Silene douglasii var oraria 1 occ 20.0 % 27.6 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

38 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Range Fawn-Lily Erythronium elegans 2 occ 22.2 % 28.7 8.0 % 25 occ<br />

36 %<br />

Hairy-Stemmed Checker-Mallow Sidalcea hirtipes 3 occ 20.0 % 43.1 12.0 % 25 occ<br />

48 %<br />

San Francisco Bluegrass Poa unil<strong>at</strong>eralis 1 occ 16.7 % 51.3 14.3 % 7 occ<br />

86 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Lowland Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Wetlands (Mineral Soils Salhoo Malfus / Carobn<br />

1 occ 14.3 % 119.7 33.3 % 3 occ 133 %<br />

Lysame)<br />

Lowland Coniferous Forested Wetlands (Picsit / Carobn Lysame) 1 occ 12.5 % 59.8 16.7 % 6 occ 117 %<br />

Mineral Spring 1 occ 1.6 % 17.9 5.0 % 20 occ 150 %<br />

Sphagnum Bogs And Poor Fens (Caraqud / Compal) Caraqud / compal 1 occ 100.0 % 119.7 33.3 % 3 occ<br />

33 %<br />

Sphagnum Bogs And Poor Fens (Ledgla / Carobn / Sphagn)Ledgla / carobn / sphagn 1 occ 8.3 % 59.8 16.7 % 6 occ 117 %<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 108 occ 159 %<br />

Brandt's Cormorant Phalacrocorax penicill<strong>at</strong>us 4 occ 4.0 % 17.0 12.9 % 31 occ 168 %<br />

Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis G4 1 occ 14.3 % % occ<br />

%<br />

Common Murre 5 occ 5.0 % 21.9 16.7 % 30 occ 187 %<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus 6 occ 1.9 % 8.3 6.3 % 95 occ 163 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 11 occ 2.8 % 12.5 9.5 % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Tufted Puffin Fr<strong>at</strong>ercula cirrh<strong>at</strong>a 1 occ 1.1 % 4.4 3.3 % 30 occ 190 %<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani 7 occ 2.0 8.5 6.5<br />

Mammals<br />

Stellar's Sea Lion Eumetopias jub<strong>at</strong>us 2 occ 5.9 % 21.9 16.7 % 12 occ 217 %<br />

Stellar's Sea Lion haulout 2 occ 4.9 % 20.2 15.4 % 13 occ 223 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds (ha) 26 ha 0.2 % 1.0 0.8 % 3,384 ha 330 %<br />

Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic Bed (ha) 1 ha 0.1 % 0.4 0.3 % 198 ha 258 %<br />

Bedrock (ha) 0 ha 0.5 % 2.3 1.8 % 20 ha 210 %<br />

Eelgrass Estuary 10713 m 1.9 % 8.3 6.3 % 169,841 m<br />

224 %<br />

Intertidal Salt Marshes (Salvir Disspi Trimar) Salvir - disspi - trimar - (jaucar) 2 occ 2.9 % 11.9 9.1 % 22 occ 250 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 330 ha 3.1 % 13.7 10.4 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 13609 m 0.9 % 4.0 3.1 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Page 61 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cascade Head-Salmon River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Seagrass (ha) 5 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 9,868 ha 294 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Boulder (ha) 9 ha 6.7 % 29.3 22.3 % 40 ha 283 %<br />

Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 7 ha 0.7 % 3.3 2.5 % 279 ha 116 %<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 349 ha 1.9 % 8.3 6.3 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Sand (ha) 45 ha 0.2 % 0.7 0.6 % 7,977 ha 239 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 1 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 3,069 ha 224 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) 284 m 0.4 % 1.9 1.5 % 19,507 m<br />

226 %<br />

Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) 222 m 1.4 % 5.9 4.5 % 4,933 m<br />

278 %<br />

Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1843 m 3.8 % 16.6 12.6 % 14,577 m<br />

89 %<br />

Organics/fines (Embayment) 2091 m 1.4 % 6.1 4.6 % 45,204 m<br />

218 %<br />

Organics/fines Exposed (Embayment) 5010 m 1.0 % 4.5 3.5 % 144,777 m<br />

215 %<br />

Organics/fines Very Protected (Embayment) 7517 m 7.5 % 32.9 25.0 % 30,025 m<br />

194 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1318 m 0.3 % 1.5 1.1 % 116,959 m<br />

119 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 3583 m 4.5 % 19.5 14.9 % 24,105 m<br />

129 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) 1186 m 2.1 % 9.2 7.0 % 16,915 m<br />

247 %<br />

Sand Beach Protected (Embayment) 372 m 1.2 % 5.2 4.0 % 9,335 m<br />

278 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) 2855 m 11.2 % 49.3 37.5 % 7,615 m<br />

309 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 249 m 0.1 % 0.4 0.3 % 80,427 m<br />

122 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 41893 m 1.7 % 145.5 5.8 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 11797 m 0.1 % 6.6 0.3 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 95613 m 1.1 % 53.3 2.1 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 8050 m 0.2 % 15.2 0.6 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 51409 m 1.2 % 96.9 3.9 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 92845 m 1.1 % 93.6 3.7 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 10818 m 0.1 % 10.9 0.4 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Ocean Tributaries - Sediment 1 occ 6.3 % 501.6 20.0 % 5 occ 220 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Ocean Tributaries - Volcanic 1 occ 16.7 % 1254.1 50.0 % 2 occ 250 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Ridge Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sediment 1 occ 50.0 % 2507.6 100.0 % 1 occ 100 %<br />

Page 62 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Castle Rock<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Castle Rock<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 99 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 1 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 1 %<br />

GAP 4 99 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 5 %<br />

Area: 11,601 ha Developed 2 %<br />

28,655 ac Undeveloped 93 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 7220 ha 0.6 % 12.9 2.1 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 3375 ha 0.1 % 2.7 0.4 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 14614 m 0.3 % 43.8 1.0 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Lower Columbia ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 27251 m 6.1 % 524.9 12.2 % 224,010 m<br />

46 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

Lower Columbia Tributaries- Sedimentary, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e<br />

2 occ 12.5 % 1726.1 40.0 % 5 occ 100 %<br />

Gradient<br />

Lower Columbia Tributary Small Rivers - Outwash 1 occ 50.0 % 4315.1 100.0 % 1 occ 100 %<br />

Page 63 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Chehalis River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Chehalis River<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 79 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 2 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 20 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 1 %<br />

GAP 3 19 %<br />

GAP 4 80 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 21 %<br />

Area: 30,987 ha Developed 3 %<br />

76,539 ac Undeveloped 74 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

2 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 160 ha 0.0 % 0.2 0.1 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 11661 ha 1.0 % 7.8 3.4 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 10921 ha 0.4 % 3.3 1.4 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest 3 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 37,848 ha 140 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 2 occ 0.1 % 0.5 0.2 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 1 occ 0.1 % 0.5 0.2 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 5 occ 0.3 1.4 0.6<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Mineral Spring 1 occ 1.6 % 11.6 5.0 % 20 occ 150 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 19079 m 0.8 % 42.7 2.6 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 24909 m 0.5 % 27.9 1.7 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 17429 m 0.4 % 19.6 1.2 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Page 64 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Chehalis River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 12998 m 0.4 % 22.3 1.4 % 943,067 m<br />

129 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 18573 m 0.6 % 31.8 2.0 % 943,067 m<br />

129 %<br />

Olympic Mudminnow Novumbra hubbsi G3 2 occ 9.1 % 293.6 18.2 % 11 occ 109 %<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> Lamprey Lampetra trident<strong>at</strong>a G5 1 occ 3.0 % % occ<br />

%<br />

Spring Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 23550 m 2.3 % 121.7 7.5 % 312,652 m<br />

187 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Southwest Washington ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 18656 m 0.6 % 29.6 1.8 % 1,017,511 m<br />

137 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Southwest Washington ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 29386 m 0.9 % 46.6 2.9 % 1,017,511 m<br />

137 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

Puget Lowlands - Outwash, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradients 1 occ 20.0 % 807.8 50.0 % 2 occ<br />

50 %<br />

Puget Lowlands - Glacial Till, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradients 1 occ 50.0 % 1615.5 100.0 % 1 occ 100 %<br />

Willapa Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sandstones, Low To Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e/Low<br />

1 occ 2.6 % 146.8 9.1 % 11 occ 100 %<br />

Gradient<br />

Page 65 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Chemainus-Cowichan<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Chemainus-Cowichan<br />

Indigenous: 1 %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 99 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: 1 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 1 %<br />

GAP 3 0 %<br />

GAP 4 99 %<br />

British Columbia<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 2 %<br />

Area: 59,489 ha Developed 2 %<br />

146,938 ac Undeveloped 93 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

2 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Avalanche Chute And Talus Shrubland 3 occ 0.8 % 40.2 33.3 % 9 occ 2956 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Deciduous Swamp 3 ha 0.2 % 1.1 0.9 % 332 ha 230 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 5386 ha 1.0 % 4.0 3.3 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 276 ha 0.0 % 0.2 0.1 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Lowland Riparian Forest And Shrubland 1 occ 0.6 % 13.4 11.1 % 9 occ 1067 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 32583 ha 1.3 % 5.1 4.2 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest 2152 ha 0.6 % 3.4 2.8 % 76,367 ha 375 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 11678 ha 0.7 % 4.3 3.6 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Yellow Cedar Forest 207 ha 0.5 % 3.3 2.7 % 7,569 ha 262 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

% % 14 occ<br />

29 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 2 occ 0.1 0.3 0.2<br />

1 occ 7.1 8.6 7.1<br />

Haliaeetus leucocephalus<br />

wintering area<br />

Bald Eagle Wintering Area<br />

% % 302,959 ha 108 %<br />

Purple Martin Progne subis G5 1 occ 1.2 % 13.4 11.1 % 9 occ 367 %<br />

White-Tailed Ptarmigan Lagopus leucurus 1 occ 2.8 % 4.5 3.7 % 27 occ 100 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP2) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 1248 ha 0.2 0.5 0.4<br />

G1 33.3 % 13.4 11.1 % 18 occ<br />

28 %<br />

Mammals<br />

Vancouver Island Marmot Marmota vancouverensis 2 occ<br />

Page 66 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Chemainus-Cowichan<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chinook Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 76510 m 12.4 % 348.1 41.4 % 184,827 m<br />

154 %<br />

Chum Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus keta 61939 m 11.1 % 312.1 37.1 % 166,896 m<br />

78 %<br />

Coho Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus kisutch 128805 m 7.0 % 196.3 23.3 % 551,718 m<br />

122 %<br />

Cutthro<strong>at</strong> Trout, East Island Oncorhynchus clarki 78814 m 10.4 % 175.4 20.9 % 377,832 m<br />

69 %<br />

Dolly Varden, East Island Salvelinus malma G5 70439 m 22.9 % 385.7 45.9 % 153,568 m<br />

123 %<br />

Pink Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 409 m 0.1 % 4.0 0.5 % 85,030 m<br />

56 %<br />

Summer Run Steelhead Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus mykiss 195741 m 13.3 % 372.9 44.4 % 441,335 m<br />

133 %<br />

Winter Run Steelhead Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus mykiss 137777 m 17.4 % 487.2 57.9 % 237,775 m<br />

125 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Macrohabit<strong>at</strong>s<br />

23701 m 1.9 % 157.4 18.7 % 126,642 m<br />

294 %<br />

24066 m 12.0 % 506.4 60.2 % 39,958 m<br />

283 %<br />

45910 m 1.2 % 101.4 12.1 % 380,781 m<br />

457 %<br />

14575 m 28.1 % 1180.1 140.3 % 10,385 m<br />

301 %<br />

6269 m 23.6 % 991.7 117.9 % 5,315 m<br />

394 %<br />

14763 m 1.2 % 105.0 12.5 % 118,230 m<br />

459 %<br />

38 m 0.7 % 11.4 1.4 % 2,796 m<br />

127 %<br />

38 m 0.1 % 3.9 0.5 % 8,276 m<br />

39 %<br />

2833 m 0.3 % 14.1 1.7 % 168,906 m<br />

119 %<br />

3859 m 2.7 % 113.1 13.5 % 28,683 m<br />

269 %<br />

23730 m 0.8 % 65.1 7.7 % 306,396 m<br />

448 %<br />

19810 m 48.1 % 2022.2 240.5 % 8,237 m<br />

415 %<br />

7538 m 69.7 % 2930.3 348.5 % 2,163 m<br />

379 %<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Ultramafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The Douglas Fir Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Ultramafic Geology<br />

Page 67 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Chemainus-Cowichan<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

3680 m 1.7 % 71.9 8.6 % 43,046 m<br />

162 %<br />

1818 m 3.2 % 134.6 16.0 % 11,357 m<br />

211 %<br />

7070 m 0.5 % 43.4 5.2 % 136,816 m<br />

433 %<br />

1437 m 30.7 % 516.2 61.4 % 2,340 m<br />

72 %<br />

284 m 8.5 % 143.0 17.0 % 1,668 m<br />

17 %<br />

5406 m 10.1 % 425.8 50.6 % 10,676 m<br />

95 %<br />

2191 m 57.2 % 961.5 114.4 % 1,916 m<br />

114 %<br />

751 m 77.5 % 1305.2 155.2 % 484 m<br />

200 %<br />

5873 m 0.2 % 20.1 2.4 % 245,882 m<br />

329 %<br />

9173 m 2.1 % 88.6 10.5 % 87,042 m<br />

187 %<br />

30351 m 0.4 % 31.2 3.7 % 818,034 m<br />

586 %<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Douglas Fir Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Douglas Fir Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Douglas Fir Zone On W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Sandstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Ultramafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Douglas Fir Zone On<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Ultramafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Sandstone Geology<br />

Fourth Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Douglas Fir Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er Geology<br />

14028 m 36.9 % 1550.6 184.4 % 7,607 m<br />

332 %<br />

10063 m 66.8 % 2807.2 333.9 % 3,014 m<br />

488 %<br />

3046 m 100.0 % 1681.6 200.0 % 1,523 m<br />

200 %<br />

2590 m 100.0 % 1681.8 200.0 % 1,295 m<br />

200 %<br />

4144 m 2.0 % 82.8 9.8 % 42,081 m<br />

141 %<br />

3516 m 8.4 % 355.1 42.2 % 8,325 m<br />

331 %<br />

5607 m 0.5 % 42.7 5.1 % 110,483 m<br />

407 %<br />

2035 m 44.2 % 743.9 88.5 % 2,300 m<br />

103 %<br />

1908 m 100.0 % 1681.3 200.0 % 954 m<br />

200 %<br />

4038 m 2.0 % 85.8 10.2 % 39,552 m<br />

297 %<br />

3335 m 73.0 % 1228.2 146.1 % 2,283 m<br />

146 %<br />

Page 68 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Chemainus-Cowichan<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

910 m 0.5 % 21.0 2.5 % 36,520 m<br />

129 %<br />

3675 m 4.8 % 201.7 24.0 % 15,320 m<br />

145 %<br />

11659 m 1.2 % 34.1 4.1 % 287,102 m<br />

162 %<br />

9372 m 60.8 % 2555.1 303.9 % 3,084 m<br />

434 %<br />

8695 m 100.0 % 1681.4 200.0 % 4,348 m<br />

200 %<br />

1629 m 1.3 % 52.9 6.3 % 25,878 m<br />

114 %<br />

7440 m 0.7 % 31.4 3.7 % 199,007 m<br />

240 %<br />

489 m 7.7 % 130.0 15.5 % 3,166 m<br />

135 %<br />

18 m 0.2 % 6.5 0.8 % 2,306 m<br />

211 %<br />

142 m 4.3 % 71.5 8.5 % 1,674 m<br />

8 %<br />

1761 m 1.1 % 47.7 5.7 % 31,071 m<br />

163 %<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Ultramafic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Sandstone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Ultramafic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On W<strong>at</strong>er Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Ultramafic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Douglas Fir Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Sandstone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Ultramafic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On W<strong>at</strong>er Geology<br />

2110 m 11.5 % 482.0 57.3 % 3,681 m<br />

299 %<br />

1077 m 0.1 % 3.7 0.4 % 246,148 m<br />

186 %<br />

902 m 68.4 % 1149.1 136.7 % 660 m<br />

200 %<br />

6081 m 100.0 % 1682.0 200.0 % 3,040 m<br />

200 %<br />

152 m 0.4 % 16.7 2.0 % 7,664 m<br />

19 %<br />

5925 m 2.1 % 88.4 10.5 % 56,327 m<br />

151 %<br />

2113 m 3.4 % 144.7 17.2 % 12,283 m<br />

125 %<br />

9860 m 1.0 % 42.9 5.1 % 193,048 m<br />

265 %<br />

6611 m 67.7 % 1139.1 135.5 % 4,880 m<br />

200 %<br />

1691 m 100.0 % 1680.2 199.8 % 846 m<br />

200 %<br />

4546 m 75.1 % 1263.2 150.2 % 3,026 m<br />

150 %<br />

Page 69 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Chemainus-Cowichan<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

592 m 0.8 % 32.4 3.9 % 15,371 m<br />

211 %<br />

1155 m 100.0 % 1679.7 199.8 % 578 m<br />

200 %<br />

38 m 0.2 % 6.8 0.8 % 4,738 m<br />

239 %<br />

1106 m 2.3 % 96.2 11.4 % 9,667 m<br />

278 %<br />

25101 m 3.9 % 163.7 19.5 % 128,956 m<br />

253 %<br />

7589 m 100.0 % 1682.0 200.0 % 3,794 m<br />

200 %<br />

4378 m 11.5 % 482.7 57.4 % 7,627 m<br />

189 %<br />

8700 m 26.3 % 1105.3 131.5 % 6,618 m<br />

255 %<br />

18339 m 3.9 % 162.7 19.4 % 94,768 m<br />

220 %<br />

12992 m 100.0 % 4204.9 500.1 % 2,598 m<br />

500 %<br />

6230 m 16.5 % 694.1 82.5 % 7,547 m<br />

231 %<br />

Third Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Douglas Fir Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Sandstone Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Douglas Fir Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Page 70 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Chetco River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Chetco River<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

%<br />

400 ha<br />

988 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

Inland Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sediment 1 occ 1.7 % 6958.3 5.6 % 18 occ 106 %<br />

Page 71 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

China Wall ACEC<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

China Wall ACEC<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 100 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 100 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 100 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

%<br />

82 ha<br />

204 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 1 ha 0.0 % 0.2 0.0 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 82 ha 0.0 % 9.1 0.0 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Page 72 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Chinook River BLM Site<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Chinook River BLM Site<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 100 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 100 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 100 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

%<br />

43 ha<br />

106 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 11 ha 0.0 % 9.3 0.0 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 11 ha 0.0 % 5.3 0.0 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 22 ha 0.0 % 4.6 0.0 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Page 73 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Clallam Bay - Clallam River (Marine)<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Clallam Bay - Clallam River (Marine)<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Washington<br />

Marine Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 2,400 ha Developed 0 %<br />

5,928 ac Undeveloped 0 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er 100 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Smelt spawn 1352 m 3.2 % 116.4 10.6 % 12,705 m<br />

140 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Mussels and barnacles 2887 m 0.3 % 9.4 0.9 % 337,346 m<br />

132 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds Shore 5320 m 0.2 % 6.2 0.6 % 939,089 m<br />

119 %<br />

Dune grass Estuary 4697 m 2.3 % 82.2 7.5 % 62,438 m<br />

224 %<br />

Dune grass Shore 974 m 0.2 % 6.0 0.6 % 176,736 m<br />

109 %<br />

Kelp high persistence (WA) 30 ha 2.7 % 97.4 8.9 % 336 ha 168 %<br />

Kelp low persistence (WA) 97 ha 4.2 % 152.7 14.0 % 692 ha 162 %<br />

Kelp medium persistence (WA) 58 ha 5.5 % 198.9 18.2 % 320 ha 169 %<br />

Kelp Shore 6613 m 0.4 % 16.2 1.5 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 0 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 4697 m 0.3 % 11.6 1.1 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Surfgrass Shore 2887 m 0.2 % 8.7 0.8 % 363,205 m<br />

131 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 6 ha 0.0 % 1.2 0.1 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Page 74 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Clallam Bay - Clallam River (Marine)<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 991 m 0.5 % 16.7 1.5 % 64,871 m<br />

114 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 974 m 0.5 % 19.6 1.8 % 54,295 m<br />

137 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) 4697 m 8.3 % 303.6 27.8 % 16,915 m<br />

247 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1292 m 0.6 % 22.9 2.1 % 61,723 m<br />

94 %<br />

Page 75 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cl<strong>at</strong>skanie River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Cl<strong>at</strong>skanie River<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 57 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 11 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 33 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 11 %<br />

GAP 3 33 %<br />

GAP 4 57 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 30 %<br />

Area: 8,872 ha Developed 2 %<br />

21,913 ac Undeveloped 66 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

2 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

Mediterranean California Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest And Woodland 11 ha 0.3 % 26.1 3.2 % 348 ha 500 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 1891 ha 0.3 % 7.8 1.0 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 1040 ha 0.1 % 2.4 0.3 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 1604 ha 0.1 % 1.7 0.2 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 172 ha 0.0 % 0.4 0.1 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest 5 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 37,848 ha 140 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 1 occ 0.1 % 1.6 0.2 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1 occ 0.1 1.0 0.1<br />

T2 2 occ 11.8 % 95.1 11.8 % 17 occ<br />

71 %<br />

Odocoileus virginianus<br />

leucurus<br />

Mammals<br />

Columbia White-Tailed Deer<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 29543 m 0.6 % 115.9 2.1 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 14161 m 2.7 % 300.5 5.3 % 266,114 m<br />

86 %<br />

Page 76 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cl<strong>at</strong>skanie River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Southwest Washington ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 29655 m 0.9 % 164.6 2.9 % 1,017,511 m<br />

137 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

1 occ 6.3 % 1129.4 20.0 % 5 occ 100 %<br />

Lower Columbia Tributaries- Sedimentary, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e<br />

Gradient<br />

Page 77 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cl<strong>at</strong>sop Plains-Necanicum River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Cl<strong>at</strong>sop Plains-Necanicum River<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 81 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 2 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 15 %<br />

Local: 2 %<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 0 %<br />

GAP 2 14 %<br />

GAP 3 5 %<br />

GAP 4 80 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 2 %<br />

Area: 17,649 ha Developed 1 %<br />

43,593 ac Undeveloped 96 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

1 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 11 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 13173 ha 2.0 % 27.4 6.7 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 426 ha 0.0 % 0.5 0.1 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 3133 ha 0.1 % 1.6 0.4 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 9 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 5 occ 0.3 2.4 0.6<br />

T1 37.5 % 48.8 12.0 % 25 occ<br />

28 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong> Silverspot Butterfly Speyeria zerene hippolyta 3 occ<br />

T3 1 occ 20.0 % 81.3 20.0 % 5 occ<br />

40 %<br />

Corynorhinus townsendii<br />

townsendii<br />

Mammals<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> Western Big-Eared B<strong>at</strong><br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Chamber's Paintbrush Castilleja chambersii 1 occ 33.3 % 16.3 4.0 % 25 occ<br />

12 %<br />

Several-Flowered Sedge Carex pluriflora 1 occ 25.0 % 58.0 14.3 % 7 occ<br />

57 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Sphagnum Bogs And Poor Fens (Ledgla / Carobn / Sphagn)Ledgla / carobn / sphagn 1 occ 8.3 % 67.7 16.7 % 6 occ 117 %<br />

Page 78 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cl<strong>at</strong>sop Plains-Necanicum River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 108 occ 159 %<br />

Brandt's Cormorant Phalacrocorax penicill<strong>at</strong>us 5 occ 5.0 % 24.0 16.1 % 31 occ 168 %<br />

Common Murre 4 occ 4.0 % 19.8 13.3 % 30 occ 187 %<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus 3 occ 0.9 % 4.7 3.2 % 95 occ 163 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 9 occ 2.3 % 11.5 7.8 % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Shorebird Concentr<strong>at</strong>ion Area 1 occ 4.3 % 9.3 6.3 % 16 occ 119 %<br />

Tufted Puffin Fr<strong>at</strong>ercula cirrh<strong>at</strong>a 1 occ 1.1 % 5.0 3.3 % 30 occ 190 %<br />

Western Snowy Plover<br />

Charadrius alexandrinus<br />

1 occ 7.1 % 13.5 9.1 % 11 occ 100 %<br />

nivosus<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani 5 occ 1.4 6.9 4.6<br />

Mammals<br />

Stellar's Sea Lion Eumetopias jub<strong>at</strong>us 2 occ 5.9 % 24.8 16.7 % 12 occ 217 %<br />

Stellar's Sea Lion haulout 1 occ 2.4 % 11.4 7.7 % 13 occ 223 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds (ha) 2 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 3,384 ha 330 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 162 ha 1.5 % 7.6 5.1 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 16216 m 1.1 % 5.5 3.7 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Boulder (ha) 0 ha 0.2 % 0.9 0.6 % 40 ha 283 %<br />

Cobble/Gravel (ha) 1 ha 0.4 % 2.1 1.4 % 55 ha 282 %<br />

Mud (ha) 0 ha 0.0 % 0.2 0.1 % 155 ha 244 %<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 182 ha 1.0 % 4.9 3.3 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Sand (ha) 96 ha 0.4 % 1.8 1.2 % 7,977 ha 239 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 69 ha 0.7 % 3.3 2.2 % 3,069 ha 224 %<br />

Sand/Mud (ha) 5 ha 0.1 % 0.6 0.4 % 1,250 ha 246 %<br />

Sand/Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 147 ha 1.7 % 8.6 5.8 % 2,550 ha 256 %<br />

Unconsolid<strong>at</strong>ed (ha) 4 ha 1.2 % 6.0 4.0 % 91 ha 121 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Gravel Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 76 m 0.7 % 3.4 2.3 % 3,285 m<br />

158 %<br />

Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 205 m 0.4 % 2.1 1.4 % 14,577 m<br />

89 %<br />

Organics/fines (Embayment) 640 m 0.4 % 2.1 1.4 % 45,204 m<br />

218 %<br />

Organics/fines Exposed (Embayment) 11553 m 2.4 % 11.9 8.0 % 144,777 m<br />

215 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) 4161 m 0.5 % 2.6 1.7 % 239,478 m<br />

223 %<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites<br />

Page 79 of 328

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cl<strong>at</strong>sop Plains-Necanicum River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 347 m 1.5 % 7.6 5.1 % 6,812 m<br />

102 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 309 m 2.9 % 14.3 9.6 % 3,219 m<br />

124 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Exposed (Embayment) 969 m 1.0 % 4.9 3.3 % 29,625 m<br />

198 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Protected (Embayment) 1050 m 2.0 % 9.9 6.6 % 15,799 m<br />

247 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Very Exposed (Embayment) 49 m 4.8 % 23.8 16.0 % 304 m<br />

334 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1603 m 0.4 % 2.0 1.4 % 116,959 m<br />

119 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 694 m 0.9 % 4.3 2.9 % 24,105 m<br />

129 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2987 m 2.7 % 13.3 9.0 % 33,330 m<br />

119 %<br />

Sand Beach (Embayment) 1008 m 29.7 % 147.4 99.2 % 1,017 m<br />

311 %<br />

Sand Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2936 m 4.5 % 22.4 15.1 % 19,455 m<br />

89 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) 2336 m 2.4 % 11.9 8.0 % 29,156 m<br />

255 %<br />

Sand Beach Protected (Embayment) 517 m 1.7 % 8.2 5.5 % 9,335 m<br />

278 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) 1841 m 7.3 % 35.9 24.2 % 7,615 m<br />

309 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1875 m 0.7 % 3.5 2.3 % 80,427 m<br />

122 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 22618 m 0.9 % 88.9 3.1 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 79126 m 0.9 % 49.9 1.8 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 22833 m 0.5 % 48.7 1.7 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 43471 m 0.5 % 49.6 1.7 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Page 80 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Clayoquot-Alberni<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Clayoquot-Alberni<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 1 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: 98 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 13 %<br />

GAP 3 85 %<br />

GAP 4 1 %<br />

British Columbia<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 176,444 ha Developed 0 %<br />

435,817 ac Undeveloped 93 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

6 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

Boreal Wet Meadow 16 occ 4.3 % 54.2 133.3 % 12 occ 1833 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Avalanche Chute And Talus Shrubland 42 occ 11.0 % 189.6 466.7 % 9 occ 2956 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Coniferous Swamp 2 occ 1.4 % 6.8 16.7 % 12 occ 650 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Deciduous Swamp 133 ha 8.0 % 16.3 40.1 % 332 ha 230 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 177 ha 0.5 % 2.2 5.4 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry Douglas-Fir And Madrone Forest And Woodland 1 ha 1.0 % 2.0 5.0 % 29 ha 407 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 39114 ha 7.2 % 9.8 24.1 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 2865 ha 0.4 % 0.6 1.5 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Lowland Riparian Forest And Shrubland 15 occ 8.8 % 67.7 166.7 % 9 occ 1067 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime <strong>Coast</strong>al Sand Dune 1 occ 0.4 % 6.8 16.7 % 6 occ 3850 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Tidal Salt Marsh 2 occ 50.0 % 9.0 22.2 % 9 occ<br />

44 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 5166 ha 0.2 % 0.3 0.7 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest 12049 ha 3.2 % 6.4 15.8 % 76,367 ha 375 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 86355 ha 5.3 % 10.8 26.6 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Yellow Cedar Forest 3573 ha 9.4 % 19.2 47.2 % 7,569 ha 262 %<br />

Temper<strong>at</strong>e <strong>Pacific</strong> Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Emergent Marsh 2 occ 2.6 % 6.8 16.7 % 12 occ 267 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

% % 9 occ 144 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 123 occ 6.5 6.0 14.7<br />

Gre<strong>at</strong>-Blue Heron Ardea herodias 2 occ 2.8 9.0 22.2<br />

Page 81 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Clayoquot-Alberni<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP1) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 28400 ha 9.6 % 7.8 19.3 % 147,425 ha 110 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP2) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 47336 ha 7.8 % 6.3 15.6 % 302,959 ha 108 %<br />

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis G5 1 occ 1.9 % 2.0 5.0 % 20 occ 105 %<br />

White-Tailed Ptarmigan Lagopus leucurus 3 occ 8.3 % 4.5 11.1 % 27 occ 100 %<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

% % 25 occ<br />

20 %<br />

% % 25 occ<br />

16 %<br />

Olympic Mountain Aster Aster paucicapit<strong>at</strong>us 3 occ 60.0 4.9 12.0<br />

2 occ 50.0 3.3 8.0<br />

Erysimum arenicola var<br />

torulosum<br />

Sand-Dwelling Wallflower<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 108 occ 159 %<br />

Brandt's Cormorant Phalacrocorax penicill<strong>at</strong>us 1 occ 1.0 % 0.5 3.2 % 31 occ 168 %<br />

Cassin's Auklet Ptychoramphus aleuticus 1 occ 5.6 % 2.5 16.7 % 6 occ 150 %<br />

Common Murre 1 occ 1.0 % 0.5 3.3 % 30 occ 187 %<br />

Fork-Tailed Storm Petral 1 occ 7.1 % 3.7 25.0 % 4 occ 175 %<br />

Leach's Storm-Petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa 1 occ 2.8 % 1.4 9.1 % 11 occ 200 %<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus 1 occ 0.3 % 0.2 1.1 % 95 occ 163 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 2 occ 0.5 % 0.3 1.7 % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Rhinoceros Auklet Cerorhinca monocer<strong>at</strong>a 1 occ 6.3 % 3.0 20.0 % 5 occ 180 %<br />

Tufted Puffin Fr<strong>at</strong>ercula cirrh<strong>at</strong>a 1 occ 1.1 % 0.5 3.3 % 30 occ 190 %<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani 3 occ 0.8 0.4 2.8<br />

Fishes<br />

Herring Spawning High Cover 2939 m 1.0 % 0.5 3.5 % 84,336 m<br />

169 %<br />

Herring Spawning Low Cover 58563 m 7.8 % 3.9 26.0 % 225,517 m<br />

146 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Mussels and barnacles 47436 m 4.2 % 2.1 14.1 % 337,346 m<br />

132 %<br />

Mammals<br />

Stellar's Sea Lion haulout 1 occ 2.4 % 1.1 7.7 % 13 occ 223 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds Estuary 28977 m 7.7 % 3.8 25.7 % 112,601 m<br />

179 %<br />

Algal Beds Shore 201102 m 6.4 % 3.2 21.4 % 939,089 m<br />

119 %<br />

Dune grass Estuary 16763 m 8.1 % 4.0 26.8 % 62,438 m<br />

224 %<br />

Dune grass Shore 39445 m 6.7 % 3.3 22.3 % 176,736 m<br />

109 %<br />

Eelgrass (Ha) 119 ha 8.0 % 4.0 26.8 % 443 ha 120 %<br />

Eelgrass Estuary 64020 m 11.3 % 5.6 37.7 % 169,841 m<br />

224 %<br />

Page 82 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Clayoquot-Alberni<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Eelgrass Shore 52342 m 8.4 % 4.2 27.9 % 187,323 m<br />

146 %<br />

Kelp Estuary 5438 m 21.6 % 10.7 71.9 % 7,567 m<br />

214 %<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) 491 ha 2.5 % 1.2 8.4 % 5,844 ha 105 %<br />

Kelp Shore 39268 m 2.6 % 1.3 8.8 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 93 ha 0.9 % 0.4 2.9 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 61282 m 4.2 % 2.1 13.9 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Saltmarsh Shore 49720 m 9.1 % 4.5 30.3 % 164,143 m<br />

118 %<br />

Seashore Lupine Dunes<br />

Lupinus littoralis (dune<br />

1 occ 14.3 % 14.9 100.0 % 1 occ 200 %<br />

community)<br />

Surfgrass Estuary 5275 m 22.9 % 11.4 76.5 % 6,898 m<br />

215 %<br />

Surfgrass Shore 28406 m 2.3 % 1.2 7.8 % 363,205 m<br />

131 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 1313 ha 4.3 % 2.1 14.3 % 9,168 ha 287 %<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 38 ha 0.2 % 0.1 0.7 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 61 ha 8.5 % 4.2 28.3 % 215 ha 185 %<br />

Intertidal Habit<strong>at</strong><br />

Rocky intertidal habit<strong>at</strong> (Embayment) 2948 m 16.9 % 8.4 56.3 % 5,233 m<br />

199 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Channel Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1625 m 12.5 % 6.2 41.7 % 3,901 m<br />

74 %<br />

Gravel Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 311 m 2.8 % 1.4 9.5 % 3,285 m<br />

158 %<br />

Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) 7485 m 6.9 % 3.4 23.0 % 32,500 m<br />

106 %<br />

Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 810 m 3.1 % 1.5 10.4 % 7,802 m<br />

72 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) 1585 m 8.1 % 4.0 26.9 % 5,894 m<br />

224 %<br />

Organics/fines (Embayment) 22207 m 14.7 % 7.3 49.1 % 45,204 m<br />

218 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) 47064 m 5.9 % 2.9 19.7 % 239,478 m<br />

223 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 20705 m 16.8 % 8.3 56.1 % 36,906 m<br />

137 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 8732 m 6.9 % 3.4 23.2 % 37,705 m<br />

65 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Exposed (Embayment) 2328 m 39.5 % 19.6 131.7 % 1,767 m<br />

293 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 27727 m 8.6 % 4.3 28.6 % 96,940 m<br />

112 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 228 m 0.2 % 0.1 0.7 % 31,193 m<br />

113 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 7801 m 3.6 % 1.8 12.0 % 64,871 m<br />

114 %<br />

Rock With Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) 945 m 5.6 % 2.8 18.8 % 5,027 m<br />

117 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 33017 m 5.1 % 2.5 17.1 % 193,399 m<br />

88 %<br />

Rock with Sand and Gravel Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2844 m 2.9 % 1.4 9.7 % 29,435 m<br />

65 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 4860 m 45.1 % 22.4 150.4 % 3,231 m<br />

195 %<br />

Rock With Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) 2625 m 22.4 % 11.1 74.6 % 3,518 m<br />

186 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 9586 m 5.3 % 2.6 17.7 % 54,295 m<br />

137 %<br />

Rock With Sand Beach Protected (Embayment) 232 m 5.4 % 2.7 17.9 % 1,300 m<br />

131 %<br />

Page 83 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Clayoquot-Alberni<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2788 m 4.5 % 2.2 14.9 % 18,758 m<br />

216 %<br />

Rocky intertidal habit<strong>at</strong> (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 28915 m 2.9 % 1.5 9.8 % 294,655 m<br />

123 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Exposed (Embayment) 323 m 0.3 % 0.2 1.1 % 29,625 m<br />

198 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Protected (Embayment) 2067 m 3.9 % 1.9 13.1 % 15,799 m<br />

247 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2437 m 0.6 % 0.3 2.1 % 116,959 m<br />

119 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 5530 m 1.7 % 0.9 5.7 % 96,577 m<br />

110 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 68006 m 9.0 % 4.5 30.1 % 226,193 m<br />

102 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) 10203 m 29.8 % 14.8 99.2 % 10,283 m<br />

243 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 12305 m 6.3 % 3.1 21.1 % 58,215 m<br />

98 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 3 m 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 20,837 m<br />

57 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) 7668 m 13.6 % 6.8 45.4 % 16,881 m<br />

144 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 14101 m 6.9 % 3.4 22.8 % 61,723 m<br />

94 %<br />

Sand Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 9111 m 14.0 % 7.0 46.8 % 19,455 m<br />

89 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) 4347 m 4.5 % 2.2 14.9 % 29,156 m<br />

255 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 11908 m 11.1 % 5.5 37.1 % 32,087 m<br />

121 %<br />

Sand Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1331 m 3.4 % 1.7 11.4 % 11,673 m<br />

104 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (Embayment) 2049 m 60.6 % 30.0 201.9 % 1,015 m<br />

280 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1954 m 24.9 % 12.3 83.0 % 2,355 m<br />

83 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 3755 m 5.5 % 2.7 18.4 % 20,374 m<br />

125 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) 5010 m 8.6 % 4.3 28.6 % 17,529 m<br />

230 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 5436 m 6.2 % 3.1 20.6 % 26,382 m<br />

139 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chinook Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 140910 m 15.3 % 144.3 50.9 % 276,806 m<br />

176 %<br />

Chum Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus keta 76794 m 8.4 % 79.7 28.1 % 273,258 m<br />

144 %<br />

Coho Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus kisutch 332525 m 14.8 % 139.9 49.3 % 673,874 m<br />

155 %<br />

Cutthro<strong>at</strong> Trout, West Island Oncorhynchus clarki 133371 m 17.4 % 98.7 34.8 % 382,902 m<br />

102 %<br />

Dolly Varden, West Island Salvelinus malma G5 26424 m 12.9 % 73.0 25.8 % 102,560 m<br />

148 %<br />

Pink Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 23876 m 6.3 % 59.3 20.9 % 114,095 m<br />

160 %<br />

River Lamprey Lampetra ayresi G4 3567 m 100.0 % 945.1 333.4 % 1,070 m<br />

333 %<br />

Sockeye Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus nerka 114160 m 15.6 % 147.0 51.9 % 220,095 m<br />

191 %<br />

Winter Run Steelhead Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus mykiss 237192 m 11.7 % 110.4 38.9 % 609,198 m<br />

168 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Macrohabit<strong>at</strong>s<br />

134 m 0.5 % 7.5 2.6 % 5,105 m<br />

500 %<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic Geology<br />

Page 84 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Clayoquot-Alberni<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

4350 m 0.3 % 9.7 3.4 % 126,642 m<br />

294 %<br />

23928 m 50.6 % 717.0 252.9 % 9,461 m<br />

387 %<br />

216380 m 5.7 % 161.1 56.8 % 380,781 m<br />

457 %<br />

20960 m 28.2 % 399.3 140.8 % 14,882 m<br />

233 %<br />

59 m 0.4 % 6.2 2.2 % 2,703 m<br />

330 %<br />

5431 m 1.7 % 23.5 8.3 % 65,517 m<br />

354 %<br />

6241 m 61.8 % 876.7 309.3 % 2,018 m<br />

309 %<br />

311 m 0.1 % 1.7 0.6 % 52,799 m<br />

132 %<br />

8843 m 46.7 % 662.2 233.6 % 3,786 m<br />

328 %<br />

37945 m 3.2 % 91.0 32.1 % 118,230 m<br />

459 %<br />

4960 m 32.3 % 458.2 161.6 % 3,069 m<br />

215 %<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

179 m 8.1 % 46.0 16.2 % 1,106 m<br />

121 %<br />

949 m 1.4 % 20.4 7.2 % 13,157 m<br />

399 %<br />

1508 m 10.6 % 149.6 52.8 % 2,857 m<br />

500 %<br />

246 m 0.0 % 0.4 0.1 % 168,906 m<br />

119 %<br />

692 m 0.5 % 6.8 2.4 % 28,683 m<br />

269 %<br />

8611 m 32.2 % 455.8 160.8 % 5,356 m<br />

313 %<br />

91455 m 3.0 % 84.6 29.8 % 306,396 m<br />

448 %<br />

2172 m 14.1 % 200.5 70.7 % 3,072 m<br />

277 %<br />

118 m 2.3 % 13.0 4.6 % 2,578 m<br />

90 %<br />

208 m 2.8 % 15.8 5.6 % 3,746 m<br />

130 %<br />

2141 m 1.2 % 17.6 6.2 % 34,571 m<br />

341 %<br />

Page 85 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Clayoquot-Alberni<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

20487 m 93.5 % 1324.8 467.3 % 4,384 m<br />

467 %<br />

1767 m 0.8 % 11.6 4.1 % 43,046 m<br />

162 %<br />

25826 m 56.3 % 798.7 281.7 % 9,167 m<br />

360 %<br />

119605 m 8.7 % 247.8 87.4 % 136,816 m<br />

433 %<br />

3458 m 22.4 % 317.9 112.1 % 3,084 m<br />

314 %<br />

33835 m 63.7 % 902.3 318.3 % 10,630 m<br />

331 %<br />

127 m 3.0 % 17.0 6.0 % 2,122 m<br />

95 %<br />

3734 m 3.0 % 42.5 15.0 % 24,918 m<br />

385 %<br />

12934 m 0.5 % 14.9 5.3 % 245,882 m<br />

329 %<br />

3083 m 0.7 % 10.0 3.5 % 87,042 m<br />

187 %<br />

53255 m 25.2 % 357.3 126.0 % 42,252 m<br />

408 %<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On W<strong>at</strong>er Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

757866 m 9.3 % 262.6 92.6 % 818,034 m<br />

586 %<br />

47161 m 31.8 % 450.3 158.8 % 29,693 m<br />

303 %<br />

8981 m 0.4 % 12.7 4.5 % 199,816 m<br />

680 %<br />

1128 m 81.0 % 459.4 162.0 % 696 m<br />

200 %<br />

17431 m 85.1 % 1205.6 425.3 % 4,099 m<br />

436 %<br />

297 m 0.1 % 2.0 0.7 % 42,081 m<br />

141 %<br />

22996 m 59.1 % 838.1 295.7 % 7,778 m<br />

347 %<br />

49462 m 4.5 % 126.9 44.8 % 110,483 m<br />

407 %<br />

1197 m 17.1 % 97.2 34.3 % 3,490 m<br />

91 %<br />

1014 m 26.2 % 148.4 52.4 % 1,937 m<br />

155 %<br />

941 m 1.5 % 22.0 7.7 % 12,156 m<br />

396 %<br />

Page 86 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Clayoquot-Alberni<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

245 m 17.5 % 99.5 35.1 % 698 m<br />

88 %<br />

280 m 0.2 % 3.5 1.2 % 22,746 m<br />

255 %<br />

10204 m 5.2 % 73.1 25.8 % 39,552 m<br />

297 %<br />

34719 m 3.6 % 34.3 12.1 % 287,102 m<br />

162 %<br />

4340 m 50.3 % 284.9 100.5 % 4,318 m<br />

101 %<br />

625 m 0.5 % 6.8 2.4 % 25,878 m<br />

114 %<br />

27102 m 2.7 % 38.6 13.6 % 199,007 m<br />

240 %<br />

4140 m 98.8 % 560.4 197.7 % 2,094 m<br />

198 %<br />

1254 m 9.4 % 133.8 47.2 % 2,657 m<br />

269 %<br />

75469 m 9.2 % 86.9 30.7 % 246,148 m<br />

186 %<br />

2121 m 39.3 % 222.9 78.6 % 2,698 m<br />

200 %<br />

Fourth Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Fourth Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

23 m 0.3 % 1.9 0.7 % 3,434 m<br />

1 %<br />

947 m 3.5 % 50.0 17.6 % 5,369 m<br />

317 %<br />

1720 m 100.0 % 566.9 200.0 % 860 m<br />

200 %<br />

274 m 5.1 % 29.1 10.2 % 2,672 m<br />

189 %<br />

75666 m 7.8 % 111.1 39.2 % 193,048 m<br />

265 %<br />

1399 m 25.2 % 142.9 50.4 % 2,775 m<br />

138 %<br />

2880 m 3.7 % 53.1 18.7 % 15,371 m<br />

211 %<br />

121 m 0.5 % 7.3 2.6 % 4,738 m<br />

239 %<br />

70355 m 10.9 % 154.7 54.6 % 128,956 m<br />

253 %<br />

13001 m 2.7 % 38.9 13.7 % 94,768 m<br />

220 %<br />

Page 87 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Clearw<strong>at</strong>er River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Clearw<strong>at</strong>er River<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 22 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 1 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 77 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 4 %<br />

GAP 3 73 %<br />

GAP 4 23 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Area: 21,433 ha Developed 0 %<br />

52,940 ac Undeveloped 100 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 26 ha 0.1 % 2.6 0.8 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 10390 ha 1.6 % 17.8 5.3 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 268 ha 0.0 % 0.3 0.1 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 4958 ha 0.2 % 2.1 0.6 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest 2 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 76,367 ha 375 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 5925 ha 0.4 % 6.1 1.8 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Cope's Giant Salamander Dicamptodon copei 1 occ 1.1 % 25.7 7.7 % 13 occ 415 %<br />

Olympic Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton olympicus 1 occ 1.3 % 13.4 4.0 % 25 occ 256 %<br />

Birds<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 4 occ 0.2 % 1.6 0.5 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 101 occ 5.7 % 38.4 11.5 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis G5 1 occ 1.9 % 16.7 5.0 % 20 occ 105 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 5 occ 0.5 % 3.3 1.0 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Page 88 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Clearw<strong>at</strong>er River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 4667 m 0.2 % 15.1 0.6 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Olympic Peninsula ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop ? 137516 m 7.4 % 572.8 24.5 % 560,551 m<br />

109 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 56573 m 1.8 % 140.1 6.0 % 943,067 m<br />

129 %<br />

Spring Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 58986 m 5.7 % 440.5 18.9 % 312,652 m<br />

187 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Olympic Peninsula ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 28624 m 2.5 % 195.6 8.4 % 341,699 m<br />

123 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Upland - Glacial Till, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Low To Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient 1 occ 2.4 % 194.6 8.3 % 12 occ 133 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Upland - Sandstones, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient 2 occ 5.0 % 389.1 16.7 % 12 occ 133 %<br />

Olympics - Sandstones, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, High Gradient 2 occ 6.7 % 518.8 22.2 % 9 occ 211 %<br />

Page 89 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cloquallum River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Cloquallum River<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 100 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

Agriculture 1 % GAP 1 %<br />

Area: 8,418 ha Developed 2 % GAP 2 %<br />

20,792 ac Undeveloped 96 % GAP 3 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 % GAP 4 100 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 4855 ha 0.4 % 12.0 1.4 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 3188 ha 0.1 % 3.5 0.4 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest 1 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 37,848 ha 140 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 50971 m 2.1 % 419.5 7.1 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 55625 m 1.2 % 229.6 3.9 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 51096 m 1.6 % 322.1 5.4 % 943,067 m<br />

129 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Southwest Washington ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 24906 m 0.7 % 145.5 2.4 % 1,017,511 m<br />

137 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al upland - glacial till, low elev<strong>at</strong>ion, low to moder<strong>at</strong>e gradient 1 occ 100.0 % % occ<br />

%<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

1 occ 3.1 % 594.4 10.0 % 10 occ 130 %<br />

Olympics Rainshadow <strong>Coast</strong>al Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Mafic, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion,<br />

Moder<strong>at</strong>e To High Gradient<br />

Page 90 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Columbia Mainstem Islands<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Columbia Mainstem Islands<br />

Washington/<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

%<br />

2,903 ha<br />

7,170 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

1 occ 7.1 % 176.4 7.1 % 14 occ<br />

29 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 2 occ 0.1 5.9 0.2<br />

Haliaeetus leucocephalus<br />

wintering area<br />

Bald Eagle Wintering Area<br />

Gre<strong>at</strong>-Blue Heron Ardea herodias 2 occ 2.8 % 548.9 22.2 % 9 occ 144 %<br />

T2 3 occ 17.6 % 3043.1 17.6 % 17 occ<br />

71 %<br />

Mammals<br />

Columbia White-Tailed Deer<br />

T2 2 occ 11.8 % 290.6 11.8 % 17 occ<br />

71 %<br />

Odocoileus virginianus<br />

leucurus<br />

Odocoileus virginianus<br />

leucurus<br />

Columbia White-Tailed Deer<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

Lower Columbia Sloughs And Tributaries - Fl<strong>at</strong> Gradient 1 occ 16.7 % 8622.1 50.0 % 2 occ 200 %<br />

Page 91 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Columbia Refuge Islands<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Columbia Refuge Islands<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 91 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 79 %<br />

GAP 3 12 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Washington/<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 9 %<br />

Area: 6,253 ha Developed 0 %<br />

15,445 ac Undeveloped 61 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

28 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 65 ha 0.0 % 0.4 0.0 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 155 ha 0.0 % 0.5 0.0 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 249 ha 0.0 % 0.4 0.0 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Gre<strong>at</strong>-Blue Heron Ardea herodias 1 occ 1.4 % 127.4 11.1 % 9 occ 144 %<br />

Purple Martin Progne subis G5 1 occ 1.2 % 127.4 11.1 % 9 occ 367 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 7 occ 0.4 9.6 0.8<br />

T2 5 occ 29.4 % 337.3 29.4 % 17 occ<br />

71 %<br />

Odocoileus virginianus<br />

leucurus<br />

Mammals<br />

Columbia White-Tailed Deer<br />

Marine<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Lowland Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Wetlands (Mineral Soils Corser Salix) Corser - salix (salhoo - salsit) 3 occ 60.0 % 1258.9 300.0 % 1 occ 400 %<br />

Lowland Floodplain-Low Terrace Riparian Forests And Shrublands Popbalt / corser / impcap 1 occ 12.5 % 209.8 50.0 % 2 occ 100 %<br />

Organic, Sand, Mixed-Fine Or Mud: Partly Enclosed, Backshore Transition zone wetland op 1 occ 100.0 % 419.6 100.0 % 1 occ 100 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Page 92 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Columbia Refuge Islands<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Estuary<br />

Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 2 ha 0.3 % 3.7 0.9 % 279 ha 116 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 11 ha 0.0 % 0.5 0.1 % 9,168 ha 287 %<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 2178 ha 11.9 % 166.2 39.6 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Sand (ha) 2173 ha 8.2 % 114.3 27.2 % 7,977 ha 239 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 733 ha 7.2 % 100.2 23.9 % 3,069 ha 224 %<br />

Sand/Mud (ha) 227 ha 5.4 % 76.2 18.2 % 1,250 ha 246 %<br />

Sand/Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 1278 ha 15.0 % 210.3 50.1 % 2,550 ha 256 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

% % 1,017,511 m<br />

137 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Southwest Washington ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 714 m 0.0 5.6 0.1<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

1 occ 14.3 % 4003.0 50.0 % 2 occ<br />

50 %<br />

Lower Columbia Tributaries -Alluvium/Colluvium Streams, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion,<br />

Low Gradient<br />

Page 93 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Columbia River Estuary<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Columbia River Estuary<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 6 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 1 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 1 %<br />

GAP 4 6 %<br />

Washington/<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 1 %<br />

Area: 19,170 ha Developed 1 %<br />

47,350 ac Undeveloped 15 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

83 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Purple Martin Progne subis G5 1 occ 1.2 % 41.6 11.1 % 9 occ 367 %<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 31 occ 168 %<br />

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia 1 occ 25.0 % 136.9 100.0 % 1 occ 400 %<br />

Double-Crested Cormorant Phalacroscorax auritus 3 occ 6.0 % 27.4 20.0 % 15 occ 200 %<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus 1 occ 0.3 % 1.4 1.1 % 95 occ 163 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 2 occ 0.5 % 2.4 1.7 % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Shorebird Concentr<strong>at</strong>ion Area 3 occ 13.0 % 25.7 18.8 % 16 occ 119 %<br />

Brandt's Cormorant Phalacrocorax penicill<strong>at</strong>us 2 occ 2.0 8.8 6.5<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Mussels and barnacles 3315 m 0.3 % 1.3 1.0 % 337,346 m<br />

132 %<br />

Mammals<br />

Stellar's Sea Lion Eumetopias jub<strong>at</strong>us 1 occ 2.9 % 11.4 8.3 % 12 occ 217 %<br />

Stellar's Sea Lion haulout 1 occ 2.4 % 10.5 7.7 % 13 occ 223 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds Estuary 3624 m 1.0 % 4.4 3.2 % 112,601 m<br />

179 %<br />

Page 94 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Columbia River Estuary<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Sand Dunes Fesrub dune 1 occ 100.0 % 136.9 100.0 % 1 occ 100 %<br />

Dune grass Estuary 4868 m 2.3 % 10.7 7.8 % 62,438 m<br />

224 %<br />

Intertidal Salt Marshes (Salvir Disspi Trimar) Salvir - disspi - trimar - (jaucar) 1 occ 1.5 % 6.2 4.5 % 22 occ 250 %<br />

Lowland Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Wetlands (Mineral Soils Corser Salix) Corser - salix (salhoo - salsit) 1 occ 20.0 % 136.9 100.0 % 1 occ 400 %<br />

Lowland Floodplain-Low Terrace Riparian Forests And Shrublands Popbalt / corser / impcap 1 occ 12.5 % 68.4 50.0 % 2 occ 100 %<br />

Organic: Partly Enclosed, Backshore, Mesohaline (Marsh) Op Low salinity high marsh op 3 occ 27.3 % 102.7 75.0 % 4 occ 225 %<br />

Red Fescue Stabilized Sand Dunes Fesrub dune grassland 1 occ 100.0 % 136.9 100.0 % 1 occ 100 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 691 ha 6.5 % 29.8 21.8 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Sand: Partly Enclosed, Eulittoral, Euhaline (Marsh) Op Sandy, high salinity, low marsh<br />

1 occ 100.0 % 68.4 50.0 % 2 occ<br />

50 %<br />

op<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Boulder (ha) 25 ha 18.4 % 84.3 61.6 % 40 ha 283 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 6 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.1 % 9,168 ha 287 %<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 772 ha 4.2 % 19.2 14.0 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Rock (ha) 68 ha 95.1 % 440.1 321.5 % 21 ha 338 %<br />

Sand (ha) 15988 ha 60.1 % 274.3 200.4 % 7,977 ha 239 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 1628 ha 15.9 % 72.6 53.1 % 3,069 ha 224 %<br />

Sand/Mud (ha) 1514 ha 36.3 % 165.8 121.1 % 1,250 ha 246 %<br />

Sand/Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 2993 ha 35.2 % 160.7 117.4 % 2,550 ha 256 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Rock With Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) 573 m 4.9 % 22.3 16.3 % 3,518 m<br />

186 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Exposed (Embayment) 924 m 0.9 % 4.3 3.1 % 29,625 m<br />

198 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Embayment) 279 m 1.5 % 6.8 5.0 % 5,586 m<br />

244 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Very Exposed (Embayment) 1244 m 31.6 % 144.2 105.4 % 1,181 m<br />

272 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 3 68899 m 20.2 % 1057.2 40.5 % 170,194 m<br />

133 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 77428 m 1.6 % 140.4 5.4 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 75365 m 14.2 % 739.6 28.3 % 266,114 m<br />

86 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Southwest Washington ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 59649 m 1.8 % 153.1 5.9 % 1,017,511 m<br />

137 %<br />

Page 95 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Columbia River Mainstem<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Columbia River Mainstem<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 10 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 3 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 0 %<br />

GAP 2 1 %<br />

GAP 3 2 %<br />

GAP 4 10 %<br />

Washington/<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 2 %<br />

Area: 34,216 ha Developed 1 %<br />

84,514 ac Undeveloped 25 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

71 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni G4 1 occ 1.6 % 29.9 14.3 % 7 occ 586 %<br />

Birds<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 18 occ 1.0 % 4.5 2.1 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Gre<strong>at</strong>-Blue Heron Ardea herodias 1 occ 1.4 % 23.3 11.1 % 9 occ 144 %<br />

Purple Martin Progne subis G5 14 occ 16.9 % 326.0 155.6 % 9 occ 367 %<br />

Streaked Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris strig<strong>at</strong>a 2 occ 15.4 % 46.6 22.2 % 9 occ<br />

67 %<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Hairy-Stemmed Checker-Mallow Sidalcea hirtipes 1 occ 6.7 % 8.4 4.0 % 25 occ<br />

48 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 3 116336 m 34.2 % 1000.1 68.4 % 170,194 m<br />

133 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 68063 m 1.4 % 69.2 4.7 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 75482 m 14.2 % 415.0 28.4 % 266,114 m<br />

86 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Lower Columbia ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 3075 m 0.7 % 20.1 1.4 % 224,010 m<br />

46 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Southwest Washington ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 44787 m 1.3 % 64.4 4.4 % 1,017,511 m<br />

137 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

Page 96 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Columbia River Mainstem<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Lower Columbia Tributary Small Rivers - Volcanics 1 occ 20.0 % 731.5 50.0 % 2 occ 150 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

Columbia Estuary Tributaries - Sedimentary, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e<br />

4 occ 22.2 % 1170.4 80.0 % 5 occ 160 %<br />

Gradient<br />

Lower Columbia Sloughs And Tributaries - Fl<strong>at</strong> Gradient 2 occ 33.3 % 1463.1 100.0 % 2 occ 200 %<br />

Page 97 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Coos Mtn<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Coos Mtn<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 40 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 60 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 2 %<br />

GAP 3 58 %<br />

GAP 4 40 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 13,135 ha Developed 0 %<br />

32,443 ac Undeveloped 100 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

%<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 2888 ha 0.3 % 4.6 0.8 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 9787 ha 0.4 % 6.9 1.3 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest 356 ha 0.2 % 5.1 0.9 % 37,848 ha 140 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Northern Red-Legged Frog Rana aurora aurora T4 1 occ 1.0 % 78.0 14.3 % 7 occ 671 %<br />

Southern Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton varieg<strong>at</strong>us G3 1 occ 2.4 % 42.0 7.7 % 13 occ 192 %<br />

Birds<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 4 occ 0.2 % 2.5 0.5 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 6 occ 0.6 % 6.5 1.2 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Blue-Gray Taildropper Prophysaon coeruleum 5 occ 3.0 % 210.0 38.5 % 13 occ 454 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong> Megomphix (Snail) Megomphix hemphilli 3 occ 2.9 % 126.0 23.1 % 13 occ 323 %<br />

Mammals<br />

American Marten Martes americana G5 2 occ 20.0 % 363.9 66.7 % 3 occ 133 %<br />

Red Tree Vole Arborimus longicaudus G3 3 occ 2.0 % 126.0 23.1 % 13 occ 308 %<br />

T3 1 occ 1.3 % 60.7 11.1 % 9 occ 122 %<br />

Clemmys marmor<strong>at</strong>a<br />

marmor<strong>at</strong>a<br />

Reptiles<br />

<strong>Northwest</strong>ern Pond Turtle<br />

Page 98 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Coos Mtn<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 83963 m 0.9 % 71.2 1.9 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 38949 m 0.9 % 111.7 2.9 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 68742 m 0.8 % 105.4 2.8 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

Inland Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sediment 1 occ 1.7 % 211.9 5.6 % 18 occ 106 %<br />

Page 99 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Coos-Millacoma Rivers<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Coos-Millacoma Rivers<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 63 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 9 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 24 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 0 %<br />

GAP 3 33 %<br />

GAP 4 63 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 4 %<br />

Area: 62,395 ha Developed 1 %<br />

154,115 ac Undeveloped 87 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

5 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 1 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 493 ha 0.1 % 0.3 0.3 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime <strong>Coast</strong>al Sand Dune 57 occ 23.3 % 1091.7 950.0 % 6 occ 3850 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 6964 ha 0.6 % 2.3 2.0 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 45375 ha 1.8 % 6.7 5.8 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest 1 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 37,848 ha 140 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni G4 5 occ 7.8 % 82.1 71.4 % 7 occ 586 %<br />

Southern Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton varieg<strong>at</strong>us G3 10 occ 23.8 % 88.4 76.9 % 13 occ 192 %<br />

Tailed Frog Ascaphus truei 6 occ 11.8 % 98.5 85.7 % 7 occ 343 %<br />

Birds<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 3 occ 0.2 % 0.4 0.4 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 38 occ 2.2 % 5.0 4.3 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 27 occ 2.7 % 6.2 5.4 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

% % 13 occ 454 %<br />

Blue-Gray Taildropper Prophysaon coeruleum 1 occ 0.6 8.8 7.7<br />

T2 33.3 % 38.3 33.3 % 3 occ 100 %<br />

Mammals<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> Fisher Martes pennanti pacifica 1 occ<br />

Page 100 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Coos-Millacoma Rivers<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

T3 4 occ 5.1 % 51.1 44.4 % 9 occ 122 %<br />

Clemmys marmor<strong>at</strong>a<br />

marmor<strong>at</strong>a<br />

Reptiles<br />

<strong>Northwest</strong>ern Pond Turtle<br />

7 occ 35.0 % 32.2 28.0 % 25 occ<br />

60 %<br />

Cordylanthus maritimus ssp<br />

palustris<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Salt-Marsh Bird's-Beak<br />

Western Lily Lilium occidentale 1 occ 5.6 % 4.6 4.0 % 25 occ<br />

72 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Lowland Coniferous Forested Wetlands (Pinconc / Carobn) 1 occ 25.0 % 38.3 33.3 % 3 occ 100 %<br />

Mineral Spring 3 occ 4.9 % 17.2 15.0 % 20 occ 150 %<br />

Sphagnum Bogs and Poor Fens (Ledgla / Darcal / Sphagn)Ledgla / darcal / sphagn 1 occ 11.1 % 38.3 33.3 % 3 occ 233 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 372536 m 4.1 % 66.5 8.3 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 226879 m 5.1 % 136.9 17.1 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 375215 m 4.5 % 121.1 15.1 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Range small rivers - sedimentary, low to mid elev<strong>at</strong>ion 1 occ 4.5 % 114.7 14.3 % 7 occ 129 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sediment 3 occ 25.0 % 602.2 75.0 % 4 occ 200 %<br />

Page 101 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Copalis River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Copalis River<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 76 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 5 %<br />

Local: 19 %<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 1 %<br />

GAP 3 23 %<br />

GAP 4 76 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 12,155 ha Developed 2 %<br />

30,023 ac Undeveloped 95 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 1 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 2620 ha 0.4 % 7.9 1.3 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 4097 ha 0.4 % 7.0 1.2 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 4571 ha 0.2 % 3.5 0.6 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Marine<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Dune grass Estuary 7676 m 3.7 % 26.5 12.3 % 62,438 m<br />

224 %<br />

Dune grass Shore 3195 m 0.5 % 3.9 1.8 % 176,736 m<br />

109 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 40 ha 0.4 % 2.7 1.3 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 3786 m 0.3 % 1.8 0.9 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 8 ha 0.9 % 6.5 3.0 % 279 ha 116 %<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 65 ha 0.4 % 2.6 1.2 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Organics/fines Very Protected (Embayment) 3786 m 3.8 % 27.2 12.6 % 30,025 m<br />

194 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Embayment) 3890 m 20.9 % 150.3 69.6 % 5,586 m<br />

244 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 3195 m 3.2 % 23.1 10.7 % 29,817 m<br />

64 %<br />

Page 102 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Copalis River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 8611 m 0.2 % 24.6 0.6 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Tributaries - Outwash, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradients 2 occ 6.1 % 823.4 20.0 % 10 occ 120 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Upland - Glacial Till, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Low To Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient 1 occ 2.4 % 343.1 8.3 % 12 occ 133 %<br />

Copalis River (TNC)<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO 100 %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

Agriculture % GAP 1 100 %<br />

Developed % GAP 2 %<br />

Undeveloped 85 % GAP 3 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

% GAP 4 %<br />

112 ha<br />

276 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 91 ha 0.0 % 29.9 0.0 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 1 ha 0.0 % 0.2 0.0 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 19 ha 0.0 % 1.5 0.0 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Page 103 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Copalis Rock NWR<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Copalis Rock NWR<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 100 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 100 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 93 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

7 %<br />

12 ha<br />

30 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Common Murre 3 occ 3.0 % 21858.5 10.0 % 30 occ 187 %<br />

Double-Crested Cormorant Phalacroscorax auritus 2 occ 4.0 % 29144.7 13.3 % 15 occ 200 %<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus 1 occ 0.3 % 2300.9 1.1 % 95 occ 163 %<br />

Tufted Puffin Fr<strong>at</strong>ercula cirrh<strong>at</strong>a 1 occ 1.1 % 7286.2 3.3 % 30 occ 190 %<br />

Fishes<br />

Smelt spawn 226 m 0.5 % 3883.7 1.8 % 12,705 m<br />

140 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Mussels and barnacles 4125 m 0.4 % 2672.6 1.2 % 337,346 m<br />

132 %<br />

Mammals<br />

Stellar's Sea Lion Eumetopias jub<strong>at</strong>us 4 occ 11.8 % 72861.7 33.3 % 12 occ 217 %<br />

Stellar's Sea Lion haulout 4 occ 9.8 % 67257.0 30.8 % 13 occ 223 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds Shore 4125 m 0.1 % 960.1 0.4 % 939,089 m<br />

119 %<br />

Dune grass Shore 547 m 0.1 % 676.3 0.3 % 176,736 m<br />

109 %<br />

Saltmarsh Shore 547 m 0.1 % 728.2 0.3 % 164,143 m<br />

118 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Shoreline<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1954 m 1.1 % 7865.5 3.6 % 54,295 m<br />

137 %<br />

Page 104 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Copalis Rock NWR<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Rocky/Cliff Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2171 m 0.7 % 4913.5 2.2 % 96,577 m<br />

110 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 843 m 0.8 % 5740.4 2.6 % 32,087 m<br />

121 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 547 m 0.6 % 4008.7 1.8 % 29,817 m<br />

64 %<br />

Cougar Creek ACEC<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 100 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 100 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 96 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

4 %<br />

117 ha<br />

288 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 52 ha 0.0 % 9.3 0.0 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 64 ha 0.0 % 5.1 0.0 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Page 105 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cowichan River (Freshw<strong>at</strong>er)<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Cowichan River (Freshw<strong>at</strong>er)<br />

Indigenous: 0 %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 0 %<br />

NGO 0 %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 0 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: 0 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: 0 %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 0 %<br />

Local: 0 %<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 0 %<br />

GAP 2 0 %<br />

GAP 3 0 %<br />

GAP 4 0 %<br />

British Columbia<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Site (cl Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 1,778 ha Developed 0 %<br />

4,392 ac Undeveloped 0 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

Unclassified Class 2 Freshw<strong>at</strong>er System 1 occ 50.0 % 28132.8 100.0 % 1 occ 200 %<br />

Page 106 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cummins-Rock Creek<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Cummins-Rock Creek<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 5 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 91 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 4 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 31 %<br />

GAP 2 4 %<br />

GAP 3 60 %<br />

GAP 4 5 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Area: 22,034 ha Developed 0 %<br />

54,424 ac Undeveloped 99 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

1 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 6292 ha 1.0 % 10.5 3.2 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 4413 ha 0.4 % 4.2 1.3 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 11263 ha 0.4 % 4.7 1.5 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Northern Red-Legged Frog Rana aurora aurora T4 5 occ 5.2 % 232.4 71.4 % 7 occ 671 %<br />

Tailed Frog Ascaphus truei 1 occ 2.0 % 46.5 14.3 % 7 occ 343 %<br />

Birds<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1 occ 0.1 % 0.4 0.1 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 50 occ 2.8 % 18.5 5.7 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 8 occ 0.8 % 5.2 1.6 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Insular Blue Butterfly Plebejus saepiolus littoralis T2 1 occ 100.0 % 46.5 14.3 % 7 occ<br />

14 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong> Silverspot Butterfly Speyeria zerene hippolyta T1 2 occ 25.0 % 26.0 8.0 % 25 occ<br />

28 %<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 108 occ 159 %<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani 8 occ 2.2 8.8 7.4<br />

Page 107 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Cummins-Rock Creek<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Brandt's Cormorant Phalacrocorax penicill<strong>at</strong>us 4 occ 4.0 % 15.4 12.9 % 31 occ 168 %<br />

Double-Crested Cormorant Phalacroscorax auritus 3 occ 6.0 % 23.8 20.0 % 15 occ 200 %<br />

Leach's Storm-Petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa 1 occ 2.8 % 10.8 9.1 % 11 occ 200 %<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus 4 occ 1.3 % 5.0 4.2 % 95 occ 163 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 7 occ 1.8 % 7.2 6.0 % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Tufted Puffin Fr<strong>at</strong>ercula cirrh<strong>at</strong>a 4 occ 4.3 % 15.9 13.3 % 30 occ 190 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Shoreline<br />

% % 14,577 m<br />

89 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1752 m 1.4 % 5.5 4.6 % 37,705 m<br />

65 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 843 m 4.6 % 18.3 15.4 % 5,487 m<br />

160 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2883 m 12.7 % 50.4 42.3 % 6,812 m<br />

102 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 320 m 0.0 % 0.2 0.2 % 193,399 m<br />

88 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1713 m 16.0 % 63.4 53.2 % 3,219 m<br />

124 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 339 m 3.1 % 12.5 10.5 % 3,231 m<br />

195 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 75 m 0.0 % 0.1 0.1 % 116,959 m<br />

119 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1023 m 1.3 % 5.1 4.2 % 24,105 m<br />

129 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 223 m 0.2 % 0.8 0.7 % 33,330 m<br />

119 %<br />

Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 307 m 0.6 2.5 2.1<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 102632 m 1.1 % 51.9 2.3 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 24157 m 0.5 % 41.3 1.8 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 106938 m 1.3 % 97.8 4.3 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Volcanic 1 occ 25.0 % 2273.7 100.0 % 1 occ 100 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Ocean Tributaries - Volcanic 2 occ 33.3 % 2273.7 100.0 % 2 occ 250 %<br />

Page 108 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Deep Creek - West Twin River (Marine)<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Deep Creek - West Twin River (Marine)<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Washington<br />

Marine Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 1,200 ha Developed 0 %<br />

2,964 ac Undeveloped 0 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er 100 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Smelt spawn 1608 m 3.8 % 276.7 12.7 % 12,705 m<br />

140 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds Shore 6017 m 0.2 % 14.0 0.6 % 939,089 m<br />

119 %<br />

Dune grass Shore 881 m 0.1 % 10.9 0.5 % 176,736 m<br />

109 %<br />

Eelgrass Shore 4410 m 0.7 % 51.5 2.4 % 187,323 m<br />

146 %<br />

Kelp high persistence (WA) 86 ha 7.7 % 558.5 25.5 % 336 ha 168 %<br />

Kelp low persistence (WA) 133 ha 5.8 % 420.1 19.2 % 692 ha 162 %<br />

Kelp medium persistence (WA) 103 ha 9.6 % 701.9 32.1 % 320 ha 169 %<br />

Kelp Shore 7075 m 0.5 % 34.7 1.6 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Surfgrass Shore 6194 m 0.5 % 37.3 1.7 % 363,205 m<br />

131 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Shoreline<br />

Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 881 m 15.1 % 1103.3 50.5 % 1,746 m<br />

128 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1784 m 1.0 % 71.9 3.3 % 54,295 m<br />

137 %<br />

Page 109 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Devils Punch Bowl St<strong>at</strong>e N<strong>at</strong>ural Area<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Devils Punch Bowl St<strong>at</strong>e N<strong>at</strong>ural Area<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 100 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 100 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 92 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

8 %<br />

24 ha<br />

59 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 21 ha 0.0 % 31.8 0.0 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

Page 110 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Doty Hills<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Doty Hills<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 69 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 31 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 31 %<br />

GAP 4 69 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 4 %<br />

Area: 25,439 ha Developed 1 %<br />

62,835 ac Undeveloped 94 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 12417 ha 1.1 % 10.1 3.6 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 11623 ha 0.4 % 4.2 1.5 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 3 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Columbia Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton kezeri 2 occ 2.4 % 22.5 8.0 % 25 occ 188 %<br />

Birds<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 2 occ 0.2 % 1.1 0.4 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 80296 m 1.7 % 109.7 5.6 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 23239 m 0.7 % 48.5 2.5 % 943,067 m<br />

129 %<br />

Spring Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 43356 m 4.2 % 272.8 13.9 % 312,652 m<br />

187 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Southwest Washington ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 98684 m 2.9 % 190.8 9.7 % 1,017,511 m<br />

137 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

Willapa Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ions, High Gradients 2 occ 6.7 % 437.1 22.2 % 9 occ 133 %<br />

Page 111 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Doty Hills<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

2 occ 5.3 % 357.6 18.2 % 11 occ 100 %<br />

Willapa Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sandstones, Low To Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e/Low<br />

Gradient<br />

Page 112 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Duckabush River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Duckabush River<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 50 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 41 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 8 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 50 %<br />

GAP 4 50 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 5,100 ha Developed 2 %<br />

12,597 ac Undeveloped 95 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

1 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 256 ha 0.8 % 109.8 7.8 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 1 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 4242 ha 0.4 % 17.3 1.2 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 394 ha 0.0 % 0.7 0.1 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 35 ha 0.0 % 0.2 0.0 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 1 occ 0.1 % 2.8 0.2 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 3 occ 0.2 5.0 0.4<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, Hood Canal Summer Run ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop ? 4319 m 2.8 % 549.2 5.6 % 77,120 m<br />

15 %<br />

Chum Salmon, Puget Sound/Strait ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop ? 4319 m 1.9 % 620.2 6.3 % 68,298 m<br />

18 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Puget Sound ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop ? 25763 m 3.8 % 1258.1 12.8 % 200,804 m<br />

39 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Puget Sound ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 6441 m 3.2 % 631.9 6.4 % 99,955 m<br />

38 %<br />

Pink Salmon, Odd-year ESU Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 6108 m 5.0 % 1643.3 16.8 % 36,446 m<br />

114 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Puget Sound ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 19140 m 4.4 % 1439.1 14.7 % 130,417 m<br />

59 %<br />

Page 113 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Duckabush River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

2 occ 4.9 % 1634.3 16.7 % 12 occ 125 %<br />

Puget lowland headw<strong>at</strong>ers west - glacial drift, low elev<strong>at</strong>ion, low to<br />

moder<strong>at</strong>e gradient<br />

Dungeness River (Freshw<strong>at</strong>er)<br />

Indigenous: 0 %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 0 %<br />

NGO 0 %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 0 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: 0 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: 0 %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 0 %<br />

Local: 0 %<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 0 %<br />

GAP 2 0 %<br />

GAP 3 0 %<br />

GAP 4 0 %<br />

Washington<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Site (cl Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 2,377 ha Developed 0 %<br />

5,871 ac Undeveloped 0 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

Northern Olympics rivers - sandstone, mid to low elev<strong>at</strong>ion, mixed gradient 1 occ 20.0 % 0519.6 50.0 % 2 occ 150 %<br />

Page 114 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

East Fork Hoquiam River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

East Fork Hoquiam River<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 78 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 5 %<br />

Local: 17 %<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 22 %<br />

GAP 4 78 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Area: 5,880 ha Developed 1 %<br />

14,525 ac Undeveloped 98 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

1 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 2 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 608 ha 0.1 % 3.8 0.3 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 2466 ha 0.2 % 8.7 0.7 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 2839 ha 0.1 % 4.5 0.4 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 17042 m 0.7 % 200.8 2.4 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 27459 m 0.6 % 162.3 1.9 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 25385 m 0.8 % 229.1 2.7 % 943,067 m<br />

129 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Southwest Washington ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 26963 m 0.8 % 225.5 2.6 % 1,017,511 m<br />

137 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Tributaries - Outwash, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradients 4 occ 12.1 % 3403.8 40.0 % 10 occ 120 %<br />

Page 115 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

East Fork Humptulips River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

East Fork Humptulips River<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 99 %<br />

GAP 4 1 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 1 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 99 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 100 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

11,285 ha<br />

27,874 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 130 ha 0.4 % 25.3 4.0 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 1 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 498 ha 0.1 % 1.6 0.3 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 1202 ha 0.1 % 2.2 0.3 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 5081 ha 0.2 % 4.2 0.7 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest 247 ha 0.1 % 2.1 0.3 % 76,367 ha 375 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 4099 ha 0.3 % 8.0 1.3 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus 1 occ 1.8 % 127.1 20.0 % 5 occ 580 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 5 occ 0.3 % 3.6 0.6 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 6 occ 0.6 % 7.6 1.2 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Burrington Jumping-Slug Hemphillia burringtoni 2 occ 4.8 % 97.8 15.4 % 13 occ 115 %<br />

Warty Jumping-Slug<br />

Hemphillia glandulosa<br />

1 occ 1.4 % 48.9 7.7 % 13 occ 200 %<br />

glandulosa<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Page 116 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

East Fork Humptulips River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 920 m 0.0 % 5.6 0.1 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 20367 m 0.4 % 62.7 1.4 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 3820 m 0.1 % 18.0 0.4 % 943,067 m<br />

129 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Southwest Washington ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 41353 m 1.2 % 180.2 4.1 % 1,017,511 m<br />

137 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

Willapa Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ions, High Gradients 2 occ 6.7 % 985.4 22.2 % 9 occ 133 %<br />

Page 117 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Elk Creek (Umpqua)<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Elk Creek (Umpqua)<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 52 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 1 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 52 %<br />

GAP 4 48 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 48 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 100 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

11,192 ha<br />

27,645 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

Mediterranean California Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest And Woodland 423 ha 12.1 % 778.0 121.4 % 348 ha 500 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 4233 ha 0.4 % 7.8 1.2 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 5706 ha 0.2 % 4.7 0.7 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Clouded Salamander Aneides ferreus G3 1 occ 6.3 % 91.5 14.3 % 7 occ<br />

86 %<br />

Birds<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 12 occ 1.2 % 15.3 2.4 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 50577 m 0.6 % 50.4 1.1 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 16527 m 0.4 % 55.6 1.2 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 59588 m 0.7 % 107.3 2.4 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Range small rivers - sedimentary, low to mid elev<strong>at</strong>ion 1 occ 14.3 % 2238.6 50.0 % 2 occ<br />

50 %<br />

Page 118 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Ellsworth Creek<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Ellsworth Creek<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 48 %<br />

NGO 23 %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 22 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 6 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 23 %<br />

GAP 2 24 %<br />

GAP 3 4 %<br />

GAP 4 48 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 2 %<br />

Area: 13,829 ha Developed 1 %<br />

34,157 ac Undeveloped 86 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

10 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 40 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 4127 ha 0.6 % 11.0 2.1 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 2154 ha 0.2 % 3.2 0.6 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 4724 ha 0.2 % 3.2 0.6 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 87 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Columbia Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton kezeri 2 occ 2.4 % 41.5 8.0 % 25 occ 188 %<br />

Cope's Giant Salamander Dicamptodon copei 1 occ 1.1 % 39.9 7.7 % 13 occ 415 %<br />

Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni G4 2 occ 3.1 % 148.1 28.6 % 7 occ 586 %<br />

Tailed Frog Ascaphus truei 1 occ 2.0 % 74.1 14.3 % 7 occ 343 %<br />

Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei G3 5 occ 11.4 % 129.6 25.0 % 20 occ 175 %<br />

Birds<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1 occ 0.1 % 0.6 0.1 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 30 occ 1.7 % 17.7 3.4 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 1 occ 0.1 % 1.0 0.2 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Burrington Jumping-Slug Hemphillia burringtoni 2 occ 4.8 % 79.8 15.4 % 13 occ 115 %<br />

Page 119 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Ellsworth Creek<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 9164 m 0.4 % 45.9 1.3 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 22340 m 0.9 % 112.0 3.1 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 31423 m 0.7 % 79.0 2.2 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 11102 m 0.2 % 27.9 0.8 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 19104 m 0.6 % 73.3 2.0 % 943,067 m<br />

129 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Southwest Washington ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 29706 m 0.9 % 105.7 2.9 % 1,017,511 m<br />

137 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Upland - Sandstones, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient 2 occ 5.0 % 603.1 16.7 % 12 occ 133 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Upland - Sandstones, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient 1 occ 2.5 % 301.7 8.3 % 12 occ 133 %<br />

Page 120 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Elochoman River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Elochoman River<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 61 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 39 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 39 %<br />

GAP 4 61 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 5 %<br />

Area: 19,502 ha Developed 1 %<br />

48,170 ac Undeveloped 94 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 34 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 8819 ha 0.8 % 9.4 2.6 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 10135 ha 0.4 % 4.8 1.3 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Columbia Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton kezeri 3 occ 3.7 % 44.1 12.0 % 25 occ 188 %<br />

Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni G4 4 occ 6.3 % 210.1 57.1 % 7 occ 586 %<br />

Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei G3 1 occ 2.3 % 18.4 5.0 % 20 occ 175 %<br />

Birds<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1 occ 0.1 % 0.4 0.1 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 2 occ 0.1 % 0.8 0.2 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 1 occ 0.1 % 0.7 0.2 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Valley Silverspot Butterfly Speyeria zerene bremnerii 1 occ 8.3 % 28.3 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

85 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 3 5882 m 1.7 % 88.7 3.5 % 170,194 m<br />

133 %<br />

Page 121 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Elochoman River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 20363 m 0.4 % 36.3 1.4 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 23930 m 4.5 % 230.8 9.0 % 266,114 m<br />

86 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Southwest Washington ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 56452 m 1.7 % 142.4 5.5 % 1,017,511 m<br />

137 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

Lower Columbia Tributary Small Rivers - Volcanics 1 occ 20.0 % 1283.5 50.0 % 2 occ 150 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

Columbia Estuary Tributaries - Sedimentary, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e<br />

1 occ 5.6 % 513.4 20.0 % 5 occ 160 %<br />

Gradient<br />

Lower Columbia Sloughs And Tributaries - Fl<strong>at</strong> Gradient 1 occ 16.7 % 1283.5 50.0 % 2 occ 200 %<br />

Lower Columbia Tributaries - Volcanics, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient 2 occ 8.0 % 641.7 25.0 % 8 occ<br />

88 %<br />

Lower Columbia Tributaries- Sedimentary, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e<br />

1 occ 6.3 % 513.4 20.0 % 5 occ 100 %<br />

Gradient<br />

Page 122 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Fanno Meadows (Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Easement)<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Fanno Meadows (Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Easement)<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 100 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 100 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 100 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

%<br />

241 ha<br />

596 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 25 ha 0.0 % 2.1 0.0 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 147 ha 0.0 % 5.6 0.0 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 16 ha 0.0 % 1.4 0.0 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Bog Anemone Anemone oregana var felix T2 3 occ 60.0 % 3565.6 12.0 % 25 occ<br />

20 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Range Fawn-Lily Erythronium elegans 1 occ 11.1 % 1188.5 4.0 % 25 occ<br />

36 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Sphagnum Bogs and Poor Fens (Vaccae / Sanoff) Vaccae / sanoff 1 occ 100.0 % 9904.4 33.3 % 3 occ<br />

33 %<br />

Sphagnum Bogs And Poor Fens (Xerten- Sanoff - Sphagn) Xerten- sanoff - sphagn 2 occ 100.0 % 9808.9 66.7 % 3 occ<br />

67 %<br />

Page 123 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Fl<strong>at</strong>tery Rocks NWR<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Fl<strong>at</strong>tery Rocks NWR<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 100 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 100 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 99 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

1 %<br />

446 ha<br />

1,102 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani 6 occ 1.7 % 326.9 5.6 % 108 occ 159 %<br />

Cassin's Auklet Ptychoramphus aleuticus 2 occ 11.1 % 1961.1 33.3 % 6 occ 150 %<br />

Common Murre 2 occ 2.0 % 392.2 6.7 % 30 occ 187 %<br />

Double-Crested Cormorant Phalacroscorax auritus 1 occ 2.0 % 392.2 6.7 % 15 occ 200 %<br />

Fork-Tailed Storm Petral 3 occ 21.4 % 4412.6 75.0 % 4 occ 175 %<br />

Leach's Storm-Petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa 1 occ 2.8 % 534.9 9.1 % 11 occ 200 %<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus 6 occ 1.9 % 371.6 6.3 % 95 occ 163 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 4 occ 1.0 % 202.9 3.4 % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Rhinoceros Auklet Cerorhinca monocer<strong>at</strong>a 2 occ 12.5 % 2353.4 40.0 % 5 occ 180 %<br />

Tufted Puffin Fr<strong>at</strong>ercula cirrh<strong>at</strong>a 5 occ 5.3 % 980.6 16.7 % 30 occ 190 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Mussels and barnacles 23668 m 2.1 % 412.8 7.0 % 337,346 m<br />

132 %<br />

Mammals<br />

Stellar's Sea Lion Eumetopias jub<strong>at</strong>us 4 occ 11.8 % 1961.1 33.3 % 12 occ 217 %<br />

Stellar's Sea Lion haulout 4 occ 9.8 % 1810.3 30.8 % 13 occ 223 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds Shore 17105 m 0.5 % 107.2 1.8 % 939,089 m<br />

119 %<br />

Dune grass Shore 197 m 0.0 % 6.6 0.1 % 176,736 m<br />

109 %<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites<br />

Page 124 of 328

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Fl<strong>at</strong>tery Rocks NWR<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Kelp high persistence (WA) 114 ha 10.2 % 1998.4 34.0 % 336 ha 168 %<br />

Kelp low persistence (WA) 171 ha 7.4 % 1452.0 24.7 % 692 ha 162 %<br />

Kelp medium persistence (WA) 84 ha 7.9 % 1548.1 26.3 % 320 ha 169 %<br />

Kelp Shore 5003 m 0.3 % 66.0 1.1 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Surfgrass Shore 11724 m 1.0 % 189.9 3.2 % 363,205 m<br />

131 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Shoreline<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 7465 m 2.3 % 453.1 7.7 % 96,940 m<br />

112 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 3809 m 1.8 % 345.5 5.9 % 64,871 m<br />

114 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 8481 m 2.6 % 516.6 8.8 % 96,577 m<br />

110 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 197 m 0.3 % 56.9 1.0 % 20,374 m<br />

125 %<br />

Flynn Creek RNA<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 100 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 100 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 100 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

%<br />

257 ha<br />

634 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 8 ha 0.0 % 0.7 0.0 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 248 ha 0.0 % 8.9 0.0 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 1859 m 0.0 % 80.7 0.0 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 1959 m 0.0 % 153.7 0.1 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Page 125 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Fogarty Creek St<strong>at</strong>e Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Area<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Fogarty Creek St<strong>at</strong>e Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Area<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 100 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 100 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 2 %<br />

Area: 69 ha Developed 12 %<br />

170 ac Undeveloped 81 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

3 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 47 ha 0.0 % 25.3 0.0 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 1 ha 0.0 % 0.2 0.0 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 2 ha 0.0 % 0.3 0.0 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 1346 m 0.0 % 217.6 0.0 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 1346 m 0.0 % 393.3 0.1 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Page 126 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Forest Park<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Forest Park<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local: 100 %<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 100 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 1,443 ha Developed 1 %<br />

3,565 ac Undeveloped 98 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 491 ha 0.0 % 7.1 0.1 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 918 ha 0.0 % 5.9 0.1 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Species<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Puget <strong>Oregon</strong>ian Cryptomastix devia 1 occ 25.0 % 382.1 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

8 %<br />

Page 127 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Gold River-Nootka<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Gold River-Nootka<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 2 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: 98 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 7 %<br />

GAP 3 91 %<br />

GAP 4 2 %<br />

British Columbia<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Area: 156,675 ha Developed 0 %<br />

386,987 ac Undeveloped 97 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

2 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

Boreal Wet Meadow 34 occ 9.1 % 129.7 283.3 % 12 occ 1833 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Avalanche Chute And Talus Shrubland 37 occ 9.7 % 188.1 411.1 % 9 occ 2956 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Deciduous Swamp 56 ha 3.4 % 7.7 16.9 % 332 ha 230 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 511 ha 1.6 % 7.1 15.6 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry Douglas-Fir And Madrone Forest And Woodland 20 ha 14.3 % 31.1 68.0 % 29 ha 407 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 23807 ha 4.4 % 6.7 14.7 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 357 ha 0.1 % 0.1 0.2 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Lowland Riparian Forest And Shrubland 8 occ 4.7 % 40.7 88.9 % 9 occ 1067 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 20535 ha 0.8 % 1.2 2.6 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest 26276 ha 6.9 % 15.7 34.4 % 76,367 ha 375 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 65438 ha 4.0 % 9.2 20.2 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Yellow Cedar Forest 728 ha 1.9 % 4.4 9.6 % 7,569 ha 262 %<br />

Temper<strong>at</strong>e <strong>Pacific</strong> Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Emergent Marsh 3 occ 3.8 % 11.4 25.0 % 12 occ 267 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP1) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 18939 ha 6.4 % 5.9 12.8 % 147,425 ha 110 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP2) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 33318 ha 5.5 % 5.0 11.0 % 302,959 ha 108 %<br />

Northern Pygmy-Owl, Swarthi Subspecies Glaucidium gnoma swarthi G5 6 occ 37.5 % 15.3 33.3 % 18 occ<br />

89 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 31 occ 1.6 1.7 3.7<br />

Page 128 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Gold River-Nootka<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

White-Tailed Ptarmigan Lagopus leucurus 1 occ 2.8 % 1.7 3.7 % 27 occ 100 %<br />

G2 50.0 % 5.1 11.1 % 9 occ<br />

11 %<br />

Mammals<br />

Keen's Myotis Myotis keenii 1 occ<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Salish Daisy Erigeron salishii 1 occ 25.0 % 1.8 4.0 % 25 occ<br />

16 %<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

% % 84,336 m<br />

169 %<br />

Herring Spawning Low Cover 82512 m 11.0 % 6.1 36.6 % 225,517 m<br />

146 %<br />

Herring Spawning High Cover 33194 m 11.8 6.6 39.4<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Mussels and barnacles 48877 m 4.3 % 2.4 14.5 % 337,346 m<br />

132 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds Estuary 8868 m 2.4 % 1.3 7.9 % 112,601 m<br />

179 %<br />

Algal Beds Shore 213599 m 6.8 % 3.8 22.7 % 939,089 m<br />

119 %<br />

Dune grass Shore 21008 m 3.6 % 2.0 11.9 % 176,736 m<br />

109 %<br />

Eelgrass (Ha) 22 ha 1.5 % 0.8 5.1 % 443 ha 120 %<br />

Eelgrass Estuary 8868 m 1.6 % 0.9 5.2 % 169,841 m<br />

224 %<br />

Eelgrass Shore 72351 m 11.6 % 6.5 38.6 % 187,323 m<br />

146 %<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) 43 ha 0.2 % 0.1 0.7 % 5,844 ha 105 %<br />

Kelp Shore 41604 m 2.8 % 1.6 9.3 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 8846 m 0.6 % 0.3 2.0 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Saltmarsh Shore 38320 m 7.0 % 3.9 23.3 % 164,143 m<br />

118 %<br />

Surfgrass Shore 65684 m 5.4 % 3.0 18.1 % 363,205 m<br />

131 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Shoreline<br />

Channel Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 278 m 2.1 % 1.2 7.1 % 3,901 m<br />

74 %<br />

Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 283 m 10.8 % 6.0 35.9 % 788 m<br />

90 %<br />

Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) 15273 m 14.1 % 7.9 47.0 % 32,500 m<br />

106 %<br />

Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1841 m 7.1 % 4.0 23.6 % 7,802 m<br />

72 %<br />

High Tide Lagoon protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1013 m 12.8 % 7.1 42.6 % 2,375 m<br />

227 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1793 m 16.4 % 9.2 54.7 % 3,276 m<br />

118 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) 8846 m 1.1 % 0.6 3.7 % 239,478 m<br />

223 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 16316 m 13.3 % 7.4 44.2 % 36,906 m<br />

137 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 7458 m 2.3 % 1.3 7.7 % 96,940 m<br />

112 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1508 m 8.2 % 4.6 27.5 % 5,487 m<br />

160 %<br />

Page 129 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Gold River-Nootka<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 7084 m 3.3 % 1.8 10.9 % 64,871 m<br />

114 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 47740 m 7.4 % 4.1 24.7 % 193,399 m<br />

88 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 8026 m 4.4 % 2.5 14.8 % 54,295 m<br />

137 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 5037 m 8.1 % 4.5 26.9 % 18,758 m<br />

216 %<br />

Rocky intertidal habit<strong>at</strong> (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 51681 m 5.3 % 2.9 17.5 % 294,655 m<br />

123 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 25677 m 8.0 % 4.5 26.6 % 96,577 m<br />

110 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 52122 m 6.9 % 3.9 23.0 % 226,193 m<br />

102 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1296 m 5.9 % 3.3 19.6 % 6,602 m<br />

153 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 10053 m 5.2 % 2.9 17.3 % 58,215 m<br />

98 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 5751 m 2.8 % 1.6 9.3 % 61,723 m<br />

94 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2202 m 2.1 % 1.1 6.9 % 32,087 m<br />

121 %<br />

Sand Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1614 m 4.1 % 2.3 13.8 % 11,673 m<br />

104 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 4498 m 5.1 % 2.9 17.1 % 26,382 m<br />

139 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chinook Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 39104 m 6.3 % 67.5 21.2 % 184,827 m<br />

154 %<br />

Chinook Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 61897 m 6.7 % 71.4 22.4 % 276,806 m<br />

176 %<br />

Chum Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus keta 60350 m 6.6 % 70.5 22.1 % 273,258 m<br />

144 %<br />

Coho Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus kisutch 71963 m 3.9 % 41.6 13.0 % 551,718 m<br />

122 %<br />

Coho Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus kisutch 128043 m 5.7 % 60.7 19.0 % 673,874 m<br />

155 %<br />

Cutthro<strong>at</strong> Trout, East Island Oncorhynchus clarki 1437 m 0.2 % 1.2 0.4 % 377,832 m<br />

69 %<br />

Cutthro<strong>at</strong> Trout, West Island Oncorhynchus clarki 17800 m 2.3 % 14.8 4.6 % 382,902 m<br />

102 %<br />

Dolly Varden, East Island Salvelinus malma G5 1643 m 0.5 % 3.4 1.1 % 153,568 m<br />

123 %<br />

Dolly Varden, West Island Salvelinus malma G5 11578 m 5.6 % 36.0 11.3 % 102,560 m<br />

148 %<br />

Pink Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 45429 m 11.9 % 127.1 39.8 % 114,095 m<br />

160 %<br />

Sockeye Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus nerka 49990 m 17.3 % 183.7 57.5 % 86,896 m<br />

177 %<br />

Sockeye Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus nerka 94458 m 12.9 % 137.0 42.9 % 220,095 m<br />

191 %<br />

Summer Run Steelhead Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus mykiss 29052 m 2.0 % 21.0 6.6 % 441,335 m<br />

133 %<br />

Winter Run Steelhead Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus mykiss 188842 m 9.3 % 99.0 31.0 % 609,198 m<br />

168 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Macrohabit<strong>at</strong>s<br />

307 m 4.4 % 28.0 8.8 % 3,508 m<br />

181 %<br />

7054 m 0.6 % 17.8 5.6 % 126,642 m<br />

294 %<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Page 130 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Gold River-Nootka<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

343 m 0.2 % 2.7 0.9 % 39,958 m<br />

283 %<br />

219103 m 5.8 % 183.7 57.5 % 380,781 m<br />

457 %<br />

11503 m 15.5 % 246.8 77.3 % 14,882 m<br />

233 %<br />

312 m 2.3 % 36.8 11.5 % 2,703 m<br />

330 %<br />

13767 m 4.2 % 67.1 21.0 % 65,517 m<br />

354 %<br />

956 m 46.9 % 299.9 93.9 % 1,018 m<br />

200 %<br />

1264 m 0.5 % 7.6 2.4 % 52,799 m<br />

132 %<br />

36874 m 3.1 % 99.6 31.2 % 118,230 m<br />

459 %<br />

30 m 0.1 % 1.5 0.5 % 6,354 m<br />

258 %<br />

1626 m 10.6 % 169.1 53.0 % 3,069 m<br />

215 %<br />

2692 m 4.1 % 65.3 20.5 % 13,157 m<br />

399 %<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Granitic-Silicic<br />

Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

350 m 9.8 % 62.6 19.6 % 1,785 m<br />

165 %<br />

1317 m 0.2 % 2.5 0.8 % 168,906 m<br />

119 %<br />

119413 m 3.9 % 124.4 39.0 % 306,396 m<br />

448 %<br />

67 m 0.1 % 1.8 0.6 % 12,035 m<br />

267 %<br />

6328 m 41.2 % 657.7 206.0 % 3,072 m<br />

277 %<br />

8853 m 5.1 % 81.8 25.6 % 34,571 m<br />

341 %<br />

65 m 0.7 % 4.4 1.4 % 4,733 m<br />

151 %<br />

3336 m 1.5 % 24.7 7.7 % 43,046 m<br />

162 %<br />

14 m 0.0 % 0.4 0.1 % 11,357 m<br />

211 %<br />

47752 m 3.5 % 111.4 34.9 % 136,816 m<br />

433 %<br />

92 m 0.5 % 8.5 2.7 % 3,481 m<br />

301 %<br />

Page 131 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Gold River-Nootka<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

5958 m 38.6 % 616.8 193.2 % 3,084 m<br />

314 %<br />

7345 m 5.9 % 94.1 29.5 % 24,918 m<br />

385 %<br />

16772 m 12.0 % 191.5 60.0 % 27,967 m<br />

386 %<br />

4530 m 87.7 % 559.7 175.3 % 2,584 m<br />

175 %<br />

36438 m 1.5 % 47.3 14.8 % 245,882 m<br />

329 %<br />

9626 m 2.2 % 35.3 11.1 % 87,042 m<br />

187 %<br />

837468 m 10.2 % 326.8 102.4 % 818,034 m<br />

586 %<br />

10473 m 10.7 % 170.5 53.4 % 19,612 m<br />

257 %<br />

38055 m 25.6 % 409.2 128.2 % 29,693 m<br />

303 %<br />

217247 m 10.9 % 347.1 108.7 % 199,816 m<br />

680 %<br />

5102 m 12.6 % 201.4 63.1 % 8,087 m<br />

339 %<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Alpine Zone On<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Siltstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Siltstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

265 m 19.0 % 121.4 38.0 % 696 m<br />

200 %<br />

42799 m 3.9 % 123.7 38.7 % 110,483 m<br />

407 %<br />

1936 m 27.7 % 177.1 55.5 % 3,490 m<br />

91 %<br />

162 m 14.3 % 91.5 28.7 % 566 m<br />

107 %<br />

2785 m 4.6 % 73.1 22.9 % 12,156 m<br />

396 %<br />

1179 m 100.0 % 637.7 199.8 % 590 m<br />

200 %<br />

643 m 4.7 % 74.3 23.3 % 2,763 m<br />

162 %<br />

18188 m 9.2 % 146.8 46.0 % 39,552 m<br />

297 %<br />

361 m 4.5 % 28.7 9.0 % 4,013 m<br />

197 %<br />

508 m 0.7 % 10.6 3.3 % 15,320 m<br />

145 %<br />

49452 m 5.2 % 55.0 17.2 % 287,102 m<br />

162 %<br />

Page 132 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Gold River-Nootka<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

146 m 4.3 % 27.3 8.5 % 1,710 m<br />

95 %<br />

2566 m 2.0 % 31.7 9.9 % 25,878 m<br />

114 %<br />

2137 m 4.5 % 72.2 22.6 % 9,455 m<br />

116 %<br />

44928 m 4.5 % 72.1 22.6 % 199,007 m<br />

240 %<br />

58698 m 7.2 % 76.1 23.8 % 246,148 m<br />

186 %<br />

3276 m 60.7 % 387.6 121.4 % 2,698 m<br />

200 %<br />

593 m 8.4 % 53.8 16.9 % 3,518 m<br />

185 %<br />

289 m 34.2 % 218.7 68.5 % 422 m<br />

68 %<br />

4140 m 15.4 % 246.2 77.1 % 5,369 m<br />

317 %<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

959 m 0.3 % 5.4 1.7 % 56,327 m<br />

151 %<br />

54253 m 5.6 % 89.7 28.1 % 193,048 m<br />

265 %<br />

2443 m 44.0 % 281.0 88.0 % 2,775 m<br />

138 %<br />

247 m 27.2 % 173.6 54.4 % 454 m<br />

126 %<br />

8940 m 11.6 % 185.7 58.2 % 15,371 m<br />

211 %<br />

4819 m 20.3 % 324.7 101.7 % 4,738 m<br />

239 %<br />

44223 m 6.9 % 109.5 34.3 % 128,956 m<br />

253 %<br />

43809 m 9.2 % 147.6 46.2 % 94,768 m<br />

220 %<br />

Page 133 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Golden Bar ACEC<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Golden Bar ACEC<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 100 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 100 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 93 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

7 %<br />

30 ha<br />

74 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 6 ha 0.0 % 4.1 0.0 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 24 ha 0.0 % 7.4 0.0 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Page 134 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Goodman Creek<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Goodman Creek<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 2 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 52 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 52 %<br />

GAP 4 48 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 47 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 100 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

9,052 ha<br />

22,359 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 5994 ha 0.9 % 24.3 3.1 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 120 ha 0.0 % 0.3 0.0 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 2317 ha 0.1 % 2.4 0.3 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 164 ha 0.0 % 0.4 0.1 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 24 occ 1.4 % 21.6 2.7 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 1 occ 0.1 % 1.6 0.2 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Tributaries - Outwash, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradients 1 occ 3.0 % 552.8 10.0 % 10 occ 120 %<br />

Page 135 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Grays Harbor<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Grays Harbor<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 9 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 2 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 11 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 0 %<br />

GAP 2 12 %<br />

GAP 3 0 %<br />

GAP 4 9 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 1 %<br />

Area: 29,166 ha Developed 0 %<br />

72,040 ac Undeveloped 16 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

82 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 1 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 473 ha 0.1 % 0.6 0.2 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 1379 ha 0.1 % 1.0 0.4 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 1849 ha 0.1 % 0.6 0.2 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland 3 ha 0.2 % 4.0 1.6 % 177 ha<br />

60 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus an<strong>at</strong>um 1 occ 5.6 % 14.5 5.9 % 17 occ<br />

65 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 4 occ 0.2 % 1.2 0.5 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Purple Martin Progne subis G5 1 occ 1.2 % 27.3 11.1 % 9 occ 367 %<br />

Streaked Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris strig<strong>at</strong>a 1 occ 7.7 % 27.3 11.1 % 9 occ<br />

67 %<br />

T5 1 occ 33.3 % 18.9 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

15 %<br />

Lycaena mariposa<br />

charlottensis<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Makah (Queen Charlotte) Copper<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia 1 occ 25.0 % 90.0 100.0 % 1 occ 400 %<br />

Page 136 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Grays Harbor<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Double-Crested Cormorant Phalacroscorax auritus 1 occ 2.0 % 6.0 6.7 % 15 occ 200 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 2 occ 0.5 % 1.6 1.7 % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Shorebird Concentr<strong>at</strong>ion Area 3 occ 13.0 % 16.9 18.8 % 16 occ 119 %<br />

Western Snowy Plover<br />

Charadrius alexandrinus<br />

1 occ 7.1 % 8.2 9.1 % 11 occ 100 %<br />

nivosus<br />

Fishes<br />

Herring Spawning High Cover 46941 m 16.7 % 50.1 55.7 % 84,336 m<br />

169 %<br />

Smelt spawn 898 m 2.1 % 6.4 7.1 % 12,705 m<br />

140 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Mussels and barnacles 2878 m 0.3 % 0.8 0.9 % 337,346 m<br />

132 %<br />

Mammals<br />

Northern Elephant Seal Mirounga angustirostris 4 occ 50.0 % 120.0 133.3 % 3 occ 233 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds (ha) 1 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 3,384 ha 330 %<br />

Algal Beds Estuary 15349 m 4.1 % 12.3 13.6 % 112,601 m<br />

179 %<br />

Dune grass (Ha) 79 ha 13.5 % 40.4 44.9 % 177 ha 333 %<br />

Dune grass Estuary 25917 m 12.5 % 37.3 41.5 % 62,438 m<br />

224 %<br />

Dune grass Shore 6629 m 1.1 % 3.4 3.8 % 176,736 m<br />

109 %<br />

Eelgrass Estuary 11435 m 2.0 % 6.1 6.7 % 169,841 m<br />

224 %<br />

Mixed-Fine And Mud: Partly Enclosed, Eulittoral, MesohalineSilty, low salinity, low marsh op 6 occ 46.2 % 135.0 150.0 % 4 occ 325 %<br />

Organic: Partly Enclosed, Backshore, Mesohaline (Marsh) Op Low salinity high marsh op 4 occ 36.4 % 90.0 100.0 % 4 occ 225 %<br />

Organic: Partly Enclosed, Backshore, Polyhaline (Marsh) OpModer<strong>at</strong>e salinity high marsh<br />

8 occ 66.7 % 239.9 266.7 % 3 occ 400 %<br />

op<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 716 ha 6.8 % 20.3 22.6 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 111177 m 7.5 % 22.6 25.1 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Sand: Partly Enclosed, Eulittoral, Mesohaline (Marsh) Op Sandy, low salinity, low marsh<br />

4 occ 50.0 % 359.9 400.0 % 1 occ 800 %<br />

op<br />

Sand: Partly Enclosed, Eulittoral, Polyhaline (Marsh) Op Sandy, moder<strong>at</strong>e salinity, low<br />

2 occ 100.0 % 179.9 200.0 % 1 occ 200 %<br />

marsh op<br />

Seagrass (ha) 12764 ha 38.8 % 116.4 129.3 % 9,868 ha 294 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 12131 ha 39.7 % 119.0 132.3 % 9,168 ha 287 %<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 716 ha 3.9 % 11.7 13.0 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Rock (ha) 1 ha 1.5 % 4.6 5.1 % 21 ha 338 %<br />

Sand (ha) 6 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.1 % 7,977 ha 239 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 546 ha 5.3 % 16.0 17.8 % 3,069 ha 224 %<br />

Page 137 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Grays Harbor<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Shoreline<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) 5732 m 29.2 % 87.5 97.3 % 5,894 m<br />

224 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> Very Protected (Embayment) 9378 m 100.0 % 299.9 333.4 % 2,813 m<br />

333 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) 85455 m 10.7 % 32.1 35.7 % 239,478 m<br />

223 %<br />

Organics/fines Very Protected (Embayment) 3318 m 3.3 % 9.9 11.1 % 30,025 m<br />

194 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Protected (Embayment) 1241 m 2.4 % 7.1 7.9 % 15,799 m<br />

247 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) 3051 m 8.9 % 26.7 29.7 % 10,283 m<br />

243 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) 4765 m 4.9 % 14.7 16.3 % 29,156 m<br />

255 %<br />

Sand Beach Protected (Embayment) 5539 m 17.8 % 53.4 59.3 % 9,335 m<br />

278 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Embayment) 4387 m 23.6 % 70.7 78.5 % 5,586 m<br />

244 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) 4861 m 8.3 % 25.0 27.7 % 17,529 m<br />

230 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 6629 m 6.7 % 20.0 22.2 % 29,817 m<br />

64 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 24797 m 1.0 % 58.9 3.4 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 27645 m 0.6 % 32.9 1.9 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 7331 m 0.2 % 13.3 0.8 % 943,067 m<br />

129 %<br />

Olympic Mudminnow Novumbra hubbsi G3 5 occ 22.7 % 779.9 45.5 % 11 occ 109 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Southwest Washington ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 1552 m 0.0 % 2.6 0.2 % 1,017,511 m<br />

137 %<br />

Page 138 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Grays River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Grays River<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 24 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 76 %<br />

NGO %<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 1 %<br />

GAP 3 23 %<br />

GAP 4 76 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 97 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

11,077 ha<br />

27,361 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 31 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 360 ha 0.1 % 1.2 0.2 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 3908 ha 0.3 % 7.3 1.1 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 6357 ha 0.2 % 5.3 0.8 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 401 ha 0.0 % 0.8 0.1 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Cope's Giant Salamander Dicamptodon copei 3 occ 3.4 % 149.4 23.1 % 13 occ 415 %<br />

Tailed Frog Ascaphus truei 1 occ 2.0 % 92.5 14.3 % 7 occ 343 %<br />

Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei G3 2 occ 4.5 % 64.7 10.0 % 20 occ 175 %<br />

Birds<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1 occ 0.1 % 0.8 0.1 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 27 occ 1.5 % 19.9 3.1 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Frigid Shootingstar Dodec<strong>at</strong>heon austrofrigidum 1 occ 33.3 % 25.9 4.0 % 25 occ<br />

12 %<br />

Queen-Of-The-Forest Filipendula occidentalis 6 occ 20.7 % 155.4 24.0 % 25 occ 112 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Page 139 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Grays River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 3 7550 m 2.2 % 200.5 4.4 % 170,194 m<br />

133 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 8222 m 0.2 % 25.8 0.6 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 6860 m 1.3 % 116.5 2.6 % 266,114 m<br />

86 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Southwest Washington ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 25998 m 0.8 % 115.5 2.6 % 1,017,511 m<br />

137 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

Lower Columbia Tributary Small Rivers - Volcanics 1 occ 20.0 % 2259.6 50.0 % 2 occ 150 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

Lower Columbia Tributaries - Volcanics, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient 2 occ 8.0 % 1129.8 25.0 % 8 occ<br />

88 %<br />

Page 140 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Hamma Hamma River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Hamma Hamma River<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 19 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 52 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 29 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 81 %<br />

GAP 4 19 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 1 %<br />

Area: 8,894 ha Developed 1 %<br />

21,969 ac Undeveloped 96 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

1 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 346 ha 1.1 % 85.1 10.6 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 1 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 4577 ha 0.4 % 10.7 1.3 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 2717 ha 0.1 % 2.8 0.4 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Montane Riparian Woodland And Shrubland 1 occ 2.3 % 89.6 11.1 % 9 occ 100 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest 106 ha 0.0 % 1.1 0.1 % 76,367 ha 375 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 797 ha 0.0 % 2.0 0.2 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Olympic Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton olympicus 2 occ 2.6 % 64.5 8.0 % 25 occ 256 %<br />

Birds<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 2 occ 0.1 % 1.9 0.2 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus 1 occ 1.8 % 161.2 20.0 % 5 occ 580 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 1 occ 0.1 % 0.9 0.1 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 1 occ 0.1 % 1.6 0.2 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Page 141 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Hamma Hamma River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Chum Salmon, Hood Canal Summer Run ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop ? 5663 m 3.7 % 412.9 7.3 % 77,120 m<br />

15 %<br />

Chum Salmon, Puget Sound/Strait ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop ? 5663 m 2.5 % 466.2 8.3 % 68,298 m<br />

18 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Puget Sound ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop ? 9099 m 1.4 % 254.8 4.5 % 200,804 m<br />

39 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Puget Sound ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 6503 m 3.3 % 365.8 6.5 % 99,955 m<br />

38 %<br />

Pink Salmon, Odd-year ESU Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 5604 m 4.6 % 864.6 15.4 % 36,446 m<br />

114 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Puget Sound ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 6758 m 1.6 % 291.4 5.2 % 130,417 m<br />

59 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

2 occ 6.3 % 1124.5 20.0 % 10 occ 130 %<br />

2 occ 4.9 % 937.1 16.7 % 12 occ 125 %<br />

Olympics Rainshadow <strong>Coast</strong>al Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Mafic, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion,<br />

Moder<strong>at</strong>e To High Gradient<br />

Puget lowland headw<strong>at</strong>ers west - glacial drift, low elev<strong>at</strong>ion, low to<br />

moder<strong>at</strong>e gradient<br />

Page 142 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Hesqui<strong>at</strong><br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Hesqui<strong>at</strong><br />

British Columbia<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 1 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: 99 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 14 %<br />

GAP 3 84 %<br />

GAP 4 1 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 98 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

2 %<br />

57,522 ha<br />

142,079 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

Boreal Wet Meadow 1 occ 0.3 % 10.4 8.3 % 12 occ 1833 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Avalanche Chute And Talus Shrubland 1 occ 0.3 % 13.9 11.1 % 9 occ 2956 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Coniferous Swamp 5 occ 3.4 % 51.9 41.7 % 12 occ 650 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 15 ha 0.0 % 0.6 0.5 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 11314 ha 2.1 % 8.7 7.0 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 538 ha 0.1 % 0.3 0.3 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Lowland Riparian Forest And Shrubland 8 occ 4.7 % 110.8 88.9 % 9 occ 1067 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest 1408 ha 0.4 % 2.3 1.8 % 76,367 ha 375 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 37073 ha 2.3 % 14.3 11.4 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Yellow Cedar Forest 826 ha 2.2 % 13.6 10.9 % 7,569 ha 262 %<br />

Temper<strong>at</strong>e <strong>Pacific</strong> Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Emergent Marsh 2 occ 2.6 % 20.8 16.7 % 12 occ 267 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP1) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 12711 ha 4.3 % 10.7 8.6 % 147,425 ha 110 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP2) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 20524 ha 3.4 % 8.4 6.8 % 302,959 ha 108 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 56 occ 3.0 8.3 6.7<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Dwarf Trillium Trillium ov<strong>at</strong>um var hibbersonii T1 4 occ 100.0 % 19.9 16.0 % 25 occ<br />

16 %<br />

Smooth Douglasia Douglasia laevig<strong>at</strong>a var ciliol<strong>at</strong>a 2 occ 25.0 % 19.2 15.4 % 13 occ<br />

62 %<br />

Page 143 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Hesqui<strong>at</strong><br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Herring Spawning Low Cover 40910 m 5.4 % 8.3 18.1 % 225,517 m<br />

146 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Mussels and barnacles 20037 m 1.8 % 2.7 5.9 % 337,346 m<br />

132 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds Estuary 309 m 0.1 % 0.1 0.3 % 112,601 m<br />

179 %<br />

Algal Beds Shore 72850 m 2.3 % 3.5 7.8 % 939,089 m<br />

119 %<br />

Dune grass Shore 6506 m 1.1 % 1.7 3.7 % 176,736 m<br />

109 %<br />

Eelgrass Shore 14821 m 2.4 % 3.6 7.9 % 187,323 m<br />

146 %<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) 13 ha 0.1 % 0.1 0.2 % 5,844 ha 105 %<br />

Kelp Shore 21701 m 1.5 % 2.2 4.9 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 309 m 0.0 % 0.0 0.1 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Saltmarsh Shore 8574 m 1.6 % 2.4 5.2 % 164,143 m<br />

118 %<br />

Surfgrass Shore 8177 m 0.7 % 1.0 2.3 % 363,205 m<br />

131 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Shoreline<br />

Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) 5586 m 5.2 % 7.8 17.2 % 32,500 m<br />

106 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) 309 m 0.0 % 0.1 0.1 % 239,478 m<br />

223 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 5528 m 4.5 % 6.8 15.0 % 36,906 m<br />

137 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 15761 m 4.9 % 7.4 16.3 % 96,940 m<br />

112 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1258 m 6.9 % 10.5 22.9 % 5,487 m<br />

160 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 7241 m 1.1 % 1.7 3.7 % 193,399 m<br />

88 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1018 m 1.6 % 2.5 5.4 % 18,758 m<br />

216 %<br />

Rocky intertidal habit<strong>at</strong> (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2528 m 0.3 % 0.4 0.9 % 294,655 m<br />

123 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 3635 m 1.1 % 1.7 3.8 % 96,577 m<br />

110 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 43614 m 5.8 % 8.8 19.3 % 226,193 m<br />

102 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 242 m 1.1 % 1.7 3.7 % 6,602 m<br />

153 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 4313 m 2.2 % 3.4 7.4 % 58,215 m<br />

98 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1847 m 0.9 % 1.4 3.0 % 61,723 m<br />

94 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chinook Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 24047 m 2.6 % 75.5 8.7 % 276,806 m<br />

176 %<br />

Page 144 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Hesqui<strong>at</strong><br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Chum Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus keta 33357 m 3.7 % 106.2 12.2 % 273,258 m<br />

144 %<br />

Coho Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus kisutch 67699 m 3.0 % 87.4 10.0 % 673,874 m<br />

155 %<br />

Cutthro<strong>at</strong> Trout, West Island Oncorhynchus clarki 52986 m 6.9 % 120.3 13.8 % 382,902 m<br />

102 %<br />

Dolly Varden, West Island Salvelinus malma G5 4550 m 2.2 % 38.6 4.4 % 102,560 m<br />

148 %<br />

Pink Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 10554 m 2.8 % 80.4 9.3 % 114,095 m<br />

160 %<br />

Sockeye Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus nerka 9906 m 1.4 % 39.1 4.5 % 220,095 m<br />

191 %<br />

Winter Run Steelhead Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus mykiss 57673 m 2.8 % 82.3 9.5 % 609,198 m<br />

168 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Macrohabit<strong>at</strong>s<br />

5197 m 2.6 % 113.1 13.0 % 39,958 m<br />

283 %<br />

120564 m 3.2 % 275.3 31.7 % 380,781 m<br />

457 %<br />

413 m 0.6 % 24.1 2.8 % 14,882 m<br />

233 %<br />

116 m 0.0 % 1.5 0.2 % 65,517 m<br />

354 %<br />

226 m 0.5 % 22.3 2.6 % 8,808 m<br />

264 %<br />

38454 m 3.3 % 282.8 32.5 % 118,230 m<br />

459 %<br />

371 m 17.8 % 309.9 35.6 % 1,042 m<br />

96 %<br />

363 m 0.6 % 24.0 2.8 % 13,157 m<br />

399 %<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

1038 m 0.7 % 31.5 3.6 % 28,683 m<br />

269 %<br />

66450 m 2.2 % 188.6 21.7 % 306,396 m<br />

448 %<br />

228 m 4.4 % 76.8 8.8 % 2,578 m<br />

90 %<br />

548 m 0.3 % 13.8 1.6 % 34,571 m<br />

341 %<br />

139 m 0.2 % 10.6 1.2 % 11,357 m<br />

211 %<br />

32987 m 2.4 % 209.7 24.1 % 136,816 m<br />

433 %<br />

272 m 1.8 % 76.7 8.8 % 3,084 m<br />

314 %<br />

165 m 0.1 % 5.8 0.7 % 24,918 m<br />

385 %<br />

Page 145 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Hesqui<strong>at</strong><br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

22020 m 5.1 % 220.0 25.3 % 87,042 m<br />

187 %<br />

262170 m 3.2 % 278.7 32.0 % 818,034 m<br />

586 %<br />

2769 m 1.9 % 81.1 9.3 % 29,693 m<br />

303 %<br />

1293 m 0.1 % 5.6 0.6 % 199,816 m<br />

680 %<br />

49496 m 4.5 % 389.6 44.8 % 110,483 m<br />

407 %<br />

52 m 0.8 % 13.1 1.5 % 3,490 m<br />

91 %<br />

358 m 0.2 % 7.9 0.9 % 39,552 m<br />

297 %<br />

19690 m 2.1 % 59.6 6.9 % 287,102 m<br />

162 %<br />

16026 m 1.6 % 70.0 8.1 % 199,007 m<br />

240 %<br />

15049 m 1.8 % 53.2 6.1 % 246,148 m<br />

186 %<br />

700 m 2.6 % 113.4 13.0 % 5,369 m<br />

317 %<br />

34258 m 3.5 % 154.3 17.7 % 193,048 m<br />

265 %<br />

52 m 0.0 % 0.5 0.1 % 94,768 m<br />

220 %<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Page 146 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Hoh River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Hoh River<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 1 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 57 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 42 %<br />

NGO %<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 0 %<br />

GAP 3 57 %<br />

GAP 4 42 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 98 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

2 %<br />

23,842 ha<br />

58,890 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 3 ha 0.0 % 0.3 0.1 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 14829 ha 2.3 % 22.8 7.6 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 427 ha 0.0 % 0.4 0.1 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 4482 ha 0.2 % 1.7 0.6 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest 2 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 76,367 ha 375 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 3804 ha 0.2 % 3.5 1.2 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Cope's Giant Salamander Dicamptodon copei 2 occ 2.3 % 46.3 15.4 % 13 occ 415 %<br />

Olympic Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton olympicus 4 occ 5.1 % 48.1 16.0 % 25 occ 256 %<br />

Birds<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 7 occ 0.4 % 2.5 0.8 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus 2 occ 3.6 % 120.3 40.0 % 5 occ 580 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 64 occ 3.6 % 21.9 7.3 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 3 occ 0.3 % 1.8 0.6 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Burrington Jumping-Slug Hemphillia burringtoni 1 occ 2.4 % 23.1 7.7 % 13 occ 115 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Page 147 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Hoh River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 39129 m 1.6 % 113.7 5.4 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Olympic Peninsula ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop ? 117972 m 6.3 % 441.7 21.0 % 560,551 m<br />

109 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 48396 m 1.5 % 107.7 5.1 % 943,067 m<br />

129 %<br />

Olympic Mudminnow Novumbra hubbsi G3 1 occ 4.5 % 190.8 9.1 % 11 occ 109 %<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> Lamprey Lampetra trident<strong>at</strong>a G5 1 occ 3.0 % % occ<br />

%<br />

Spring Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 55023 m 5.3 % 369.4 17.6 % 312,652 m<br />

187 %<br />

Summer Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 36875 m 7.6 % 530.3 25.3 % 145,936 m<br />

144 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Olympic Peninsula ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 84992 m 7.5 % 522.0 24.9 % 341,699 m<br />

123 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Tributaries - Outwash, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradients 1 occ 3.0 % 209.9 10.0 % 10 occ 120 %<br />

Olympics Small Rivers - Sandstone, Low To Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Low To<br />

1 occ 14.3 % 1049.4 50.0 % 2 occ 100 %<br />

Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Upland - Glacial Till, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Low To Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient 3 occ 7.3 % 524.7 25.0 % 12 occ 133 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Upland - Sandstones, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient 1 occ 2.5 % 174.9 8.3 % 12 occ 133 %<br />

Olympics - Sandstones, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, High Gradient 2 occ 6.7 % 466.4 22.2 % 9 occ 211 %<br />

Page 148 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Hoko River (Marine)<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Hoko River (Marine)<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Washington<br />

Marine Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 1,600 ha Developed 0 %<br />

3,952 ac Undeveloped 0 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er 100 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Smelt spawn 305 m 0.7 % 39.3 2.4 % 12,705 m<br />

140 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Mussels and barnacles 2460 m 0.2 % 12.0 0.7 % 337,346 m<br />

132 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds Shore 2460 m 0.1 % 4.3 0.3 % 939,089 m<br />

119 %<br />

Dune grass Estuary 1852 m 0.9 % 48.6 3.0 % 62,438 m<br />

224 %<br />

Dune grass Shore 4272 m 0.7 % 39.6 2.4 % 176,736 m<br />

109 %<br />

Kelp high persistence (WA) 4 ha 0.3 % 18.0 1.1 % 336 ha 168 %<br />

Kelp low persistence (WA) 65 ha 2.8 % 155.0 9.4 % 692 ha 162 %<br />

Kelp medium persistence (WA) 16 ha 1.5 % 83.5 5.1 % 320 ha 169 %<br />

Kelp Shore 2460 m 0.2 % 9.0 0.6 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 1852 m 0.1 % 6.9 0.4 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Surfgrass Shore 2460 m 0.2 % 11.1 0.7 % 363,205 m<br />

131 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 8 ha 0.8 % 46.2 2.8 % 279 ha 116 %<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 10 ha 0.1 % 2.9 0.2 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Page 149 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Hoko River (Marine)<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2460 m 1.4 % 74.3 4.5 % 54,295 m<br />

137 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1812 m 1.7 % 92.6 5.6 % 32,087 m<br />

121 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Embayment) 1852 m 9.9 % 543.7 33.2 % 5,586 m<br />

244 %<br />

Hult Marsh ACEC<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 100 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 100 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 93 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

7 %<br />

72 ha<br />

177 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 18 ha 0.0 % 5.2 0.0 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 38 ha 0.0 % 4.9 0.0 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 1153 m 0.0 % 179.3 0.0 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Page 150 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Humbug Mtn-Nesika Beach<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Humbug Mtn-Nesika Beach<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 80 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 12 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 6 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 0 %<br />

GAP 2 6 %<br />

GAP 3 12 %<br />

GAP 4 80 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 1 %<br />

Area: 11,563 ha Developed 2 %<br />

28,561 ac Undeveloped 94 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

1 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime <strong>Coast</strong>al Sand Dune 11 occ 4.5 % 1136.9 183.3 % 6 occ 3850 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 6630 ha 0.3 % 5.3 0.9 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest 3198 ha 1.7 % 52.4 8.4 % 37,848 ha 140 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Del Norte Salamander Plethodon elong<strong>at</strong>us G4 1 occ 1.4 % 47.7 7.7 % 13 occ 138 %<br />

Tailed Frog Ascaphus truei 1 occ 2.0 % 88.6 14.3 % 7 occ 343 %<br />

Birds<br />

Purple Martin Progne subis G5 1 occ 1.2 % 68.9 11.1 % 9 occ 367 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Blue-Gray Taildropper Prophysaon coeruleum 1 occ 0.6 % 47.7 7.7 % 13 occ 454 %<br />

Sisters Hesperian Hochbergellus hirsutus 1 occ 100.0 % 47.7 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

8 %<br />

T3 1 occ 20.0 % 124.0 20.0 % 5 occ<br />

40 %<br />

Corynorhinus townsendii<br />

townsendii<br />

Mammals<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> Western Big-Eared B<strong>at</strong><br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Hairy Manzanita Arctostaphylos hispidula 1 occ 3.6 % 47.7 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

92 %<br />

Large-Flowered Goldfields<br />

Lasthenia macrantha ssp<br />

4 occ 40.0 % 99.2 16.0 % 25 occ<br />

40 %<br />

prisca<br />

Page 151 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Humbug Mtn-Nesika Beach<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

1 occ 10.0 % 27.0 4.3 % 23 occ<br />

30 %<br />

Abronia umbell<strong>at</strong>a ssp<br />

breviflora<br />

Pink Sandverbena<br />

Seaside Cryptantha Cryptantha leiocarpa 1 occ 50.0 % 88.6 14.3 % 7 occ<br />

29 %<br />

Silvery Phacelia Phacelia argentea 5 occ 29.4 % 238.5 38.5 % 13 occ 123 %<br />

Wolf's Evening-Primrose Oenothera wolfii 3 occ 42.9 % 74.4 12.0 % 25 occ<br />

20 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Mineral Spring 1 occ 1.6 % 31.0 5.0 % 20 occ 150 %<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 108 occ 159 %<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus 1 occ 0.3 % 2.4 1.1 % 95 occ 163 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 1 occ 0.3 % 2.0 0.9 % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani 1 occ 0.3 2.1 0.9<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) 4 ha 0.0 % 0.2 0.1 % 5,844 ha 105 %<br />

Kelp Shore 2518 m 0.2 % 1.3 0.6 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Shoreline<br />

Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 578 m 1.2 % 9.0 4.0 % 14,577 m<br />

89 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 957 m 0.2 % 1.9 0.8 % 116,959 m<br />

119 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 97 m 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 226,193 m<br />

102 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 375 m 0.5 % 3.5 1.6 % 24,105 m<br />

129 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 626 m 0.6 % 4.3 1.9 % 33,330 m<br />

119 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, S <strong>Oregon</strong>/N California ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 10361 m 4.1 % 591.0 13.6 % 75,962 m<br />

91 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Klam<strong>at</strong>h Mountains Province ESUOncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 35932 m 7.7 % 1114.3 25.7 % 139,717 m<br />

157 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Alluvium 1 occ 50.0 % 4332.7 100.0 % 1 occ 100 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Ocean Tributaries - Sediment 2 occ 12.5 % 1733.1 40.0 % 5 occ 220 %<br />

Page 152 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Juan de Fuca<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Juan de Fuca<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 24 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: 75 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 10 %<br />

GAP 3 65 %<br />

GAP 4 24 %<br />

British Columbia<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Area: 15,504 ha Developed 0 %<br />

38,295 ac Undeveloped 99 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

1 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Deciduous Swamp 7 ha 0.4 % 9.9 2.1 % 332 ha 230 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 2646 ha 0.5 % 7.5 1.6 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 35 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Lowland Riparian Forest And Shrubland 4 occ 2.3 % 205.5 44.4 % 9 occ 1067 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 223 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest 247 ha 0.1 % 1.5 0.3 % 76,367 ha 375 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 10878 ha 0.7 % 15.5 3.4 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Yellow Cedar Forest 52 ha 0.1 % 3.2 0.7 % 7,569 ha 262 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP1) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 817 ha 0.3 % 2.6 0.6 % 147,425 ha 110 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP2) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 5077 ha 0.8 % 7.8 1.7 % 302,959 ha 108 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 2 occ 0.1 1.1 0.2<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 95 occ 163 %<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus 1 occ 0.3 1.8 1.1<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Page 153 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Juan de Fuca<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Algal Beds Estuary 571 m 0.2 % 0.9 0.5 % 112,601 m<br />

179 %<br />

Algal Beds Shore 5698 m 0.2 % 1.0 0.6 % 939,089 m<br />

119 %<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) 91 ha 0.5 % 2.6 1.5 % 5,844 ha 105 %<br />

Kelp Shore 779 m 0.1 % 0.3 0.2 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Mid Intertidal Brackish Fine Substr<strong>at</strong>e Saltmarsh 1 occ 100.0 % 169.2 100.0 % 1 occ 100 %<br />

Surfgrass Shore 355 m 0.0 % 0.2 0.1 % 363,205 m<br />

131 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Shoreline<br />

Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Embayment) 1057 m 100.0 % 564.3 333.4 % 317 m<br />

333 %<br />

Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1355 m 23.3 % 131.4 77.6 % 1,746 m<br />

128 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 3946 m 1.2 % 6.9 4.1 % 96,940 m<br />

112 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 365 m 0.4 % 2.0 1.2 % 31,193 m<br />

113 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) 421 m 11.8 % 66.8 39.5 % 1,067 m<br />

155 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1621 m 0.7 % 4.2 2.5 % 64,871 m<br />

114 %<br />

Rock with Sand and Gravel Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1755 m 1.8 % 10.1 6.0 % 29,435 m<br />

65 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 614 m 0.3 % 1.9 1.1 % 54,295 m<br />

137 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 967 m 0.2 % 1.4 0.8 % 116,959 m<br />

119 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1997 m 0.6 % 3.5 2.1 % 96,577 m<br />

110 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Embayment) 255 m 8.6 % 48.7 28.8 % 886 m<br />

221 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 351 m 1.6 % 8.9 5.2 % 6,697 m<br />

79 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 738 m 0.7 % 3.9 2.3 % 32,087 m<br />

121 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chinook Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 6267 m 0.7 % 73.0 2.3 % 276,806 m<br />

176 %<br />

Chum Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus keta 16419 m 1.8 % 193.9 6.0 % 273,258 m<br />

144 %<br />

Coho Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus kisutch 17583 m 0.8 % 84.2 2.6 % 673,874 m<br />

155 %<br />

Cutthro<strong>at</strong> Trout, West Island Oncorhynchus clarki 21067 m 2.8 % 177.5 5.5 % 382,902 m<br />

102 %<br />

Pink Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 4614 m 1.2 % 130.5 4.0 % 114,095 m<br />

160 %<br />

Sockeye Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus nerka 4614 m 0.6 % 67.6 2.1 % 220,095 m<br />

191 %<br />

Winter Run Steelhead Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus mykiss 31016 m 1.5 % 164.3 5.1 % 609,198 m<br />

168 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Macrohabit<strong>at</strong>s<br />

34709 m 2.7 % 884.2 27.4 % 126,642 m<br />

294 %<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Page 154 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Juan de Fuca<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

18127 m 0.5 % 153.6 4.8 % 380,781 m<br />

457 %<br />

2619 m 1.0 % 160.0 5.0 % 52,799 m<br />

132 %<br />

6382 m 0.5 % 174.2 5.4 % 118,230 m<br />

459 %<br />

18892 m 2.2 % 360.9 11.2 % 168,906 m<br />

119 %<br />

10187 m 0.3 % 107.3 3.3 % 306,396 m<br />

448 %<br />

58 m 1.1 % 72.5 2.2 % 2,578 m<br />

90 %<br />

57 m 0.8 % 49.1 1.5 % 3,746 m<br />

130 %<br />

4269 m 2.0 % 319.9 9.9 % 43,046 m<br />

162 %<br />

4727 m 0.3 % 111.5 3.5 % 136,816 m<br />

433 %<br />

10161 m 0.4 % 133.3 4.1 % 245,882 m<br />

329 %<br />

8467 m 0.1 % 33.4 1.0 % 818,034 m<br />

586 %<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

1605 m 0.8 % 123.0 3.8 % 42,081 m<br />

141 %<br />

2938 m 0.3 % 85.8 2.7 % 110,483 m<br />

407 %<br />

8378 m 4.6 % 740.1 22.9 % 36,520 m<br />

129 %<br />

856 m 0.1 % 9.6 0.3 % 287,102 m<br />

162 %<br />

8998 m 7.0 % 1121.8 34.8 % 25,878 m<br />

114 %<br />

2156 m 1.4 % 223.8 6.9 % 31,071 m<br />

163 %<br />

1216 m 0.1 % 15.9 0.5 % 246,148 m<br />

186 %<br />

3644 m 1.3 % 208.7 6.5 % 56,327 m<br />

151 %<br />

725 m 0.1 % 12.1 0.4 % 193,048 m<br />

265 %<br />

4656 m 64.1 % 4139.3 128.3 % 3,629 m<br />

150 %<br />

3420 m 100.0 % 6452.7 200.0 % 1,710 m<br />

200 %<br />

Page 155 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Juan de Fuca<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

2278 m 3.0 % 483.9 15.0 % 15,189 m<br />

295 %<br />

2730 m 0.4 % 68.3 2.1 % 128,956 m<br />

253 %<br />

2008 m 6.1 % 978.9 30.3 % 6,618 m<br />

255 %<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Keogh River plus (Marine)<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

British Columbia<br />

Marine Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 2,400 ha Developed 0 %<br />

5,928 ac Undeveloped 0 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er 100 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Herring Spawning Low Cover 9173 m 1.2 % 44.5 4.1 % 225,517 m<br />

146 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds Estuary 562 m 0.1 % 5.5 0.5 % 112,601 m<br />

179 %<br />

Algal Beds Shore 10033 m 0.3 % 11.7 1.1 % 939,089 m<br />

119 %<br />

Eelgrass Shore 1818 m 0.3 % 10.6 1.0 % 187,323 m<br />

146 %<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) 614 ha 3.2 % 114.9 10.5 % 5,844 ha 105 %<br />

Kelp Shore 8530 m 0.6 % 20.9 1.9 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Shoreline<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 995 m 0.5 % 17.6 1.6 % 61,723 m<br />

94 %<br />

Sand Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1441 m 3.7 % 135.0 12.3 % 11,673 m<br />

104 %<br />

Page 156 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Lake Crescent<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Lake Crescent<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 26 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 19 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 54 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 73 %<br />

GAP 4 26 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 8,406 ha Developed 0 %<br />

20,762 ac Undeveloped 97 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

1 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 27 ha 0.1 % 7.0 0.8 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 1 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 383 ha 0.1 % 1.7 0.2 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 3371 ha 0.3 % 8.3 1.0 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 4162 ha 0.2 % 4.6 0.5 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 445 ha 0.0 % 1.2 0.1 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 7 occ 0.4 % 6.8 0.8 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 2 occ 0.2 % 3.4 0.4 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 7 occ 0.4 7.1 0.8<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Several-Flowered Sedge Carex pluriflora 1 occ 25.0 % 121.9 14.3 % 7 occ<br />

57 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, Olympic Peninsula ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop ? 15008 m 0.8 % 159.3 2.7 % 560,551 m<br />

109 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Olympic Peninsula ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop ? 25591 m 1.4 % 271.8 4.6 % 560,551 m<br />

109 %<br />

Page 157 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Lake Crescent<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> Lamprey Lampetra trident<strong>at</strong>a G5 2 occ 6.1 % % occ<br />

%<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Olympic Peninsula ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 6078 m 0.5 % 105.9 1.8 % 341,699 m<br />

123 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

2 occ 7.1 % 1487.4 25.0 % 8 occ<br />

50 %<br />

1 occ 3.6 % 744.1 12.5 % 8 occ<br />

50 %<br />

1 occ 2.9 % 595.3 10.0 % 10 occ<br />

40 %<br />

Juan De Fuca <strong>Coast</strong>al Streams - Sandstone , Low To Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion,<br />

Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient<br />

Juan De Fuca <strong>Coast</strong>al Streams - Sandstone , Low To Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion,<br />

Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient<br />

Puget lowland headw<strong>at</strong>ers north - glacial drift, low elev<strong>at</strong>ion, low to<br />

moder<strong>at</strong>e gradient<br />

Page 158 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Long Beach Peninsula<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Long Beach Peninsula<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 79 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 9 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 9 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 0 %<br />

GAP 2 9 %<br />

GAP 3 10 %<br />

GAP 4 79 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 4 %<br />

Area: 8,762 ha Developed 18 %<br />

21,642 ac Undeveloped 66 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

4 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 3 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 240 ha 0.0 % 1.0 0.1 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 4140 ha 0.4 % 9.8 1.2 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 1247 ha 0.0 % 1.3 0.2 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 2 occ 0.1 % 1.9 0.2 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Streaked Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris strig<strong>at</strong>a 1 occ 7.7 % 90.9 11.1 % 9 occ<br />

67 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1 occ 0.1 1.0 0.1<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

San Francisco Bluegrass Poa unil<strong>at</strong>eralis 4 occ 66.7 % 467.6 57.1 % 7 occ<br />

86 %<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 108 occ 159 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 1 occ 0.3 % 2.6 0.9 % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani 1 occ 0.3 2.8 0.9<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Mussels and barnacles 1565 m 0.1 % 1.4 0.5 % 337,346 m<br />

132 %<br />

Page 159 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Long Beach Peninsula<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds Estuary 839 m 0.2 % 2.2 0.7 % 112,601 m<br />

179 %<br />

Dune grass Estuary 1999 m 1.0 % 9.6 3.2 % 62,438 m<br />

224 %<br />

Dune grass Shore 2777 m 0.5 % 4.7 1.6 % 176,736 m<br />

109 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 10 ha 0.1 % 0.9 0.3 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Boulder (ha) 2 ha 1.7 % 16.9 5.6 % 40 ha 283 %<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 10 ha 0.1 % 0.5 0.2 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Sand (ha) 32 ha 0.1 % 1.2 0.4 % 7,977 ha 239 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 4 ha 0.0 % 0.4 0.1 % 3,069 ha 224 %<br />

Sand/Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 16 ha 0.2 % 1.8 0.6 % 2,550 ha 256 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Rock With Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) 275 m 2.3 % 23.4 7.8 % 3,518 m<br />

186 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1290 m 0.7 % 7.1 2.4 % 54,295 m<br />

137 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Embayment) 452 m 2.4 % 24.3 8.1 % 5,586 m<br />

244 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Very Exposed (Embayment) 707 m 18.0 % 179.3 59.9 % 1,181 m<br />

272 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2777 m 2.8 % 27.9 9.3 % 29,817 m<br />

64 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Upland - Glacial Till, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Low To Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient 1 occ 2.4 % 476.1 8.3 % 12 occ 133 %<br />

Page 160 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Lost Creek ACEC<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Lost Creek ACEC<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 100 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 100 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 97 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

3 %<br />

35 ha<br />

87 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 10 ha 0.0 % 5.7 0.0 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 27 ha 0.0 % 7.0 0.0 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1 occ 0.1 % 242.3 0.1 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 79 m 0.0 % 25.1 0.0 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 79 m 0.0 % 45.4 0.0 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Page 161 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Lost Prairie ACEC<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Lost Prairie ACEC<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 100 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 100 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 100 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

%<br />

25 ha<br />

61 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 22 ha 0.0 % 8.1 0.0 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Species<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Bog Anemone Anemone oregana var felix T2 1 occ 20.0 % 1706.3 4.0 % 25 occ<br />

20 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Range Fawn-Lily Erythronium elegans 1 occ 11.1 % 1706.3 4.0 % 25 occ<br />

36 %<br />

Page 162 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Lower Coquille River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Lower Coquille River<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 95 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 2 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 3 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 5 %<br />

GAP 3 0 %<br />

GAP 4 95 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 13 %<br />

Area: 21,111 ha Developed 2 %<br />

52,144 ac Undeveloped 82 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

2 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 1 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime <strong>Coast</strong>al Sand Dune 2 occ 0.8 % 113.2 33.3 % 6 occ 3850 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 17843 ha 0.7 % 7.8 2.3 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest 59 ha 0.0 % 0.5 0.2 % 37,848 ha 140 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Purple Martin Progne subis G5 1 occ 1.2 % 37.7 11.1 % 9 occ 367 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1 occ 0.1 0.4 0.1<br />

T3 1 occ 1.3 % 37.7 11.1 % 9 occ 122 %<br />

Clemmys marmor<strong>at</strong>a<br />

marmor<strong>at</strong>a<br />

Reptiles<br />

<strong>Northwest</strong>ern Pond Turtle<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Western Lily Lilium occidentale 4 occ 22.2 % 54.3 16.0 % 25 occ<br />

72 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Mineral Spring 1 occ 1.6 % 17.0 5.0 % 20 occ 150 %<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Page 163 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Lower Coquille River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Birds<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 2 occ 0.5 % 2.1 1.7 % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds (ha) 24 ha 0.2 % 0.9 0.7 % 3,384 ha 330 %<br />

Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic Bed (ha) 12 ha 1.8 % 7.4 6.0 % 198 ha 258 %<br />

Eelgrass Estuary 2841 m 0.5 % 2.1 1.7 % 169,841 m<br />

224 %<br />

Low Intertidal Brackish Saltmarsh On Sands To Silts 1 occ 100.0 % 124.3 100.0 % 1 occ 100 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 146 ha 1.4 % 5.7 4.6 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 5038 m 0.3 % 1.4 1.1 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Seagrass (ha) 5 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 9,868 ha 294 %<br />

Shorepine/Slough Sedge Pincon/carobn 1 occ 50.0 % 124.3 100.0 % 1 occ 100 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Boulder (ha) 1 ha 0.6 % 2.3 1.8 % 40 ha 283 %<br />

Cobble/Gravel (ha) 4 ha 2.1 % 8.5 6.8 % 55 ha 282 %<br />

Cobble/Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 2 ha 1.1 % 4.4 3.6 % 60 ha 332 %<br />

Mud (ha) 11 ha 2.1 % 8.8 7.1 % 155 ha 244 %<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 165 ha 0.9 % 3.7 3.0 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Sand (ha) 7 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.1 % 7,977 ha 239 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 10 ha 0.1 % 0.4 0.3 % 3,069 ha 224 %<br />

Sand/Mud (ha) 42 ha 1.0 % 4.2 3.4 % 1,250 ha 246 %<br />

Sand/Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 41 ha 0.5 % 2.0 1.6 % 2,550 ha 256 %<br />

Wood Debris/Organic (ha) 4 ha 14.5 % 58.5 47.1 % 8 ha 163 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) 1425 m 2.2 % 9.1 7.3 % 19,507 m<br />

226 %<br />

Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) 392 m 2.4 % 9.9 7.9 % 4,933 m<br />

278 %<br />

Gravel Beach Very Protected (Embayment) 821 m 44.6 % 184.9 148.8 % 552 m<br />

334 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Embayment) 139 m 4.8 % 19.8 15.9 % 874 m<br />

267 %<br />

Organics/fines Exposed (Embayment) 5343 m 1.1 % 4.6 3.7 % 144,777 m<br />

215 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) 1500 m 0.2 % 0.8 0.6 % 239,478 m<br />

223 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff (Embayment) 194 m 5.4 % 22.4 18.0 % 1,075 m<br />

264 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Exposed (Embayment) 2278 m 2.3 % 9.6 7.7 % 29,625 m<br />

198 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Very Exposed (Embayment) 176 m 17.4 % 72.2 58.0 % 304 m<br />

334 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) 1142 m 2.0 % 8.4 6.8 % 16,915 m<br />

247 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) 2126 m 2.2 % 9.1 7.3 % 29,156 m<br />

255 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 3968 m 1.5 % 6.1 4.9 % 80,427 m<br />

122 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Embayment) 155 m 0.8 % 3.5 2.8 % 5,586 m<br />

244 %<br />

Page 164 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Lower Coquille River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) 387 m 0.7 % 2.7 2.2 % 17,529 m<br />

230 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Very Protected (Embayment) 300 m 7.5 % 31.3 25.1 % 1,192 m<br />

333 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 122676 m 1.4 % 64.7 2.7 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 68445 m 1.5 % 122.1 5.1 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 96021 m 1.2 % 91.6 3.9 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sediment 1 occ 8.3 % 593.3 25.0 % 4 occ 200 %<br />

Page 165 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Lower Rogue River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Lower Rogue River<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 47 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 51 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 1 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 51 %<br />

GAP 4 47 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 1 %<br />

Area: 21,428 ha Developed 0 %<br />

52,927 ac Undeveloped 97 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

1 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 4755 ha 0.2 % 2.1 0.6 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest 12739 ha 6.7 % 112.6 33.7 % 37,848 ha 140 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Del Norte Salamander Plethodon elong<strong>at</strong>us G4 7 occ 9.7 % 180.2 53.8 % 13 occ 138 %<br />

Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Rana boylii 2 occ 18.2 % 95.6 28.6 % 7 occ<br />

86 %<br />

Northern Red-Legged Frog Rana aurora aurora T4 1 occ 1.0 % 47.8 14.3 % 7 occ 671 %<br />

Birds<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1 occ 0.1 % 0.4 0.1 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 27 occ 1.5 % 10.3 3.1 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 10 occ 1.0 % 6.7 2.0 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Mammals<br />

American Marten Martes americana G5 1 occ 10.0 % 111.5 33.3 % 3 occ 133 %<br />

Red Tree Vole Arborimus longicaudus G3 1 occ 0.7 % 25.7 7.7 % 13 occ 308 %<br />

T3 1 occ 1.3 % 37.2 11.1 % 9 occ 122 %<br />

Clemmys marmor<strong>at</strong>a<br />

marmor<strong>at</strong>a<br />

Reptiles<br />

<strong>Northwest</strong>ern Pond Turtle<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Page 166 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Lower Rogue River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Checker Bloom Sidalcea malviflora ssp p<strong>at</strong>ula 1 occ 12.5 % 25.7 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

46 %<br />

Hairy Manzanita Arctostaphylos hispidula 6 occ 21.4 % 154.4 46.2 % 13 occ<br />

92 %<br />

Leach's Brodiaea<br />

Triteleia hendersonii var<br />

1 occ 2.7 % 25.7 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

23 %<br />

leachiae<br />

Marine<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds (ha) 31 ha 0.3 % 1.1 0.9 % 3,384 ha 330 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 18 ha 0.2 % 0.7 0.6 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 27267 m 1.8 % 7.5 6.2 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Saltmarsh Shore 1041 m 0.2 % 0.8 0.6 % 164,143 m<br />

118 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Cobble/Gravel (ha) 52 ha 28.5 % 116.2 94.9 % 55 ha 282 %<br />

Cobble/Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 187 ha 93.7 % 380.7 310.9 % 60 ha 332 %<br />

Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 1 ha 0.1 % 0.3 0.2 % 279 ha 116 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 2 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 9,168 ha 287 %<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 98 ha 0.5 % 2.2 1.8 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Sand (ha) 10 ha 0.0 % 0.2 0.1 % 7,977 ha 239 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 1 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 3,069 ha 224 %<br />

Sand/Mud (ha) 1 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.1 % 1,250 ha 246 %<br />

Sand/Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 2 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.1 % 2,550 ha 256 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Gravel Beach (Embayment) 5656 m 92.4 % 377.0 307.9 % 1,837 m<br />

333 %<br />

Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) 24692 m 38.0 % 155.0 126.6 % 19,507 m<br />

226 %<br />

Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) 4246 m 25.8 % 105.4 86.1 % 4,933 m<br />

278 %<br />

Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1041 m 2.1 % 8.7 7.1 % 14,577 m<br />

89 %<br />

Organics/fines Exposed (Embayment) 322 m 0.1 % 0.3 0.2 % 144,777 m<br />

215 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff (Embayment) 598 m 16.7 % 68.1 55.6 % 1,075 m<br />

264 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Exposed (Embayment) 1222 m 1.2 % 5.1 4.1 % 29,625 m<br />

198 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach (Embayment) 1340 m 78.0 % 318.6 260.2 % 515 m<br />

333 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) 2678 m 4.7 % 19.4 15.8 % 16,915 m<br />

247 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1886 m 1.7 % 6.9 5.7 % 33,330 m<br />

119 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Page 167 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Lower Rogue River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Coho Salmon, S <strong>Oregon</strong>/N California ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 2 13675 m 6.6 % 309.6 13.2 % 103,258 m<br />

95 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, S <strong>Oregon</strong>/N California ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 46554 m 18.4 % 1432.9 61.3 % 75,962 m<br />

91 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Klam<strong>at</strong>h Mountains Province ESUOncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 50557 m 10.9 % 846.0 36.2 % 139,717 m<br />

157 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Range Small Rivers - Serpentine, Low To Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion 1 occ 33.3 % 2338.5 100.0 % 1 occ 100 %<br />

Page 168 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Lower Umpqua River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Lower Umpqua River<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 25 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 35 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 34 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 68 %<br />

GAP 4 25 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 1 %<br />

Area: 18,245 ha Developed 0 %<br />

45,065 ac Undeveloped 87 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

12 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 3 ha 0.0 % 0.4 0.1 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 637 ha 0.1 % 1.3 0.3 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 3341 ha 0.3 % 3.8 1.0 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 9347 ha 0.4 % 4.7 1.2 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni G4 2 occ 3.1 % 112.3 28.6 % 7 occ 586 %<br />

Birds<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 3 occ 0.2 % 1.4 0.4 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 12 occ 0.7 % 5.4 1.4 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 6 occ 0.6 % 4.7 1.2 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong> Megomphix (Snail) Megomphix hemphilli 1 occ 1.0 % 30.2 7.7 % 13 occ 323 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Mineral Spring 3 occ 4.9 % 59.0 15.0 % 20 occ 150 %<br />

Marine<br />

Page 169 of 328<br />

Species<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Lower Umpqua River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Birds<br />

Double-Crested Cormorant Phalacroscorax auritus 1 occ 2.0 % 9.6 6.7 % 15 occ 200 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds (ha) 13 ha 0.1 % 0.5 0.4 % 3,384 ha 330 %<br />

Bedrock (ha) 16 ha 25.0 % 116.7 81.2 % 20 ha 210 %<br />

Eelgrass Estuary 19970 m 3.5 % 16.9 11.8 % 169,841 m<br />

224 %<br />

Intertidal Salt Marshes (Salvir Disspi Trimar) Salvir - disspi - trimar - (jaucar) 4 occ 5.9 % 26.1 18.2 % 22 occ 250 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 691 ha 6.5 % 31.4 21.8 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 65640 m 4.5 % 21.3 14.8 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Seagrass (ha) 149 ha 0.5 % 2.2 1.5 % 9,868 ha 294 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Boulder (ha) 65 ha 48.3 % 232.7 161.8 % 40 ha 283 %<br />

Cobble/Gravel (ha) 2 ha 1.0 % 4.9 3.4 % 55 ha 282 %<br />

Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 31 ha 3.4 % 16.2 11.3 % 279 ha 116 %<br />

Mud (ha) 18 ha 3.5 % 16.9 11.8 % 155 ha 244 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 83 ha 0.3 % 1.3 0.9 % 9,168 ha 287 %<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 828 ha 4.5 % 21.7 15.1 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Sand (ha) 35 ha 0.1 % 0.6 0.4 % 7,977 ha 239 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 13 ha 0.1 % 0.6 0.4 % 3,069 ha 224 %<br />

Sand/Mud (ha) 69 ha 1.7 % 8.0 5.5 % 1,250 ha 246 %<br />

Sand/Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 287 ha 3.4 % 16.2 11.2 % 2,550 ha 256 %<br />

Wood Debris/Organic (ha) 6 ha 22.9 % 107.2 74.5 % 8 ha 163 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) 5741 m 8.8 % 42.3 29.4 % 19,507 m<br />

226 %<br />

Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) 2856 m 17.4 % 83.3 57.9 % 4,933 m<br />

278 %<br />

Organics/fines (Embayment) 13410 m 8.9 % 42.7 29.7 % 45,204 m<br />

218 %<br />

Organics/fines Exposed (Embayment) 64026 m 13.3 % 63.6 44.2 % 144,777 m<br />

215 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) 6928 m 0.9 % 4.2 2.9 % 239,478 m<br />

223 %<br />

Organics/fines Very Protected (Embayment) 4853 m 4.8 % 23.2 16.2 % 30,025 m<br />

194 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff (Embayment) 931 m 26.0 % 124.5 86.6 % 1,075 m<br />

264 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Exposed (Embayment) 11868 m 12.0 % 57.6 40.1 % 29,625 m<br />

198 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Protected (Embayment) 5876 m 11.2 % 53.5 37.2 % 15,799 m<br />

247 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 92 m 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 226,193 m<br />

102 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach (Embayment) 377 m 22.0 % 105.4 73.3 % 515 m<br />

333 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) 10418 m 18.5 % 88.6 61.6 % 16,915 m<br />

247 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) 204 m 0.6 % 2.8 2.0 % 10,283 m<br />

243 %<br />

Page 170 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Lower Umpqua River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) 972 m 9.8 % 47.2 32.8 % 2,963 m<br />

231 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Very Protected (Embayment) 2216 m 68.7 % 329.3 229.0 % 968 m<br />

229 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) 8103 m 8.3 % 40.0 27.8 % 29,156 m<br />

255 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) 347 m 1.4 % 6.6 4.6 % 7,615 m<br />

309 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 5111 m 1.9 % 9.1 6.4 % 80,427 m<br />

122 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 62366 m 0.7 % 38.1 1.4 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 79141 m 0.9 % 48.3 1.8 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 20023 m 0.5 % 41.3 1.5 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 43194 m 1.0 % 89.2 3.2 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 50081 m 0.6 % 55.3 2.0 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 59244 m 0.7 % 65.4 2.4 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Page 171 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Luckiamute River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Luckiamute River<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 11 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 4 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 85 %<br />

NGO %<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 0 %<br />

GAP 3 15 %<br />

GAP 4 85 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 1 %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 99 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

17,111 ha<br />

42,264 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 3833 ha 0.3 % 4.6 1.1 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 12272 ha 0.5 % 6.6 1.6 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Northern Red-Legged Frog Rana aurora aurora T4 1 occ 1.0 % 59.9 14.3 % 7 occ 671 %<br />

Birds<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 1 occ 0.1 % 0.5 0.1 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 6 occ 0.6 % 5.0 1.2 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Nelson's Checker-Mallow Sidalcea nelsoniana g2 1 occ 2.3 % 139.7 33.3 % 3 occ 267 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Upper Willamette River ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 55701 m 8.6 % 838.0 28.6 % 194,575 m<br />

54 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Range Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sedimentary, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion 4 occ 12.9 % 1301.0 44.4 % 9 occ<br />

67 %<br />

Page 172 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Martin Creek ACEC<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Martin Creek ACEC<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 100 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 100 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 99 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

1 %<br />

66 ha<br />

163 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

Mediterranean California Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest And Woodland 8 ha 0.2 % 2501.8 2.3 % 348 ha 500 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 14 ha 0.0 % 4.5 0.0 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 38 ha 0.0 % 5.3 0.0 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 670 m 0.0 % 113.2 0.0 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 671 m 0.0 % 205.0 0.0 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Page 173 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Marys Peak<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marys Peak<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 38 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 62 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 4 %<br />

GAP 3 58 %<br />

GAP 4 38 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 100 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

8,826 ha<br />

21,799 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

Mediterranean California Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest And Woodland 8 ha 0.2 % 18.9 2.3 % 348 ha 500 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 4798 ha 0.4 % 11.3 1.4 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 3802 ha 0.1 % 4.0 0.5 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 45 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest 4 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 37,848 ha 140 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 2 occ 0.2 % 3.2 0.4 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Blue-Gray Taildropper Prophysaon coeruleum 1 occ 0.6 % 62.5 7.7 % 13 occ 454 %<br />

Foliaceous Lace Bug Derephysia foliacea 2 occ 100.0 % 125.0 15.4 % 13 occ<br />

15 %<br />

Haddock's Rhyacophilan Cad Rhyacophila haddocki 1 occ 100.0 % 62.5 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

8 %<br />

Malone Jumping-Slug Hemphillia malonei 1 occ 50.0 % 62.5 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

8 %<br />

Roth's Blind Ground Beetle Pterostichus rothi 2 occ 66.7 % 125.0 15.4 % 13 occ<br />

23 %<br />

Valley Silverspot Butterfly Speyeria zerene bremnerii 1 occ 8.3 % 62.5 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

85 %<br />

Warty Jumping-Slug<br />

Hemphillia glandulosa<br />

1 occ 1.4 % 62.5 7.7 % 13 occ 200 %<br />

glandulosa<br />

Mammals<br />

Red Tree Vole Arborimus longicaudus G3 1 occ 0.7 % 62.5 7.7 % 13 occ 308 %<br />

Page 174 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Marys Peak<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

% % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 11808 m 0.3 % 50.4 0.9 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 17777 m 0.2 % 40.6 0.7 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 12 m 0.0 0.0 0.0<br />

Page 175 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Marys River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marys River<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 64 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 29 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local: 6 %<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 0 %<br />

GAP 3 35 %<br />

GAP 4 64 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 14 %<br />

Area: 15,069 ha Developed 1 %<br />

37,219 ac Undeveloped 85 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

Klam<strong>at</strong>h-Siskiyou Lower Montane Serpentine Mixed Conifer Woodland 2 occ 16.7 % 158.6 33.3 % 6 occ 117 %<br />

Mediterranean California Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest And Woodland 8 ha 0.2 % 11.4 2.4 % 348 ha 500 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 4695 ha 0.4 % 6.5 1.4 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 7029 ha 0.3 % 4.3 0.9 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 31 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland 40 ha 2.3 % 107.2 22.5 % 177 ha<br />

60 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 4 occ 0.2 % 2.2 0.5 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 7 occ 0.7 % 6.6 1.4 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Streaked Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris strig<strong>at</strong>a 1 occ 7.7 % 52.9 11.1 % 9 occ<br />

67 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1 occ 0.1 0.6 0.1<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Blue-Gray Taildropper Prophysaon coeruleum 1 occ 0.6 % 36.6 7.7 % 13 occ 454 %<br />

Mammals<br />

Red Tree Vole Arborimus longicaudus G3 1 occ 0.7 % 36.6 7.7 % 13 occ 308 %<br />

T3 1 occ 1.3 % 52.9 11.1 % 9 occ 122 %<br />

Clemmys marmor<strong>at</strong>a<br />

marmor<strong>at</strong>a<br />

Reptiles<br />

<strong>Northwest</strong>ern Pond Turtle<br />

Page 176 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Marys River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

T2 1 occ 3.7 % 36.6 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

77 %<br />

Lupinus sulphureus var<br />

kincaidii<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Kincaid's Sulfur Lupine<br />

Nelson's Checker-Mallow Sidalcea nelsoniana g2 1 occ 2.3 % 158.6 33.3 % 3 occ 267 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Spring Chinook Salmon, Upper Willamette River ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 5465 m 19.7 % % m<br />

%<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Range Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sedimentary, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion 1 occ 3.2 % 369.3 11.1 % 9 occ<br />

67 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Range Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Volcanics, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion 1 occ 7.7 % 831.0 25.0 % 4 occ 100 %<br />

Page 177 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Mill Creek<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Mill Creek<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 63 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 36 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 1 %<br />

GAP 3 36 %<br />

GAP 4 63 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 18 %<br />

Area: 13,885 ha Developed 2 %<br />

34,295 ac Undeveloped 79 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

Mediterranean California Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest And Woodland 2 ha 0.1 % 3.5 0.7 % 348 ha 500 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 3 ha 0.0 % 0.4 0.1 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 1 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 6366 ha 0.6 % 9.5 1.8 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 4906 ha 0.2 % 3.3 0.6 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Oak Woodland 4 ha 3.3 % 82.4 16.0 % 22 ha 305 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 66 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Tailed Frog Ascaphus truei 1 occ 2.0 % 73.8 14.3 % 7 occ 343 %<br />

Birds<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 3 occ 0.3 % 3.1 0.6 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Fender's Blue Butterfly Icaricia icarioides fenderi T1 1 occ 9.1 % 39.7 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

23 %<br />

T3 1 occ 1.3 % 57.4 11.1 % 9 occ 122 %<br />

Clemmys marmor<strong>at</strong>a<br />

marmor<strong>at</strong>a<br />

Reptiles<br />

<strong>Northwest</strong>ern Pond Turtle<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Page 178 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Mill Creek<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

T2 1 occ 3.7 % 39.7 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

77 %<br />

Lupinus sulphureus var<br />

kincaidii<br />

Kincaid's Sulfur Lupine<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Upper Willamette River ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 21228 m 3.3 % 393.6 10.9 % 194,575 m<br />

54 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Range Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Volcanics, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion 2 occ 15.4 % 1803.8 50.0 % 4 occ 100 %<br />

Page 179 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Milton Creek<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Milton Creek<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 99 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 1 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 1 %<br />

GAP 4 99 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 11 %<br />

Area: 8,017 ha Developed 0 %<br />

19,803 ac Undeveloped 89 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 71 ha 0.0 % 0.3 0.0 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 3296 ha 0.3 % 8.5 1.0 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 3802 ha 0.1 % 4.4 0.5 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 32721 m 0.7 % 141.9 2.3 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Lower Columbia ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 32693 m 7.3 % 911.3 14.6 % 224,010 m<br />

46 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

Lower Columbia Tributaries - Volcanics, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient 1 occ 4.0 % 780.5 12.5 % 8 occ<br />

88 %<br />

Page 180 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Mt. Townsend<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Mt. Townsend<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 100 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 100 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 100 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

%<br />

1,114 ha<br />

2,753 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 53 ha 0.2 % 104.0 1.6 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 1 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 614 ha 0.1 % 11.4 0.2 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 282 ha 0.0 % 2.3 0.0 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest 18 ha 0.0 % 1.5 0.0 % 76,367 ha 375 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 136 ha 0.0 % 2.7 0.0 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 1 occ 0.1 % 12.8 0.2 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Boisduval's Blue, Blackmorei Icaricia icarioides blackmorei T3 1 occ 9.1 % 494.9 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

69 %<br />

Chalcedon Checkerspot<br />

Euphydryas chalcedona<br />

1 occ 6.7 % 494.9 7.7 % 13 occ 115 %<br />

perdiccas<br />

Smintheus Parnassian<br />

Parnassius smintheus G5T 1 occ 7.7 % 494.9 7.7 % 13 occ 100 %<br />

olympianus<br />

Valley Silverspot Butterfly Speyeria zerene bremnerii 1 occ 8.3 % 494.9 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

85 %<br />

1 occ 11.1 % 257.4 4.0 % 25 occ<br />

36 %<br />

Astragalus australis var<br />

olympicus<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Cotton's Milk-Vetch<br />

Page 181 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Mt. Townsend<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

1 occ 3.1 % 4487.5 10.0 % 10 occ 130 %<br />

Olympics Rainshadow <strong>Coast</strong>al Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Mafic, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion,<br />

Moder<strong>at</strong>e To High Gradient<br />

Myrtle Island RNA<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 100 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 100 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 97 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

3 %<br />

9 ha<br />

23 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 3 ha 0.0 % 6.3 0.0 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 6 ha 0.0 % 6.4 0.0 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 178 m 0.0 % 725.5 0.0 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Page 182 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Nacelle River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Nacelle River<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 89 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 11 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 11 %<br />

GAP 4 89 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 19,881 ha Developed 0 %<br />

49,106 ac Undeveloped 98 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 25 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 4147 ha 0.6 % 7.7 2.1 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 2541 ha 0.2 % 2.7 0.7 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 10572 ha 0.4 % 4.9 1.4 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 2351 ha 0.1 % 2.6 0.7 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Columbia Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton kezeri 1 occ 1.2 % 14.4 4.0 % 25 occ 188 %<br />

Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni G4 4 occ 6.3 % 206.1 57.1 % 7 occ 586 %<br />

Birds<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 2 occ 0.1 % 0.9 0.2 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 27 occ 1.5 % 11.1 3.1 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 1 occ 0.1 % 0.7 0.2 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Queen-Of-The-Forest Filipendula occidentalis 14 occ 48.3 % 202.0 56.0 % 25 occ 112 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Page 183 of 328<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Nacelle River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 59902 m 2.5 % 208.8 8.3 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 131046 m 2.7 % 229.1 9.1 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 105220 m 3.3 % 280.9 11.2 % 943,067 m<br />

129 %<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> Lamprey Lampetra trident<strong>at</strong>a G5 1 occ 3.0 % % occ<br />

%<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Southwest Washington ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 139918 m 4.1 % 346.3 13.8 % 1,017,511 m<br />

137 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

Willapa Hills small rivers - sandstone, low elev<strong>at</strong>ion 1 occ 33.3 % 2517.0 100.0 % 1 occ 100 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

Willapa Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ions, High Gradients 1 occ 3.3 % 279.8 11.1 % 9 occ 133 %<br />

Willapa Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sandstones, Low To Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e/Low<br />

2 occ 5.3 % 457.8 18.2 % 11 occ 100 %<br />

Gradient<br />

Page 184 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Nanaimo River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Nanaimo River<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 100 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 0 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 100 %<br />

British Columbia<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 40,934 ha Developed 0 %<br />

101,107 ac Undeveloped 98 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

1 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Avalanche Chute And Talus Shrubland 3 occ 0.8 % 58.4 33.3 % 9 occ 2956 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Coniferous Swamp 9 occ 6.1 % 131.4 75.0 % 12 occ 650 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Deciduous Swamp 1 ha 0.1 % 0.5 0.3 % 332 ha 230 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 5506 ha 1.0 % 5.9 3.4 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 1 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Lowland Riparian Forest And Shrubland 3 occ 1.8 % 58.4 33.3 % 9 occ 1067 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 23191 ha 0.9 % 5.2 3.0 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest 1377 ha 0.4 % 3.2 1.8 % 76,367 ha 375 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 8483 ha 0.5 % 4.6 2.6 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 302,959 ha 108 %<br />

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis G5 1 occ 1.9 % 8.8 5.0 % 20 occ 105 %<br />

White-Tailed Ptarmigan Lagopus leucurus 1 occ 2.8 % 6.5 3.7 % 27 occ 100 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP2) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 2611 ha 0.4 1.5 0.9<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chinook Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 67009 m 10.9 % 443.0 36.3 % 184,827 m<br />

154 %<br />

Page 185 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Nanaimo River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Chum Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus keta 4479 m 0.8 % 32.8 2.7 % 166,896 m<br />

78 %<br />

Coho Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus kisutch 63733 m 3.5 % 141.2 11.6 % 551,718 m<br />

122 %<br />

Cutthro<strong>at</strong> Trout, East Island Oncorhynchus clarki 27407 m 3.6 % 88.6 7.3 % 377,832 m<br />

69 %<br />

Dolly Varden, East Island Salvelinus malma G5 35769 m 11.6 % 284.6 23.3 % 153,568 m<br />

123 %<br />

Summer Run Steelhead Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus mykiss 52075 m 3.5 % 144.2 11.8 % 441,335 m<br />

133 %<br />

Winter Run Steelhead Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus mykiss 66710 m 8.4 % 342.8 28.1 % 237,775 m<br />

125 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Macrohabit<strong>at</strong>s<br />

3000 m 1.5 % 91.7 7.5 % 39,958 m<br />

283 %<br />

24626 m 0.6 % 79.0 6.5 % 380,781 m<br />

457 %<br />

13080 m 25.2 % 1539.1 126.0 % 10,385 m<br />

301 %<br />

14661 m 55.2 % 3370.6 275.8 % 5,315 m<br />

394 %<br />

1101 m 2.5 % 152.7 12.5 % 8,808 m<br />

264 %<br />

6551 m 0.6 % 67.7 5.5 % 118,230 m<br />

459 %<br />

2918 m 95.8 % 2341.4 191.6 % 1,523 m<br />

200 %<br />

7572 m 5.3 % 322.6 26.4 % 28,683 m<br />

269 %<br />

59069 m 1.9 % 235.6 19.3 % 306,396 m<br />

448 %<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Ultramafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Ultramafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Ultramafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Ge<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Ultramafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

9917 m 24.1 % 1471.2 120.4 % 8,237 m<br />

415 %<br />

416 m 3.8 % 235.2 19.3 % 2,163 m<br />

379 %<br />

173 m 12.2 % 299.0 24.5 % 706 m<br />

97 %<br />

237 m 0.4 % 25.5 2.1 % 11,357 m<br />

211 %<br />

7153 m 0.5 % 63.9 5.2 % 136,816 m<br />

433 %<br />

614 m 33.9 % 828.4 67.8 % 906 m<br />

78 %<br />

468 m 21.3 % 519.8 42.5 % 1,100 m<br />

128 %<br />

22532 m 5.2 % 316.3 25.9 % 87,042 m<br />

187 %<br />

Page 186 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Nanaimo River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

48162 m 0.6 % 71.9 5.9 % 818,034 m<br />

586 %<br />

9145 m 24.0 % 1469.0 120.2 % 7,607 m<br />

332 %<br />

752 m 5.0 % 304.8 24.9 % 3,014 m<br />

488 %<br />

6035 m 20.1 % 1228.9 100.6 % 6,001 m<br />

276 %<br />

1600 m 0.1 % 9.8 0.8 % 199,816 m<br />

680 %<br />

1442 m 64.0 % 1564.0 128.0 % 1,127 m<br />

128 %<br />

559 m 1.3 % 82.1 6.7 % 8,325 m<br />

331 %<br />

5296 m 0.5 % 58.6 4.8 % 110,483 m<br />

407 %<br />

128 m 0.1 % 4.0 0.3 % 39,552 m<br />

297 %<br />

28740 m 3.0 % 122.3 10.0 % 287,102 m<br />

162 %<br />

4009 m 26.0 % 1588.3 130.0 % 3,084 m<br />

434 %<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Sandstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Ultramafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Sandstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Sandstone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Ultramafic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Sandstone Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

11710 m 1.2 % 71.9 5.9 % 199,007 m<br />

240 %<br />

3788 m 59.8 % 1462.1 119.6 % 3,166 m<br />

135 %<br />

4847 m 42.0 % 2568.7 210.2 % 2,306 m<br />

211 %<br />

3701 m 0.5 % 18.4 1.5 % 246,148 m<br />

186 %<br />

417 m 31.6 % 772.6 63.2 % 660 m<br />

200 %<br />

10652 m 1.1 % 67.4 5.5 % 193,048 m<br />

265 %<br />

3149 m 32.3 % 788.4 64.5 % 4,880 m<br />

200 %<br />

192 m 16.8 % 410.3 33.6 % 572 m<br />

196 %<br />

299 m 0.4 % 23.8 1.9 % 15,371 m<br />

211 %<br />

198 m 0.8 % 51.2 4.2 % 4,738 m<br />

239 %<br />

5302 m 11.0 % 670.2 54.8 % 9,667 m<br />

278 %<br />

Page 187 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Nanaimo River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

13608 m 2.1 % 128.9 10.6 % 128,956 m<br />

253 %<br />

4765 m 31.5 % 1924.2 157.5 % 3,026 m<br />

499 %<br />

19026 m 4.0 % 245.3 20.1 % 94,768 m<br />

220 %<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Page 188 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Nestucca River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Nestucca River<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 25 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 70 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 2 %<br />

Local: 3 %<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 11 %<br />

GAP 3 64 %<br />

GAP 4 25 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 7 %<br />

Area: 31,765 ha Developed 1 %<br />

78,460 ac Undeveloped 91 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

1 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 33 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 12535 ha 1.9 % 14.5 6.4 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 3958 ha 0.3 % 2.6 1.1 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 11086 ha 0.4 % 3.2 1.4 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 48 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest 65 ha 0.0 % 0.4 0.2 % 37,848 ha 140 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Northern Red-Legged Frog Rana aurora aurora T4 4 occ 4.1 % 129.0 57.1 % 7 occ 671 %<br />

Birds<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1 occ 0.1 % 0.3 0.1 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Gre<strong>at</strong>-Blue Heron Ardea herodias 1 occ 1.4 % 25.1 11.1 % 9 occ 144 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 2 occ 0.1 % 0.5 0.2 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 2 occ 0.2 % 0.9 0.4 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Purple Martin Progne subis G5 1 occ 1.2 % 25.1 11.1 % 9 occ 367 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Blue-Gray Taildropper Prophysaon coeruleum 1 occ 0.6 % 17.4 7.7 % 13 occ 454 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong> Silverspot Butterfly Speyeria zerene hippolyta T1 1 occ 12.5 % 9.0 4.0 % 25 occ<br />

28 %<br />

Page 189 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Nestucca River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

6 occ 8.7 % 104.2 46.2 % 13 occ 200 %<br />

Hemphillia glandulosa<br />

glandulosa<br />

Warty Jumping-Slug<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Range Fawn-Lily Erythronium elegans 3 occ 33.3 % 27.1 12.0 % 25 occ<br />

36 %<br />

Hairy-Stemmed Checker-Mallow Sidalcea hirtipes 3 occ 20.0 % 27.1 12.0 % 25 occ<br />

48 %<br />

Henderson Sidalcea Sidalcea hendersonii G3 1 occ 50.0 % 17.4 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

15 %<br />

Nelson's Checker-Mallow Sidalcea nelsoniana g2 4 occ 9.1 % 301.0 133.3 % 3 occ 267 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Mineral Spring 1 occ 1.6 % 11.3 5.0 % 20 occ 150 %<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Aleutian Canada Goose Branta canadensis leucopareia 2 occ 11.1 % 27.5 33.3 % 6 occ 133 %<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani 1 occ 0.3 % 0.8 0.9 % 108 occ 159 %<br />

Brandt's Cormorant Phalacrocorax penicill<strong>at</strong>us 1 occ 1.0 % 2.7 3.2 % 31 occ 168 %<br />

Double-Crested Cormorant Phalacroscorax auritus 1 occ 2.0 % 5.5 6.7 % 15 occ 200 %<br />

Leach's Storm-Petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa 1 occ 2.8 % 7.5 9.1 % 11 occ 200 %<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus 1 occ 0.3 % 0.9 1.1 % 95 occ 163 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 1 occ 0.3 % 0.7 0.9 % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Shorebird Concentr<strong>at</strong>ion Area 1 occ 4.3 % 5.2 6.3 % 16 occ 119 %<br />

Tufted Puffin Fr<strong>at</strong>ercula cirrh<strong>at</strong>a 1 occ 1.1 % 2.8 3.3 % 30 occ 190 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds (ha) 73 ha 0.6 % 1.8 2.2 % 3,384 ha 330 %<br />

Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic Bed (ha) 7 ha 1.0 % 2.8 3.4 % 198 ha 258 %<br />

Eelgrass Estuary 3204 m 0.6 % 1.6 1.9 % 169,841 m<br />

224 %<br />

Intertidal Salt Marshes (Salvir Disspi Trimar) Salvir - disspi - trimar - (jaucar) 3 occ 4.4 % 11.3 13.6 % 22 occ 250 %<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) 1 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 5,844 ha 105 %<br />

Low Intertidal High Salinity Silty Saltmarsh 1 occ 100.0 % 82.6 100.0 % 1 occ 100 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 259 ha 2.5 % 6.7 8.2 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 13059 m 0.9 % 2.4 3.0 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Seagrass (ha) 16 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.2 % 9,868 ha 294 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Boulder (ha) 4 ha 2.9 % 8.2 9.9 % 40 ha 283 %<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites<br />

Page 190 of 328

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Nestucca River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 34 ha 3.6 % 9.9 12.0 % 279 ha 116 %<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 327 ha 1.8 % 4.9 6.0 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Sand (ha) 37 ha 0.1 % 0.4 0.5 % 7,977 ha 239 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 113 ha 1.1 % 3.0 3.7 % 3,069 ha 224 %<br />

Sand/Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 5 ha 0.1 % 0.2 0.2 % 2,550 ha 256 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) 231 m 1.4 % 3.9 4.7 % 4,933 m<br />

278 %<br />

Organics/fines (Embayment) 210 m 0.1 % 0.4 0.5 % 45,204 m<br />

218 %<br />

Organics/fines Exposed (Embayment) 9678 m 2.0 % 5.5 6.7 % 144,777 m<br />

215 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) 265 m 0.0 % 0.1 0.1 % 239,478 m<br />

223 %<br />

Organics/fines Very Protected (Embayment) 667 m 0.7 % 1.8 2.2 % 30,025 m<br />

194 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Exposed (Embayment) 2475 m 2.5 % 6.9 8.4 % 29,625 m<br />

198 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Protected (Embayment) 526 m 1.0 % 2.8 3.3 % 15,799 m<br />

247 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 558 m 0.1 % 0.4 0.5 % 116,959 m<br />

119 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) 2745 m 4.9 % 13.4 16.2 % 16,915 m<br />

247 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) 229 m 2.3 % 6.4 7.7 % 2,963 m<br />

231 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) 1961 m 2.0 % 5.6 6.7 % 29,156 m<br />

255 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) 2918 m 11.5 % 31.7 38.3 % 7,615 m<br />

309 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 3045 m 1.1 % 3.1 3.8 % 80,427 m<br />

122 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 38072 m 1.6 % 83.1 5.3 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 3546 m 0.1 % 7.7 0.5 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 33890 m 0.4 % 11.9 0.8 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 110253 m 1.2 % 38.7 2.5 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 94390 m 2.1 % 111.9 7.1 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 22285 m 0.5 % 26.4 1.7 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 106393 m 1.3 % 67.5 4.3 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 46861 m 0.6 % 29.7 1.9 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Range small rivers - sedimentary, low to mid elev<strong>at</strong>ion 1 occ 4.5 % 225.3 14.3 % 7 occ 129 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Ridge Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Intrusive Geology 1 occ 25.0 % 1576.9 100.0 % 1 occ 200 %<br />

Page 191 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Nestucca River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Inland Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sediment 1 occ 1.7 % 87.6 5.6 % 18 occ 106 %<br />

Page 192 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

New River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

New River<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 95 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 2 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 2 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 4 %<br />

GAP 3 0 %<br />

GAP 4 95 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 17 %<br />

Area: 21,324 ha Developed 2 %<br />

52,669 ac Undeveloped 78 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

1 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 107 ha 0.0 % 0.2 0.1 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime <strong>Coast</strong>al Sand Dune 21 occ 8.6 % 1176.9 350.0 % 6 occ 3850 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 3 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 16849 ha 0.7 % 7.3 2.2 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest 7 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 37,848 ha 140 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Del Norte Salamander Plethodon elong<strong>at</strong>us G4 1 occ 1.4 % 25.9 7.7 % 13 occ 138 %<br />

Birds<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 2 occ 0.1 % 0.8 0.2 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

2 occ 20.0 % 26.9 8.0 % 25 occ<br />

40 %<br />

Lasthenia macrantha ssp<br />

prisca<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Large-Flowered Goldfields<br />

Seaside Cryptantha Cryptantha leiocarpa 1 occ 50.0 % 48.0 14.3 % 7 occ<br />

29 %<br />

Seaside Gilia Gilia millefoli<strong>at</strong>a 1 occ 33.3 % 25.9 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

23 %<br />

Silvery Phacelia Phacelia argentea 5 occ 29.4 % 129.3 38.5 % 13 occ 123 %<br />

Western Lily Lilium occidentale 10 occ 55.6 % 134.5 40.0 % 25 occ<br />

72 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Page 193 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

New River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Lowland Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Wetlands (Mineral Soils Salhoo Malfus / Carobn<br />

1 occ 14.3 % 112.1 33.3 % 3 occ 133 %<br />

Lysame)<br />

Lowland Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Wetlands (Mineral Soils Vaculi / Desces Carobn) 5 occ 83.3 % 560.4 166.7 % 3 occ 167 %<br />

Sphagnum Bogs and Poor Fens (Ledgla / Darcal / Sphagn)Ledgla / darcal / sphagn 3 occ 33.3 % 336.3 100.0 % 3 occ 233 %<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 108 occ 159 %<br />

Double-Crested Cormorant Phalacroscorax auritus 1 occ 2.0 % 8.2 6.7 % 15 occ 200 %<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus 1 occ 0.3 % 1.3 1.1 % 95 occ 163 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 1 occ 0.3 % 1.1 0.9 % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Western Snowy Plover<br />

Charadrius alexandrinus<br />

3 occ 21.4 % 33.6 27.3 % 11 occ 100 %<br />

nivosus<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani 2 occ 0.6 2.3 1.9<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) 0 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 5,844 ha 105 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 43 ha 0.4 % 1.7 1.4 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 92 ha 0.5 % 2.1 1.7 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Unconsolid<strong>at</strong>ed (ha) 61 ha 20.1 % 82.8 67.3 % 91 ha 121 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Organics/fines (Embayment) 412 m 0.3 % 1.1 0.9 % 45,204 m<br />

218 %<br />

Organics/fines Exposed (Embayment) 524 m 0.1 % 0.4 0.4 % 144,777 m<br />

215 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) 2365 m 0.3 % 1.2 1.0 % 239,478 m<br />

223 %<br />

Organics/fines Very Protected (Embayment) 3863 m 3.9 % 15.8 12.9 % 30,025 m<br />

194 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) 1903 m 19.3 % 79.0 64.2 % 2,963 m<br />

231 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 361 m 0.3 % 1.3 1.1 % 33,330 m<br />

119 %<br />

Sand Beach (Embayment) 516 m 15.2 % 62.4 50.7 % 1,017 m<br />

311 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) 7117 m 7.3 % 30.0 24.4 % 29,156 m<br />

255 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) 7330 m 28.9 % 118.5 96.3 % 7,615 m<br />

309 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 16230 m 6.1 % 24.8 20.2 % 80,427 m<br />

122 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 113093 m 1.3 % 59.1 2.5 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Page 194 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

New River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 26480 m 0.6 % 46.8 2.0 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 105551 m 1.3 % 99.7 4.2 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Ocean Tributaries - Alluvium 4 occ 80.0 % 4699.0 200.0 % 2 occ 200 %<br />

Page 195 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Nimpkish-Tahsish<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Nimpkish-Tahsish<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 2 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: 97 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 14 %<br />

GAP 3 83 %<br />

GAP 4 3 %<br />

British Columbia<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Area: 126,260 ha Developed 0 %<br />

311,862 ac Undeveloped 96 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

4 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

Boreal Fen 2 occ 11.8 % 12.6 22.2 % 9 occ 167 %<br />

Boreal Wet Meadow 32 occ 8.5 % 151.4 266.7 % 12 occ 1833 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Avalanche Chute And Talus Shrubland 12 occ 3.1 % 75.7 133.3 % 9 occ 2956 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Coniferous Swamp 6 occ 4.1 % 28.4 50.0 % 12 occ 650 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Deciduous Swamp 323 ha 19.4 % 55.2 97.2 % 332 ha 230 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 57 ha 0.2 % 1.0 1.8 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry Douglas-Fir And Madrone Forest And Woodland 21 ha 14.9 % 40.2 70.8 % 29 ha 407 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 12182 ha 2.3 % 4.3 7.5 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 300 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.2 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Lowland Riparian Forest And Shrubland 13 occ 7.6 % 82.0 144.4 % 9 occ 1067 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Tidal Salt Marsh 1 occ 25.0 % 6.3 11.1 % 9 occ<br />

44 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 10104 ha 0.4 % 0.7 1.3 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest 12538 ha 3.3 % 9.3 16.4 % 76,367 ha 375 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 73994 ha 4.6 % 13.0 22.8 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Yellow Cedar Forest 452 ha 1.2 % 3.4 6.0 % 7,569 ha 262 %<br />

Temper<strong>at</strong>e <strong>Pacific</strong> Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Emergent Marsh 6 occ 7.7 % 28.4 50.0 % 12 occ 267 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP1) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 19165 ha 6.5 % 7.4 13.0 % 147,425 ha 110 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 49 occ 2.6 3.3 5.8<br />

Page 196 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Nimpkish-Tahsish<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP2) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 34205 ha 5.6 % 6.4 11.3 % 302,959 ha 108 %<br />

Northern Pygmy-Owl, Swarthi Subspecies Glaucidium gnoma swarthi G5 6 occ 37.5 % 18.9 33.3 % 18 occ<br />

89 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Valley Silverspot Butterfly Speyeria zerene bremnerii 1 occ 8.3 % 4.4 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

85 %<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Lance-Fruited Draba Draba lonchocarpa var vestita 2 occ 40.0 % 8.7 15.4 % 13 occ<br />

38 %<br />

Marine<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds Estuary 36625 m 9.8 % 6.8 32.5 % 112,601 m<br />

179 %<br />

Algal Beds Shore 66198 m 2.1 % 1.5 7.0 % 939,089 m<br />

119 %<br />

Dune grass Estuary 6695 m 3.2 % 2.2 10.7 % 62,438 m<br />

224 %<br />

Dune grass Shore 7594 m 1.3 % 0.9 4.3 % 176,736 m<br />

109 %<br />

Eelgrass (Ha) 112 ha 7.6 % 5.2 25.3 % 443 ha 120 %<br />

Eelgrass Estuary 4343 m 0.8 % 0.5 2.6 % 169,841 m<br />

224 %<br />

Eelgrass Shore 12129 m 1.9 % 1.3 6.5 % 187,323 m<br />

146 %<br />

Kelp Estuary 385 m 1.5 % 1.1 5.1 % 7,567 m<br />

214 %<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) 29 ha 0.2 % 0.1 0.5 % 5,844 ha 105 %<br />

Kelp Shore 16994 m 1.1 % 0.8 3.8 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 150 ha 1.4 % 1.0 4.7 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 35744 m 2.4 % 1.7 8.1 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Saltmarsh Shore 23430 m 4.3 % 3.0 14.3 % 164,143 m<br />

118 %<br />

Surfgrass Shore 320 m 0.0 % 0.0 0.1 % 363,205 m<br />

131 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 36 ha 0.2 % 0.1 0.7 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 289 ha 40.4 % 28.0 134.6 % 215 ha 185 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 68 ha 0.7 % 0.5 2.2 % 3,069 ha 224 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) 305 m 0.3 % 0.2 0.9 % 32,500 m<br />

106 %<br />

Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 941 m 6.4 % 4.4 21.3 % 4,409 m<br />

124 %<br />

Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) 904 m 40.1 % 27.8 133.8 % 676 m<br />

333 %<br />

Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1671 m 6.4 % 4.5 21.4 % 7,802 m<br />

72 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 271 m 2.5 % 1.7 8.3 % 3,276 m<br />

118 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) 25305 m 3.2 % 2.2 10.6 % 239,478 m<br />

223 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2070 m 1.7 % 1.2 5.6 % 36,906 m<br />

137 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 271 m 1.5 % 1.0 4.9 % 5,487 m<br />

160 %<br />

Page 197 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Nimpkish-Tahsish<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Rock With Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) 1393 m 8.3 % 5.8 27.7 % 5,027 m<br />

117 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 19296 m 3.0 % 2.1 10.0 % 193,399 m<br />

88 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 791 m 1.3 % 0.9 4.2 % 18,758 m<br />

216 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 911 m 0.2 % 0.2 0.8 % 116,959 m<br />

119 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 10819 m 1.4 % 1.0 4.8 % 226,193 m<br />

102 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) 1376 m 4.0 % 2.8 13.4 % 10,283 m<br />

243 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 6510 m 3.4 % 2.3 11.2 % 58,215 m<br />

98 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) 5124 m 9.1 % 6.3 30.4 % 16,881 m<br />

144 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 11958 m 5.8 % 4.0 19.4 % 61,723 m<br />

94 %<br />

Sand Beach Protected (Embayment) 1097 m 3.5 % 2.4 11.7 % 9,335 m<br />

278 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) 1515 m 2.6 % 1.8 8.6 % 17,529 m<br />

230 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2556 m 2.9 % 2.0 9.7 % 26,382 m<br />

139 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chinook Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 51492 m 8.4 % 110.4 27.9 % 184,827 m<br />

154 %<br />

Chinook Salmon, North Island Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 774 m 29.0 % 230.0 58.1 % 1,334 m<br />

96 %<br />

Chinook Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 27488 m 3.0 % 39.3 9.9 % 276,806 m<br />

176 %<br />

Chum Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus keta 19022 m 3.4 % 45.2 11.4 % 166,896 m<br />

78 %<br />

Chum Salmon, North Island Oncorhynchus keta 9355 m 6.0 % 79.7 20.1 % 46,478 m<br />

162 %<br />

Chum Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus keta 26091 m 2.9 % 37.8 9.5 % 273,258 m<br />

144 %<br />

Coho Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus kisutch 103747 m 5.6 % 74.5 18.8 % 551,718 m<br />

122 %<br />

Coho Salmon, North Island Oncorhynchus kisutch 44968 m 11.6 % 152.8 38.6 % 116,598 m<br />

192 %<br />

Coho Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus kisutch 63841 m 2.8 % 37.5 9.5 % 673,874 m<br />

155 %<br />

Cutthro<strong>at</strong> Trout, East Island Oncorhynchus clarki 1655 m 0.2 % 1.7 0.4 % 377,832 m<br />

69 %<br />

Cutthro<strong>at</strong> Trout, North Island Oncorhynchus clarki 7213 m 9.4 % 74.8 18.9 % 38,200 m<br />

101 %<br />

Cutthro<strong>at</strong> Trout, West Island Oncorhynchus clarki 23988 m 3.1 % 24.8 6.3 % 382,902 m<br />

102 %<br />

Dolly Varden, East Island Salvelinus malma G5 660 m 0.2 % 1.7 0.4 % 153,568 m<br />

123 %<br />

Dolly Varden, North Island Salvelinus malma G5 5389 m 65.5 % 519.0 131.0 % 4,114 m<br />

196 %<br />

Dolly Varden, West Island Salvelinus malma G5 31678 m 15.4 % 122.4 30.9 % 102,560 m<br />

148 %<br />

Pink Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 22064 m 7.8 % 102.8 25.9 % 85,030 m<br />

56 %<br />

Pink Salmon, North Island Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 23857 m 15.4 % 203.1 51.3 % 46,536 m<br />

207 %<br />

Pink Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 31633 m 8.3 % 109.8 27.7 % 114,095 m<br />

160 %<br />

Sockeye Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus nerka 56315 m 19.4 % 256.7 64.8 % 86,896 m<br />

177 %<br />

Sockeye Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus nerka 23663 m 3.2 % 42.6 10.8 % 220,095 m<br />

191 %<br />

Steelhead Salmon, North Island Oncorhynchus mykiss 37920 m 27.8 % 367.5 92.8 % 40,876 m<br />

273 %<br />

Page 198 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Nimpkish-Tahsish<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Summer Run Steelhead Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus mykiss 96334 m 6.5 % 86.5 21.8 % 441,335 m<br />

133 %<br />

Winter Run Steelhead Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus mykiss 49194 m 2.4 % 32.0 8.1 % 609,198 m<br />

168 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Macrohabit<strong>at</strong>s<br />

21266 m 83.3 % 1650.3 416.6 % 5,105 m<br />

500 %<br />

46371 m 3.7 % 145.1 36.6 % 126,642 m<br />

294 %<br />

27508 m 13.8 % 272.7 68.8 % 39,958 m<br />

283 %<br />

168012 m 4.4 % 174.8 44.1 % 380,781 m<br />

457 %<br />

791 m 100.0 % 791.7 199.8 % 396 m<br />

200 %<br />

666 m 4.9 % 97.7 24.7 % 2,703 m<br />

330 %<br />

265 m 10.8 % 85.7 21.6 % 1,224 m<br />

174 %<br />

19079 m 5.8 % 115.4 29.1 % 65,517 m<br />

354 %<br />

4637 m 1.8 % 34.8 8.8 % 52,799 m<br />

132 %<br />

7123 m 16.2 % 320.4 80.9 % 8,808 m<br />

264 %<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Ge<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

72902 m 6.2 % 244.3 61.7 % 118,230 m<br />

459 %<br />

2056 m 3.1 % 61.9 15.6 % 13,157 m<br />

399 %<br />

12776 m 89.4 % 1771.6 447.2 % 2,857 m<br />

500 %<br />

22693 m 2.7 % 53.2 13.4 % 168,906 m<br />

119 %<br />

19135 m 13.3 % 264.3 66.7 % 28,683 m<br />

269 %<br />

144494 m 4.7 % 186.8 47.2 % 306,396 m<br />

448 %<br />

212 m 2.8 % 22.4 5.7 % 3,746 m<br />

130 %<br />

353 m 25.0 % 197.9 50.0 % 706 m<br />

97 %<br />

8144 m 4.7 % 93.3 23.6 % 34,571 m<br />

341 %<br />

Page 199 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Nimpkish-Tahsish<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

14330 m 6.7 % 131.9 33.3 % 43,046 m<br />

162 %<br />

1453 m 2.6 % 50.7 12.8 % 11,357 m<br />

211 %<br />

60101 m 4.4 % 174.0 43.9 % 136,816 m<br />

433 %<br />

288 m 6.8 % 53.7 13.6 % 2,122 m<br />

95 %<br />

298 m 13.6 % 107.4 27.1 % 1,100 m<br />

128 %<br />

4384 m 3.5 % 69.7 17.6 % 24,918 m<br />

385 %<br />

29317 m 100.0 % 1980.9 500.0 % 5,863 m<br />

500 %<br />

174128 m 7.1 % 280.6 70.8 % 245,882 m<br />

329 %<br />

15892 m 3.7 % 72.3 18.3 % 87,042 m<br />

187 %<br />

431469 m 5.3 % 209.0 52.7 % 818,034 m<br />

586 %<br />

1829 m 100.0 % 792.7 200.1 % 914 m<br />

200 %<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Fourth Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Fourth Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

9919 m 18.2 % 359.8 90.8 % 10,922 m<br />

211 %<br />

3547 m 11.8 % 234.1 59.1 % 6,001 m<br />

276 %<br />

91833 m 4.6 % 182.1 46.0 % 199,816 m<br />

680 %<br />

436 m 2.1 % 42.1 10.6 % 4,099 m<br />

436 %<br />

14073 m 6.7 % 132.5 33.4 % 42,081 m<br />

141 %<br />

2302 m 5.5 % 109.6 27.7 % 8,325 m<br />

331 %<br />

53771 m 4.9 % 192.8 48.7 % 110,483 m<br />

407 %<br />

159 m 12.1 % 95.9 24.2 % 657 m<br />

148 %<br />

1917 m 3.2 % 62.5 15.8 % 12,156 m<br />

396 %<br />

369 m 26.4 % 209.6 52.9 % 698 m<br />

88 %<br />

43873 m 38.6 % 764.1 192.9 % 22,746 m<br />

255 %<br />

Page 200 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Nimpkish-Tahsish<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

4222 m 41.0 % 811.9 204.9 % 2,060 m<br />

205 %<br />

1769 m 12.8 % 253.6 64.0 % 2,763 m<br />

162 %<br />

5631 m 2.8 % 56.4 14.2 % 39,552 m<br />

297 %<br />

1795 m 100.0 % 791.7 199.8 % 898 m<br />

200 %<br />

5425 m 3.0 % 58.9 14.9 % 36,520 m<br />

129 %<br />

3176 m 4.1 % 82.1 20.7 % 15,320 m<br />

145 %<br />

44508 m 4.7 % 61.4 15.5 % 287,102 m<br />

162 %<br />

513 m 100.0 % 793.6 200.3 % 256 m<br />

200 %<br />

4443 m 3.4 % 68.0 17.2 % 25,878 m<br />

114 %<br />

4115 m 8.7 % 172.4 43.5 % 9,455 m<br />

116 %<br />

37601 m 3.8 % 74.9 18.9 % 199,007 m<br />

240 %<br />

Fourth Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

5382 m 3.5 % 68.6 17.3 % 31,071 m<br />

163 %<br />

3865 m 21.0 % 416.0 105.0 % 3,681 m<br />

299 %<br />

40734 m 5.0 % 65.6 16.5 % 246,148 m<br />

186 %<br />

551 m 2.1 % 40.7 10.3 % 5,369 m<br />

317 %<br />

20232 m 7.2 % 142.3 35.9 % 56,327 m<br />

151 %<br />

1779 m 2.9 % 57.4 14.5 % 12,283 m<br />

125 %<br />

59843 m 6.2 % 122.8 31.0 % 193,048 m<br />

265 %<br />

2944 m 3.8 % 75.9 19.2 % 15,371 m<br />

211 %<br />

93 m 0.4 % 7.8 2.0 % 4,738 m<br />

239 %<br />

1899 m 2.5 % 49.5 12.5 % 15,189 m<br />

295 %<br />

12094 m 1.9 % 37.2 9.4 % 128,956 m<br />

253 %<br />

Page 201 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Nimpkish-Tahsish<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

879 m 2.7 % 52.6 13.3 % 6,618 m<br />

255 %<br />

5415 m 1.1 % 22.6 5.7 % 94,768 m<br />

220 %<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Page 202 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Nimpkish-Zeballos<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Nimpkish-Zeballos<br />

British Columbia<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: 100 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 1 %<br />

GAP 3 99 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 98 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

2 %<br />

33,546 ha<br />

82,859 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

Boreal Wet Meadow 8 occ 2.1 % 142.5 66.7 % 12 occ 1833 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Avalanche Chute And Talus Shrubland 7 occ 1.8 % 166.2 77.8 % 9 occ 2956 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Deciduous Swamp 1 ha 0.0 % 0.4 0.2 % 332 ha 230 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 15 ha 0.0 % 1.0 0.4 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry Douglas-Fir And Madrone Forest And Woodland 18 ha 13.0 % 132.0 61.8 % 29 ha 407 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 5469 ha 1.0 % 7.2 3.4 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 2 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Lowland Riparian Forest And Shrubland 3 occ 1.8 % 71.2 33.3 % 9 occ 1067 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 2222 ha 0.1 % 0.6 0.3 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest 6143 ha 1.6 % 17.2 8.0 % 76,367 ha 375 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 17289 ha 1.1 % 11.4 5.3 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Yellow Cedar Forest 2 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 7,569 ha 262 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP1) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 5989 ha 2.0 % 8.7 4.1 % 147,425 ha 110 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP2) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 10534 ha 1.7 % 7.4 3.5 % 302,959 ha 108 %<br />

Northern Pygmy-Owl, Swarthi Subspecies Glaucidium gnoma swarthi G5 1 occ 6.3 % 11.9 5.6 % 18 occ<br />

89 %<br />

Mammals<br />

Wolverine (Vancouverensis) Gulo gulo vancouverensis T1 1 occ 33.3 % 16.4 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

8 %<br />

Page 203 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Nimpkish-Zeballos<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Lance-Fruited Draba Draba lonchocarpa var vestita 1 occ 20.0 % 16.4 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

38 %<br />

Smooth Douglasia Douglasia laevig<strong>at</strong>a var ciliol<strong>at</strong>a 2 occ 25.0 % 32.9 15.4 % 13 occ<br />

62 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

% % 184,827 m<br />

154 %<br />

Chinook Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 9655 m 1.0 % 52.0 3.5 % 276,806 m<br />

176 %<br />

Coho Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus kisutch 13346 m 0.7 % 36.1 2.4 % 551,718 m<br />

122 %<br />

Coho Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus kisutch 12879 m 0.6 % 28.5 1.9 % 673,874 m<br />

155 %<br />

Sockeye Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus nerka 2145 m 0.7 % 36.8 2.5 % 86,896 m<br />

177 %<br />

Summer Run Steelhead Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus mykiss 2145 m 0.1 % 7.2 0.5 % 441,335 m<br />

133 %<br />

Winter Run Steelhead Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus mykiss 12904 m 0.6 % 31.6 2.1 % 609,198 m<br />

168 %<br />

Chinook Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 693 m 0.1 5.6 0.4<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Macrohabit<strong>at</strong>s<br />

168 m 0.0 % 2.0 0.1 % 126,642 m<br />

294 %<br />

2925 m 1.5 % 109.1 7.3 % 39,958 m<br />

283 %<br />

43961 m 1.2 % 172.1 11.5 % 380,781 m<br />

457 %<br />

254 m 10.4 % 309.9 20.8 % 1,224 m<br />

174 %<br />

5512 m 1.7 % 125.5 8.4 % 65,517 m<br />

354 %<br />

15873 m 1.3 % 200.2 13.4 % 118,230 m<br />

459 %<br />

856 m 1.3 % 97.0 6.5 % 13,157 m<br />

399 %<br />

538 m 0.1 % 4.8 0.3 % 168,906 m<br />

119 %<br />

340 m 0.2 % 17.7 1.2 % 28,683 m<br />

269 %<br />

32615 m 1.1 % 158.7 10.6 % 306,396 m<br />

448 %<br />

3002 m 1.7 % 129.5 8.7 % 34,571 m<br />

341 %<br />

74 m 0.0 % 2.6 0.2 % 43,046 m<br />

162 %<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Page 204 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Nimpkish-Zeballos<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

27 m 0.0 % 3.5 0.2 % 11,357 m<br />

211 %<br />

8913 m 0.7 % 97.1 6.5 % 136,816 m<br />

433 %<br />

1491 m 1.2 % 89.2 6.0 % 24,918 m<br />

385 %<br />

3624 m 2.6 % 193.2 13.0 % 27,967 m<br />

386 %<br />

18997 m 0.8 % 115.2 7.7 % 245,882 m<br />

329 %<br />

14506 m 3.3 % 248.5 16.7 % 87,042 m<br />

187 %<br />

260677 m 3.2 % 475.2 31.9 % 818,034 m<br />

586 %<br />

854 m 1.6 % 116.5 7.8 % 10,922 m<br />

211 %<br />

1304 m 4.3 % 324.1 21.7 % 6,001 m<br />

276 %<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

86946 m 4.4 % 648.8 43.5 % 199,816 m<br />

680 %<br />

10363 m 0.9 % 139.9 9.4 % 110,483 m<br />

407 %<br />

246 m 0.4 % 30.2 2.0 % 12,156 m<br />

396 %<br />

3909 m 2.0 % 147.4 9.9 % 39,552 m<br />

297 %<br />

23299 m 2.4 % 121.0 8.1 % 287,102 m<br />

162 %<br />

18421 m 1.9 % 138.0 9.3 % 199,007 m<br />

240 %<br />

24881 m 3.0 % 150.7 10.1 % 246,148 m<br />

186 %<br />

13299 m 1.4 % 102.7 6.9 % 193,048 m<br />

265 %<br />

13 m 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 128,956 m<br />

253 %<br />

Page 205 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Nitin<strong>at</strong>-Carmanah-Walbran<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Nitin<strong>at</strong>-Carmanah-Walbran<br />

Indigenous: 1 %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 18 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: 81 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 38 %<br />

GAP 3 43 %<br />

GAP 4 19 %<br />

British Columbia<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Area: 93,396 ha Developed 0 %<br />

230,689 ac Undeveloped 95 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

5 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Avalanche Chute And Talus Shrubland 6 occ 1.6 % 51.2 66.7 % 9 occ 2956 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Coniferous Swamp 3 occ 2.0 % 19.2 25.0 % 12 occ 650 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Deciduous Swamp 12 ha 0.7 % 2.7 3.5 % 332 ha 230 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry Douglas-Fir And Madrone Forest And Woodland 15 ha 10.7 % 39.1 50.9 % 29 ha 407 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 14400 ha 2.7 % 6.8 8.9 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 152 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.1 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Lowland Riparian Forest And Shrubland 6 occ 3.5 % 51.2 66.7 % 9 occ 1067 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Tidal Salt Marsh 1 occ 25.0 % 8.5 11.1 % 9 occ<br />

44 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 3456 ha 0.1 % 0.3 0.4 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest 2080 ha 0.5 % 2.1 2.7 % 76,367 ha 375 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 64614 ha 4.0 % 15.3 19.9 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Yellow Cedar Forest 276 ha 0.7 % 2.8 3.7 % 7,569 ha 262 %<br />

Temper<strong>at</strong>e <strong>Pacific</strong> Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Emergent Marsh 2 occ 2.6 % 12.8 16.7 % 12 occ 267 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP1) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 13164 ha 4.5 % 6.9 8.9 % 147,425 ha 110 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP2) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 29042 ha 4.8 % 7.4 9.6 % 302,959 ha 108 %<br />

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis G5 1 occ 1.9 % 3.8 5.0 % 20 occ 105 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 19 occ 1.0 1.7 2.3<br />

Page 206 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Nitin<strong>at</strong>-Carmanah-Walbran<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Mammals<br />

Vancouver Island Marmot Marmota vancouverensis G1 2 occ 33.3 % 8.5 11.1 % 18 occ<br />

28 %<br />

1 occ 10.0 % 3.3 4.3 % 23 occ<br />

30 %<br />

Abronia umbell<strong>at</strong>a ssp<br />

breviflora<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Pink Sandverbena<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er Bur-Reed Sparganium fluctuans 1 occ 16.7 % 5.9 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

38 %<br />

Marine<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds Estuary 350 m 0.1 % 0.1 0.3 % 112,601 m<br />

179 %<br />

Algal Beds Shore 319 m 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 939,089 m<br />

119 %<br />

Eelgrass (Ha) 27 ha 1.8 % 1.7 6.1 % 443 ha 120 %<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) 133 ha 0.7 % 0.6 2.3 % 5,844 ha 105 %<br />

Kelp Shore 235 m 0.0 % 0.0 0.1 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 5234 m 0.4 % 0.3 1.2 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Saltmarsh Shore 2061 m 0.4 % 0.4 1.3 % 164,143 m<br />

118 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Shoreline<br />

Organics/fines Exposed (Embayment) 2349 m 0.5 % 0.5 1.6 % 144,777 m<br />

215 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) 2786 m 0.3 % 0.3 1.2 % 239,478 m<br />

223 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Exposed (Embayment) 882 m 15.0 % 14.0 49.9 % 1,767 m<br />

293 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1659 m 0.5 % 0.5 1.7 % 96,940 m<br />

112 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) 302 m 8.5 % 7.9 28.3 % 1,067 m<br />

155 %<br />

Rock With Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) 350 m 2.1 % 2.0 7.0 % 5,027 m<br />

117 %<br />

Rock With Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) 282 m 2.4 % 2.3 8.0 % 3,518 m<br />

186 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Exposed (Embayment) 285 m 0.3 % 0.3 1.0 % 29,625 m<br />

198 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2691 m 0.8 % 0.8 2.8 % 96,577 m<br />

110 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 84 m 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 226,193 m<br />

102 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) 420 m 0.7 % 0.7 2.5 % 16,915 m<br />

247 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 532 m 2.4 % 2.3 8.1 % 6,602 m<br />

153 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Embayment) 843 m 28.6 % 26.7 95.2 % 886 m<br />

221 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) 2833 m 2.9 % 2.7 9.7 % 29,156 m<br />

255 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2448 m 2.3 % 2.1 7.6 % 32,087 m<br />

121 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) 1798 m 3.1 % 2.9 10.3 % 17,529 m<br />

230 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Page 207 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Nitin<strong>at</strong>-Carmanah-Walbran<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Fishes<br />

Chinook Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 961 m 0.2 % 2.8 0.5 % 184,827 m<br />

154 %<br />

Chinook Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 68980 m 7.5 % 133.5 24.9 % 276,806 m<br />

176 %<br />

Chum Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus keta 79658 m 8.7 % 156.1 29.2 % 273,258 m<br />

144 %<br />

Coho Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus kisutch 14762 m 0.8 % 14.3 2.7 % 551,718 m<br />

122 %<br />

Coho Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus kisutch 162388 m 7.2 % 129.1 24.1 % 673,874 m<br />

155 %<br />

Cutthro<strong>at</strong> Trout, East Island Oncorhynchus clarki 12140 m 1.6 % 17.2 3.2 % 377,832 m<br />

69 %<br />

Cutthro<strong>at</strong> Trout, West Island Oncorhynchus clarki 37784 m 4.9 % 52.8 9.9 % 382,902 m<br />

102 %<br />

Dolly Varden, East Island Salvelinus malma G5 3494 m 1.1 % 12.2 2.3 % 153,568 m<br />

123 %<br />

Dolly Varden, West Island Salvelinus malma G5 12424 m 6.1 % 64.9 12.1 % 102,560 m<br />

148 %<br />

Pink Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 8957 m 2.4 % 42.0 7.9 % 114,095 m<br />

160 %<br />

Sockeye Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus nerka 56680 m 7.7 % 137.9 25.8 % 220,095 m<br />

191 %<br />

Summer Run Steelhead Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus mykiss 12854 m 0.9 % 15.6 2.9 % 441,335 m<br />

133 %<br />

Winter Run Steelhead Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus mykiss 17910 m 2.3 % 40.3 7.5 % 237,775 m<br />

125 %<br />

Winter Run Steelhead Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus mykiss 160441 m 7.9 % 141.0 26.3 % 609,198 m<br />

168 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Macrohabit<strong>at</strong>s<br />

75571 m 6.0 % 319.6 59.7 % 126,642 m<br />

294 %<br />

9262 m 4.6 % 124.1 23.2 % 39,958 m<br />

283 %<br />

131833 m 3.5 % 185.4 34.6 % 380,781 m<br />

457 %<br />

2846 m 21.1 % 563.9 105.3 % 2,703 m<br />

330 %<br />

1612 m 65.8 % 705.2 131.7 % 1,224 m<br />

174 %<br />

11814 m 4.5 % 119.8 22.4 % 52,799 m<br />

132 %<br />

433 m 1.0 % 26.3 4.9 % 8,808 m<br />

264 %<br />

40483 m 3.4 % 183.4 34.2 % 118,230 m<br />

459 %<br />

346 m 40.0 % 428.4 80.0 % 433 m<br />

152 %<br />

46027 m 5.4 % 145.9 27.2 % 168,906 m<br />

119 %<br />

10111 m 7.0 % 188.8 35.2 % 28,683 m<br />

269 %<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Page 208 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Nitin<strong>at</strong>-Carmanah-Walbran<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

118168 m 3.9 % 206.6 38.6 % 306,396 m<br />

448 %<br />

253 m 2.3 % 62.6 11.7 % 2,163 m<br />

379 %<br />

159 m 11.3 % 120.8 22.5 % 706 m<br />

97 %<br />

13093 m 6.1 % 162.9 30.4 % 43,046 m<br />

162 %<br />

535 m 0.9 % 25.2 4.7 % 11,357 m<br />

211 %<br />

38633 m 2.8 % 151.2 28.2 % 136,816 m<br />

433 %<br />

206 m 9.4 % 100.2 18.7 % 1,100 m<br />

128 %<br />

123770 m 5.0 % 269.6 50.3 % 245,882 m<br />

329 %<br />

37666 m 8.7 % 231.8 43.3 % 87,042 m<br />

187 %<br />

221989 m 2.7 % 145.3 27.1 % 818,034 m<br />

586 %<br />

1853 m 4.9 % 130.4 24.4 % 7,607 m<br />

332 %<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Ultramafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Ge<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Sandstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

4208 m 14.0 % 375.5 70.1 % 6,001 m<br />

276 %<br />

5421 m 2.6 % 69.0 12.9 % 42,081 m<br />

141 %<br />

1124 m 2.7 % 72.3 13.5 % 8,325 m<br />

331 %<br />

26520 m 2.4 % 128.6 24.0 % 110,483 m<br />

407 %<br />

15 m 0.1 % 3.0 0.6 % 2,763 m<br />

162 %<br />

403 m 0.2 % 5.5 1.0 % 39,552 m<br />

297 %<br />

7609 m 4.2 % 111.6 20.8 % 36,520 m<br />

129 %<br />

10590 m 13.8 % 370.2 69.1 % 15,320 m<br />

145 %<br />

17248 m 1.8 % 32.2 6.0 % 287,102 m<br />

162 %<br />

1783 m 1.4 % 36.9 6.9 % 25,878 m<br />

114 %<br />

1361 m 2.9 % 77.1 14.4 % 9,455 m<br />

116 %<br />

Page 209 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Nitin<strong>at</strong>-Carmanah-Walbran<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

22891 m 2.3 % 61.6 11.5 % 199,007 m<br />

240 %<br />

11342 m 7.3 % 195.5 36.5 % 31,071 m<br />

163 %<br />

900 m 4.9 % 130.9 24.4 % 3,681 m<br />

299 %<br />

33361 m 4.1 % 72.6 13.6 % 246,148 m<br />

186 %<br />

8747 m 3.1 % 83.2 15.5 % 56,327 m<br />

151 %<br />

10481 m 17.1 % 457.0 85.3 % 12,283 m<br />

125 %<br />

20492 m 2.1 % 56.8 10.6 % 193,048 m<br />

265 %<br />

256 m 28.2 % 302.3 56.5 % 454 m<br />

126 %<br />

802 m 11.0 % 118.3 22.1 % 3,629 m<br />

150 %<br />

223 m 19.5 % 208.7 39.0 % 572 m<br />

196 %<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

1183 m 1.5 % 41.2 7.7 % 15,371 m<br />

211 %<br />

840 m 94.9 % 1016.1 189.7 % 443 m<br />

190 %<br />

447 m 1.9 % 50.6 9.4 % 4,738 m<br />

239 %<br />

39385 m 51.9 % 1388.7 259.3 % 15,189 m<br />

295 %<br />

16038 m 33.2 % 888.5 165.9 % 9,667 m<br />

278 %<br />

7410 m 1.1 % 30.8 5.7 % 128,956 m<br />

253 %<br />

2361 m 7.1 % 191.1 35.7 % 6,618 m<br />

255 %<br />

5486 m 36.3 % 971.0 181.3 % 3,026 m<br />

499 %<br />

14427 m 3.0 % 81.5 15.2 % 94,768 m<br />

220 %<br />

Page 210 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

North Fork Coquille River ACEC<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

North Fork Coquille River ACEC<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 100 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 100 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 100 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

%<br />

126 ha<br />

310 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 55 ha 0.0 % 9.0 0.0 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 70 ha 0.0 % 5.2 0.0 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 1 occ 0.1 % 113.4 0.2 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong> Megomphix (Snail) Megomphix hemphilli 1 occ 1.0 % 4387.7 7.7 % 13 occ 323 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 4117 m 0.0 % 364.9 0.1 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 3877 m 0.0 % 621.2 0.2 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Page 211 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

North Fork Siletz River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

North Fork Siletz River<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 89 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 11 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 0 %<br />

GAP 3 8 %<br />

GAP 4 92 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 100 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

21,475 ha<br />

53,043 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 8 ha 0.0 % 0.8 0.2 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 576 ha 0.1 % 1.0 0.3 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 1973 ha 0.2 % 1.9 0.6 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 17922 ha 0.7 % 7.7 2.3 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Oak Woodland 1 ha 1.2 % 19.1 5.7 % 22 ha 305 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 255 ha 0.0 % 0.3 0.1 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland 1 ha 0.1 % 2.7 0.8 % 177 ha<br />

60 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 1 occ 0.1 % 0.7 0.2 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 1 occ 0.1 0.4 0.1<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Queen-Of-The-Forest Filipendula occidentalis 3 occ 10.3 % 40.1 12.0 % 25 occ 112 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 84383 m 0.9 % 43.8 1.9 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 55491 m 1.3 % 97.3 4.2 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Page 212 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

North Fork Siletz River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Summer Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 30 13016 m 5.3 % 415.8 17.8 % 73,008 m<br />

140 %<br />

Summer Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 30 54575 m 22.4 % 1743.9 74.8 % 73,008 m<br />

140 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 75741 m 0.9 % 71.0 3.0 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Ridge Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Intrusive Geology 1 occ 25.0 % 2332.5 100.0 % 1 occ 200 %<br />

North Fork/Hunter Creek ACEC<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 100 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 100 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 100 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

%<br />

762 ha<br />

1,883 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 177 ha 0.0 % 2.1 0.0 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest 176 ha 0.1 % 43.7 0.5 % 37,848 ha 140 %<br />

Species<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Hairy Manzanita Arctostaphylos hispidula 1 occ 3.6 % 723.6 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

92 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Klam<strong>at</strong>h Mountains Province ESUOncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 219 m 0.0 % 103.2 0.2 % 139,717 m<br />

157 %<br />

Page 213 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

North River Headw<strong>at</strong>ers<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

North River Headw<strong>at</strong>ers<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 17 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 83 %<br />

NGO %<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 17 %<br />

GAP 4 83 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 2 %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 97 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

%<br />

8,078 ha<br />

19,953 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 4361 ha 0.4 % 11.2 1.3 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 3541 ha 0.1 % 4.1 0.5 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Columbia Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton kezeri 9 occ 11.0 % 319.5 36.0 % 25 occ 188 %<br />

Cope's Giant Salamander Dicamptodon copei 3 occ 3.4 % 204.8 23.1 % 13 occ 415 %<br />

Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni G4 5 occ 7.8 % 634.0 71.4 % 7 occ 586 %<br />

Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei G3 2 occ 4.5 % 88.8 10.0 % 20 occ 175 %<br />

Birds<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 1 occ 0.1 % 1.0 0.1 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis G5 1 occ 1.9 % 44.4 5.0 % 20 occ 105 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 2 occ 0.2 % 3.5 0.4 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

% % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 32567 m 0.7 % 140.1 2.3 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 305 m 0.0 2.6 0.0<br />

Page 214 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

North River Headw<strong>at</strong>ers<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 15663 m 0.5 % 102.9 1.7 % 943,067 m<br />

129 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Southwest Washington ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 32339 m 1.0 % 196.9 3.2 % 1,017,511 m<br />

137 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

1 occ 2.6 % 563.1 9.1 % 11 occ 100 %<br />

Willapa Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sandstones, Low To Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e/Low<br />

Gradient<br />

Page 215 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional Park<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional Park<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 1 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 97 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 2 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 92 %<br />

GAP 2 0 %<br />

GAP 3 7 %<br />

GAP 4 1 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 420,223 ha Developed 0 %<br />

1,037,951 ac Undeveloped 98 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

1 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong>al Herbaceous Bald And Bluff 21 occ 91.3 % 119.4 700.0 % 3 occ 700 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 19283 ha 58.9 % 100.5 589.1 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 44 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 17670 ha 2.7 % 1.5 9.0 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 68124 ha 5.9 % 3.4 19.7 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 65516 ha 2.5 % 1.4 8.4 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Montane Riparian Woodland And Shrubland 1 occ 2.3 % 1.9 11.1 % 9 occ 100 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest 121458 ha 31.8 % 27.1 159.0 % 76,367 ha 375 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 121218 ha 7.5 % 6.4 37.4 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Cascades Frog Rana cascadae 3 occ 75.0 % 3.9 23.1 % 13 occ<br />

31 %<br />

Cope's Giant Salamander Dicamptodon copei 32 occ 36.4 % 42.0 246.2 % 13 occ 415 %<br />

Olympic Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton olympicus 54 occ 69.2 % 36.9 216.0 % 25 occ 256 %<br />

Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei G3 12 occ 27.3 % 10.2 60.0 % 20 occ 175 %<br />

Birds<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 10 occ 0.5 % 0.2 1.2 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus 20 occ 35.7 % 68.3 400.0 % 5 occ 580 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 135 occ 7.7 % 2.6 15.3 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Page 216 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional Park<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis G5 7 occ 13.2 % 6.0 35.0 % 20 occ 105 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 126 occ 12.5 % 4.3 25.0 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Vaux's Swift Chaetura vauxi 1 occ 20.0 % 3.4 20.0 % 5 occ<br />

40 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Acmon Blue Plebejus acmon spangel<strong>at</strong>us G5 2 occ 100.0 % 2.6 15.4 % 13 occ<br />

15 %<br />

Boisduval's Blue, Blackmorei Icaricia icarioides blackmorei T3 6 occ 54.5 % 7.9 46.2 % 13 occ<br />

69 %<br />

Chalcedon Checkerspot<br />

Euphydryas chalcedona<br />

12 occ 80.0 % 15.8 92.3 % 13 occ 115 %<br />

perdiccas<br />

Chryxus Arctic Oeneis chryxus valer<strong>at</strong>a 9 occ 90.0 % 11.8 69.2 % 13 occ<br />

77 %<br />

Moss' Elfin, Mossii Subspecies Incisalia mossii mossii G4T 1 occ 25.0 % 1.3 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

15 %<br />

Smintheus Parnassian<br />

Parnassius smintheus G5T 11 occ 84.6 % 14.4 84.6 % 13 occ 100 %<br />

olympianus<br />

Valley Silverspot Butterfly Speyeria zerene bremnerii 4 occ 33.3 % 5.3 30.8 % 13 occ<br />

85 %<br />

Warty Jumping-Slug<br />

Hemphillia glandulosa<br />

1 occ 1.4 % 1.3 7.7 % 13 occ 200 %<br />

glandulosa<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Alaska Plantain Plantago macrocarpa g4 1 occ 12.5 % 1.3 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

62 %<br />

Brewer's Cliff-Brake Pellaea breweri 2 occ 100.0 % 11.4 66.7 % 3 occ<br />

67 %<br />

Cotton's Milk-Vetch<br />

Astragalus australis var<br />

8 occ 88.9 % 5.5 32.0 % 25 occ<br />

36 %<br />

olympicus<br />

Cut-Leaf Synthyris<br />

Synthyris pinn<strong>at</strong>ifida var T2 19 occ 100.0 % 13.0 76.0 % 25 occ<br />

76 %<br />

lanugino<br />

Frigid Shootingstar Dodec<strong>at</strong>heon austrofrigidum 1 occ 33.3 % 0.7 4.0 % 25 occ<br />

12 %<br />

Least Bladdery Milk-Vetch Astragalus microcystis 2 occ 100.0 % 2.6 15.4 % 13 occ<br />

15 %<br />

Tall Bugbane Cimicifuga el<strong>at</strong>a 1 occ 2.0 % 2.4 14.3 % 7 occ 257 %<br />

Tisch's Saxifrage Saxifraga tischii 2 occ 100.0 % 1.4 8.0 % 25 occ<br />

8 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Bull Trout Salmon, <strong>Coast</strong>al and Puget Sound ESU Salvelinus confluentus G3 21422 m 15.8 % 37.7 31.7 % 67,612 m<br />

166 %<br />

Bull Trout Salmon, <strong>Coast</strong>al and Puget Sound ESU Salvelinus confluentus G3 76803 m 56.8 % 135.3 113.6 % 67,612 m<br />

166 %<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 38835 m 1.6 % 6.4 5.4 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Olympic Peninsula ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop ? 163373 m 8.7 % 34.7 29.1 % 560,551 m<br />

109 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Puget Sound ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop ? 38477 m 5.7 % 22.8 19.2 % 200,804 m<br />

39 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Puget Sound ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 25237 m 12.6 % 30.0 25.2 % 99,955 m<br />

38 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 236651 m 7.5 % 29.9 25.1 % 943,067 m<br />

129 %<br />

Page 217 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional Park<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Pink Salmon, Odd-year ESU Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 29870 m 24.6 % 97.5 82.0 % 36,446 m<br />

114 %<br />

Pygmy Whitefish Prosopium coulteri G5 1 occ 100.0 % 17.0 14.3 % 7 occ<br />

14 %<br />

Sockeye Salmon, Quinault Lake ESU Oncorhynchus nerka 81091 m 96.5 % 114.9 96.5 % 84,075 m<br />

100 %<br />

Spring Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 285924 m 27.4 % 108.9 91.5 % 312,652 m<br />

187 %<br />

Summer Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 130680 m 26.9 % 106.6 89.5 % 145,936 m<br />

144 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Olympic Peninsula ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 208545 m 18.3 % 72.7 61.0 % 341,699 m<br />

123 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Puget Sound ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 46363 m 10.7 % 42.3 35.5 % 130,417 m<br />

59 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

Northern Olympics rivers - sandstone, mid to low elev<strong>at</strong>ion, mixed gradient 2 occ 40.0 % 119.0 100.0 % 2 occ 150 %<br />

Straight of Juan de Fuca small rivers - predominantly sandstone, low<br />

1 occ 33.3 % 119.0 100.0 % 1 occ 100 %<br />

elev<strong>at</strong>ion, variable gradient<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Upland - Glacial Till, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Low To Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient 3 occ 7.3 % 29.8 25.0 % 12 occ 133 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Upland - Sandstones, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient 1 occ 2.5 % 9.9 8.3 % 12 occ 133 %<br />

Juan De Fuca <strong>Coast</strong>al Streams - Sandstone , Low To Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion,<br />

1 occ 3.6 % 14.9 12.5 % 8 occ<br />

50 %<br />

Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient<br />

Olympics - Sandstones, High Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, High Gradient 12 occ 100.0 % 357.2 300.0 % 4 occ 300 %<br />

Olympics - Sandstones, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, High Gradient 15 occ 50.0 % 198.5 166.7 % 9 occ 211 %<br />

Olympics Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sandstone, Mid To High Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e To<br />

14 occ 58.3 % 238.0 200.0 % 7 occ 329 %<br />

High Gradient<br />

Olympics Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sandstone, Mid To High Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e To<br />

9 occ 37.5 % 153.1 128.6 % 7 occ 329 %<br />

High Gradient<br />

Olympics Rainshadow <strong>Coast</strong>al Headw<strong>at</strong>ers 1 occ 12.5 % 59.5 50.0 % 2 occ 100 %<br />

Olympics Rainshadow <strong>Coast</strong>al Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Mafic, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion,<br />

6 occ 18.8 % 71.4 60.0 % 10 occ 130 %<br />

Moder<strong>at</strong>e To High Gradient<br />

Willapa Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ions, High Gradients 2 occ 6.7 % 26.5 22.2 % 9 occ 133 %<br />

Page 218 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional Park-<strong>Coast</strong>al Unit/Ozette Lake<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional Park-<strong>Coast</strong>al Unit/Ozette Lake<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 42 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 11 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 41 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 11 %<br />

GAP 4 48 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 48 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 90 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

10 %<br />

34,399 ha<br />

84,966 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 25664 ha 3.9 % 27.4 13.1 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 1631 ha 0.1 % 1.0 0.5 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 3326 ha 0.1 % 0.9 0.4 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 5 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Cope's Giant Salamander Dicamptodon copei 1 occ 1.1 % 16.0 7.7 % 13 occ 415 %<br />

Birds<br />

American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus an<strong>at</strong>um 6 occ 33.3 % 73.6 35.3 % 17 occ<br />

65 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 42 occ 2.2 % 10.4 5.0 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Bald Eagle Wintering Area<br />

Haliaeetus leucocephalus<br />

1 occ 7.1 % 14.9 7.1 % 14 occ<br />

29 %<br />

wintering area<br />

Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus 1 occ 1.8 % 41.7 20.0 % 5 occ 580 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 32 occ 1.8 % 7.6 3.6 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 9 occ 0.9 % 3.7 1.8 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

T5 1 occ 33.3 % 16.0 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

15 %<br />

Lycaena mariposa<br />

charlottensis<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Makah (Queen Charlotte) Copper<br />

1 occ 1.4 % 16.0 7.7 % 13 occ 200 %<br />

Hemphillia glandulosa<br />

glandulosa<br />

Warty Jumping-Slug<br />

Page 219 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional Park-<strong>Coast</strong>al Unit/Ozette Lake<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Alaska Plantain Plantago macrocarpa g4 7 occ 87.5 % 112.2 53.8 % 13 occ<br />

62 %<br />

Several-Flowered Sedge Carex pluriflora 2 occ 50.0 % 59.6 28.6 % 7 occ<br />

57 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er Bur-Reed Sparganium fluctuans 2 occ 33.3 % 32.1 15.4 % 13 occ<br />

38 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Mineral Spring 1 occ 1.6 % 10.4 5.0 % 20 occ 150 %<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 108 occ 159 %<br />

Common Murre 3 occ 3.0 % 7.6 10.0 % 30 occ 187 %<br />

Double-Crested Cormorant Phalacroscorax auritus 2 occ 4.0 % 10.2 13.3 % 15 occ 200 %<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus 8 occ 2.5 % 6.4 8.4 % 95 occ 163 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 4 occ 1.0 % 2.6 3.4 % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Tufted Puffin Fr<strong>at</strong>ercula cirrh<strong>at</strong>a 3 occ 3.2 % 7.6 10.0 % 30 occ 190 %<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani 11 occ 3.1 7.8 10.2<br />

Fishes<br />

Smelt spawn 10636 m 25.1 % 63.9 83.7 % 12,705 m<br />

140 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Mussels and barnacles 38008 m 3.4 % 8.6 11.3 % 337,346 m<br />

132 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds Shore 35678 m 1.1 % 2.9 3.8 % 939,089 m<br />

119 %<br />

Dune grass Shore 15401 m 2.6 % 6.6 8.7 % 176,736 m<br />

109 %<br />

Kelp high persistence (WA) 89 ha 7.9 % 20.2 26.5 % 336 ha 168 %<br />

Kelp low persistence (WA) 248 ha 10.7 % 27.3 35.8 % 692 ha 162 %<br />

Kelp medium persistence (WA) 70 ha 6.6 % 16.7 21.9 % 320 ha 169 %<br />

Kelp Shore 14855 m 1.0 % 2.5 3.3 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 5 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.1 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Surfgrass Shore 25826 m 2.1 % 5.4 7.1 % 363,205 m<br />

131 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 10 ha 1.1 % 2.7 3.6 % 279 ha 116 %<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 40 ha 0.2 % 0.6 0.7 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Page 220 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional Park-<strong>Coast</strong>al Unit/Ozette Lake<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Organics/fines Exposed (Embayment) 1519 m 0.3 % 0.8 1.0 % 144,777 m<br />

215 %<br />

Organics/fines Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 198 m 6.2 % 15.7 20.6 % 960 m<br />

96 %<br />

Organics/fines Very Protected (Embayment) 3867 m 3.9 % 9.8 12.9 % 30,025 m<br />

194 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 4878 m 2.3 % 5.7 7.5 % 64,871 m<br />

114 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 8768 m 4.8 % 12.3 16.1 % 54,295 m<br />

137 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 8337 m 2.6 % 6.6 8.6 % 96,577 m<br />

110 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) 1277 m 2.3 % 5.8 7.5 % 16,915 m<br />

247 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 782 m 3.6 % 9.0 11.8 % 6,602 m<br />

153 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 656 m 2.9 % 7.5 9.8 % 6,697 m<br />

79 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1599 m 1.5 % 3.8 5.0 % 32,087 m<br />

121 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 7911 m 11.6 % 29.6 38.8 % 20,374 m<br />

125 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, Olympic Peninsula ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop ? 57711 m 3.1 % 149.8 10.3 % 560,551 m<br />

109 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 20050 m 0.6 % 30.9 2.1 % 943,067 m<br />

129 %<br />

Olympic Mudminnow Novumbra hubbsi G3 3 occ 13.6 % 396.7 27.3 % 11 occ 109 %<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> Lamprey Lampetra trident<strong>at</strong>a G5 2 occ 6.1 % % occ<br />

%<br />

Sockeye Salmon, Ozette Lake ESU Oncorhynchus nerka 30339 m 88.2 % 1282.9 88.2 % 34,400 m<br />

88 %<br />

Spring Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 3303 m 0.3 % 15.4 1.1 % 312,652 m<br />

187 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Olympic Peninsula ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 44732 m 3.9 % 190.4 13.1 % 341,699 m<br />

123 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Small Rivers - Outwash, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion 1 occ 33.3 % 1454.7 100.0 % 1 occ 100 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Upland - Glacial Till, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Low To Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient 4 occ 9.8 % 484.9 33.3 % 12 occ 133 %<br />

Page 221 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong> Islands NWR<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong> Islands NWR<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 93 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 6 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 100 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 0 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 28 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

55 %<br />

163 ha<br />

402 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 9 ha 0.0 % 0.5 0.0 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Species<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Microseris Microseris bigelovii 1 occ 100.0 % 3386.7 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

8 %<br />

Large-Flowered Goldfields<br />

Lasthenia macrantha ssp<br />

1 occ 10.0 % 1761.1 4.0 % 25 occ<br />

40 %<br />

prisca<br />

Silvery Phacelia Phacelia argentea 1 occ 5.9 % 3386.7 7.7 % 13 occ 123 %<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Aleutian Canada Goose Branta canadensis leucopareia 2 occ 11.1 % 5370.5 33.3 % 6 occ 133 %<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani 35 occ 9.8 % 5221.4 32.4 % 108 occ 159 %<br />

Brandt's Cormorant Phalacrocorax penicill<strong>at</strong>us 17 occ 16.8 % 8835.4 54.8 % 31 occ 168 %<br />

Common Murre 13 occ 12.9 % 6981.7 43.3 % 30 occ 187 %<br />

Double-Crested Cormorant Phalacroscorax auritus 3 occ 6.0 % 3222.3 20.0 % 15 occ 200 %<br />

Leach's Storm-Petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa 2 occ 5.6 % 2929.4 18.2 % 11 occ 200 %<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus 38 occ 12.0 % 6444.6 40.0 % 95 occ 163 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 47 occ 12.2 % 6528.0 40.5 % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Page 222 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong> Islands NWR<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Rhinoceros Auklet Cerorhinca monocer<strong>at</strong>a 1 occ 6.3 % 3222.3 20.0 % 5 occ 180 %<br />

Tufted Puffin Fr<strong>at</strong>ercula cirrh<strong>at</strong>a 9 occ 9.6 % 4833.5 30.0 % 30 occ 190 %<br />

Mammals<br />

Stellar's Sea Lion Eumetopias jub<strong>at</strong>us 10 occ 29.4 % 3426.3 83.3 % 12 occ 217 %<br />

Stellar's Sea Lion haulout 11 occ 26.8 % 3632.9 84.6 % 13 occ 223 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds (ha) 1 ha 0.0 % 3.6 0.0 % 3,384 ha 330 %<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) 688 ha 3.5 % 1898.0 11.8 % 5,844 ha 105 %<br />

Kelp Shore 21147 m 1.4 % 764.0 4.7 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 2 ha 0.0 % 9.3 0.1 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Cobble/Gravel (ha) 1 ha 0.4 % 224.1 1.4 % 55 ha 282 %<br />

Cobble/Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 0 ha 0.2 % 130.4 0.8 % 60 ha 332 %<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 5 ha 0.0 % 13.7 0.1 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 0 ha 0.0 % 1.8 0.0 % 3,069 ha 224 %<br />

Unconsolid<strong>at</strong>ed (ha) 5 ha 1.6 % 836.4 5.2 % 91 ha 121 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Gravel Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1514 m 13.8 % 7424.2 46.1 % 3,285 m<br />

158 %<br />

Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) 1569 m 9.5 % 5123.1 31.8 % 4,933 m<br />

278 %<br />

Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 4623 m 9.5 % 5109.4 31.7 % 14,577 m<br />

89 %<br />

Gravel Beach Very Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2173 m 46.5 % 24989.8 155.1 % 1,401 m<br />

263 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 211 m 1.2 % 620.6 3.9 % 5,487 m<br />

160 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2406 m 0.4 % 200.4 1.2 % 193,399 m<br />

88 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 895 m 8.3 % 4480.4 27.8 % 3,219 m<br />

124 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2084 m 18.2 % 9772.4 60.7 % 3,436 m<br />

132 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Very Exposed (Embayment) 51 m 5.0 % 2699.7 16.8 % 304 m<br />

334 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 16174 m 4.1 % 2228.1 13.8 % 116,959 m<br />

119 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 7751 m 9.6 % 5180.7 32.2 % 24,105 m<br />

129 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 9594 m 8.6 % 4637.5 28.8 % 33,330 m<br />

119 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach Very Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 158 m 3.7 % 1976.7 12.3 % 1,289 m<br />

140 %<br />

Sand Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1889 m 2.9 % 1564.3 9.7 % 19,455 m<br />

89 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 4333 m 1.6 % 868.1 5.4 % 80,427 m<br />

122 %<br />

Page 223 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Point Grenville - Grenville Bay (Marine)<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Point Grenville - Grenville Bay (Marine)<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Washington<br />

Marine Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 800 ha Developed 0 %<br />

1,976 ac Undeveloped 0 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er 100 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani 2 occ 0.6 % 60.7 1.9 % 108 occ 159 %<br />

Common Murre 2 occ 2.0 % 218.7 6.7 % 30 occ 187 %<br />

Double-Crested Cormorant Phalacroscorax auritus 2 occ 4.0 % 437.3 13.3 % 15 occ 200 %<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus 2 occ 0.6 % 69.1 2.1 % 95 occ 163 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 1 occ 0.3 % 28.3 0.9 % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Tufted Puffin Fr<strong>at</strong>ercula cirrh<strong>at</strong>a 2 occ 2.1 % 218.7 6.7 % 30 occ 190 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Mussels and barnacles 492 m 0.0 % 4.8 0.1 % 337,346 m<br />

132 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds Shore 492 m 0.0 % 1.7 0.1 % 939,089 m<br />

119 %<br />

Dune grass Shore 2490 m 0.4 % 46.2 1.4 % 176,736 m<br />

109 %<br />

Saltmarsh Shore 2490 m 0.5 % 49.8 1.5 % 164,143 m<br />

118 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Shoreline<br />

Rocky/Cliff Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 492 m 0.2 % 16.7 0.5 % 96,577 m<br />

110 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2490 m 2.5 % 273.9 8.4 % 29,817 m<br />

64 %<br />

Page 224 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Pysht River (Marine)<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Pysht River (Marine)<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Washington<br />

Marine Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 800 ha Developed 0 %<br />

1,976 ac Undeveloped 0 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er 100 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Mussels and barnacles 1438 m 0.1 % 14.0 0.4 % 337,346 m<br />

132 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds (ha) 16 ha 0.1 % 16.0 0.5 % 3,384 ha 330 %<br />

Algal Beds Estuary 1403 m 0.4 % 40.9 1.2 % 112,601 m<br />

179 %<br />

Algal Beds Shore 2247 m 0.1 % 7.8 0.2 % 939,089 m<br />

119 %<br />

Dune grass (Ha) 16 ha 2.8 % 305.7 9.3 % 177 ha 333 %<br />

Dune grass Estuary 1403 m 0.7 % 73.7 2.2 % 62,438 m<br />

224 %<br />

Dune grass Shore 466 m 0.1 % 8.6 0.3 % 176,736 m<br />

109 %<br />

Kelp high persistence (WA) 11 ha 1.0 % 104.9 3.2 % 336 ha 168 %<br />

Kelp low persistence (WA) 26 ha 1.1 % 121.7 3.7 % 692 ha 162 %<br />

Kelp medium persistence (WA) 11 ha 1.0 % 114.6 3.5 % 320 ha 169 %<br />

Organic: Partly Enclosed, Backshore, Polyhaline (Marsh) OpModer<strong>at</strong>e salinity high marsh<br />

1 occ 8.3 % 1093.3 33.3 % 3 occ 400 %<br />

op<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 16 ha 0.2 % 17.1 0.5 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 1403 m 0.1 % 10.4 0.3 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Surfgrass Shore 2712 m 0.2 % 24.5 0.7 % 363,205 m<br />

131 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 16 ha 0.1 % 9.8 0.3 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Page 225 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Pysht River (Marine)<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Shoreline<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) 1403 m 0.2 % 19.2 0.6 % 239,478 m<br />

223 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 809 m 3.7 % 401.8 12.2 % 6,602 m<br />

153 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 466 m 0.5 % 57.9 1.8 % 26,382 m<br />

139 %<br />

Page 226 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Quilcene River-Dabob Bay<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Quilcene River-Dabob Bay<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 26 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 65 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 9 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 74 %<br />

GAP 4 26 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 1 %<br />

Area: 5,371 ha Developed 2 %<br />

13,266 ac Undeveloped 96 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

1 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 174 ha 0.5 % 71.1 5.3 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 3560 ha 0.3 % 13.7 1.0 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 698 ha 0.0 % 1.2 0.1 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest 93 ha 0.0 % 1.6 0.1 % 76,367 ha 375 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 636 ha 0.0 % 2.6 0.2 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Gre<strong>at</strong>-Blue Heron Ardea herodias 1 occ 1.4 % 148.3 11.1 % 9 occ 144 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 1 occ 0.1 % 1.5 0.1 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 1 occ 0.1 % 2.7 0.2 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 5 occ 0.3 8.0 0.6<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Boisduval's Blue, Blackmorei Icaricia icarioides blackmorei T3 1 occ 9.1 % 102.7 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

69 %<br />

Chalcedon Checkerspot<br />

Euphydryas chalcedona<br />

2 occ 13.3 % 205.4 15.4 % 13 occ 115 %<br />

perdiccas<br />

Chryxus Arctic Oeneis chryxus valer<strong>at</strong>a 1 occ 10.0 % 102.7 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

77 %<br />

Smintheus Parnassian<br />

Parnassius smintheus G5T 1 occ 7.7 % 102.7 7.7 % 13 occ 100 %<br />

olympianus<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Page 227 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Quilcene River-Dabob Bay<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, Hood Canal Summer Run ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop ? 1458 m 0.9 % 176.1 1.9 % 77,120 m<br />

15 %<br />

Chum Salmon, Puget Sound/Strait ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop ? 1458 m 0.6 % 198.8 2.1 % 68,298 m<br />

18 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Puget Sound ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop ? 3678 m 0.5 % 170.6 1.8 % 200,804 m<br />

39 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Puget Sound ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 417 m 0.1 % 29.8 0.3 % 130,417 m<br />

59 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

9 occ 22.0 % 6983.7 75.0 % 12 occ 125 %<br />

Puget lowland headw<strong>at</strong>ers west - glacial drift, low elev<strong>at</strong>ion, low to<br />

moder<strong>at</strong>e gradient<br />

Page 228 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Quillayute Needles NWR<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Quillayute Needles NWR<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 100 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 100 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 94 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

4 %<br />

80 ha<br />

197 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani 11 occ 3.1 % 3349.6 10.2 % 108 occ 159 %<br />

Brandt's Cormorant Phalacrocorax penicill<strong>at</strong>us 1 occ 1.0 % 1060.9 3.2 % 31 occ 168 %<br />

Cassin's Auklet Ptychoramphus aleuticus 1 occ 5.6 % 5481.2 16.7 % 6 occ 150 %<br />

Common Murre 1 occ 1.0 % 1096.2 3.3 % 30 occ 187 %<br />

Double-Crested Cormorant Phalacroscorax auritus 2 occ 4.0 % 4385.0 13.3 % 15 occ 200 %<br />

Fork-Tailed Storm Petral 1 occ 7.1 % 8221.8 25.0 % 4 occ 175 %<br />

Leach's Storm-Petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa 1 occ 2.8 % 2989.8 9.1 % 11 occ 200 %<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus 11 occ 3.5 % 3808.0 11.6 % 95 occ 163 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 6 occ 1.6 % 1701.1 5.2 % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Rhinoceros Auklet Cerorhinca monocer<strong>at</strong>a 1 occ 6.3 % 6577.5 20.0 % 5 occ 180 %<br />

Tufted Puffin Fr<strong>at</strong>ercula cirrh<strong>at</strong>a 4 occ 4.3 % 4385.0 13.3 % 30 occ 190 %<br />

Fishes<br />

Smelt spawn 2609 m 6.2 % 6754.3 20.5 % 12,705 m<br />

140 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Mussels and barnacles 16750 m 1.5 % 1632.9 5.0 % 337,346 m<br />

132 %<br />

Mammals<br />

Stellar's Sea Lion Eumetopias jub<strong>at</strong>us 1 occ 2.9 % 2740.6 8.3 % 12 occ 217 %<br />

Stellar's Sea Lion haulout 1 occ 2.4 % 2529.8 7.7 % 13 occ 223 %<br />

Page 229 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Quillayute Needles NWR<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds Shore 13324 m 0.4 % 466.6 1.4 % 939,089 m<br />

119 %<br />

Dune grass Shore 4643 m 0.8 % 864.0 2.6 % 176,736 m<br />

109 %<br />

Kelp high persistence (WA) 8 ha 0.7 % 810.5 2.5 % 336 ha 168 %<br />

Kelp low persistence (WA) 56 ha 2.4 % 2664.0 8.1 % 692 ha 162 %<br />

Kelp medium persistence (WA) 11 ha 1.1 % 1155.4 3.5 % 320 ha 169 %<br />

Kelp Shore 3292 m 0.2 % 242.8 0.7 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Surfgrass Shore 6980 m 0.6 % 632.0 1.9 % 363,205 m<br />

131 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 8 ha 0.0 % 49.9 0.2 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Organics/fines Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 719 m 22.5 % 24636.0 74.9 % 960 m<br />

96 %<br />

Organics/fines Very Protected (Embayment) 758 m 0.8 % 830.7 2.5 % 30,025 m<br />

194 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 51 m 0.0 % 17.4 0.1 % 96,940 m<br />

112 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 3918 m 1.8 % 1986.5 6.0 % 64,871 m<br />

114 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2260 m 1.2 % 1368.7 4.2 % 54,295 m<br />

137 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 3541 m 1.1 % 1205.8 3.7 % 96,577 m<br />

110 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) 101 m 0.2 % 195.8 0.6 % 16,915 m<br />

247 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1351 m 6.1 % 6634.4 20.2 % 6,697 m<br />

79 %<br />

Page 230 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Quillayute-Sol Duc River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Quillayute-Sol Duc River<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 44 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 23 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 33 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 56 %<br />

GAP 4 44 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Area: 6,754 ha Developed 0 %<br />

16,683 ac Undeveloped 95 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

5 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 3347 ha 0.5 % 18.2 1.7 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 586 ha 0.1 % 1.8 0.2 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 2090 ha 0.1 % 2.9 0.3 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 421 ha 0.0 % 1.4 0.1 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 4 occ 0.2 % 4.8 0.5 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis G5 1 occ 1.9 % 53.1 5.0 % 20 occ 105 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 1 occ 0.1 % 2.1 0.2 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 2 occ 0.1 2.5 0.2<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, Olympic Peninsula ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop ? 31800 m 1.7 % 420.3 5.7 % 560,551 m<br />

109 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 28978 m 0.9 % 227.6 3.1 % 943,067 m<br />

129 %<br />

Sockeye Salmon, Lake Pleasant ESU Oncorhynchus nerka 6107 m 100.0 % 7408.4 100.0 % 6,107 m<br />

100 %<br />

Spring Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 19414 m 1.9 % 460.0 6.2 % 312,652 m<br />

187 %<br />

Summer Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 25599 m 5.3 % 1299.6 17.5 % 145,936 m<br />

144 %<br />

Page 231 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Quillayute-Sol Duc River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Olympic Peninsula ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 26481 m 2.3 % 574.2 7.7 % 341,699 m<br />

123 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Upland - Sandstones, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient 2 occ 5.0 % 1234.8 16.7 % 12 occ 133 %<br />

Page 232 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Quinault River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Quinault River<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 21 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 78 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 1 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 54 %<br />

GAP 4 46 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 12,482 ha Developed 1 %<br />

30,830 ac Undeveloped 97 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

1 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 16 ha 0.0 % 2.8 0.5 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 5999 ha 0.9 % 17.6 3.1 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 344 ha 0.0 % 0.6 0.1 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 2977 ha 0.1 % 2.2 0.4 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 2915 ha 0.2 % 5.2 0.9 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Cope's Giant Salamander Dicamptodon copei 1 occ 1.1 % 44.2 7.7 % 13 occ 415 %<br />

Birds<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 2 occ 0.1 % 1.4 0.2 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 3 occ 0.2 % 2.0 0.3 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 5 occ 0.5 % 5.7 1.0 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Burrington Jumping-Slug Hemphillia burringtoni 6 occ 14.3 % 265.1 46.2 % 13 occ 115 %<br />

Warty Jumping-Slug<br />

Hemphillia glandulosa<br />

5 occ 7.2 % 220.9 38.5 % 13 occ 200 %<br />

glandulosa<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Page 233 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Quinault River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 1683 m 0.1 % 9.3 0.2 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Olympic Peninsula ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop ? 12049 m 0.6 % 86.2 2.1 % 560,551 m<br />

109 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 10904 m 0.3 % 46.4 1.2 % 943,067 m<br />

129 %<br />

Olympic Mudminnow Novumbra hubbsi G3 1 occ 4.5 % 364.5 9.1 % 11 occ 109 %<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> Lamprey Lampetra trident<strong>at</strong>a G5 1 occ 3.0 % % occ<br />

%<br />

Sockeye Salmon, Quinault Lake ESU Oncorhynchus nerka 2985 m 3.5 % 142.3 3.5 % 84,075 m<br />

100 %<br />

Spring Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 66 m 0.0 % 0.9 0.0 % 312,652 m<br />

187 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

1 occ 14.3 % 2004.5 50.0 % 2 occ 100 %<br />

Olympics Small Rivers - Sandstone, Low To Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Low To<br />

Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Upland - Glacial Till, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Low To Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient 3 occ 7.3 % 1002.3 25.0 % 12 occ 133 %<br />

Page 234 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Rock Creek (Coquille)<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Rock Creek (Coquille)<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 65 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 35 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 3 %<br />

GAP 3 32 %<br />

GAP 4 65 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 100 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

7,414 ha<br />

18,313 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 1070 ha 0.1 % 3.0 0.3 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 5469 ha 0.2 % 6.8 0.7 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest 870 ha 0.5 % 22.2 2.3 % 37,848 ha 140 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 2 occ 0.2 % 3.8 0.4 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Blue-Gray Taildropper Prophysaon coeruleum 1 occ 0.6 % 74.4 7.7 % 13 occ 454 %<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Bensonia Bensoniella oregana 1 occ 3.3 % 74.4 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

69 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

% % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 2225 m 0.1 % 11.3 0.2 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 1098 m 0.0 % 3.0 0.0 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 4626 m 0.1 7.0 0.1<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

Page 235 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Rock Creek (Coquille)<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Ridge - Sediment 1 occ 14.3 % 3378.7 50.0 % 2 occ 150 %<br />

Rocky Creek St<strong>at</strong>e Wayside<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 100 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 100 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 78 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

22 %<br />

24 ha<br />

59 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 10 ha 0.0 % 15.9 0.0 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

Page 236 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Saddle Mountain<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Saddle Mountain<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 90 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 10 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 7 %<br />

GAP 3 3 %<br />

GAP 4 90 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 1 %<br />

Area: 16,870 ha Developed 0 %<br />

41,668 ac Undeveloped 99 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 2 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 9034 ha 1.4 % 19.7 4.6 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 265 ha 0.0 % 0.3 0.1 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 7066 ha 0.3 % 3.9 0.9 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 477 ha 0.0 % 0.6 0.1 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Nonvascular Plants<br />

Liverwort (Radula) Radula brunnea 1 occ 100.0 % 60.7 14.3 % 7 occ<br />

14 %<br />

Moss (Encalypta) Encalypta brevipes 1 occ 100.0 % 32.7 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

8 %<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Frigid Shootingstar Dodec<strong>at</strong>heon austrofrigidum 1 occ 33.3 % 17.0 4.0 % 25 occ<br />

12 %<br />

Hairy-Stemmed Checker-Mallow Sidalcea hirtipes 1 occ 6.7 % 17.0 4.0 % 25 occ<br />

48 %<br />

Saddle Mt. Bittercress Cardamine p<strong>at</strong>tersonii 1 occ 100.0 % 17.0 4.0 % 25 occ<br />

4 %<br />

Saddle Mt. Saxifrage Saxifraga hitchcockiana 1 occ 33.3 % 17.0 4.0 % 25 occ<br />

12 %<br />

Wandering Daisy<br />

Erigeron peregrinus ssp T2 1 occ 33.3 % 32.7 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

23 %<br />

peregrinus<br />

Willamette Valley Larkspur Delphinium oreganum 1 occ 25.0 % 32.7 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

8 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Page 237 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Saddle Mountain<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 3 1060 m 0.3 % 18.5 0.6 % 170,194 m<br />

133 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 17479 m 0.4 % 36.0 1.2 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 950 m 0.0 % 0.6 0.0 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 2018 m 0.4 % 22.5 0.8 % 266,114 m<br />

86 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 673 m 0.0 % 1.5 0.1 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 955 m 0.0 % 1.1 0.0 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Southwest Washington ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 15940 m 0.5 % 46.5 1.6 % 1,017,511 m<br />

137 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

2 occ 11.1 % 1187.9 40.0 % 5 occ 160 %<br />

Columbia Estuary Tributaries - Sedimentary, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e<br />

Gradient<br />

Page 238 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Salmon River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Salmon River<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 1 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: 99 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 20 %<br />

GAP 3 79 %<br />

GAP 4 1 %<br />

British Columbia<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Area: 45,965 ha Developed 0 %<br />

113,534 ac Undeveloped 98 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

1 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

Boreal Fen 1 occ 5.9 % 17.3 11.1 % 9 occ 167 %<br />

Boreal Wet Meadow 21 occ 5.6 % 273.0 175.0 % 12 occ 1833 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Avalanche Chute And Talus Shrubland 13 occ 3.4 % 225.3 144.4 % 9 occ 2956 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Coniferous Swamp 6 occ 4.1 % 78.0 50.0 % 12 occ 650 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Deciduous Swamp 42 ha 2.6 % 20.0 12.8 % 332 ha 230 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 231 ha 0.7 % 11.0 7.1 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 2763 ha 0.5 % 2.7 1.7 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 3102 ha 0.5 % 2.5 1.6 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Lowland Riparian Forest And Shrubland 2 occ 1.2 % 34.7 22.2 % 9 occ 1067 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 4 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 1612 ha 0.1 % 0.3 0.2 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest 11166 ha 2.9 % 22.8 14.6 % 76,367 ha 375 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 25491 ha 1.6 % 12.3 7.9 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Yellow Cedar Forest 15 ha 0.0 % 0.3 0.2 % 7,569 ha 262 %<br />

Temper<strong>at</strong>e <strong>Pacific</strong> Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Emergent Marsh 4 occ 5.1 % 52.0 33.3 % 12 occ 267 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 1 occ 0.1 % 0.2 0.1 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP1) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 2610 ha 0.9 % 2.8 1.8 % 147,425 ha 110 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 3 occ 0.2 0.6 0.4<br />

Page 239 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Salmon River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP2) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 4499 ha 0.7 % 2.3 1.5 % 302,959 ha 108 %<br />

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis G5 1 occ 1.9 % 7.8 5.0 % 20 occ 105 %<br />

White-Tailed Ptarmigan Lagopus leucurus 1 occ 2.8 % 5.8 3.7 % 27 occ 100 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Burrington Jumping-Slug Hemphillia burringtoni 1 occ 2.4 % 12.0 7.7 % 13 occ 115 %<br />

Warty Jumping-Slug<br />

Hemphillia glandulosa<br />

1 occ 1.4 % 12.0 7.7 % 13 occ 200 %<br />

glandulosa<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chinook Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 3351 m 0.5 % 19.7 1.8 % 184,827 m<br />

154 %<br />

Chum Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus keta 3351 m 0.6 % 21.9 2.0 % 166,896 m<br />

78 %<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 9619 m 0.4 % 14.5 1.3 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Coho Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus kisutch 56142 m 3.1 % 110.7 10.2 % 551,718 m<br />

122 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Olympic Peninsula ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop ? 38227 m 2.0 % 74.2 6.8 % 560,551 m<br />

109 %<br />

Cutthro<strong>at</strong> Trout, East Island Oncorhynchus clarki 5956 m 0.8 % 17.2 1.6 % 377,832 m<br />

69 %<br />

Dolly Varden, East Island Salvelinus malma G5 6515 m 2.1 % 46.2 4.2 % 153,568 m<br />

123 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 18493 m 0.6 % 21.3 2.0 % 943,067 m<br />

129 %<br />

Pink Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 103 m 0.0 % 1.3 0.1 % 85,030 m<br />

56 %<br />

Sockeye Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus nerka 13507 m 4.7 % 169.2 15.5 % 86,896 m<br />

177 %<br />

Summer Run Steelhead Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus mykiss 40149 m 2.7 % 99.0 9.1 % 441,335 m<br />

133 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Olympic Peninsula ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 19113 m 1.7 % 60.9 5.6 % 341,699 m<br />

123 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Macrohabit<strong>at</strong>s<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Granitic-<br />

112 m 1.6 % 34.7 3.2 % 3,508 m<br />

181 %<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone 719 m 22.0 % 477.9 43.9 % 1,638 m<br />

102 %<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

6442 m 0.5 % 55.4 5.1 % 126,642 m<br />

294 %<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

27321 m 0.7 % 78.1 7.2 % 380,781 m<br />

457 %<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

305 m 0.6 % 32.0 2.9 % 10,385 m<br />

301 %<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

3218 m 5.2 % 282.9 26.0 % 12,380 m<br />

279 %<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

2331 m 17.2 % 938.4 86.2 % 2,703 m<br />

330 %<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Page 240 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Salmon River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

4575 m 1.4 % 76.0 7.0 % 65,517 m<br />

354 %<br />

272 m 31.6 % 689.4 63.4 % 430 m<br />

200 %<br />

273 m 0.1 % 5.6 0.5 % 52,799 m<br />

132 %<br />

2694 m 6.1 % 332.8 30.6 % 8,808 m<br />

264 %<br />

14722 m 1.2 % 135.5 12.5 % 118,230 m<br />

459 %<br />

26 m 0.1 % 4.5 0.4 % 6,354 m<br />

258 %<br />

628 m 30.2 % 656.0 60.3 % 1,042 m<br />

96 %<br />

1164 m 52.6 % 1145.4 105.3 % 1,106 m<br />

121 %<br />

2258 m 3.4 % 186.8 17.2 % 13,157 m<br />

399 %<br />

95 m 2.7 % 58.0 5.3 % 1,785 m<br />

165 %<br />

593 m 0.1 % 3.8 0.4 % 168,906 m<br />

119 %<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Granitic-Silicic<br />

Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

2716 m 1.9 % 103.1 9.5 % 28,683 m<br />

269 %<br />

40114 m 1.3 % 142.5 13.1 % 306,396 m<br />

448 %<br />

1929 m 3.2 % 174.5 16.0 % 12,035 m<br />

267 %<br />

3520 m 47.0 % 1022.6 94.0 % 3,746 m<br />

130 %<br />

4445 m 2.6 % 139.9 12.9 % 34,571 m<br />

341 %<br />

276 m 2.9 % 63.4 5.8 % 4,733 m<br />

151 %<br />

1689 m 3.0 % 161.8 14.9 % 11,357 m<br />

211 %<br />

14997 m 1.1 % 119.3 11.0 % 136,816 m<br />

433 %<br />

221 m 1.3 % 69.1 6.3 % 3,481 m<br />

301 %<br />

227 m 0.4 % 23.3 2.1 % 10,630 m<br />

331 %<br />

1605 m 37.8 % 823.3 75.7 % 2,122 m<br />

95 %<br />

Page 241 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Salmon River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

2709 m 2.2 % 118.3 10.9 % 24,918 m<br />

385 %<br />

501 m 100.0 % 2180.5 200.4 % 250 m<br />

200 %<br />

7256 m 5.2 % 282.3 25.9 % 27,967 m<br />

386 %<br />

6992 m 0.3 % 30.9 2.8 % 245,882 m<br />

329 %<br />

1621 m 0.4 % 20.3 1.9 % 87,042 m<br />

187 %<br />

155064 m 1.9 % 206.3 19.0 % 818,034 m<br />

586 %<br />

8399 m 8.6 % 466.0 42.8 % 19,612 m<br />

257 %<br />

5070 m 76.5 % 1664.2 152.9 % 3,315 m<br />

153 %<br />

107325 m 5.4 % 584.5 53.7 % 199,816 m<br />

680 %<br />

15293 m 37.8 % 2057.9 189.1 % 8,087 m<br />

339 %<br />

166 m 0.4 % 21.7 2.0 % 8,325 m<br />

331 %<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Siltstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On W<strong>at</strong>er Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Siltstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On W<strong>at</strong>er Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Fourth Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

10771 m 1.0 % 106.1 9.7 % 110,483 m<br />

407 %<br />

915 m 23.6 % 513.9 47.2 % 1,937 m<br />

155 %<br />

680 m 51.8 % 1126.9 103.6 % 657 m<br />

148 %<br />

2673 m 4.4 % 239.3 22.0 % 12,156 m<br />

396 %<br />

56 m 0.0 % 2.7 0.2 % 22,746 m<br />

255 %<br />

4315 m 2.2 % 118.7 10.9 % 39,552 m<br />

297 %<br />

4857 m 2.7 % 144.7 13.3 % 36,520 m<br />

129 %<br />

2453 m 3.2 % 174.3 16.0 % 15,320 m<br />

145 %<br />

38553 m 4.0 % 146.1 13.4 % 287,102 m<br />

162 %<br />

27731 m 2.8 % 151.6 13.9 % 199,007 m<br />

240 %<br />

1878 m 10.2 % 555.2 51.0 % 3,681 m<br />

299 %<br />

Page 242 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Salmon River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

11939 m 1.5 % 52.8 4.9 % 246,148 m<br />

186 %<br />

532 m 0.2 % 10.3 0.9 % 56,327 m<br />

151 %<br />

23352 m 2.4 % 131.6 12.1 % 193,048 m<br />

265 %<br />

43 m 0.1 % 3.1 0.3 % 15,371 m<br />

211 %<br />

11 m 0.0 % 2.6 0.2 % 4,738 m<br />

239 %<br />

1481 m 0.2 % 12.5 1.1 % 128,956 m<br />

253 %<br />

5 m 0.0 % 0.9 0.1 % 6,618 m<br />

255 %<br />

1612 m 0.3 % 18.5 1.7 % 94,768 m<br />

220 %<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Upland - Sandstones, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient 1 occ 2.5 % 90.7 8.3 % 12 occ 133 %<br />

Page 243 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Salmon River (Queets)<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Salmon River (Queets)<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 82 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 18 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 35 %<br />

GAP 4 65 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 100 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

6,921 ha<br />

17,095 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 1 ha 0.0 % 0.4 0.0 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 568 ha 0.1 % 3.0 0.3 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 184 ha 0.0 % 0.6 0.1 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 1053 ha 0.0 % 1.4 0.1 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 1460 ha 0.1 % 4.7 0.5 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 1 occ 0.1 1.2 0.1<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, Olympic Peninsula ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop ? 11163 m 0.6 % 144.0 2.0 % 560,551 m<br />

109 %<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> Lamprey Lampetra trident<strong>at</strong>a G5 1 occ 3.0 % % occ<br />

%<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Olympic Peninsula ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 2421 m 0.2 % 51.2 0.7 % 341,699 m<br />

123 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Upland - Sandstones, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient 1 occ 2.5 % 602.5 8.3 % 12 occ 133 %<br />

Page 244 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Salmon River plus (Marine)<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Salmon River plus (Marine)<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

British Columbia<br />

Marine Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 4,800 ha Developed 0 %<br />

11,856 ac Undeveloped 0 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er 100 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 1 occ 0.3 4.7 0.9<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) 154 ha 0.8 % 14.4 2.6 % 5,844 ha 105 %<br />

Kelp Shore 13862 m 0.9 % 17.0 3.1 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 179 ha 1.7 % 30.9 5.7 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 22107 m 1.5 % 27.3 5.0 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Saltmarsh Shore 1511 m 0.3 % 5.0 0.9 % 164,143 m<br />

118 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 114 ha 0.6 % 11.3 2.1 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 65 ha 0.6 % 11.6 2.1 % 3,069 ha 224 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 621 m 4.2 % 77.0 14.1 % 4,409 m<br />

124 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) 22107 m 2.8 % 50.5 9.2 % 239,478 m<br />

223 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2966 m 0.5 % 8.4 1.5 % 193,399 m<br />

88 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 134 m 0.2 % 3.9 0.7 % 18,758 m<br />

216 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 5931 m 0.8 % 14.3 2.6 % 226,193 m<br />

102 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) 497 m 1.5 % 26.4 4.8 % 10,283 m<br />

243 %<br />

Page 245 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Salmon River plus (Marine)<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1717 m 0.9 % 16.1 3.0 % 58,215 m<br />

98 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) 122 m 0.2 % 3.9 0.7 % 16,881 m<br />

144 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1073 m 0.5 % 9.5 1.7 % 61,723 m<br />

94 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) 416 m 0.7 % 13.0 2.4 % 17,529 m<br />

230 %<br />

Page 246 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

S<strong>at</strong>sop W<strong>at</strong>ershed<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

S<strong>at</strong>sop W<strong>at</strong>ershed<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 100 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 0 %<br />

GAP 4 100 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 4 %<br />

Area: 12,270 ha Developed 1 %<br />

30,308 ac Undeveloped 93 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 1 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 44 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 5247 ha 0.5 % 8.9 1.5 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 6355 ha 0.2 % 4.8 0.8 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus 1 occ 1.8 % 116.9 20.0 % 5 occ 580 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 1 occ 0.1 % 0.7 0.1 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 56114 m 2.3 % 316.8 7.8 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 84496 m 1.8 % 239.3 5.9 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 63952 m 2.0 % 276.5 6.8 % 943,067 m<br />

129 %<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> Lamprey Lampetra trident<strong>at</strong>a G5 1 occ 3.0 % % occ<br />

%<br />

Spring Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 38820 m 3.7 % 506.4 12.4 % 312,652 m<br />

187 %<br />

Summer Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 16634 m 3.4 % 464.8 11.4 % 145,936 m<br />

144 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Southwest Washington ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 63948 m 1.9 % 256.3 6.3 % 1,017,511 m<br />

137 %<br />

Page 247 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

S<strong>at</strong>sop W<strong>at</strong>ershed<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Upland - Sandstones, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient 1 occ 2.5 % 339.8 8.3 % 12 occ 133 %<br />

Willapa Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sandstones, Low To Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e/Low<br />

1 occ 2.6 % 370.7 9.1 % 11 occ 100 %<br />

Gradient<br />

Page 248 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Scappoose Creek<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Scappoose Creek<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 85 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 15 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 15 %<br />

GAP 4 85 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 3 %<br />

Area: 15,226 ha Developed 0 %<br />

37,607 ac Undeveloped 96 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 4 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 8279 ha 0.7 % 11.3 2.4 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 6130 ha 0.2 % 3.7 0.8 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 1 occ 0.1 % 0.9 0.2 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 2 occ 0.1 1.1 0.2<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong> Megomphix (Snail) Megomphix hemphilli 3 occ 2.9 % 108.7 23.1 % 13 occ 323 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 24343 m 0.5 % 55.6 1.7 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 16835 m 0.4 % 38.5 1.2 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 11308 m 2.1 % 139.8 4.2 % 266,114 m<br />

86 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Lower Columbia ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 24211 m 5.4 % 355.6 10.8 % 224,010 m<br />

46 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Lower Columbia ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 16810 m 3.8 % 246.9 7.5 % 224,010 m<br />

46 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

Page 249 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Scappoose Creek<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Lower Columbia Tributaries - Volcanics, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient 1 occ 4.0 % 411.3 12.5 % 8 occ<br />

88 %<br />

Lower Columbia Tributaries - Volcanics, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient 1 occ 4.0 % 411.2 12.5 % 8 occ<br />

88 %<br />

Scott Islands (Marine)<br />

British Columbia<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Marine Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 1,600 ha Developed 0 %<br />

3,952 ac Undeveloped 0 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er 100 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani 3 occ 0.8 % 45.6 2.8 % 108 occ 159 %<br />

Brandt's Cormorant Phalacrocorax penicill<strong>at</strong>us 1 occ 1.0 % 52.9 3.2 % 31 occ 168 %<br />

Cassin's Auklet Ptychoramphus aleuticus 3 occ 16.7 % 820.0 50.0 % 6 occ 150 %<br />

Common Murre 3 occ 3.0 % 164.0 10.0 % 30 occ 187 %<br />

Fork-Tailed Storm Petral 2 occ 14.3 % 820.0 50.0 % 4 occ 175 %<br />

Leach's Storm-Petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa 2 occ 5.6 % 298.2 18.2 % 11 occ 200 %<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus 3 occ 0.9 % 51.8 3.2 % 95 occ 163 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 3 occ 0.8 % 42.4 2.6 % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Rhinoceros Auklet Cerorhinca monocer<strong>at</strong>a 1 occ 6.3 % 328.0 20.0 % 5 occ 180 %<br />

Tufted Puffin Fr<strong>at</strong>ercula cirrh<strong>at</strong>a 3 occ 3.2 % 164.0 10.0 % 30 occ 190 %<br />

Mammals<br />

Stellar's Sea Lion rookery 3 occ 75.0 % 4920.0 300.0 % 1 occ 300 %<br />

Page 250 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Seal and Sail Rocks (Marine)<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Seal and Sail Rocks (Marine)<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Washington<br />

Marine Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 400 ha Developed 0 %<br />

988 ac Undeveloped 0 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er 100 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Double-Crested Cormorant Phalacroscorax auritus 1 occ 2.0 % 437.3 6.7 % 15 occ 200 %<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus 1 occ 0.3 % 69.1 1.1 % 95 occ 163 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 2 occ 0.5 % 113.1 1.7 % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Tufted Puffin Fr<strong>at</strong>ercula cirrh<strong>at</strong>a 1 occ 1.1 % 218.7 3.3 % 30 occ 190 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Mussels and barnacles 1021 m 0.1 % 19.8 0.3 % 337,346 m<br />

132 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds Shore 1914 m 0.1 % 13.4 0.2 % 939,089 m<br />

119 %<br />

Kelp high persistence (WA) 27 ha 2.4 % 530.7 8.1 % 336 ha 168 %<br />

Kelp low persistence (WA) 46 ha 2.0 % 432.5 6.6 % 692 ha 162 %<br />

Kelp medium persistence (WA) 22 ha 2.1 % 458.5 7.0 % 320 ha 169 %<br />

Kelp Shore 772 m 0.1 % 11.4 0.2 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Surfgrass Shore 2266 m 0.2 % 40.9 0.6 % 363,205 m<br />

131 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Shoreline<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 601 m 0.5 % 106.7 1.6 % 36,906 m<br />

137 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 772 m 0.4 % 78.0 1.2 % 64,871 m<br />

114 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1142 m 0.4 % 77.6 1.2 % 96,577 m<br />

110 %<br />

Page 251 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Sequim Bay<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Sequim Bay<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 35 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 39 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 26 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 65 %<br />

GAP 4 35 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 1 %<br />

Area: 4,839 ha Developed 1 %<br />

11,952 ac Undeveloped 97 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 3 ha 0.0 % 1.3 0.1 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 3210 ha 0.3 % 13.8 0.9 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 1130 ha 0.0 % 2.2 0.1 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 350 ha 0.0 % 1.6 0.1 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest 3 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 37,848 ha 140 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 13 occ 0.7 % 21.9 1.5 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 1 occ 0.1 % 2.9 0.2 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1 occ 0.1 1.8 0.1<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, Puget Sound ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop ? 857 m 0.1 % 44.1 0.4 % 200,804 m<br />

39 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Puget Sound ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 1746 m 0.4 % 138.4 1.3 % 130,417 m<br />

59 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

Olympics Rainshadow <strong>Coast</strong>al Headw<strong>at</strong>ers 1 occ 12.5 % 5167.7 50.0 % 2 occ 100 %<br />

Page 252 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Sequim Bay<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

3 occ 8.8 % 3100.6 30.0 % 10 occ<br />

40 %<br />

Puget lowland headw<strong>at</strong>ers north - glacial drift, low elev<strong>at</strong>ion, low to<br />

moder<strong>at</strong>e gradient<br />

Page 253 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Shelton-South Sound<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Shelton-South Sound<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 98 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 2 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 2 %<br />

GAP 4 98 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 2 %<br />

Area: 4,201 ha Developed 1 %<br />

10,376 ac Undeveloped 95 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

2 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 4 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 668 ha 0.0 % 1.5 0.1 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Montane Riparian Woodland And Shrubland 6 occ 13.6 % 1137.9 66.7 % 9 occ 100 %<br />

Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest 25 ha 0.0 % 1.1 0.1 % 37,848 ha 140 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Western Bluebird Sialia mexicana G5 1 occ 50.0 % 189.6 11.1 % 9 occ<br />

11 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1 occ 0.1 2.0 0.1<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, Puget Sound/Strait ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop ? 1096 m 0.5 % 191.2 1.6 % 68,298 m<br />

18 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Puget Sound ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop ? 870 m 0.1 % 51.6 0.4 % 200,804 m<br />

39 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Puget Sound ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 2855 m 0.7 % 260.8 2.2 % 130,417 m<br />

59 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

1 occ 3.1 % 1191.2 10.0 % 10 occ 130 %<br />

Olympics Rainshadow <strong>Coast</strong>al Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Mafic, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion,<br />

Moder<strong>at</strong>e To High Gradient<br />

Page 254 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Shelton-South Sound<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

2 occ 4.9 % 1985.3 16.7 % 12 occ 125 %<br />

Puget lowland headw<strong>at</strong>ers west - glacial drift, low elev<strong>at</strong>ion, low to<br />

moder<strong>at</strong>e gradient<br />

Shipwreck Point NAP<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 100 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 100 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 98 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

2 %<br />

202 ha<br />

499 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 178 ha 0.0 % 32.4 0.1 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 2 ha 0.0 % 0.2 0.0 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 21 ha 0.0 % 0.9 0.0 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1 occ 0.1 % 42.3 0.1 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, Olympic Peninsula ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop ? 53 m 0.0 % 23.4 0.0 % 560,551 m<br />

109 %<br />

Page 255 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Siletz Bay-Drift Creek<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Siletz Bay-Drift Creek<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 31 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 65 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 65 %<br />

GAP 4 31 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 2 %<br />

Area: 10,363 ha Developed 1 %<br />

25,597 ac Undeveloped 93 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

4 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 4478 ha 0.7 % 15.9 2.3 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 1228 ha 0.1 % 2.5 0.4 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 3992 ha 0.2 % 3.6 0.5 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 2 occ 0.1 % 1.6 0.2 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 5 occ 0.5 % 6.9 1.0 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Purple Martin Progne subis G5 1 occ 1.2 % 76.9 11.1 % 9 occ 367 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1 occ 0.1 0.8 0.1<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Blue-Gray Taildropper Prophysaon coeruleum 2 occ 1.2 % 106.4 15.4 % 13 occ 454 %<br />

Roth's Blind Ground Beetle Pterostichus rothi 1 occ 33.3 % 53.2 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

23 %<br />

Warty Jumping-Slug<br />

Hemphillia glandulosa<br />

3 occ 4.3 % 159.7 23.1 % 13 occ 200 %<br />

glandulosa<br />

Mammals<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> Fisher Martes pennanti pacifica T2 1 occ 33.3 % 230.6 33.3 % 3 occ 100 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Mineral Spring 2 occ 3.3 % 69.2 10.0 % 20 occ 150 %<br />

Page 256 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Siletz Bay-Drift Creek<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Shorebird Concentr<strong>at</strong>ion Area 1 occ 4.3 % 15.8 6.3 % 16 occ 119 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds (ha) 158 ha 1.4 % 11.8 4.7 % 3,384 ha 330 %<br />

Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic Bed (ha) 8 ha 1.2 % 9.9 3.9 % 198 ha 258 %<br />

Bedrock (ha) 0 ha 0.8 % 6.3 2.5 % 20 ha 210 %<br />

Eelgrass Estuary 16791 m 3.0 % 25.0 9.9 % 169,841 m<br />

224 %<br />

Intertidal Salt Marshes (Salvir Disspi Trimar) Salvir - disspi - trimar - (jaucar) 10 occ 14.7 % 115.1 45.5 % 22 occ 250 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 315 ha 3.0 % 25.2 9.9 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 29388 m 2.0 % 16.8 6.6 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Seagrass (ha) 23 ha 0.1 % 0.6 0.2 % 9,868 ha 294 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Boulder (ha) 1 ha 1.0 % 8.6 3.4 % 40 ha 283 %<br />

Cobble/Gravel (ha) 1 ha 0.6 % 4.8 1.9 % 55 ha 282 %<br />

Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 17 ha 1.9 % 15.7 6.2 % 279 ha 116 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 27 ha 0.1 % 0.8 0.3 % 9,168 ha 287 %<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 497 ha 2.7 % 22.9 9.0 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Sand (ha) 10 ha 0.0 % 0.3 0.1 % 7,977 ha 239 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 125 ha 1.2 % 10.3 4.1 % 3,069 ha 224 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Organics/fines (Embayment) 3955 m 2.6 % 22.2 8.7 % 45,204 m<br />

218 %<br />

Organics/fines Exposed (Embayment) 22153 m 4.6 % 38.7 15.3 % 144,777 m<br />

215 %<br />

Organics/fines Very Protected (Embayment) 3977 m 4.0 % 33.5 13.2 % 30,025 m<br />

194 %<br />

Rock With Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) 930 m 7.9 % 66.9 26.4 % 3,518 m<br />

186 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 667 m 5.8 % 49.1 19.4 % 3,436 m<br />

132 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Exposed (Embayment) 2104 m 2.1 % 18.0 7.1 % 29,625 m<br />

198 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 259 m 0.2 % 2.0 0.8 % 33,330 m<br />

119 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) 1040 m 1.1 % 9.0 3.6 % 29,156 m<br />

255 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) 1895 m 7.5 % 63.0 24.9 % 7,615 m<br />

309 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 4523 m 1.7 % 14.2 5.6 % 80,427 m<br />

122 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Page 257 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Siletz Bay-Drift Creek<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 6135 m 0.3 % 41.1 0.8 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 67769 m 0.8 % 72.9 1.5 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 68792 m 1.6 % 250.0 5.2 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Summer Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 30 34426 m 14.1 % 2279.6 47.2 % 73,008 m<br />

140 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 65395 m 0.8 % 127.1 2.6 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

1 occ 20.0 % 2417.2 50.0 % 2 occ 100 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Rivers - Volcanic To Granite, Low To Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Mixed<br />

Gradient<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Ocean Tributaries - Volcanic 1 occ 16.7 % 2417.2 50.0 % 2 occ 250 %<br />

Inland Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sediment 1 occ 1.7 % 268.6 5.6 % 18 occ 106 %<br />

Page 258 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Siuslaw River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Siuslaw River<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 39 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 55 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 5 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 0 %<br />

GAP 2 0 %<br />

GAP 3 61 %<br />

GAP 4 39 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 1 %<br />

Area: 157,099 ha Developed 0 %<br />

388,034 ac Undeveloped 98 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

1 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

Mediterranean California Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest And Woodland 704 ha 20.2 % 92.3 202.3 % 348 ha 500 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 5 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.1 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 981 ha 0.2 % 0.2 0.5 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime <strong>Coast</strong>al Sand Dune 10 occ 4.1 % 76.1 166.7 % 6 occ 3850 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 38586 ha 3.3 % 5.1 11.2 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 106843 ha 4.1 % 6.3 13.8 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest 60 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.2 % 37,848 ha 140 %<br />

Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland 44 ha 2.5 % 11.3 24.7 % 177 ha<br />

60 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Clouded Salamander Aneides ferreus G3 2 occ 12.5 % 13.0 28.6 % 7 occ<br />

86 %<br />

Northern Red-Legged Frog Rana aurora aurora T4 21 occ 21.6 % 136.9 300.0 % 7 occ 671 %<br />

Southern Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton varieg<strong>at</strong>us G3 10 occ 23.8 % 35.1 76.9 % 13 occ 192 %<br />

Tailed Frog Ascaphus truei 2 occ 3.9 % 13.0 28.6 % 7 occ 343 %<br />

Birds<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 3 occ 0.2 % 0.2 0.4 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 102 occ 5.8 % 5.3 11.6 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis G5 1 occ 1.9 % 2.3 5.0 % 20 occ 105 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 107 occ 10.6 % 9.7 21.3 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Page 259 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Siuslaw River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Purple Martin Progne subis G5 1 occ 1.2 % 5.1 11.1 % 9 occ 367 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Blue-Gray Taildropper Prophysaon coeruleum 24 occ 14.2 % 84.3 184.6 % 13 occ 454 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong> Megomphix (Snail) Megomphix hemphilli 26 occ 25.5 % 91.3 200.0 % 13 occ 323 %<br />

Mammals<br />

Red Tree Vole Arborimus longicaudus G3 2 occ 1.3 % 7.0 15.4 % 13 occ 308 %<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Henderson Sidalcea Sidalcea hendersonii G3 1 occ 50.0 % 3.5 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

15 %<br />

Tall Bugbane Cimicifuga el<strong>at</strong>a 13 occ 26.0 % 84.8 185.7 % 7 occ 257 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Mineral Spring 3 occ 4.9 % 6.8 15.0 % 20 occ 150 %<br />

Sphagnum Bogs And Poor Fens (Ledgla / Carobn / Sphagn)Ledgla / carobn / sphagn 1 occ 8.3 % 7.6 16.7 % 6 occ 117 %<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Shorebird Concentr<strong>at</strong>ion Area 1 occ 4.3 % 1.0 6.3 % 16 occ 119 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds (ha) 1 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 3,384 ha 330 %<br />

Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic Bed (ha) 2 ha 0.3 % 0.2 1.0 % 198 ha 258 %<br />

Eelgrass Estuary 23646 m 4.2 % 2.3 13.9 % 169,841 m<br />

224 %<br />

Intertidal Salt Marshes (Salvir Disspi Trimar) Salvir - disspi - trimar - (jaucar) 1 occ 1.5 % 0.8 4.5 % 22 occ 250 %<br />

Lowland Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Wetlands (Mineral Soils Carlyn Freshw<strong>at</strong>er) Carlyn freshw<strong>at</strong>er 1 occ 100.0 % 16.7 100.0 % 1 occ 100 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 194 ha 1.8 % 1.0 6.1 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 29828 m 2.0 % 1.1 6.7 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Seagrass (ha) 68 ha 0.2 % 0.1 0.7 % 9,868 ha 294 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Cobble/Gravel (ha) 0 ha 0.2 % 0.1 0.7 % 55 ha 282 %<br />

Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 5 ha 0.6 % 0.3 1.9 % 279 ha 116 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 32 ha 0.1 % 0.1 0.4 % 9,168 ha 287 %<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 265 ha 1.4 % 0.8 4.8 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Sand (ha) 18 ha 0.1 % 0.0 0.2 % 7,977 ha 239 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 10 ha 0.1 % 0.1 0.3 % 3,069 ha 224 %<br />

Sand/Mud (ha) 58 ha 1.4 % 0.8 4.6 % 1,250 ha 246 %<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites<br />

Page 260 of 328

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Siuslaw River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Sand/Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 11 ha 0.1 % 0.1 0.4 % 2,550 ha 256 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Organics/fines (Embayment) 7531 m 5.0 % 2.8 16.7 % 45,204 m<br />

218 %<br />

Organics/fines Exposed (Embayment) 20843 m 4.3 % 2.4 14.4 % 144,777 m<br />

215 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) 2214 m 0.3 % 0.2 0.9 % 239,478 m<br />

223 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Exposed (Embayment) 1323 m 1.3 % 0.7 4.5 % 29,625 m<br />

198 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) 38 m 0.1 % 0.0 0.2 % 16,915 m<br />

247 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 104232 m 4.3 % 46.0 14.4 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 34676 m 1.4 % 15.3 4.8 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 170489 m 1.9 % 12.1 3.8 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 533278 m 5.9 % 37.8 11.9 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 329693 m 3.7 % 23.4 7.3 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 82847 m 1.9 % 19.9 6.2 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 326934 m 7.4 % 78.4 24.6 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 162374 m 3.7 % 38.9 12.2 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 120456 m 1.5 % 15.4 4.8 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 313995 m 3.8 % 40.3 12.6 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 507060 m 6.1 % 65.0 20.4 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Range small rivers - sedimentary, low to mid elev<strong>at</strong>ion 2 occ 9.1 % 91.1 28.6 % 7 occ 129 %<br />

Inland <strong>Coast</strong>al Headw<strong>at</strong>ers Streams - Granitic, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, High<br />

1 occ 20.0 % 159.5 50.0 % 2 occ 100 %<br />

Gradient<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

Inland Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sediment 1 occ 1.7 % 17.7 5.6 % 18 occ 106 %<br />

Inland Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sediment 5 occ 8.5 % 88.6 27.8 % 18 occ 106 %<br />

Inland Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sediment 1 occ 1.7 % 17.7 5.6 % 18 occ 106 %<br />

Page 261 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Skamokowa<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Skamokowa<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 62 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 38 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 38 %<br />

GAP 4 62 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 5 %<br />

Area: 8,214 ha Developed 0 %<br />

20,290 ac Undeveloped 93 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 388 ha 0.1 % 1.7 0.2 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 3211 ha 0.3 % 8.1 0.9 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 4069 ha 0.2 % 4.6 0.5 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 5 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Columbia Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton kezeri 2 occ 2.4 % 69.8 8.0 % 25 occ 188 %<br />

Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni G4 1 occ 1.6 % 124.7 14.3 % 7 occ 586 %<br />

Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei G3 3 occ 6.8 % 130.9 15.0 % 20 occ 175 %<br />

Birds<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1 occ 0.1 % 1.0 0.1 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 11 occ 0.6 % 10.9 1.3 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 3 7546 m 2.2 % 270.2 4.4 % 170,194 m<br />

133 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 9683 m 0.2 % 41.0 0.7 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 12319 m 2.3 % 282.1 4.6 % 266,114 m<br />

86 %<br />

Page 262 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Skamokowa<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Southwest Washington ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 20345 m 0.6 % 121.8 2.0 % 1,017,511 m<br />

137 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

1 occ 6.3 % 1218.8 20.0 % 5 occ 100 %<br />

Lower Columbia Tributaries- Sedimentary, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e<br />

Gradient<br />

Page 263 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Skokomish River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Skokomish River<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 41 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 46 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 12 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 59 %<br />

GAP 4 41 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 7,058 ha Developed 1 %<br />

17,434 ac Undeveloped 76 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

23 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 128 ha 0.4 % 39.7 3.9 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 3 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 2256 ha 0.2 % 6.6 0.7 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 1564 ha 0.1 % 2.0 0.2 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Montane Riparian Woodland And Shrubland 1 occ 2.3 % 112.9 11.1 % 9 occ 100 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest 162 ha 0.0 % 2.2 0.2 % 76,367 ha 375 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 1198 ha 0.1 % 3.8 0.4 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Cope's Giant Salamander Dicamptodon copei 2 occ 2.3 % 156.3 15.4 % 13 occ 415 %<br />

Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei G3 3 occ 6.8 % 152.4 15.0 % 20 occ 175 %<br />

Birds<br />

Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus 1 occ 1.8 % 203.2 20.0 % 5 occ 580 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 1 occ 0.1 % 1.2 0.1 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 1 occ 0.1 % 2.0 0.2 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Moss' Elfin, Mossii Subspecies Incisalia mossii mossii G4T 1 occ 25.0 % 78.1 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

15 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Page 264 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Skokomish River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Bull Trout Salmon, <strong>Coast</strong>al and Puget Sound ESU Salvelinus confluentus G3 14178 m 10.5 % 1485.7 21.0 % 67,612 m<br />

166 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

1 occ 33.3 % 7085.2 100.0 % 1 occ 100 %<br />

East Olympics small rivers - predominantly mafic, low to mid elev<strong>at</strong>ion,<br />

low to moder<strong>at</strong>e gradient<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

2 occ 6.3 % 1417.0 20.0 % 10 occ 130 %<br />

Olympics Rainshadow <strong>Coast</strong>al Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Mafic, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion,<br />

Moder<strong>at</strong>e To High Gradient<br />

Page 265 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Smith River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Smith River<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 34 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 66 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 3 %<br />

GAP 3 63 %<br />

GAP 4 34 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 100 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

46,253 ha<br />

114,245 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

Mediterranean California Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest And Woodland 338 ha 9.7 % 150.4 97.0 % 348 ha 500 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 1 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 19896 ha 1.7 % 8.9 5.8 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 24918 ha 1.0 % 5.0 3.2 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland 3 ha 0.2 % 2.8 1.8 % 177 ha<br />

60 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 28 occ 2.8 % 8.6 5.6 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 17 occ 1.0 3.0 1.9<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Blue-Gray Taildropper Prophysaon coeruleum 5 occ 3.0 % 59.6 38.5 % 13 occ 454 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong> Megomphix (Snail) Megomphix hemphilli 4 occ 3.9 % 47.7 30.8 % 13 occ 323 %<br />

Mammals<br />

Red Tree Vole Arborimus longicaudus G3 2 occ 1.3 % 23.8 15.4 % 13 occ 308 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 281016 m 3.1 % 67.7 6.2 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Page 266 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Smith River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 93817 m 2.1 % 76.4 7.1 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 315772 m 3.8 % 137.5 12.7 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Tributaries - Sediment 1 occ 6.3 % 216.7 20.0 % 5 occ<br />

20 %<br />

Page 267 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Sooke<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Sooke<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 92 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: 8 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 8 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 92 %<br />

British Columbia<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 4 %<br />

Area: 6,384 ha Developed 0 %<br />

15,768 ac Undeveloped 91 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Avalanche Chute And Talus Shrubland 2 occ 0.5 % 249.6 22.2 % 9 occ 2956 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry Douglas-Fir And Madrone Forest And Woodland 1 ha 0.9 % 48.8 4.3 % 29 ha 407 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 937 ha 0.2 % 6.5 0.6 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 2 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 4164 ha 0.2 % 6.0 0.5 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 302,959 ha 108 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP2) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 0 ha 0.0 0.0 0.0<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Sierra Wood Fern Thelypteris nevadensis 1 occ 100.0 % 160.5 14.3 % 7 occ<br />

14 %<br />

Marine<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds Shore 2879 m 0.1 % 1.3 0.3 % 939,089 m<br />

119 %<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) 142 ha 0.7 % 10.0 2.4 % 5,844 ha 105 %<br />

Saltmarsh Shore 2158 m 0.4 % 5.4 1.3 % 164,143 m<br />

118 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Shoreline<br />

Page 268 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Sooke<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) 1350 m 59.9 % 820.6 199.6 % 676 m<br />

333 %<br />

Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1294 m 5.0 % 68.2 16.6 % 7,802 m<br />

72 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 564 m 2.7 % 37.1 9.0 % 6,248 m<br />

9 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 459 m 0.1 % 1.0 0.2 % 193,399 m<br />

88 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1966 m 1.0 % 13.9 3.4 % 58,215 m<br />

98 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1740 m 2.5 % 34.3 8.4 % 20,837 m<br />

57 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 3210 m 1.6 % 21.4 5.2 % 61,723 m<br />

94 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chinook Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 6247 m 0.7 % 176.8 2.3 % 276,806 m<br />

176 %<br />

Chum Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus keta 7178 m 0.8 % 205.8 2.6 % 273,258 m<br />

144 %<br />

Coho Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus kisutch 13709 m 0.6 % 159.4 2.0 % 673,874 m<br />

155 %<br />

Cutthro<strong>at</strong> Trout, West Island Oncorhynchus clarki 9998 m 1.3 % 204.6 2.6 % 382,902 m<br />

102 %<br />

Sockeye Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus nerka 4250 m 0.6 % 151.3 1.9 % 220,095 m<br />

191 %<br />

Winter Run Steelhead Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus mykiss 8549 m 0.4 % 110.0 1.4 % 609,198 m<br />

168 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Macrohabit<strong>at</strong>s<br />

3150 m 0.2 % 194.9 2.5 % 126,642 m<br />

294 %<br />

6900 m 0.2 % 142.0 1.8 % 380,781 m<br />

457 %<br />

2325 m 0.9 % 345.0 4.4 % 52,799 m<br />

132 %<br />

225 m 0.0 % 14.9 0.2 % 118,230 m<br />

459 %<br />

2003 m 0.2 % 92.9 1.2 % 168,906 m<br />

119 %<br />

7872 m 0.3 % 201.3 2.6 % 306,396 m<br />

448 %<br />

1928 m 37.4 % 5858.8 74.8 % 2,578 m<br />

90 %<br />

456 m 0.2 % 83.0 1.1 % 43,046 m<br />

162 %<br />

1100 m 0.1 % 63.0 0.8 % 136,816 m<br />

433 %<br />

1366 m 0.0 % 13.1 0.2 % 818,034 m<br />

586 %<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Page 269 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Sooke<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

442 m 0.0 % 12.1 0.2 % 287,102 m<br />

162 %<br />

66 m 0.1 % 19.9 0.3 % 25,878 m<br />

114 %<br />

1516 m 0.2 % 59.7 0.8 % 199,007 m<br />

240 %<br />

15 m 0.0 % 3.8 0.0 % 31,071 m<br />

163 %<br />

12 m 0.0 % 0.4 0.0 % 246,148 m<br />

186 %<br />

43 m 0.0 % 1.8 0.0 % 193,048 m<br />

265 %<br />

1713 m 2.2 % 873.0 11.1 % 15,371 m<br />

211 %<br />

4866 m 0.8 % 295.6 3.8 % 128,956 m<br />

253 %<br />

2905 m 8.8 % 3439.6 43.9 % 6,618 m<br />

255 %<br />

8980 m 1.9 % 742.5 9.5 % 94,768 m<br />

220 %<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Page 270 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

South Beach St<strong>at</strong>e Park<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

South Beach St<strong>at</strong>e Park<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 100 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 100 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 7 %<br />

Area: 573 ha Developed 38 %<br />

1,415 ac Undeveloped 31 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

1 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 132 ha 0.0 % 8.5 0.1 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 1 occ 0.3 % 39.5 0.9 % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Shoreline<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 626 m 5.5 % 834.7 18.2 % 3,436 m<br />

132 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 55 m 0.0 % 7.6 0.2 % 33,330 m<br />

119 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1291 m 0.5 % 73.5 1.6 % 80,427 m<br />

122 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 117 m 0.1 % 18.0 0.4 % 29,817 m<br />

64 %<br />

Page 271 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

South Fork Coos River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

South Fork Coos River<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 69 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 31 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 0 %<br />

GAP 3 30 %<br />

GAP 4 69 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 100 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

%<br />

25,384 ha<br />

62,697 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

Mediterranean California Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest And Woodland 7 ha 0.2 % 6.1 2.1 % 348 ha 500 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 14 ha 0.0 % 1.2 0.4 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 46 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 16354 ha 1.4 % 13.4 4.7 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 8127 ha 0.3 % 3.0 1.0 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest 682 ha 0.4 % 5.1 1.8 % 37,848 ha 140 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 26 occ 2.6 % 14.6 5.2 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Blue-Gray Taildropper Prophysaon coeruleum 7 occ 4.1 % 152.1 53.8 % 13 occ 454 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong> Megomphix (Snail) Megomphix hemphilli 3 occ 2.9 % 65.2 23.1 % 13 occ 323 %<br />

Mammals<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> Fisher Martes pennanti pacifica T2 1 occ 33.3 % 94.2 33.3 % 3 occ 100 %<br />

Red Tree Vole Arborimus longicaudus G3 5 occ 3.3 % 108.6 38.5 % 13 occ 308 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Page 272 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

South Fork Coos River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 95521 m 1.1 % 41.9 2.1 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 54108 m 1.2 % 80.3 4.1 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 96065 m 1.2 % 76.2 3.9 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Range small rivers - sedimentary, low to mid elev<strong>at</strong>ion 1 occ 4.5 % 282.0 14.3 % 7 occ 129 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

Inland Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sediment 3 occ 5.1 % 329.0 16.7 % 18 occ 106 %<br />

Page 273 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

South Fork Coquille River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

South Fork Coquille River<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 21 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 79 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 1 %<br />

GAP 2 2 %<br />

GAP 3 76 %<br />

GAP 4 21 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 100 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

26,463 ha<br />

65,364 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

Mediterranean California Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest And Woodland 61 ha 1.8 % 47.5 17.5 % 348 ha 500 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 96 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 15087 ha 0.6 % 5.3 1.9 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest 7029 ha 3.7 % 50.3 18.6 % 37,848 ha 140 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Del Norte Salamander Plethodon elong<strong>at</strong>us G4 1 occ 1.4 % 20.8 7.7 % 13 occ 138 %<br />

Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Rana boylii 1 occ 9.1 % 38.7 14.3 % 7 occ<br />

86 %<br />

Birds<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 12 occ 0.7 % 3.7 1.4 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 21 occ 2.1 % 11.3 4.2 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Blue-Gray Taildropper Prophysaon coeruleum 2 occ 1.2 % 41.7 15.4 % 13 occ 454 %<br />

Mammals<br />

Red Tree Vole Arborimus longicaudus G3 9 occ 6.0 % 187.6 69.2 % 13 occ 308 %<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Bensonia Bensoniella oregana 8 occ 26.7 % 166.7 61.5 % 13 occ<br />

69 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Checker Bloom Sidalcea malviflora ssp p<strong>at</strong>ula 1 occ 12.5 % 20.8 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

46 %<br />

Page 274 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

South Fork Coquille River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

2 occ 5.4 % 41.7 15.4 % 13 occ<br />

23 %<br />

Triteleia hendersonii var<br />

leachiae<br />

Leach's Brodiaea<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 40483 m 0.5 % 17.0 0.9 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 26882 m 0.6 % 38.3 2.0 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 37585 m 0.5 % 28.6 1.5 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Range small rivers - sedimentary, low to mid elev<strong>at</strong>ion 1 occ 4.5 % 270.5 14.3 % 7 occ 129 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Ridge - Sediment 2 occ 28.6 % 1893.2 100.0 % 2 occ 150 %<br />

Page 275 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

South Yamhill River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

South Yamhill River<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 86 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 14 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 0 %<br />

GAP 3 14 %<br />

GAP 4 86 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 7 %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 93 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

9,446 ha<br />

23,332 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 4496 ha 0.4 % 9.9 1.3 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 4343 ha 0.2 % 4.2 0.6 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Northern Red-Legged Frog Rana aurora aurora T4 1 occ 1.0 % 108.4 14.3 % 7 occ 671 %<br />

Southern Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton varieg<strong>at</strong>us G3 1 occ 2.4 % 58.4 7.7 % 13 occ 192 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Fender's Blue Butterfly Icaricia icarioides fenderi T1 1 occ 9.1 % 58.4 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

23 %<br />

T2 3 occ 11.1 % 175.2 23.1 % 13 occ<br />

77 %<br />

Lupinus sulphureus var<br />

kincaidii<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Kincaid's Sulfur Lupine<br />

Tall Bugbane Cimicifuga el<strong>at</strong>a 1 occ 2.0 % 108.4 14.3 % 7 occ 257 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Mineral Spring 1 occ 1.6 % 38.0 5.0 % 20 occ 150 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Page 276 of 328<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

South Yamhill River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Upper Willamette River ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 2564 m 0.4 % 69.9 1.3 % 194,575 m<br />

54 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Range Tributaries - Shales, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient 2 occ 18.2 % 3535.2 66.7 % 3 occ<br />

67 %<br />

Page 277 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Str<strong>at</strong>hcona<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Str<strong>at</strong>hcona<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 12 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: 88 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 78 %<br />

GAP 3 10 %<br />

GAP 4 12 %<br />

British Columbia<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 320,854 ha Developed 0 %<br />

792,508 ac Undeveloped 95 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

3 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

Boreal Fen 11 occ 64.7 % 27.3 122.2 % 9 occ 167 %<br />

Boreal Wet Meadow 60 occ 16.0 % 111.7 500.0 % 12 occ 1833 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Avalanche Chute And Talus Shrubland 113 occ 29.5 % 280.6 1255.6 % 9 occ 2956 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Coniferous Swamp 24 occ 16.3 % 44.7 200.0 % 12 occ 650 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Deciduous Swamp 85 ha 5.1 % 5.7 25.5 % 332 ha 230 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 6696 ha 20.5 % 45.7 204.6 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry Douglas-Fir And Madrone Forest And Woodland 41 ha 29.3 % 31.2 139.7 % 29 ha 407 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 24030 ha 4.4 % 3.3 14.8 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 781 ha 0.1 % 0.1 0.4 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Lowland Riparian Forest And Shrubland 21 occ 12.3 % 52.1 233.3 % 9 occ 1067 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 27388 ha 1.1 % 0.8 3.5 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest 66812 ha 17.5 % 19.6 87.5 % 76,367 ha 375 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 119345 ha 7.4 % 8.2 36.8 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Yellow Cedar Forest 287 ha 0.8 % 0.8 3.8 % 7,569 ha 262 %<br />

Temper<strong>at</strong>e <strong>Pacific</strong> Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Emergent Marsh 8 occ 10.3 % 14.9 66.7 % 12 occ 267 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP1) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 22538 ha 7.6 % 3.4 15.3 % 147,425 ha 110 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP2) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 49986 ha 8.2 % 3.7 16.5 % 302,959 ha 108 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 15 occ 0.8 0.4 1.8<br />

Page 278 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Str<strong>at</strong>hcona<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis G5 2 occ 3.8 % 2.2 10.0 % 20 occ 105 %<br />

White-Tailed Ptarmigan Lagopus leucurus 14 occ 38.9 % 11.6 51.9 % 27 occ 100 %<br />

Mammals<br />

Vancouver Island Marmot Marmota vancouverensis G1 1 occ 16.7 % 1.2 5.6 % 18 occ<br />

28 %<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

% % 13 occ<br />

38 %<br />

% % 25 occ<br />

20 %<br />

% % 25 occ<br />

16 %<br />

% % 25 occ<br />

16 %<br />

Lance-Fruited Draba Draba lonchocarpa var vestita 2 occ 40.0 3.4 15.4<br />

Olympic Mountain Aster Aster paucicapit<strong>at</strong>us 2 occ 40.0 1.8 8.0<br />

Salish Daisy Erigeron salishii 3 occ 75.0 2.7 12.0<br />

1 occ 25.0 0.9 4.0<br />

Erysimum arenicola var<br />

torulosum<br />

Sand-Dwelling Wallflower<br />

Smooth Douglasia Douglasia laevig<strong>at</strong>a var ciliol<strong>at</strong>a 1 occ 12.5 % 1.7 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

62 %<br />

Marine<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds Estuary 6436 m 1.7 % 0.5 5.7 % 112,601 m<br />

179 %<br />

Algal Beds Shore 150 m 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 939,089 m<br />

119 %<br />

Eelgrass (Ha) 33 ha 2.2 % 0.6 7.4 % 443 ha 120 %<br />

Eelgrass Estuary 6436 m 1.1 % 0.3 3.8 % 169,841 m<br />

224 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 6436 m 0.4 % 0.1 1.5 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Shoreline<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) 6436 m 0.8 % 0.2 2.7 % 239,478 m<br />

223 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 150 m 0.0 % 0.0 0.1 % 226,193 m<br />

102 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

% % 184,827 m<br />

154 %<br />

Chinook Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 47427 m 5.1 % 26.7 17.1 % 276,806 m<br />

176 %<br />

Chum Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus keta 1054 m 0.2 % 1.0 0.6 % 166,896 m<br />

78 %<br />

Chum Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus keta 41503 m 4.6 % 23.7 15.2 % 273,258 m<br />

144 %<br />

Coho Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus kisutch 53623 m 2.9 % 15.2 9.7 % 551,718 m<br />

122 %<br />

Coho Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus kisutch 106357 m 4.7 % 24.6 15.8 % 673,874 m<br />

155 %<br />

Cutthro<strong>at</strong> Trout, East Island Oncorhynchus clarki 66788 m 8.8 % 27.6 17.7 % 377,832 m<br />

69 %<br />

Cutthro<strong>at</strong> Trout, West Island Oncorhynchus clarki 20216 m 2.6 % 8.2 5.3 % 382,902 m<br />

102 %<br />

Dolly Varden, East Island Salvelinus malma G5 37404 m 12.2 % 38.0 24.4 % 153,568 m<br />

123 %<br />

Chinook Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 736 m 0.1 0.6 0.4<br />

Page 279 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Str<strong>at</strong>hcona<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Dolly Varden, West Island Salvelinus malma G5 18882 m 9.2 % 28.7 18.4 % 102,560 m<br />

148 %<br />

Pink Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 2860 m 1.0 % 5.2 3.4 % 85,030 m<br />

56 %<br />

Pink Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 27888 m 7.3 % 38.1 24.4 % 114,095 m<br />

160 %<br />

Sockeye Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus nerka 56146 m 7.7 % 39.8 25.5 % 220,095 m<br />

191 %<br />

Summer Run Steelhead Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus mykiss 46907 m 3.2 % 16.6 10.6 % 441,335 m<br />

133 %<br />

Winter Run Steelhead Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus mykiss 11743 m 1.5 % 7.7 4.9 % 237,775 m<br />

125 %<br />

Winter Run Steelhead Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus mykiss 164888 m 8.1 % 42.2 27.1 % 609,198 m<br />

168 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Macrohabit<strong>at</strong>s<br />

669 m 100.0 % 312.2 200.3 % 334 m<br />

200 %<br />

5638 m 80.4 % 250.5 160.7 % 3,508 m<br />

181 %<br />

1790 m 0.1 % 2.2 1.4 % 126,642 m<br />

294 %<br />

12661 m 26.8 % 208.6 133.8 % 9,461 m<br />

387 %<br />

254005 m 6.7 % 104.0 66.7 % 380,781 m<br />

457 %<br />

809 m 1.3 % 10.2 6.5 % 12,380 m<br />

279 %<br />

1830 m 2.5 % 19.2 12.3 % 14,882 m<br />

233 %<br />

7702 m 100.0 % 311.8 200.0 % 3,851 m<br />

200 %<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Erodable<br />

Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Erodable<br />

Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

151230 m 46.2 % 359.9 230.8 % 65,517 m<br />

354 %<br />

1081 m 53.1 % 165.6 106.2 % 1,018 m<br />

200 %<br />

408 m 99.9 % 311.6 199.9 % 204 m<br />

200 %<br />

508 m 59.0 % 184.2 118.1 % 430 m<br />

200 %<br />

3244 m 1.2 % 9.6 6.1 % 52,799 m<br />

132 %<br />

3587 m 18.9 % 147.7 94.7 % 3,786 m<br />

328 %<br />

41225 m 3.5 % 54.4 34.9 % 118,230 m<br />

459 %<br />

310 m 35.7 % 111.5 71.5 % 433 m<br />

152 %<br />

Page 280 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Str<strong>at</strong>hcona<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

607 m 100.0 % 311.3 199.7 % 304 m<br />

200 %<br />

40710 m 61.9 % 482.4 309.4 % 13,157 m<br />

399 %<br />

1483 m 100.0 % 311.5 199.8 % 742 m<br />

200 %<br />

2429 m 68.1 % 212.2 136.1 % 1,785 m<br />

165 %<br />

8157 m 30.5 % 237.4 152.3 % 5,356 m<br />

313 %<br />

131608 m 4.3 % 67.0 43.0 % 306,396 m<br />

448 %<br />

1536 m 2.6 % 19.9 12.8 % 12,035 m<br />

267 %<br />

17 m 0.1 % 0.9 0.6 % 3,072 m<br />

277 %<br />

2961 m 100.0 % 311.9 200.1 % 1,480 m<br />

200 %<br />

76759 m 44.4 % 346.1 222.0 % 34,571 m<br />

341 %<br />

886 m 100.0 % 311.8 200.0 % 443 m<br />

200 %<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Erodable<br />

Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Erodable Volcanics Geo<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Erodable<br />

Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Granitic-Silicic<br />

Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Alpine Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

6653 m 70.3 % 219.2 140.6 % 4,733 m<br />

151 %<br />

1494 m 0.7 % 5.4 3.5 % 43,046 m<br />

162 %<br />

7205 m 15.7 % 122.5 78.6 % 9,167 m<br />

360 %<br />

76574 m 5.6 % 87.3 56.0 % 136,816 m<br />

433 %<br />

67 m 3.1 % 9.5 6.1 % 1,100 m<br />

128 %<br />

2753 m 100.0 % 312.0 200.1 % 1,376 m<br />

200 %<br />

66555 m 53.4 % 416.4 267.1 % 24,918 m<br />

385 %<br />

904 m 100.0 % 311.8 200.0 % 452 m<br />

200 %<br />

72558 m 51.9 % 404.5 259.4 % 27,967 m<br />

386 %<br />

2540 m 0.6 % 4.5 2.9 % 87,042 m<br />

187 %<br />

119315 m 56.5 % 440.2 282.4 % 42,252 m<br />

408 %<br />

Page 281 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Str<strong>at</strong>hcona<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

1063246 m 13.0 % 202.6 130.0 % 818,034 m<br />

586 %<br />

1081 m 1.1 % 8.6 5.5 % 19,612 m<br />

257 %<br />

1881 m 1.3 % 9.9 6.3 % 29,693 m<br />

303 %<br />

1977 m 13.1 % 102.2 65.6 % 3,014 m<br />

488 %<br />

1491 m 5.0 % 38.7 24.9 % 6,001 m<br />

276 %<br />

70771 m 100.0 % 779.5 500.0 % 14,154 m<br />

500 %<br />

649788 m 32.5 % 507.0 325.2 % 199,816 m<br />

680 %<br />

7020 m 17.4 % 135.3 86.8 % 8,087 m<br />

339 %<br />

852 m 100.0 % 311.8 200.0 % 426 m<br />

200 %<br />

4076 m 83.2 % 259.4 166.4 % 2,450 m<br />

166 %<br />

163 m 0.1 % 0.6 0.4 % 42,081 m<br />

141 %<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Siltstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Ultramafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Erodable Volcanics<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Siltstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Alpine Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Siltstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Fourth Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

4018 m 10.3 % 80.5 51.7 % 7,778 m<br />

347 %<br />

51806 m 4.7 % 73.1 46.9 % 110,483 m<br />

407 %<br />

82 m 0.3 % 2.2 1.4 % 5,945 m<br />

307 %<br />

134 m 10.2 % 31.8 20.4 % 657 m<br />

148 %<br />

1853 m 100.0 % 312.0 200.1 % 926 m<br />

200 %<br />

35297 m 58.1 % 452.7 290.4 % 12,156 m<br />

396 %<br />

13691 m 12.0 % 93.8 60.2 % 22,746 m<br />

255 %<br />

1454 m 100.0 % 311.9 200.1 % 727 m<br />

200 %<br />

62946 m 31.8 % 248.1 159.1 % 39,552 m<br />

297 %<br />

1851 m 23.1 % 71.9 46.1 % 4,013 m<br />

197 %<br />

11649 m 100.0 % 779.4 499.9 % 2,330 m<br />

500 %<br />

Page 282 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Str<strong>at</strong>hcona<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

114827 m 12.0 % 62.4 40.0 % 287,102 m<br />

162 %<br />

1470 m 43.0 % 134.0 86.0 % 1,710 m<br />

95 %<br />

21641 m 100.0 % 779.5 500.0 % 4,328 m<br />

500 %<br />

172529 m 17.3 % 135.2 86.7 % 199,007 m<br />

240 %<br />

1723 m 76.9 % 239.8 153.8 % 1,120 m<br />

154 %<br />

5886 m 44.3 % 345.3 221.5 % 2,657 m<br />

269 %<br />

89521 m 10.9 % 56.7 36.4 % 246,148 m<br />

186 %<br />

5924 m 84.2 % 262.5 168.4 % 3,518 m<br />

185 %<br />

10344 m 38.5 % 300.4 192.7 % 5,369 m<br />

317 %<br />

1378 m 100.0 % 311.8 200.0 % 689 m<br />

200 %<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock<br />

Zone On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock<br />

Zone On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock<br />

Zone On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

4786 m 89.6 % 279.2 179.1 % 2,672 m<br />

189 %<br />

107981 m 11.2 % 87.2 55.9 % 193,048 m<br />

265 %<br />

3522 m 77.5 % 241.6 154.9 % 2,273 m<br />

155 %<br />

33 m 3.7 % 11.4 7.3 % 454 m<br />

126 %<br />

5741 m 7.5 % 58.2 37.3 % 15,371 m<br />

211 %<br />

2534 m 10.7 % 83.4 53.5 % 4,738 m<br />

239 %<br />

1590 m 100.0 % 311.7 200.0 % 795 m<br />

200 %<br />

78606 m 12.2 % 95.0 61.0 % 128,956 m<br />

253 %<br />

3129 m 100.0 % 311.9 200.0 % 1,564 m<br />

200 %<br />

31733 m 6.7 % 52.2 33.5 % 94,768 m<br />

220 %<br />

Page 283 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Sutton Lake<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Sutton Lake<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 38 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 59 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 0 %<br />

GAP 2 1 %<br />

GAP 3 58 %<br />

GAP 4 38 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Area: 5,799 ha Developed 4 %<br />

14,323 ac Undeveloped 86 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

6 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 1650 ha 0.3 % 10.4 0.8 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime <strong>Coast</strong>al Sand Dune 9 occ 3.7 % 1854.8 150.0 % 6 occ 3850 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 587 ha 0.1 % 2.1 0.2 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 2379 ha 0.1 % 3.8 0.3 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Northern Red-Legged Frog Rana aurora aurora T4 1 occ 1.0 % 176.6 14.3 % 7 occ 671 %<br />

Birds<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 5 occ 0.3 % 7.0 0.6 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 2 occ 0.2 % 4.9 0.4 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Nonvascular Plants<br />

Lichen Treepelt (Erioderma) Erioderma soredi<strong>at</strong>um 2 occ 33.3 % 206.1 16.7 % 12 occ<br />

42 %<br />

Lichen Treepelt (Leioderma) Leioderma soredi<strong>at</strong>um 1 occ 50.0 % 95.1 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

15 %<br />

Lichen (Bryoria) Bryoria pseudocapillaris 1 occ 50.0 % 176.6 14.3 % 7 occ<br />

29 %<br />

Lichen (Pannaria) Pannaria rubiginosa 2 occ 66.7 % 353.3 28.6 % 7 occ<br />

29 %<br />

Moss (Campylopus) Campylopus schmidii 3 occ 60.0 % 529.9 42.9 % 7 occ<br />

57 %<br />

Moss (Limbella) Limbella fryei 1 occ 100.0 % 49.5 4.0 % 25 occ<br />

4 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Page 284 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Sutton Lake<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Lowland Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Wetlands (Mineral Soils Salhoo Malfus / Carobn<br />

1 occ 14.3 % 412.2 33.3 % 3 occ 133 %<br />

Lysame)<br />

Lowland Coniferous Forested Wetlands (Picsit / Carobn Lysame) 1 occ 12.5 % 206.1 16.7 % 6 occ 117 %<br />

Lowland Coniferous Forested Wetlands (Pinconc / Carobn) 2 occ 50.0 % 824.3 66.7 % 3 occ 100 %<br />

Sphagnum Bogs and Poor Fens (Ledgla / Darcal / Sphagn)Ledgla / darcal / sphagn 1 occ 11.1 % 412.2 33.3 % 3 occ 233 %<br />

Marine<br />

1 occ 7.1 % 41.1 9.1 % 11 occ 100 %<br />

Charadrius alexandrinus<br />

nivosus<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Western Snowy Plover<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic Bed (ha) 3 ha 0.4 % 6.6 1.5 % 198 ha 258 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 15 ha 0.1 % 1.2 0.3 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 4133 m 1.5 % 23.3 5.1 % 80,427 m<br />

122 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 23120 m 0.3 % 44.4 0.5 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 27725 m 0.3 % 96.3 1.1 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Ocean Tributaries - Sediment 1 occ 6.3 % 1727.9 20.0 % 5 occ 220 %<br />

Page 285 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Tahkenitch-Siltcoos Lakes<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Tahkenitch-Siltcoos Lakes<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 58 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 41 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 5 %<br />

GAP 3 36 %<br />

GAP 4 58 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 1 %<br />

Area: 32,851 ha Developed 0 %<br />

81,142 ac Undeveloped 86 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

7 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 1 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 4314 ha 0.7 % 4.8 2.2 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime <strong>Coast</strong>al Sand Dune 49 occ 20.0 % 1782.5 816.7 % 6 occ 3850 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 2079 ha 0.2 % 1.3 0.6 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 20094 ha 0.8 % 5.7 2.6 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 12 occ 0.7 % 3.0 1.4 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 5 occ 0.5 % 2.2 1.0 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 2 occ 0.1 0.5 0.2<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Blue-Gray Taildropper Prophysaon coeruleum 2 occ 1.2 % 33.6 15.4 % 13 occ 454 %<br />

Nonvascular Plants<br />

Moss (Campylopus) Campylopus schmidii 1 occ 20.0 % 31.2 14.3 % 7 occ<br />

57 %<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Whorled Marsh Pennywort Hydrocotyle verticill<strong>at</strong>a 1 occ 20.0 % 31.2 14.3 % 7 occ<br />

71 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Page 286 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Tahkenitch-Siltcoos Lakes<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Mineral Spring 3 occ 4.9 % 32.7 15.0 % 20 occ 150 %<br />

Marine<br />

2 occ 14.3 % 14.5 18.2 % 11 occ 100 %<br />

Charadrius alexandrinus<br />

nivosus<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Western Snowy Plover<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 8 ha 0.1 % 0.2 0.2 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 23 ha 0.1 % 0.3 0.4 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Unconsolid<strong>at</strong>ed (ha) 10 ha 3.2 % 8.7 10.9 % 91 ha 121 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) 760 m 0.1 % 0.3 0.3 % 239,478 m<br />

223 %<br />

Sand Beach Protected (Embayment) 321 m 1.0 % 2.7 3.4 % 9,335 m<br />

278 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) 191 m 0.8 % 2.0 2.5 % 7,615 m<br />

309 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1942 m 0.7 % 1.9 2.4 % 80,427 m<br />

122 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Protected (Embayment) 3129 m 38.4 % 102.2 128.0 % 2,445 m<br />

333 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 56861 m 0.6 % 19.3 1.3 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 82028 m 0.9 % 27.8 1.8 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 45904 m 0.6 % 28.1 1.8 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 80312 m 1.0 % 49.3 3.2 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Range small rivers - sedimentary, low to mid elev<strong>at</strong>ion 1 occ 4.5 % 217.9 14.3 % 7 occ 129 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sediment 1 occ 8.3 % 381.3 25.0 % 4 occ 200 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Ocean Tributaries - Sediment 1 occ 6.3 % 305.1 20.0 % 5 occ 220 %<br />

Inland Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sediment 1 occ 1.7 % 84.7 5.6 % 18 occ 106 %<br />

Page 287 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Tenmile Lake<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Tenmile Lake<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 49 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 14 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 36 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 7 %<br />

GAP 3 43 %<br />

GAP 4 49 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 1 %<br />

Area: 25,012 ha Developed 0 %<br />

61,781 ac Undeveloped 84 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

4 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 1367 ha 0.2 % 2.0 0.7 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime <strong>Coast</strong>al Sand Dune 52 occ 21.2 % 2484.5 866.7 % 6 occ 3850 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 2232 ha 0.2 % 1.9 0.6 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 16983 ha 0.7 % 6.3 2.2 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni G4 3 occ 4.7 % 122.9 42.9 % 7 occ 586 %<br />

Northern Red-Legged Frog Rana aurora aurora T4 1 occ 1.0 % 41.0 14.3 % 7 occ 671 %<br />

Birds<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 3 occ 0.2 % 1.0 0.4 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 8 occ 0.8 % 4.6 1.6 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Nonvascular Plants<br />

Lichen Treepelt (Erioderma) Erioderma soredi<strong>at</strong>um 1 occ 16.7 % 23.9 8.3 % 12 occ<br />

42 %<br />

Lichen Treepelt (Leioderma) Leioderma soredi<strong>at</strong>um 1 occ 50.0 % 22.1 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

15 %<br />

Lichen (Bryoria) Bryoria pseudocapillaris 1 occ 50.0 % 41.0 14.3 % 7 occ<br />

29 %<br />

1 occ 10.0 % 12.5 4.3 % 23 occ<br />

30 %<br />

Abronia umbell<strong>at</strong>a ssp<br />

breviflora<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Pink Sandverbena<br />

Whorled Marsh Pennywort Hydrocotyle verticill<strong>at</strong>a 4 occ 80.0 % 163.8 57.1 % 7 occ<br />

71 %<br />

Page 288 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Tenmile Lake<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Shorebird Concentr<strong>at</strong>ion Area 1 occ 4.3 % 6.6 6.3 % 16 occ 119 %<br />

Western Snowy Plover<br />

Charadrius alexandrinus<br />

1 occ 7.1 % 9.5 9.1 % 11 occ 100 %<br />

nivosus<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Shoreline<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 5977 m 5.6 % 19.5 18.6 % 32,087 m<br />

121 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 3272 m 1.2 % 4.3 4.1 % 80,427 m<br />

122 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 89896 m 1.0 % 40.0 2.0 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 80490 m 1.0 % 64.8 3.2 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sediment 1 occ 8.3 % 500.8 25.0 % 4 occ 200 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Ocean Tributaries - Sediment 1 occ 6.3 % 400.6 20.0 % 5 occ 220 %<br />

Page 289 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Tillamook Bay-Kilchis River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Tillamook Bay-Kilchis River<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 32 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 4 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 51 %<br />

Local: 1 %<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 56 %<br />

GAP 4 32 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 14 %<br />

Area: 30,007 ha Developed 1 %<br />

74,118 ac Undeveloped 73 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

11 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 4 ha 0.0 % 0.3 0.1 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 8289 ha 1.3 % 10.1 4.2 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 4655 ha 0.4 % 3.2 1.3 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 9357 ha 0.4 % 2.9 1.2 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 67 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Columbia Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton kezeri 10 occ 12.2 % 95.6 40.0 % 25 occ 188 %<br />

Birds<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 3 occ 0.2 % 0.9 0.4 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Gre<strong>at</strong>-Blue Heron Ardea herodias 1 occ 1.4 % 26.6 11.1 % 9 occ 144 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 5 occ 0.3 % 1.4 0.6 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 2 occ 0.2 % 1.0 0.4 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Purple Martin Progne subis G5 2 occ 2.4 % 53.1 22.2 % 9 occ 367 %<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Hairy-Stemmed Checker-Mallow Sidalcea hirtipes 3 occ 20.0 % 28.7 12.0 % 25 occ<br />

48 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Page 290 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Tillamook Bay-Kilchis River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Mineral Spring 1 occ 1.6 % 11.9 5.0 % 20 occ 150 %<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 108 occ 159 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 3 occ 0.8 % 2.3 2.6 % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Shorebird Concentr<strong>at</strong>ion Area 2 occ 8.7 % 10.9 12.5 % 16 occ 119 %<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani 2 occ 0.6 1.6 1.9<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds (ha) 121 ha 1.1 % 3.1 3.6 % 3,384 ha 330 %<br />

Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic Bed (ha) 80 ha 12.2 % 35.5 40.6 % 198 ha 258 %<br />

Bedrock (ha) 0 ha 0.4 % 1.1 1.3 % 20 ha 210 %<br />

Eelgrass Estuary 14064 m 2.5 % 7.2 8.3 % 169,841 m<br />

224 %<br />

Intertidal Salt Marshes (Salvir Disspi Trimar) Salvir - disspi - trimar - (jaucar) 7 occ 10.3 % 27.8 31.8 % 22 occ 250 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 564 ha 5.3 % 15.6 17.8 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 62902 m 4.3 % 12.4 14.2 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Seagrass (ha) 617 ha 1.9 % 5.5 6.3 % 9,868 ha 294 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Cobble/Gravel (ha) 37 ha 20.5 % 59.6 68.1 % 55 ha 282 %<br />

Cobble/Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 8 ha 4.2 % 12.2 14.0 % 60 ha 332 %<br />

Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 60 ha 6.4 % 18.8 21.5 % 279 ha 116 %<br />

Mud (ha) 170 ha 33.0 % 96.1 109.9 % 155 ha 244 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 203 ha 0.7 % 1.9 2.2 % 9,168 ha 287 %<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 784 ha 4.3 % 12.5 14.3 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Sand (ha) 235 ha 0.9 % 2.6 2.9 % 7,977 ha 239 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 183 ha 1.8 % 5.2 6.0 % 3,069 ha 224 %<br />

Sand/Mud (ha) 691 ha 16.6 % 48.3 55.3 % 1,250 ha 246 %<br />

Sand/Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 1210 ha 14.2 % 41.5 47.5 % 2,550 ha 256 %<br />

Shell (ha) 3 ha 16.8 % 50.0 57.2 % 5 ha<br />

60 %<br />

Wood Debris/Organic (ha) 0 ha 1.6 % 4.4 5.1 % 8 ha 163 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) 4061 m 6.2 % 18.2 20.8 % 19,507 m<br />

226 %<br />

Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) 3255 m 3.0 % 8.8 10.0 % 32,500 m<br />

106 %<br />

Organics/fines (Embayment) 21123 m 14.0 % 40.9 46.7 % 45,204 m<br />

218 %<br />

Organics/fines Exposed (Embayment) 56328 m 11.7 % 34.0 38.9 % 144,777 m<br />

215 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) 12598 m 1.6 % 4.6 5.3 % 239,478 m<br />

223 %<br />

Page 291 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Tillamook Bay-Kilchis River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Organics/fines Very Protected (Embayment) 1505 m 1.5 % 4.4 5.0 % 30,025 m<br />

194 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff (Embayment) 840 m 23.5 % 68.4 78.2 % 1,075 m<br />

264 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Exposed (Embayment) 13506 m 13.7 % 39.9 45.6 % 29,625 m<br />

198 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Protected (Embayment) 701 m 1.3 % 3.9 4.4 % 15,799 m<br />

247 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) 3677 m 6.5 % 19.0 21.7 % 16,915 m<br />

247 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2964 m 2.7 % 7.8 8.9 % 33,330 m<br />

119 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) 2290 m 2.4 % 6.9 7.9 % 29,156 m<br />

255 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 5231 m 2.0 % 5.7 6.5 % 80,427 m<br />

122 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 55587 m 2.3 % 128.5 7.7 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 139030 m 1.5 % 51.6 3.1 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 132436 m 3.0 % 166.2 10.0 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 110569 m 1.3 % 74.2 4.4 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

1 occ 20.0 % 834.8 50.0 % 2 occ 100 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Rivers - Volcanic To Granite, Low To Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Mixed<br />

Gradient<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

Inland Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Volcanic 1 occ 11.1 % 556.5 33.3 % 3 occ<br />

67 %<br />

Page 292 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Trask Mountain<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Trask Mountain<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 60 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 25 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local: 15 %<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 40 %<br />

GAP 4 60 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 11 %<br />

Area: 11,997 ha Developed 2 %<br />

29,633 ac Undeveloped 88 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 5541 ha 0.5 % 9.6 1.6 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 5746 ha 0.2 % 4.4 0.7 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 6 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Northern Red-Legged Frog Rana aurora aurora T4 1 occ 1.0 % 85.4 14.3 % 7 occ 671 %<br />

Birds<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 2 occ 0.2 % 2.4 0.4 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Fender's Blue Butterfly Icaricia icarioides fenderi T1 1 occ 9.1 % 46.0 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

23 %<br />

T3 1 occ 1.3 % 66.4 11.1 % 9 occ 122 %<br />

Clemmys marmor<strong>at</strong>a<br />

marmor<strong>at</strong>a<br />

Reptiles<br />

<strong>Northwest</strong>ern Pond Turtle<br />

T2 2 occ 7.4 % 91.9 15.4 % 13 occ<br />

77 %<br />

Lupinus sulphureus var<br />

kincaidii<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Kincaid's Sulfur Lupine<br />

Nelson's Checker-Mallow Sidalcea nelsoniana g2 1 occ 2.3 % 199.2 33.3 % 3 occ 267 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Page 293 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Trask Mountain<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Upper Willamette River ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 26481 m 4.1 % 568.2 13.6 % 194,575 m<br />

54 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Range Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sedimentary, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion 1 occ 3.2 % 463.9 11.1 % 9 occ<br />

67 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Range Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Volcanics, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion 1 occ 7.7 % 1043.8 25.0 % 4 occ 100 %<br />

Page 294 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Tsable-Stamp-Qualicum<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Tsable-Stamp-Qualicum<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 90 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: 10 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 2 %<br />

GAP 3 8 %<br />

GAP 4 90 %<br />

British Columbia<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 1 %<br />

Area: 79,892 ha Developed 4 %<br />

197,334 ac Undeveloped 91 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

4 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

Boreal Fen 1 occ 5.9 % 10.0 11.1 % 9 occ 167 %<br />

Boreal Wet Meadow 4 occ 1.1 % 29.9 33.3 % 12 occ 1833 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Avalanche Chute And Talus Shrubland 8 occ 2.1 % 79.8 88.9 % 9 occ 2956 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Coniferous Swamp 5 occ 3.4 % 37.4 41.7 % 12 occ 650 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Deciduous Swamp 76 ha 4.6 % 20.5 22.9 % 332 ha 230 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 180 ha 0.5 % 4.9 5.5 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry Douglas-Fir And Madrone Forest And Woodland 2 ha 1.2 % 5.0 5.6 % 29 ha 407 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 7127 ha 1.3 % 3.9 4.4 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 244 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.1 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Lowland Riparian Forest And Shrubland 5 occ 2.9 % 49.9 55.6 % 9 occ 1067 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 33778 ha 1.3 % 3.9 4.4 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest 6293 ha 1.6 % 7.4 8.2 % 76,367 ha 375 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 12613 ha 0.8 % 3.5 3.9 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Yellow Cedar Forest 93 ha 0.2 % 1.1 1.2 % 7,569 ha 262 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Common W<strong>at</strong>er Shrew, Brooksi Subspecies Sorex palustris brooksi T2 4 occ 100.0 % 14.4 16.0 % 25 occ<br />

16 %<br />

Gre<strong>at</strong>-Blue Heron Ardea herodias 1 occ 1.4 % 10.0 11.1 % 9 occ 144 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP1) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 1626 ha 0.6 % 1.0 1.1 % 147,425 ha 110 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 11 occ 0.6 1.2 1.3<br />

Page 295 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Tsable-Stamp-Qualicum<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP2) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 3859 ha 0.6 % 1.1 1.3 % 302,959 ha 108 %<br />

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis G5 1 occ 1.9 % 4.5 5.0 % 20 occ 105 %<br />

White-Tailed Ptarmigan Lagopus leucurus 5 occ 13.9 % 16.6 18.5 % 27 occ 100 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Boisduval's Blue, Blackmorei Icaricia icarioides blackmorei T3 1 occ 9.1 % 6.9 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

69 %<br />

Valley Silverspot Butterfly Speyeria zerene bremnerii 2 occ 16.7 % 13.8 15.4 % 13 occ<br />

85 %<br />

Mammals<br />

Ermine, Anguinae Subspecies Mustela erminea anguinae T3 2 occ 100.0 % 10.0 11.1 % 18 occ<br />

11 %<br />

1 occ 25.0 % 3.6 4.0 % 25 occ<br />

16 %<br />

Erysimum arenicola var<br />

torulosum<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Sand-Dwelling Wallflower<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chinook Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 37093 m 6.0 % 125.7 20.1 % 184,827 m<br />

154 %<br />

Chinook Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 57700 m 6.3 % 130.5 20.8 % 276,806 m<br />

176 %<br />

Chum Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus keta 32325 m 5.8 % 121.3 19.4 % 166,896 m<br />

78 %<br />

Coho Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus kisutch 107421 m 5.8 % 121.9 19.5 % 551,718 m<br />

122 %<br />

Coho Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus kisutch 77729 m 3.5 % 72.2 11.5 % 673,874 m<br />

155 %<br />

Cutthro<strong>at</strong> Trout, East Island Oncorhynchus clarki 48515 m 6.4 % 80.4 12.8 % 377,832 m<br />

69 %<br />

Cutthro<strong>at</strong> Trout, West Island Oncorhynchus clarki 69664 m 9.1 % 113.9 18.2 % 382,902 m<br />

102 %<br />

Dolly Varden, East Island Salvelinus malma G5 20816 m 6.8 % 84.9 13.6 % 153,568 m<br />

123 %<br />

Dolly Varden, West Island Salvelinus malma G5 45400 m 22.1 % 277.2 44.3 % 102,560 m<br />

148 %<br />

Pink Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 14262 m 5.0 % 105.0 16.8 % 85,030 m<br />

56 %<br />

Sockeye Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus nerka 24017 m 8.3 % 173.0 27.6 % 86,896 m<br />

177 %<br />

Sockeye Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus nerka 40420 m 5.5 % 115.0 18.4 % 220,095 m<br />

191 %<br />

Summer Run Steelhead Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus mykiss 72323 m 4.9 % 102.6 16.4 % 441,335 m<br />

133 %<br />

Winter Run Steelhead Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus mykiss 62667 m 7.9 % 165.0 26.4 % 237,775 m<br />

125 %<br />

Winter Run Steelhead Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus mykiss 87524 m 4.3 % 90.0 14.4 % 609,198 m<br />

168 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Macrohabit<strong>at</strong>s<br />

20064 m 10.0 % 314.4 50.2 % 39,958 m<br />

283 %<br />

94840 m 2.5 % 155.9 24.9 % 380,781 m<br />

457 %<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Page 296 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Tsable-Stamp-Qualicum<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

1690 m 12.5 % 391.3 62.5 % 2,703 m<br />

330 %<br />

7080 m 2.2 % 67.7 10.8 % 65,517 m<br />

354 %<br />

1117 m 2.5 % 79.4 12.7 % 8,808 m<br />

264 %<br />

24977 m 2.1 % 132.3 21.1 % 118,230 m<br />

459 %<br />

128 m 4.2 % 52.5 8.4 % 1,523 m<br />

200 %<br />

3166 m 7.7 % 239.5 38.3 % 8,276 m<br />

39 %<br />

1818 m 2.8 % 86.5 13.8 % 13,157 m<br />

399 %<br />

12780 m 8.9 % 279.0 44.6 % 28,683 m<br />

269 %<br />

58171 m 1.9 % 118.9 19.0 % 306,396 m<br />

448 %<br />

914 m 2.2 % 69.5 11.1 % 8,237 m<br />

415 %<br />

2699 m 9.1 % 284.5 45.4 % 5,941 m<br />

45 %<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Ultramafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The Douglas Fir Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Douglas Fir Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Granitic-Silicic<br />

Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Ultramafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Douglas Fir Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

858 m 11.4 % 143.4 22.9 % 3,746 m<br />

130 %<br />

7969 m 4.6 % 144.3 23.1 % 34,571 m<br />

341 %<br />

172 m 1.8 % 22.8 3.6 % 4,733 m<br />

151 %<br />

5307 m 9.3 % 292.6 46.7 % 11,357 m<br />

211 %<br />

36907 m 2.7 % 168.9 27.0 % 136,816 m<br />

433 %<br />

97 m 5.3 % 66.8 10.7 % 906 m<br />

78 %<br />

1154 m 2.2 % 68.0 10.9 % 10,630 m<br />

331 %<br />

4743 m 8.9 % 278.1 44.4 % 10,676 m<br />

95 %<br />

369 m 16.8 % 210.0 33.5 % 1,100 m<br />

128 %<br />

7148 m 5.7 % 179.6 28.7 % 24,918 m<br />

385 %<br />

218 m 22.5 % 281.6 45.0 % 484 m<br />

200 %<br />

Page 297 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Tsable-Stamp-Qualicum<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

332 m 0.2 % 7.4 1.2 % 27,967 m<br />

386 %<br />

13824 m 3.2 % 99.4 15.9 % 87,042 m<br />

187 %<br />

169780 m 2.1 % 129.9 20.8 % 818,034 m<br />

586 %<br />

1922 m 12.8 % 399.4 63.8 % 3,014 m<br />

488 %<br />

2966 m 5.4 % 170.0 27.2 % 10,922 m<br />

211 %<br />

27922 m 1.4 % 87.5 14.0 % 199,816 m<br />

680 %<br />

3691 m 8.9 % 277.6 44.3 % 8,325 m<br />

331 %<br />

22101 m 2.0 % 125.2 20.0 % 110,483 m<br />

407 %<br />

1079 m 27.9 % 348.8 55.7 % 1,937 m<br />

155 %<br />

6807 m 10.7 % 336.5 53.7 % 12,665 m<br />

54 %<br />

443 m 39.1 % 489.6 78.2 % 566 m<br />

107 %<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Ultramafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On W<strong>at</strong>er Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Douglas Fir Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Douglas Fir Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

2430 m 4.0 % 125.1 20.0 % 12,156 m<br />

396 %<br />

458 m 8.3 % 104.1 16.6 % 2,753 m<br />

17 %<br />

133 m 0.1 % 2.1 0.3 % 39,552 m<br />

297 %<br />

5676 m 70.7 % 885.6 141.4 % 4,013 m<br />

197 %<br />

1800 m 2.4 % 73.6 11.8 % 15,320 m<br />

145 %<br />

24142 m 2.5 % 52.6 8.4 % 287,102 m<br />

162 %<br />

3324 m 7.0 % 220.1 35.2 % 9,455 m<br />

116 %<br />

43972 m 4.4 % 138.3 22.1 % 199,007 m<br />

240 %<br />

2219 m 12.1 % 377.5 60.3 % 3,681 m<br />

299 %<br />

9833 m 1.2 % 25.0 4.0 % 246,148 m<br />

186 %<br />

1329 m 3.5 % 108.6 17.3 % 7,664 m<br />

19 %<br />

Page 298 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Tsable-Stamp-Qualicum<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

635 m 1.0 % 32.4 5.2 % 12,283 m<br />

125 %<br />

24132 m 2.5 % 78.3 12.5 % 193,048 m<br />

265 %<br />

25499 m 25.7 % 804.6 128.5 % 19,841 m<br />

129 %<br />

708 m 61.9 % 775.2 123.8 % 572 m<br />

196 %<br />

2930 m 3.8 % 119.3 19.1 % 15,371 m<br />

211 %<br />

1463 m 6.2 % 193.3 30.9 % 4,738 m<br />

239 %<br />

4466 m 9.2 % 289.3 46.2 % 9,667 m<br />

278 %<br />

35303 m 5.5 % 171.4 27.4 % 128,956 m<br />

253 %<br />

10043 m 26.3 % 824.4 131.7 % 7,627 m<br />

189 %<br />

4860 m 32.1 % 1005.6 160.6 % 3,026 m<br />

499 %<br />

24376 m 5.1 % 161.0 25.7 % 94,768 m<br />

220 %<br />

11211 m 29.7 % 930.1 148.5 % 7,547 m<br />

231 %<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Douglas Fir Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Douglas Fir Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Douglas Fir Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Page 299 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Tsitika-Nimpkish<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Tsitika-Nimpkish<br />

British Columbia<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: 100 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 13 %<br />

GAP 3 86 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 99 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

1 %<br />

46,389 ha<br />

114,581 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

Boreal Wet Meadow 29 occ 7.7 % 373.5 241.7 % 12 occ 1833 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Avalanche Chute And Talus Shrubland 10 occ 2.6 % 171.7 111.1 % 9 occ 2956 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Coniferous Swamp 6 occ 4.1 % 77.3 50.0 % 12 occ 650 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Deciduous Swamp 24 ha 1.4 % 11.0 7.1 % 332 ha 230 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 206 ha 0.6 % 9.7 6.3 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 3466 ha 0.6 % 3.3 2.1 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 42 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Lowland Riparian Forest And Shrubland 5 occ 2.9 % 85.9 55.6 % 9 occ 1067 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 1955 ha 0.1 % 0.4 0.3 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest 13043 ha 3.4 % 26.4 17.1 % 76,367 ha 375 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 22596 ha 1.4 % 10.8 7.0 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Yellow Cedar Forest 43 ha 0.1 % 0.9 0.6 % 7,569 ha 262 %<br />

Temper<strong>at</strong>e <strong>Pacific</strong> Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Emergent Marsh 1 occ 1.3 % 12.9 8.3 % 12 occ 267 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP1) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 6183 ha 2.1 % 6.5 4.2 % 147,425 ha 110 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP2) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 12319 ha 2.0 % 6.3 4.1 % 302,959 ha 108 %<br />

Northern Pygmy-Owl, Swarthi Subspecies Glaucidium gnoma swarthi G5 3 occ 18.8 % 25.8 16.7 % 18 occ<br />

89 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 9 occ 0.5 1.7 1.1<br />

Page 300 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Tsitika-Nimpkish<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

White-Tailed Ptarmigan Lagopus leucurus 1 occ 2.8 % 5.7 3.7 % 27 occ 100 %<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Mussels and barnacles 7101 m 0.6 % 1.2 2.1 % 337,346 m<br />

132 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Kelp Shore 2865 m 0.2 % 0.4 0.6 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 6342 m 0.4 % 0.8 1.4 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Shoreline<br />

Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 544 m 3.7 % 7.0 12.3 % 4,409 m<br />

124 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) 6342 m 0.8 % 1.5 2.6 % 239,478 m<br />

223 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1399 m 0.2 % 0.4 0.7 % 193,399 m<br />

88 %<br />

Rock With Sand Beach Protected (Embayment) 143 m 3.3 % 6.2 11.0 % 1,300 m<br />

131 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 170 m 0.3 % 0.5 0.9 % 18,758 m<br />

216 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2266 m 0.3 % 0.6 1.0 % 226,193 m<br />

102 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 413 m 0.2 % 0.4 0.7 % 58,215 m<br />

98 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) 1570 m 2.8 % 5.3 9.3 % 16,881 m<br />

144 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 757 m 0.4 % 0.7 1.2 % 61,723 m<br />

94 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chinook Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 6826 m 1.1 % 39.8 3.7 % 184,827 m<br />

154 %<br />

Chum Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus keta 6814 m 1.2 % 44.0 4.1 % 166,896 m<br />

78 %<br />

Coho Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus kisutch 55809 m 3.0 % 109.1 10.1 % 551,718 m<br />

122 %<br />

Cutthro<strong>at</strong> Trout, East Island Oncorhynchus clarki 15619 m 2.1 % 44.6 4.1 % 377,832 m<br />

69 %<br />

Dolly Varden, East Island Salvelinus malma G5 10357 m 3.4 % 72.7 6.7 % 153,568 m<br />

123 %<br />

Pink Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 6814 m 2.4 % 86.4 8.0 % 85,030 m<br />

56 %<br />

Sockeye Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus nerka 6826 m 2.4 % 84.7 7.9 % 86,896 m<br />

177 %<br />

Summer Run Steelhead Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus mykiss 38929 m 2.6 % 95.1 8.8 % 441,335 m<br />

133 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Macrohabit<strong>at</strong>s<br />

303 m 4.3 % 93.0 8.6 % 3,508 m<br />

181 %<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

Page 301 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Tsitika-Nimpkish<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

59942 m 1.6 % 169.7 15.7 % 380,781 m<br />

457 %<br />

25427 m 7.8 % 418.5 38.8 % 65,517 m<br />

354 %<br />

81 m 9.4 % 202.9 18.8 % 430 m<br />

200 %<br />

10493 m 0.9 % 95.7 8.9 % 118,230 m<br />

459 %<br />

805 m 1.2 % 66.0 6.1 % 13,157 m<br />

399 %<br />

64 m 1.8 % 38.5 3.6 % 1,785 m<br />

165 %<br />

36162 m 1.2 % 127.3 11.8 % 306,396 m<br />

448 %<br />

5902 m 3.4 % 184.1 17.1 % 34,571 m<br />

341 %<br />

12286 m 0.9 % 96.8 9.0 % 136,816 m<br />

433 %<br />

2290 m 1.8 % 99.1 9.2 % 24,918 m<br />

385 %<br />

7526 m 5.4 % 290.2 26.9 % 27,967 m<br />

386 %<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock<br />

Zone On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

338049 m 4.1 % 445.6 41.3 % 818,034 m<br />

586 %<br />

166699 m 8.3 % 899.6 83.4 % 199,816 m<br />

680 %<br />

10446 m 0.9 % 102.0 9.5 % 110,483 m<br />

407 %<br />

1901 m 3.1 % 168.6 15.6 % 12,156 m<br />

396 %<br />

7004 m 3.5 % 190.9 17.7 % 39,552 m<br />

297 %<br />

19398 m 2.0 % 72.9 6.8 % 287,102 m<br />

162 %<br />

20521 m 2.1 % 111.2 10.3 % 199,007 m<br />

240 %<br />

13095 m 1.6 % 57.4 5.3 % 246,148 m<br />

186 %<br />

257 m 1.0 % 51.6 4.8 % 5,369 m<br />

317 %<br />

14446 m 1.5 % 80.7 7.5 % 193,048 m<br />

265 %<br />

8 m 0.9 % 18.6 1.7 % 454 m<br />

126 %<br />

Page 302 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Tsitika-Nimpkish<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

3356 m 4.4 % 235.4 21.8 % 15,371 m<br />

211 %<br />

1284 m 5.4 % 292.1 27.1 % 4,738 m<br />

239 %<br />

10709 m 1.7 % 89.5 8.3 % 128,956 m<br />

253 %<br />

10345 m 2.2 % 117.7 10.9 % 94,768 m<br />

220 %<br />

Third Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Twin Rocks (Marine)<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Marine Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 400 ha Developed 0 %<br />

988 ac Undeveloped 0 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er 100 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani 2 occ 0.6 % 121.5 1.9 % 108 occ 159 %<br />

Brandt's Cormorant Phalacrocorax penicill<strong>at</strong>us 1 occ 1.0 % 211.6 3.2 % 31 occ 168 %<br />

Common Murre 1 occ 1.0 % 218.7 3.3 % 30 occ 187 %<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus 2 occ 0.6 % 138.1 2.1 % 95 occ 163 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 2 occ 0.5 % 113.1 1.7 % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Shoreline<br />

Rocky/Cliff (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 389 m 0.1 % 21.8 0.3 % 116,959 m<br />

119 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2225 m 0.8 % 181.5 2.8 % 80,427 m<br />

122 %<br />

Page 303 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Umpqua Lighthouse St<strong>at</strong>e Park<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Umpqua Lighthouse St<strong>at</strong>e Park<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 100 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 100 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Area: 65 ha Developed 1 %<br />

161 ac Undeveloped 96 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

3 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 53 ha 0.0 % 29.7 0.0 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 3 ha 0.0 % 0.9 0.0 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 12 ha 0.0 % 1.7 0.0 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Page 304 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Umpqua River tributaries<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Umpqua River tributaries<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 46 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 54 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 54 %<br />

GAP 4 46 %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 1 %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 99 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

%<br />

16,432 ha<br />

40,587 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

Mediterranean California Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest And Woodland 118 ha 3.4 % 147.7 33.9 % 348 ha 500 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 36 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.0 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 7340 ha 0.6 % 9.3 2.1 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 6674 ha 0.3 % 3.8 0.9 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest 1911 ha 1.0 % 22.0 5.0 % 37,848 ha 140 %<br />

Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland 15 ha 0.9 % 37.3 8.5 % 177 ha<br />

60 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Clouded Salamander Aneides ferreus G3 1 occ 6.3 % 62.3 14.3 % 7 occ<br />

86 %<br />

Northern Red-Legged Frog Rana aurora aurora T4 3 occ 3.1 % 187.0 42.9 % 7 occ 671 %<br />

Southern Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton varieg<strong>at</strong>us G3 2 occ 4.8 % 67.1 15.4 % 13 occ 192 %<br />

Birds<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 2 occ 0.1 % 1.0 0.2 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 21 occ 2.1 % 18.2 4.2 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Mammals<br />

Long-legged Myotis Volans Myotis volans G5 1 occ 9.1 % 87.3 20.0 % 5 occ<br />

20 %<br />

Red Tree Vole Arborimus longicaudus G3 11 occ 7.3 % 369.2 84.6 % 13 occ 308 %<br />

Yuma Myotis Myotis yumanensis G5 1 occ 25.0 % 87.3 20.0 % 5 occ<br />

20 %<br />

Page 305 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Umpqua River tributaries<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 29220 m 0.3 % 19.8 0.6 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 48506 m 0.5 % 32.9 1.1 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 35694 m 0.4 % 43.8 1.4 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 69024 m 0.8 % 84.6 2.8 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Page 306 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Upper Nehalem River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Upper Nehalem River<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 36 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 64 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 64 %<br />

GAP 4 36 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 2 %<br />

Area: 56,150 ha Developed 0 %<br />

138,690 ac Undeveloped 98 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

Mediterranean California Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest And Woodland 15 ha 0.4 % 5.5 4.3 % 348 ha 500 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 10 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 8926 ha 1.4 % 5.8 4.6 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 10137 ha 0.9 % 3.7 2.9 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 34419 ha 1.3 % 5.7 4.4 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 282 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.1 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Columbia Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton kezeri 1 occ 1.2 % 5.1 4.0 % 25 occ 188 %<br />

Birds<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 2 occ 0.1 % 0.3 0.2 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 13 occ 1.3 % 3.3 2.6 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong> Megomphix (Snail) Megomphix hemphilli 1 occ 1.0 % 9.8 7.7 % 13 occ 323 %<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Flett Groundsel Senecio flettii G4 1 occ 33.3 % 5.1 4.0 % 25 occ<br />

12 %<br />

Wandering Daisy<br />

Erigeron peregrinus ssp T2 1 occ 33.3 % 9.8 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

23 %<br />

peregrinus<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Page 307 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Upper Nehalem River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Mineral Spring 3 occ 4.9 % 19.2 15.0 % 20 occ 150 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 249701 m 2.8 % 49.5 5.6 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 44811 m 0.5 % 8.9 1.0 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 92572 m 2.1 % 62.1 7.0 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 146909 m 1.8 % 52.7 5.9 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 20638 m 0.2 % 7.4 0.8 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

Willapa Hills Small Rivers - Sandstone, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion 1 occ 100.0 % % occ<br />

%<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

Inland Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Willapa Hills 4 occ 36.4 % 1189.7 133.3 % 3 occ 133 %<br />

Page 308 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Waadah Island - Neah Bay (Marine)<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Waadah Island - Neah Bay (Marine)<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Washington<br />

Marine Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 1,600 ha Developed 0 %<br />

3,952 ac Undeveloped 0 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er 100 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Mussels and barnacles 4377 m 0.4 % 21.3 1.3 % 337,346 m<br />

132 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds Shore 10256 m 0.3 % 17.9 1.1 % 939,089 m<br />

119 %<br />

Dune grass Shore 5066 m 0.9 % 47.0 2.9 % 176,736 m<br />

109 %<br />

Kelp high persistence (WA) 61 ha 5.5 % 298.9 18.2 % 336 ha 168 %<br />

Kelp low persistence (WA) 116 ha 5.0 % 274.4 16.7 % 692 ha 162 %<br />

Kelp medium persistence (WA) 56 ha 5.3 % 287.1 17.5 % 320 ha 169 %<br />

Kelp Shore 7501 m 0.5 % 27.6 1.7 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Surfgrass Shore 4637 m 0.4 % 20.9 1.3 % 363,205 m<br />

131 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Shoreline<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1006 m 0.3 % 17.0 1.0 % 96,940 m<br />

112 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1112 m 0.2 % 9.4 0.6 % 193,399 m<br />

88 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 260 m 0.1 % 7.8 0.5 % 54,295 m<br />

137 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1249 m 2.0 % 109.2 6.7 % 18,758 m<br />

216 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1096 m 0.3 % 18.6 1.1 % 96,577 m<br />

110 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1079 m 0.5 % 28.7 1.7 % 61,723 m<br />

94 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1020 m 1.2 % 63.4 3.9 % 26,382 m<br />

139 %<br />

Page 309 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Wa<strong>at</strong>ch Point - Wa<strong>at</strong>ch River (Marine)<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Wa<strong>at</strong>ch Point - Wa<strong>at</strong>ch River (Marine)<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Washington<br />

Marine Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 1,600 ha Developed 0 %<br />

3,952 ac Undeveloped 0 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er 100 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani 1 occ 0.3 % 15.2 0.9 % 108 occ 159 %<br />

Fishes<br />

Smelt spawn 96 m 0.2 % 12.4 0.8 % 12,705 m<br />

140 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Mussels and barnacles 5537 m 0.5 % 26.9 1.6 % 337,346 m<br />

132 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds Shore 4472 m 0.1 % 7.8 0.5 % 939,089 m<br />

119 %<br />

Dune grass Estuary 5740 m 2.8 % 150.8 9.2 % 62,438 m<br />

224 %<br />

Dune grass Shore 10325 m 1.8 % 95.8 5.8 % 176,736 m<br />

109 %<br />

Kelp high persistence (WA) 39 ha 3.5 % 192.4 11.7 % 336 ha 168 %<br />

Kelp low persistence (WA) 130 ha 5.6 % 308.8 18.8 % 692 ha 162 %<br />

Kelp medium persistence (WA) 72 ha 6.8 % 369.1 22.5 % 320 ha 169 %<br />

Kelp Shore 2756 m 0.2 % 10.1 0.6 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 107 ha 1.0 % 55.5 3.4 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 5740 m 0.4 % 21.3 1.3 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Surfgrass Shore 3856 m 0.3 % 17.4 1.1 % 363,205 m<br />

131 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Page 310 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Wa<strong>at</strong>ch Point - Wa<strong>at</strong>ch River (Marine)<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 6 ha 0.6 % 35.2 2.1 % 279 ha 116 %<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 133 ha 0.7 % 39.8 2.4 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Organics/fines Exposed (Embayment) 5740 m 1.2 % 65.0 4.0 % 144,777 m<br />

215 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 375 m 0.2 % 9.5 0.6 % 64,871 m<br />

114 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1747 m 1.0 % 52.8 3.2 % 54,295 m<br />

137 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1315 m 0.4 % 22.3 1.4 % 96,577 m<br />

110 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 5184 m 7.6 % 417.3 25.4 % 20,374 m<br />

125 %<br />

Page 311 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

West Koitiah Point (Marine)<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

West Koitiah Point (Marine)<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Washington<br />

Marine Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 800 ha Developed 0 %<br />

1,976 ac Undeveloped 0 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er 100 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani 1 occ 0.3 % 30.4 0.9 % 108 occ 159 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Mussels and barnacles 6186 m 0.6 % 60.1 1.8 % 337,346 m<br />

132 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds Shore 7425 m 0.2 % 25.9 0.8 % 939,089 m<br />

119 %<br />

Dune grass Shore 2653 m 0.5 % 49.2 1.5 % 176,736 m<br />

109 %<br />

Kelp high persistence (WA) 95 ha 8.5 % 927.8 28.3 % 336 ha 168 %<br />

Kelp low persistence (WA) 33 ha 1.4 % 154.9 4.7 % 692 ha 162 %<br />

Kelp medium persistence (WA) 37 ha 3.5 % 378.9 11.6 % 320 ha 169 %<br />

Kelp Shore 6170 m 0.4 % 45.4 1.4 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Surfgrass Shore 2979 m 0.2 % 26.9 0.8 % 363,205 m<br />

131 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Shoreline<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 3092 m 1.0 % 104.6 3.2 % 96,940 m<br />

112 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 368 m 0.2 % 18.6 0.6 % 64,871 m<br />

114 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2533 m 1.4 % 153.0 4.7 % 54,295 m<br />

137 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 792 m 0.2 % 26.9 0.8 % 96,577 m<br />

110 %<br />

Page 312 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Whale Creek (Marine)<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Whale Creek (Marine)<br />

Washington<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Marine Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 400 ha Developed 0 %<br />

988 ac Undeveloped 0 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er 100 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marine<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Dune grass Shore 1267 m 0.2 % 47.0 0.7 % 176,736 m<br />

109 %<br />

Saltmarsh Shore 683 m 0.1 % 27.3 0.4 % 164,143 m<br />

118 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Shoreline<br />

Organics/fines Very Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 683 m 22.2 % 4855.4 74.0 % 923 m<br />

89 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1932 m 2.8 % 622.0 9.5 % 20,374 m<br />

125 %<br />

Page 313 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Willapa Bay<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Willapa Bay<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 16 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 8 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 13 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 0 %<br />

GAP 2 11 %<br />

GAP 3 9 %<br />

GAP 4 16 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 48,453 ha Developed 0 %<br />

119,679 ac Undeveloped 40 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

58 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 97 ha 0.0 % 0.1 0.1 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 2902 ha 0.4 % 2.2 1.5 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 3028 ha 0.3 % 1.3 0.9 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 4349 ha 0.2 % 0.8 0.6 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 713 ha 0.0 % 0.3 0.2 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Columbia Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton kezeri 3 occ 3.7 % 17.8 12.0 % 25 occ 188 %<br />

Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni G4 1 occ 1.6 % 21.1 14.3 % 7 occ 586 %<br />

Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei G3 5 occ 11.4 % 37.0 25.0 % 20 occ 175 %<br />

Birds<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 7 occ 0.4 % 1.2 0.8 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Gre<strong>at</strong>-Blue Heron Ardea herodias 1 occ 1.4 % 16.4 11.1 % 9 occ 144 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 30 occ 1.7 % 5.0 3.4 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 1 occ 0.1 % 0.3 0.2 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Streaked Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris strig<strong>at</strong>a 1 occ 7.7 % 16.4 11.1 % 9 occ<br />

67 %<br />

Vaux's Swift Chaetura vauxi 1 occ 20.0 % 29.6 20.0 % 5 occ<br />

40 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Page 314 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Willapa Bay<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Burrington Jumping-Slug Hemphillia burringtoni 1 occ 2.4 % 11.4 7.7 % 13 occ 115 %<br />

Warty Jumping-Slug<br />

Hemphillia glandulosa<br />

1 occ 1.4 % 11.4 7.7 % 13 occ 200 %<br />

glandulosa<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Mineral Spring 2 occ 3.3 % 14.8 10.0 % 20 occ 150 %<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia 2 occ 50.0 % 108.3 200.0 % 1 occ 400 %<br />

Shorebird Concentr<strong>at</strong>ion Area 1 occ 4.3 % 3.4 6.3 % 16 occ 119 %<br />

Western Snowy Plover<br />

Charadrius alexandrinus<br />

1 occ 7.1 % 4.9 9.1 % 11 occ 100 %<br />

nivosus<br />

Fishes<br />

Herring Spawning High Cover 24879 m 8.9 % 16.0 29.5 % 84,336 m<br />

169 %<br />

Mammals<br />

Northern Elephant Seal Mirounga angustirostris 3 occ 37.5 % 54.2 100.0 % 3 occ 233 %<br />

Sea Lion (California) Zalophus californianus G5 4 occ 80.0 % % occ<br />

%<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds (ha) 10474 ha 92.8 % 167.6 309.5 % 3,384 ha 330 %<br />

Algal Beds Estuary 54355 m 14.5 % 26.1 48.3 % 112,601 m<br />

179 %<br />

Dune grass (Ha) 493 ha 83.7 % 150.9 278.7 % 177 ha 333 %<br />

Dune grass Estuary 47607 m 22.9 % 41.3 76.2 % 62,438 m<br />

224 %<br />

Dune grass Shore 1122 m 0.2 % 0.3 0.6 % 176,736 m<br />

109 %<br />

Eelgrass Estuary 95435 m 16.9 % 30.4 56.2 % 169,841 m<br />

224 %<br />

Mixed-Fine And Mud: Partly Enclosed, Eulittoral, MesohalineSilty, low salinity, low marsh op 7 occ 53.8 % 94.8 175.0 % 4 occ 325 %<br />

Organic: Partly Enclosed, Backshore, Mesohaline (Marsh) Op Low salinity high marsh op 2 occ 18.2 % 27.1 50.0 % 4 occ 225 %<br />

Organic: Partly Enclosed, Backshore, Polyhaline (Marsh) OpModer<strong>at</strong>e salinity high marsh<br />

3 occ 25.0 % 54.2 100.0 % 3 occ 400 %<br />

op<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> Reedgrass - <strong>Pacific</strong> Silverweed - Baltic Rush Calamagrostis nutkaensis -<br />

2 occ 100.0 % 108.3 200.0 % 1 occ 200 %<br />

argentina egedii - juncus<br />

balticu<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 1402 ha 13.3 % 24.0 44.2 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 284111 m 19.3 % 34.8 64.2 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Sand: Partly Enclosed, Eulittoral, Mesohaline (Marsh) Op Sandy, low salinity, low marsh<br />

4 occ 50.0 % 216.6 400.0 % 1 occ 800 %<br />

op<br />

Seagrass (ha) 14640 ha 44.5 % 80.3 148.4 % 9,868 ha 294 %<br />

Page 315 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Willapa Bay<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 12342 ha 40.4 % 72.9 134.6 % 9,168 ha 287 %<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 1402 ha 7.7 % 13.8 25.5 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 2451 ha 24.0 % 43.2 79.9 % 3,069 ha 224 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) 2355 m 12.0 % 21.6 40.0 % 5,894 m<br />

224 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) 241929 m 30.3 % 54.7 101.0 % 239,478 m<br />

223 %<br />

Organics/fines Very Protected (Embayment) 3526 m 3.5 % 6.4 11.7 % 30,025 m<br />

194 %<br />

Rock With Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) 460 m 2.7 % 5.0 9.2 % 5,027 m<br />

117 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Protected (Embayment) 24431 m 46.4 % 83.7 154.6 % 15,799 m<br />

247 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) 4322 m 12.6 % 22.8 42.0 % 10,283 m<br />

243 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) 4443 m 7.9 % 14.3 26.3 % 16,881 m<br />

144 %<br />

Sand Beach Protected (Embayment) 13798 m 44.3 % 80.0 147.8 % 9,335 m<br />

278 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Protected (Embayment) 5020 m 61.6 % 111.2 205.3 % 2,445 m<br />

333 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 3017 m 4.4 % 8.0 14.8 % 20,374 m<br />

125 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) 11703 m 20.0 % 36.2 66.8 % 17,529 m<br />

230 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Very Exposed (Embayment) 1259 m 32.0 % 57.7 106.6 % 1,181 m<br />

272 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1122 m 1.1 % 2.0 3.8 % 29,817 m<br />

64 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Very Protected (Embayment) 3672 m 92.4 % 166.8 308.0 % 1,192 m<br />

333 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 82255 m 3.4 % 117.6 11.4 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 134751 m 2.8 % 96.6 9.4 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 126612 m 4.0 % 138.7 13.4 % 943,067 m<br />

129 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Southwest Washington ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 106750 m 3.1 % 108.3 10.5 % 1,017,511 m<br />

137 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Upland - Alluvium-Colluvium, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradients 3 occ 27.3 % 1032.8 100.0 % 3 occ 100 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Upland - Sandstones, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient 1 occ 2.5 % 86.1 8.3 % 12 occ 133 %<br />

Page 316 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Willapa Hills<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Willapa Hills<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 64 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 36 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 0 %<br />

GAP 3 36 %<br />

GAP 4 64 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 6 %<br />

Area: 21,731 ha Developed 0 %<br />

53,677 ac Undeveloped 92 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 124 ha 0.0 % 0.3 0.1 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 464 ha 0.1 % 0.8 0.2 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 6161 ha 0.5 % 5.9 1.8 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 12563 ha 0.5 % 5.3 1.6 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 708 ha 0.0 % 0.7 0.2 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Columbia Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton kezeri 8 occ 9.8 % 105.6 32.0 % 25 occ 188 %<br />

Cope's Giant Salamander Dicamptodon copei 2 occ 2.3 % 50.8 15.4 % 13 occ 415 %<br />

Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni G4 6 occ 9.4 % 282.8 85.7 % 7 occ 586 %<br />

Tailed Frog Ascaphus truei 6 occ 11.8 % 282.8 85.7 % 7 occ 343 %<br />

Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei G3 1 occ 2.3 % 16.5 5.0 % 20 occ 175 %<br />

Birds<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1 occ 0.1 % 0.4 0.1 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 10 occ 0.6 % 3.7 1.1 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 1 occ 0.1 % 0.7 0.2 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Queen-Of-The-Forest Filipendula occidentalis 5 occ 17.2 % 66.0 20.0 % 25 occ 112 %<br />

Page 317 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Willapa Hills<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

% % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 38298 m 1.6 % 122.1 5.3 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 147338 m 3.1 % 235.7 10.2 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 16669 m 0.3 % 26.7 1.2 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 14423 m 0.5 % 35.2 1.5 % 943,067 m<br />

129 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 66888 m 2.1 % 163.4 7.1 % 943,067 m<br />

129 %<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> Lamprey Lampetra trident<strong>at</strong>a G5 1 occ 3.0 % % occ<br />

%<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Southwest Washington ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 75335 m 2.2 % 170.6 7.4 % 1,017,511 m<br />

137 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Southwest Washington ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 36689 m 1.1 % 83.0 3.6 % 1,017,511 m<br />

137 %<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 1288 m 0.1 4.1 0.2<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Upland - Sandstones, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient 1 occ 2.5 % 192.0 8.3 % 12 occ 133 %<br />

Willapa Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sandstones, Low To Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e/Low<br />

1 occ 2.6 % 209.4 9.1 % 11 occ 100 %<br />

Gradient<br />

Willapa Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sandstones, Low To Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e/Low<br />

1 occ 2.6 % 209.3 9.1 % 11 occ 100 %<br />

Gradient<br />

Page 318 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Wilson River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Wilson River<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 8 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 75 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 83 %<br />

GAP 4 17 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 17 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture %<br />

Developed %<br />

Undeveloped 100 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

12,097 ha<br />

29,879 ac<br />

Area:<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 4 ha 0.0 % 0.7 0.1 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 681 ha 0.1 % 2.1 0.3 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 2874 ha 0.2 % 4.9 0.8 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 7980 ha 0.3 % 6.1 1.0 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 548 ha 0.0 % 1.0 0.2 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

% % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 1 occ 0.1 % 1.2 0.2 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1 occ 0.1 0.7 0.1<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Range Fawn-Lily Erythronium elegans 2 occ 22.2 % 47.4 8.0 % 25 occ<br />

36 %<br />

Flett Groundsel Senecio flettii G4 1 occ 33.3 % 23.7 4.0 % 25 occ<br />

12 %<br />

Saddle Mt. Saxifrage Saxifraga hitchcockiana 1 occ 33.3 % 23.7 4.0 % 25 occ<br />

12 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 5191 m 0.2 % 29.8 0.7 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 38925 m 0.4 % 35.8 0.9 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Page 319 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Wilson River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 25040 m 0.6 % 77.9 1.9 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 36081 m 0.4 % 60.1 1.5 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Ridge Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Volcanic 1 occ 20.0 % 2070.8 50.0 % 2 occ<br />

50 %<br />

Inland Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Volcanic 1 occ 11.1 % 1380.5 33.3 % 3 occ<br />

67 %<br />

Wreck Creek (Marine)<br />

Washington<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

Marine Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 0 %<br />

Area: 400 ha Developed 0 %<br />

988 ac Undeveloped 0 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er 100 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Marine<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Dune grass Shore 2184 m 0.4 % 81.1 1.2 % 176,736 m<br />

109 %<br />

Saltmarsh Shore 2317 m 0.4 % 92.6 1.4 % 164,143 m<br />

118 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Shoreline<br />

Organics/fines Very Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 134 m 4.3 % 949.8 14.5 % 923 m<br />

89 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2184 m 2.2 % 480.4 7.3 % 29,817 m<br />

64 %<br />

Page 320 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Wynoochee River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Wynoochee River<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 70 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 29 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local: 1 %<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 30 %<br />

GAP 4 70 %<br />

Washington<br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 5 %<br />

Area: 30,804 ha Developed 1 %<br />

76,086 ac Undeveloped 92 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

1 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow 85 ha 0.3 % 6.1 2.6 % 3,273 ha 878 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest 9 ha 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % 162,155 ha 166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 1673 ha 0.3 % 2.0 0.9 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 8596 ha 0.7 % 5.8 2.5 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 14888 ha 0.6 % 4.5 1.9 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest 1040 ha 0.3 % 3.2 1.4 % 76,367 ha 375 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest 2378 ha 0.1 % 1.7 0.7 % 324,193 ha 236 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Cascades Frog Rana cascadae 1 occ 25.0 % 17.9 7.7 % 13 occ<br />

31 %<br />

Cope's Giant Salamander Dicamptodon copei 1 occ 1.1 % 17.9 7.7 % 13 occ 415 %<br />

Olympic Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton olympicus 3 occ 3.8 % 27.9 12.0 % 25 occ 256 %<br />

Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei G3 1 occ 2.3 % 11.6 5.0 % 20 occ 175 %<br />

Birds<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1 occ 0.1 % 0.3 0.1 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus 2 occ 3.6 % 93.1 40.0 % 5 occ 580 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 4 occ 0.2 % 1.1 0.5 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 2 occ 0.2 % 0.9 0.4 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Page 321 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Wynoochee River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Burrington Jumping-Slug Hemphillia burringtoni 2 occ 4.8 % 35.8 15.4 % 13 occ 115 %<br />

Warty Jumping-Slug<br />

Hemphillia glandulosa<br />

4 occ 5.8 % 71.6 30.8 % 13 occ 200 %<br />

glandulosa<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 153052 m 6.4 % 344.2 21.2 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 245585 m 5.1 % 277.0 17.1 % 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 190873 m 6.1 % 328.8 20.2 % 943,067 m<br />

129 %<br />

Spring Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 17887 m 1.7 % 92.9 5.7 % 312,652 m<br />

187 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Southwest Washington ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? 196799 m 5.8 % 314.2 19.3 % 1,017,511 m<br />

137 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

Chehalis Tributary Small Rivers - Volcanic/Outwash, Low To Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion 1 occ 25.0 % 1624.5 100.0 % 1 occ 100 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Tributaries - Outwash, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradients 2 occ 6.1 % 324.9 20.0 % 10 occ 120 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

Willapa Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ions, High Gradients 2 occ 6.7 % 361.0 22.2 % 9 occ 133 %<br />

Willapa Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sandstones, Low To Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e/Low<br />

1 occ 2.6 % 147.7 9.1 % 11 occ 100 %<br />

Gradient<br />

Page 322 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Yach<strong>at</strong>s River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Yach<strong>at</strong>s River<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 19 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 80 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin 1 %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 81 %<br />

GAP 4 19 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 1 %<br />

Area: 11,464 ha Developed 2 %<br />

28,316 ac Undeveloped 96 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

0 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 3484 ha 0.5 % 11.2 1.8 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 801 ha 0.1 % 1.4 0.2 % 345,702 ha 116 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest 6691 ha 0.3 % 5.4 0.9 % 775,920 ha 126 %<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1 occ 0.1 % 0.7 0.1 % 839 occ<br />

90 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us 26 occ 1.5 % 18.5 3.0 % 880 occ 116 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T3 7 occ 0.7 % 8.7 1.4 % 503 occ 111 %<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Bog Anemone Anemone oregana var felix T2 1 occ 20.0 % 25.0 4.0 % 25 occ<br />

20 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Lowland Coniferous Forested Wetlands (Picsit / Carobn Lysame) 1 occ 12.5 % 104.2 16.7 % 6 occ 117 %<br />

Marine<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 8 ha 0.1 % 0.5 0.2 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Page 323 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Yach<strong>at</strong>s River<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Estuary<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 8 ha 0.0 % 0.3 0.1 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Unconsolid<strong>at</strong>ed (ha) 1 ha 0.4 % 3.2 1.4 % 91 ha 121 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 2040 m 0.8 % 5.8 2.5 % 80,427 m<br />

122 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 72046 m 0.8 % 70.0 1.6 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 17880 m 0.4 % 58.7 1.3 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 66217 m 0.8 % 116.3 2.7 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

1 occ 20.0 % 2185.1 50.0 % 2 occ 100 %<br />

Inland <strong>Coast</strong>al Headw<strong>at</strong>ers Streams - Granitic, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, High<br />

Gradient<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Ocean Tributaries - Volcanic 1 occ 16.7 % 2185.1 50.0 % 2 occ 250 %<br />

Page 324 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Yaquina Bay<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Yaquina Bay<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e 86 %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

%<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 %<br />

GAP 3 0 %<br />

GAP 4 86 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 7 %<br />

Area: 1,620 ha Developed 1 %<br />

4,001 ac Undeveloped 49 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

43 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Purple Martin Progne subis G5 1 occ 1.2 % 491.8 11.1 % 9 occ 367 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Mineral Spring 1 occ 1.6 % 221.3 5.0 % 20 occ 150 %<br />

Marine<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds (ha) 0 ha 0.0 % 0.2 0.0 % 3,384 ha 330 %<br />

Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic Bed (ha) 1 ha 0.1 % 4.4 0.3 % 198 ha 258 %<br />

Eelgrass Estuary 6937 m 1.2 % 66.2 4.1 % 169,841 m<br />

224 %<br />

Intertidal Salt Marshes (Salvir Disspi Trimar) Salvir - disspi - trimar - (jaucar) 6 occ 8.8 % 441.7 27.3 % 22 occ 250 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) 99 ha 0.9 % 50.6 3.1 % 3,169 ha 238 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary 8893 m 0.6 % 32.6 2.0 % 442,357 m<br />

228 %<br />

Seagrass (ha) 2 ha 0.0 % 0.4 0.0 % 9,868 ha 294 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) 13 ha 1.4 % 73.4 4.5 % 279 ha 116 %<br />

Mud (ha) 1 ha 0.1 % 5.4 0.3 % 155 ha 244 %<br />

Page 325 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Yaquina Bay<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Organics/fines (ha) 102 ha 0.6 % 30.1 1.9 % 5,499 ha 206 %<br />

Sand/Mud (ha) 2 ha 0.0 % 2.4 0.1 % 1,250 ha 246 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Organics/fines (Embayment) 30 m 0.0 % 1.1 0.1 % 45,204 m<br />

218 %<br />

Organics/fines Exposed (Embayment) 6927 m 1.4 % 77.5 4.8 % 144,777 m<br />

215 %<br />

Organics/fines Very Protected (Embayment) 1922 m 1.9 % 103.7 6.4 % 30,025 m<br />

194 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 32117 m 1.3 % 1375.1 4.4 % 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 62490 m 0.7 % 429.8 1.4 % 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 47338 m 1.1 % 1100.4 3.6 % 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 47618 m 0.6 % 592.1 1.9 % 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Page 326 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Yaquina Head ONA/ACEC<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Yaquina Head ONA/ACEC<br />

Indigenous: %<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e %<br />

NGO %<br />

Land Ownership<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional 100 %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional Other: %<br />

N<strong>at</strong>ional USFS: %<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/Provin %<br />

Local:<br />

%<br />

GAP Management St<strong>at</strong>us<br />

GAP 1 %<br />

GAP 2 100 %<br />

GAP 3 %<br />

GAP 4 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Integr<strong>at</strong>ed Site<br />

Land Use/Land Cover<br />

Agriculture 12 %<br />

Area: 41 ha Developed 33 %<br />

100 ac Undeveloped 32 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

20 %<br />

g<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

c d<br />

e f<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

b<br />

a<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest 22 ha 0.0 % 20.0 0.0 % 195,305 ha 127 %<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani 7 occ 2.0 % 4194.7 6.5 % 108 occ 159 %<br />

Brandt's Cormorant Phalacrocorax penicill<strong>at</strong>us 6 occ 5.9 % 2526.3 19.4 % 31 occ 168 %<br />

Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis G4 1 occ 14.3 % % occ<br />

%<br />

Common Murre 8 occ 7.9 % 7258.4 26.7 % 30 occ 187 %<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus 8 occ 2.5 % 5450.0 8.4 % 95 occ 163 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 12 occ 3.1 % 6695.1 10.3 % 116 occ 171 %<br />

Rhinoceros Auklet Cerorhinca monocer<strong>at</strong>a 1 occ 6.3 % 2943.8 20.0 % 5 occ 180 %<br />

Tufted Puffin Fr<strong>at</strong>ercula cirrh<strong>at</strong>a 2 occ 2.1 % 4314.6 6.7 % 30 occ 190 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) 3 ha 0.0 % 28.3 0.0 % 5,844 ha 105 %<br />

Kelp Shore 1911 m 0.1 % 277.4 0.4 % 445,946 m<br />

142 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Page 327 of 328<br />

Shoreline<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

% of Goal<br />

Captured by<br />

Portfolio<br />

Yaquina Head ONA/ACEC<br />

Portfolio Site Summary, continued:<br />

Ecoregion<br />

Goal<br />

Contribution<br />

to Goal<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

Abundance<br />

% of Total<br />

Known<br />

Targets known in this Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Area: GRank Abundance<br />

Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 388 m 0.8 % 1722.0 2.7 % 14,577 m<br />

89 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 392 m 3.6 % 7872.8 12.2 % 3,219 m<br />

124 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 298 m 0.1 % 165.2 0.3 % 116,959 m<br />

119 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 64 m 0.0 % 18.4 0.0 % 226,193 m<br />

102 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1987 m 2.5 % 5335.3 8.2 % 24,105 m<br />

129 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 618 m 0.6 % 1200.9 1.9 % 33,330 m<br />

119 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach Very Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 319 m 7.4 % 6002.5 24.7 % 1,289 m<br />

140 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) 1768 m 0.7 % 1422.4 2.2 % 80,427 m<br />

122 %<br />

Page 328 of 328<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summaries of Portfolio Sites

Appendix 8E: Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals Summary<br />

December 2006<br />

Column Notes:<br />

a) Geographic Section: also known as the ecoregional section or ecosection in which the conserv<strong>at</strong>ion goal is st<strong>at</strong>ed for<br />

the conserv<strong>at</strong>ion target. Sections were described separ<strong>at</strong>ely for terrestrial targets (ecosections), freshw<strong>at</strong>er targets<br />

(Ecological Drainage Units), and marine targets (marine ecoregions). A target th<strong>at</strong> occurs in more than one section will<br />

have a conserv<strong>at</strong>ion goal for each section.<br />

b) Amount Known: the amount of the conserv<strong>at</strong>ion target known within the st<strong>at</strong>ed section in abundance units th<strong>at</strong> were<br />

used in the analysis (e.g. occurrences, hectares, meters).<br />

c) Captured in Portfolio: the amount of the conserv<strong>at</strong>ion target captured within portfolio sites in the st<strong>at</strong>ed section.<br />

d) Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Goal: the conserv<strong>at</strong>ion goal for the target within the st<strong>at</strong>ed section.<br />

e) % of Goal Captured: percent of the conserv<strong>at</strong>ion goal captured in all portfolio sites within the st<strong>at</strong>ed section. 100%<br />

denotes th<strong>at</strong> the conserv<strong>at</strong>ion goal was fully met for the target within the section.

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

Terrestrial<br />

Terrrestrial Ecological Systems<br />

Boreal Fen Lee Isle Mountains Section 11 occ 9 occ 3 occ<br />

300 %<br />

Boreal Fen North Isle Mountains Section 2 occ 2 occ 3 occ<br />

67 %<br />

Boreal Fen Wind Isle Mountains Section 4 occ 4 occ 3 occ<br />

133 %<br />

Boreal Wet Meadow Lee Isle Mountains Section 87 occ 58 occ 3 occ<br />

1933 %<br />

Boreal Wet Meadow Nahwitti Lowlands Section 1 occ 1 occ 3 occ<br />

33 %<br />

Boreal Wet Meadow North Isle Mountains Section 241 occ 125 occ 3 occ<br />

4167 %<br />

Boreal Wet Meadow Wind Isle Mountains Section 46 occ 36 occ 3 occ<br />

1200 %<br />

Klam<strong>at</strong>h-Siskiyou Lower Montane Serpentine Mixed Conifer Woodland <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 2 occ 2 occ 3 occ<br />

67 %<br />

Klam<strong>at</strong>h-Siskiyou Lower Montane Serpentine Mixed Conifer Woodland Willapa Hills Section 10 occ 5 occ 3 occ<br />

167 %<br />

Mediterranean California Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest And Woodland <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 3,421 ha 1,700 ha 342 ha<br />

497 %<br />

Mediterranean California Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest And Woodland Willapa Hills Section 59 ha 40 ha 6 ha<br />

667 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Avalanche Chute And Talus Shrubland Lee Isle Mountains Section 143 occ 107 occ 3 occ<br />

3567 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Avalanche Chute And Talus Shrubland North Isle Mountains Section 92 occ 46 occ 3 occ<br />

1533 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Avalanche Chute And Talus Shrubland Wind Isle Mountains Section 148 occ 113 occ 3 occ<br />

3767 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong>al Herbaceous Bald And Bluff Olympic Section 23 occ 21 occ 3 occ<br />

700 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Coniferous Swamp Lee Isle Mountains Section 71 occ 43 occ 3 occ<br />

1433 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Coniferous Swamp Nahwitti Lowlands Section 16 occ 11 occ 3 occ<br />

367 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Coniferous Swamp North Isle Mountains Section 26 occ 13 occ 3 occ<br />

433 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Coniferous Swamp Wind Isle Mountains Section 34 occ 11 occ 3 occ<br />

367 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Deciduous Swamp Lee Isle Mountains Section 606 ha 201 ha 121 ha<br />

166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Deciduous Swamp North Isle Mountains Section 620 ha 324 ha 124 ha<br />

261 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Deciduous Swamp Wind Isle Mountains Section 435 ha 238 ha 87 ha<br />

274 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 86 ha 43 ha 9 ha<br />

478 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow Lee Isle Mountains Section 7,422 ha 6,666 ha 742 ha<br />

898 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow North Isle Mountains Section 1,868 ha 1,164 ha 187 ha<br />

622 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow Olympic Section 22,746 ha 20,427 ha 2,275 ha<br />

898 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow Willapa Hills Section 178 ha 103 ha 18 ha<br />

572 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry And Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland And Meadow Wind Isle Mountains Section 422 ha 328 ha 42 ha<br />

781 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry Douglas-Fir And Madrone Forest And Woodland Lee Isle Mountains Section 73 ha 56 ha 15 ha<br />

373 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry Douglas-Fir And Madrone Forest And Woodland North Isle Mountains Section 63 ha 60 ha 13 ha<br />

462 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Dry Douglas-Fir And Madrone Forest And Woodland Wind Isle Mountains Section 3 ha 2 ha 1 ha<br />

200 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 192 ha 116 ha 58 ha<br />

200 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest Lee Isle Mountains Section 113,011 ha 37,891 ha 33,903 ha<br />

112 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest Nahwitti Lowlands Section 107,316 ha 72,483 ha 32,195 ha<br />

225 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest North Isle Mountains Section 53,739 ha 29,365 ha 16,122 ha<br />

182 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest Olympic Section 113 ha 52 ha 34 ha<br />

153 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest Willapa Hills Section 1,512 ha 363 ha 454 ha<br />

80 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Red Cedar-Western Hemlock Forest Wind Isle Mountains Section 264,631 ha 128,543 ha 79,389 ha<br />

162 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 177,567 ha 79,572 ha 53,270 ha<br />

149 %<br />

Page 1 of 32<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest Lee Isle Mountains Section 3,331 ha 1,499 ha 999 ha<br />

150 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest Nahwitti Lowlands Section 1,448 ha 935 ha 434 ha<br />

215 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest North Isle Mountains Section 782 ha 485 ha 235 ha<br />

206 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest Olympic Section 295,591 ha 94,810 ha 88,677 ha<br />

107 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest Willapa Hills Section 163,535 ha 66,063 ha 49,060 ha<br />

135 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest Wind Isle Mountains Section 8,768 ha 4,064 ha 2,630 ha<br />

155 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Lowland Riparian Forest And Shrubland Lee Isle Mountains Section 46 occ 26 occ 3 occ<br />

867 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Lowland Riparian Forest And Shrubland North Isle Mountains Section 42 occ 21 occ 3 occ<br />

700 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Lowland Riparian Forest And Shrubland Wind Isle Mountains Section 83 occ 49 occ 3 occ<br />

1633 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime <strong>Coast</strong>al Sand Dune <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 244 occ 230 occ 3 occ<br />

7667 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime <strong>Coast</strong>al Sand Dune Wind Isle Mountains Section 1 occ 1 occ 3 occ<br />

33 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 478,405 ha 163,532 ha 143,522 ha<br />

114 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest Olympic Section 195,960 ha 96,559 ha 58,788 ha<br />

164 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Dry-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest Willapa Hills Section 477,975 ha 142,287 ha 143,392 ha<br />

99 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Tidal Salt Marsh Lee Isle Mountains Section 1 occ 1 occ 3 occ<br />

33 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Tidal Salt Marsh Nahwitti Lowlands Section 1 occ 1 occ 3 occ<br />

33 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Tidal Salt Marsh Wind Isle Mountains Section 2 occ 2 occ 3 occ<br />

67 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 1,205,299 ha 510,426 ha 361,590 ha<br />

141 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest Lee Isle Mountains Section 498,781 ha 137,799 ha 149,634 ha<br />

92 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest North Isle Mountains Section 54,843 ha 35,536 ha 16,453 ha<br />

216 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest Olympic Section 241,837 ha 103,237 ha 72,551 ha<br />

142 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest Willapa Hills Section 581,407 ha 191,519 ha 174,422 ha<br />

110 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Maritime Wet-Mesic Doug Fir-Western Hemlock Forest Wind Isle Mountains Section 4,234 ha 1,041 ha 1,270 ha<br />

82 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Montane Riparian Woodland And Shrubland Olympic Section 3 occ 3 occ 3 occ<br />

100 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Montane Riparian Woodland And Shrubland Willapa Hills Section 25 occ 6 occ 3 occ<br />

200 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest Lee Isle Mountains Section 91,965 ha 61,929 ha 18,393 ha<br />

337 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest Nahwitti Lowlands Section 125 ha 74 ha 25 ha<br />

296 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest North Isle Mountains Section 114,140 ha 63,743 ha 22,828 ha<br />

279 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest Olympic Section 125,003 ha 123,109 ha 25,001 ha<br />

492 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest Willapa Hills Section 19 ha 19 ha 4 ha<br />

475 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Mountain Hemlock Forest Wind Isle Mountains Section 50,581 ha 37,157 ha 10,116 ha<br />

367 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Oak Woodland <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 25 ha 5 ha 5 ha<br />

100 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Oak Woodland Willapa Hills Section 83 ha 62 ha 17 ha<br />

365 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 4,121 ha 1,308 ha 824 ha<br />

159 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest Lee Isle Mountains Section 306,124 ha 133,097 ha 61,225 ha<br />

217 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest Nahwitti Lowlands Section 109,976 ha 36,603 ha 21,995 ha<br />

166 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest North Isle Mountains Section 253,610 ha 116,121 ha 50,722 ha<br />

229 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest Olympic Section 196,810 ha 143,113 ha 39,362 ha<br />

364 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest Willapa Hills Section 12,748 ha 8,811 ha 2,550 ha<br />

346 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest Wind Isle Mountains Section 737,576 ha 324,940 ha 147,515 ha<br />

220 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Yellow Cedar Forest Lee Isle Mountains Section 1,216 ha 514 ha 243 ha<br />

212 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Yellow Cedar Forest Nahwitti Lowlands Section 14,364 ha 8,070 ha 2,873 ha<br />

281 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Yellow Cedar Forest North Isle Mountains Section 581 ha 294 ha 116 ha<br />

253 %<br />

North <strong>Pacific</strong> Western Hemlock-Yellow Cedar Forest Wind Isle Mountains Section 21,683 ha 10,919 ha 4,337 ha<br />

252 %<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals<br />

Page 2 of 32

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 186,256 ha 53,044 ha 37,251 ha<br />

142 %<br />

Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest Olympic Section 3 ha 3 ha 1 ha<br />

300 %<br />

Northern California Mixed Evergreen Forest Willapa Hills Section 2,979 ha 62 ha 596 ha<br />

10 %<br />

Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 1,757 ha 103 ha 176 ha<br />

59 %<br />

Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland Willapa Hills Section 11 ha 3 ha 1 ha<br />

300 %<br />

Temper<strong>at</strong>e <strong>Pacific</strong> Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Emergent Marsh Lee Isle Mountains Section 11 occ 3 occ 3 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Temper<strong>at</strong>e <strong>Pacific</strong> Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Emergent Marsh Nahwitti Lowlands Section 27 occ 7 occ 3 occ<br />

233 %<br />

Temper<strong>at</strong>e <strong>Pacific</strong> Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Emergent Marsh North Isle Mountains Section 12 occ 5 occ 3 occ<br />

167 %<br />

Temper<strong>at</strong>e <strong>Pacific</strong> Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Emergent Marsh Wind Isle Mountains Section 28 occ 17 occ 3 occ<br />

567 %<br />

Species<br />

Amphibians<br />

Cascades Frog Rana cascadae Olympic Section 4 occ 4 occ 13 occ<br />

31 %<br />

Clouded Salamander Aneides ferreus <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 16 occ 6 occ 7 occ<br />

86 %<br />

Columbia Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton kezeri <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 19 occ 10 occ 10 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Columbia Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton kezeri Willapa Hills Section 63 occ 37 occ 15 occ<br />

247 %<br />

Cope's Giant Salamander Dicamptodon copei Olympic Section 51 occ 39 occ 7 occ<br />

557 %<br />

Cope's Giant Salamander Dicamptodon copei Willapa Hills Section 37 occ 15 occ 6 occ<br />

250 %<br />

Del Norte Salamander Plethodon elong<strong>at</strong>us <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 72 occ 18 occ 13 occ<br />

138 %<br />

Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 12 occ 10 occ 3 occ<br />

333 %<br />

Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni Willapa Hills Section 52 occ 31 occ 4 occ<br />

775 %<br />

Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Rana boylii <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 11 occ 6 occ 7 occ<br />

86 %<br />

Northern Red-Legged Frog Rana aurora aurora <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 94 occ 47 occ 4 occ<br />

1175 %<br />

Olympic Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton olympicus Olympic Section 76 occ 62 occ 24 occ<br />

258 %<br />

Olympic Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton olympicus Willapa Hills Section 2 occ 2 occ 1 occ<br />

200 %<br />

Southern Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton varieg<strong>at</strong>us <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 42 occ 25 occ 13 occ<br />

192 %<br />

Tailed Frog Ascaphus truei <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 27 occ 12 occ 4 occ<br />

300 %<br />

Tailed Frog Ascaphus truei Willapa Hills Section 24 occ 12 occ 3 occ<br />

400 %<br />

Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei Olympic Section 20 occ 16 occ 9 occ<br />

178 %<br />

Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei Willapa Hills Section 24 occ 19 occ 11 occ<br />

173 %<br />

Birds<br />

American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus an<strong>at</strong>um <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 5 occ 3 occ 6 occ<br />

50 %<br />

American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus an<strong>at</strong>um Olympic Section 11 occ 7 occ 6 occ<br />

117 %<br />

American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus an<strong>at</strong>um Willapa Hills Section 2 occ 1 occ 5 occ<br />

20 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 71 occ 38 occ 30 occ<br />

127 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Lee Isle Mountains Section 139 occ 23 occ 70 occ<br />

33 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Nahwitti Lowlands Section 277 occ 122 occ 138 occ<br />

88 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus North Isle Mountains Section 73 occ 39 occ 36 occ<br />

108 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Olympic Section 244 occ 92 occ 67 occ<br />

137 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Willapa Hills Section 176 occ 67 occ 46 occ<br />

146 %<br />

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Wind Isle Mountains Section 903 occ 373 occ 452 occ<br />

83 %<br />

Bald Eagle Wintering Area<br />

Haliaeetus leucocephalus wintering Lee Isle Mountains Section 3 occ 1 occ 3 occ<br />

33 %<br />

area<br />

Bald Eagle Wintering Area<br />

Haliaeetus leucocephalus wintering Olympic Section 2 occ 1 occ 2 occ<br />

50 %<br />

area<br />

Page 3 of 32<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

Bald Eagle Wintering Area<br />

Haliaeetus leucocephalus wintering Willapa Hills Section 7 occ 1 occ 7 occ<br />

14 %<br />

area<br />

Bald Eagle Wintering Area<br />

Haliaeetus leucocephalus wintering Wind Isle Mountains Section 2 occ 1 occ 2 occ<br />

50 %<br />

area<br />

Common Loon Gavia immer <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 2 occ 1 occ 5 occ<br />

20 %<br />

Common W<strong>at</strong>er Shrew, Brooksi Subspecies Sorex palustris brooksi Lee Isle Mountains Section 4 occ 4 occ 25 occ<br />

16 %<br />

Gre<strong>at</strong>-Blue Heron Ardea herodias <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 5 occ 3 occ 1 occ<br />

300 %<br />

Gre<strong>at</strong>-Blue Heron Ardea herodias Lee Isle Mountains Section 37 occ 1 occ 2 occ<br />

50 %<br />

Gre<strong>at</strong>-Blue Heron Ardea herodias Olympic Section 4 occ 1 occ 2 occ<br />

50 %<br />

Gre<strong>at</strong>-Blue Heron Ardea herodias Willapa Hills Section 21 occ 6 occ 3 occ<br />

200 %<br />

Gre<strong>at</strong>-Blue Heron Ardea herodias Wind Isle Mountains Section 4 occ 2 occ 1 occ<br />

200 %<br />

Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus Olympic Section 53 occ 28 occ 4 occ<br />

700 %<br />

Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus Willapa Hills Section 3 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 824 occ 459 occ 412 occ<br />

111 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us Olympic Section 676 occ 389 occ 338 occ<br />

115 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us Willapa Hills Section 259 occ 169 occ 130 occ<br />

130 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP1) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us Lee Isle Mountains Section 13,406 ha 6,923 ha 6,703 ha<br />

103 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP1) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us Nahwitti Lowlands Section 6,321 ha 4,426 ha 3,160 ha<br />

140 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP1) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us North Isle Mountains Section 47,346 ha 25,080 ha 23,673 ha<br />

106 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP1) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us Wind Isle Mountains Section 227,778 ha 125,344 ha 113,889 ha<br />

110 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP2) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us Lee Isle Mountains Section 65,350 ha 35,764 ha 32,675 ha<br />

109 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP2) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us Nahwitti Lowlands Section 99,379 ha 51,359 ha 49,690 ha<br />

103 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP2) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us North Isle Mountains Section 107,472 ha 58,551 ha 53,736 ha<br />

109 %<br />

Marbled Murrelet (CAP2) Brachyramphus marmor<strong>at</strong>us Wind Isle Mountains Section 333,715 ha 182,348 ha 166,858 ha<br />

109 %<br />

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 2 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Lee Isle Mountains Section 28 occ 8 occ 3 occ<br />

267 %<br />

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Olympic Section 16 occ 9 occ 9 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Willapa Hills Section 2 occ 1 occ 5 occ<br />

20 %<br />

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Wind Isle Mountains Section 5 occ 2 occ 2 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Northern Pygmy-Owl, Swarthi Subspecies Glaucidium gnoma swarthi North Isle Mountains Section 16 occ 16 occ 18 occ<br />

89 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 724 occ 365 occ 362 occ<br />

101 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina Olympic Section 238 occ 161 occ 119 occ<br />

135 %<br />

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina Willapa Hills Section 43 occ 33 occ 22 occ<br />

150 %<br />

Purple Martin Progne subis <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 37 occ 10 occ 4 occ<br />

250 %<br />

Purple Martin Progne subis Lee Isle Mountains Section 2 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Purple Martin Progne subis Willapa Hills Section 41 occ 22 occ 3 occ<br />

733 %<br />

Streaked Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris strig<strong>at</strong>a <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 4 occ 1 occ 4 occ<br />

25 %<br />

Streaked Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris strig<strong>at</strong>a Willapa Hills Section 9 occ 5 occ 5 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicill<strong>at</strong>a Wind Isle Mountains Section 6 occ 4 occ 2 occ<br />

200 %<br />

Vaux's Swift Chaetura vauxi Olympic Section 2 occ 1 occ 2 occ<br />

50 %<br />

Vaux's Swift Chaetura vauxi Willapa Hills Section 3 occ 1 occ 3 occ<br />

33 %<br />

Western Bluebird Sialia mexicana Willapa Hills Section 2 occ 1 occ 9 occ<br />

11 %<br />

White-Tailed Ptarmigan Lagopus leucurus Lee Isle Mountains Section 25 occ 20 occ 15 occ<br />

133 %<br />

White-Tailed Ptarmigan Lagopus leucurus North Isle Mountains Section 4 occ 2 occ 2 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Page 4 of 32<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

White-Tailed Ptarmigan Lagopus leucurus Wind Isle Mountains Section 7 occ 5 occ 10 occ<br />

50 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Acmon Blue Plebejus acmon spangel<strong>at</strong>us Olympic Section 2 occ 2 occ 13 occ<br />

15 %<br />

Blue-Gray Taildropper Prophysaon coeruleum <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 169 occ 59 occ 13 occ<br />

454 %<br />

Boisduval's Blue, Blackmorei Icaricia icarioides blackmorei Lee Isle Mountains Section 2 occ 1 occ 3 occ<br />

33 %<br />

Boisduval's Blue, Blackmorei Icaricia icarioides blackmorei Olympic Section 8 occ 8 occ 8 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Burrington Jumping-Slug Hemphillia burringtoni Olympic Section 34 occ 10 occ 6 occ<br />

167 %<br />

Burrington Jumping-Slug Hemphillia burringtoni Willapa Hills Section 8 occ 5 occ 7 occ<br />

71 %<br />

Chalcedon Checkerspot Euphydryas chalcedona perdiccas Olympic Section 15 occ 15 occ 13 occ<br />

115 %<br />

Chryxus Arctic Oeneis chryxus valer<strong>at</strong>a Olympic Section 10 occ 10 occ 13 occ<br />

77 %<br />

Fender's Blue Butterfly Icaricia icarioides fenderi <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 11 occ 3 occ 13 occ<br />

23 %<br />

Foliaceous Lace Bug Derephysia foliacea <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 2 occ 2 occ 13 occ<br />

15 %<br />

Haddock's Rhyacophilan Cad Rhyacophila haddocki <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 1 occ 1 occ 13 occ<br />

8 %<br />

Insular Blue Butterfly Plebejus saepiolus littoralis <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 1 occ 1 occ 7 occ<br />

14 %<br />

Makah (Queen Charlotte) Copper Lycaena mariposa charlottensis Olympic Section 2 occ 1 occ 7 occ<br />

14 %<br />

Makah (Queen Charlotte) Copper Lycaena mariposa charlottensis Willapa Hills Section 1 occ 1 occ 6 occ<br />

17 %<br />

Malone Jumping-Slug Hemphillia malonei <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 2 occ 1 occ 13 occ<br />

8 %<br />

Moss' Elfin, Mossii Subspecies Incisalia mossii mossii Lee Isle Mountains Section 2 occ 1 occ 6 occ<br />

17 %<br />

Moss' Elfin, Mossii Subspecies Incisalia mossii mossii Olympic Section 2 occ 2 occ 7 occ<br />

29 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong> Megomphix (Snail) Megomphix hemphilli <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 90 occ 38 occ 7 occ<br />

543 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong> Megomphix (Snail) Megomphix hemphilli Willapa Hills Section 12 occ 4 occ 6 occ<br />

67 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong> Silverspot Butterfly Speyeria zerene hippolyta <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 4 occ 4 occ 13 occ<br />

31 %<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong> Silverspot Butterfly Speyeria zerene hippolyta Willapa Hills Section 4 occ 3 occ 12 occ<br />

25 %<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> Sideband(Ssp. Canyonville) Monadenia fidelis <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 5 occ 3 occ 5 occ<br />

60 %<br />

Puget <strong>Oregon</strong>ian Cryptomastix devia Willapa Hills Section 3 occ 1 occ 8 occ<br />

13 %<br />

Roth's Blind Ground Beetle Pterostichus rothi <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 3 occ 3 occ 13 occ<br />

23 %<br />

Sisters Hesperian Hochbergellus hirsutus <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 1 occ 1 occ 13 occ<br />

8 %<br />

Smintheus Parnassian Parnassius smintheus olympianus Olympic Section 13 occ 13 occ 13 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Subspecies Of Ringlet Only Coenonympha tullia insulana Lee Isle Mountains Section 3 occ 1 occ 2 occ<br />

50 %<br />

Valley Silverspot Butterfly Speyeria zerene bremnerii <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 1 occ 1 occ 3 occ<br />

33 %<br />

Valley Silverspot Butterfly Speyeria zerene bremnerii Lee Isle Mountains Section 2 occ 2 occ 2 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Valley Silverspot Butterfly Speyeria zerene bremnerii North Isle Mountains Section 1 occ 1 occ 2 occ<br />

50 %<br />

Valley Silverspot Butterfly Speyeria zerene bremnerii Olympic Section 6 occ 5 occ 4 occ<br />

125 %<br />

Valley Silverspot Butterfly Speyeria zerene bremnerii Willapa Hills Section 2 occ 2 occ 2 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Warty Jumping-Slug Hemphillia glandulosa glandulosa <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 24 occ 12 occ 5 occ<br />

240 %<br />

Warty Jumping-Slug Hemphillia glandulosa glandulosa Olympic Section 35 occ 9 occ 4 occ<br />

225 %<br />

Warty Jumping-Slug Hemphillia glandulosa glandulosa Willapa Hills Section 9 occ 5 occ 4 occ<br />

125 %<br />

Mammals<br />

American Marten Martes americana <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 10 occ 4 occ 3 occ<br />

133 %<br />

Columbia White-Tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus leucurus Willapa Hills Section 17 occ 12 occ 17 occ<br />

71 %<br />

Ermine, Anguinae Subspecies Mustela erminea anguinae Lee Isle Mountains Section 2 occ 2 occ 18 occ<br />

11 %<br />

Keen's Myotis Myotis keenii Wind Isle Mountains Section 1 occ 1 occ 4 occ<br />

25 %<br />

Long-legged Myotis Volans Myotis volans <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 10 occ 1 occ 4 occ<br />

25 %<br />

Page 5 of 32<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> Fisher Martes pennanti pacifica <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 3 occ 3 occ 3 occ<br />

100 %<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> Western Big-Eared B<strong>at</strong> Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 4 occ 1 occ 4 occ<br />

25 %<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> Western Big-Eared B<strong>at</strong> Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii Willapa Hills Section 1 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Red Tree Vole Arborimus longicaudus <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 151 occ 40 occ 13 occ<br />

308 %<br />

Vancouver Island Marmot Marmota vancouverensis Lee Isle Mountains Section 4 occ 3 occ 9 occ<br />

33 %<br />

Vancouver Island Marmot Marmota vancouverensis Wind Isle Mountains Section 2 occ 2 occ 9 occ<br />

22 %<br />

Wolverine (Vancouverensis) Gulo gulo vancouverensis North Isle Mountains Section 2 occ 1 occ 7 occ<br />

14 %<br />

Yuma Myotis Myotis yumanensis <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 4 occ 1 occ 5 occ<br />

20 %<br />

Nonvascular Plants<br />

Lichen Treepelt (Erioderma) Erioderma soredi<strong>at</strong>um <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 6 occ 5 occ 12 occ<br />

42 %<br />

Lichen Treepelt (Leioderma) Leioderma soredi<strong>at</strong>um <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 2 occ 2 occ 13 occ<br />

15 %<br />

Lichen (Bryoria) Bryoria pseudocapillaris <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 2 occ 2 occ 7 occ<br />

29 %<br />

Lichen (Pannaria) Pannaria rubiginosa <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 3 occ 2 occ 7 occ<br />

29 %<br />

Liverwort (Radula) Radula brunnea Willapa Hills Section 1 occ 1 occ 7 occ<br />

14 %<br />

Moss (Campylopus) Campylopus schmidii <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 5 occ 4 occ 7 occ<br />

57 %<br />

Moss (Encalypta) Encalypta brevipes Willapa Hills Section 1 occ 1 occ 13 occ<br />

8 %<br />

Moss (Limbella) Limbella fryei <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 1 occ 1 occ 25 occ<br />

4 %<br />

Moss (Pohlia) Pohlia sphagnicola <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 1 occ 1 occ 7 occ<br />

14 %<br />

Reptiles<br />

<strong>Northwest</strong>ern Pond Turtle Clemmys marmor<strong>at</strong>a marmor<strong>at</strong>a <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 76 occ 11 occ 8 occ<br />

138 %<br />

Vascular Plants<br />

Alaska Plantain Plantago macrocarpa Olympic Section 8 occ 8 occ 13 occ<br />

62 %<br />

Bensonia Bensoniella oregana <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 30 occ 9 occ 13 occ<br />

69 %<br />

Bog Anemone Anemone oregana var felix <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 5 occ 5 occ 25 occ<br />

20 %<br />

Brewer's Cliff-Brake Pellaea breweri Olympic Section 2 occ 2 occ 3 occ<br />

67 %<br />

Cascade Head C<strong>at</strong>chfly Silene douglasii var oraria <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 2 occ 2 occ 6 occ<br />

33 %<br />

Cascade Head C<strong>at</strong>chfly Silene douglasii var oraria Willapa Hills Section 3 occ 3 occ 7 occ<br />

43 %<br />

Chamber's Paintbrush Castilleja chambersii Willapa Hills Section 3 occ 3 occ 25 occ<br />

12 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Checker Bloom Sidalcea malviflora ssp p<strong>at</strong>ula <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 8 occ 6 occ 13 occ<br />

46 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Microseris Microseris bigelovii <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 1 occ 1 occ 13 occ<br />

8 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Range Fawn-Lily Erythronium elegans <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 9 occ 9 occ 25 occ<br />

36 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Sagewort Artemisia pycnocephala <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 1 occ 1 occ 13 occ<br />

8 %<br />

Cotton's Milk-Vetch Astragalus australis var olympicus Olympic Section 9 occ 9 occ 25 occ<br />

36 %<br />

Cut-Leaf Synthyris Synthyris pinn<strong>at</strong>ifida var lanugino Olympic Section 19 occ 19 occ 25 occ<br />

76 %<br />

Dwarf Trillium Trillium ov<strong>at</strong>um var hibbersonii Wind Isle Mountains Section 4 occ 4 occ 25 occ<br />

16 %<br />

Flett Groundsel Senecio flettii <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 2 occ 2 occ 13 occ<br />

15 %<br />

Flett Groundsel Senecio flettii Willapa Hills Section 1 occ 1 occ 12 occ<br />

8 %<br />

Frigid Shootingstar Dodec<strong>at</strong>heon austrofrigidum Olympic Section 1 occ 1 occ 13 occ<br />

8 %<br />

Frigid Shootingstar Dodec<strong>at</strong>heon austrofrigidum Willapa Hills Section 2 occ 2 occ 12 occ<br />

17 %<br />

Hairy Goldfields Lasthenia maritima Wind Isle Mountains Section 2 occ 2 occ 13 occ<br />

15 %<br />

Hairy Manzanita Arctostaphylos hispidula <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 28 occ 12 occ 13 occ<br />

92 %<br />

Hairy-Stemmed Checker-Mallow Sidalcea hirtipes <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 11 occ 9 occ 13 occ<br />

69 %<br />

Hairy-Stemmed Checker-Mallow Sidalcea hirtipes Willapa Hills Section 4 occ 3 occ 12 occ<br />

25 %<br />

Page 6 of 32<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

Henderson Sidalcea Sidalcea hendersonii <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 2 occ 2 occ 13 occ<br />

15 %<br />

Kincaid's Sulfur Lupine Lupinus sulphureus var kincaidii <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 24 occ 7 occ 7 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Kincaid's Sulfur Lupine Lupinus sulphureus var kincaidii Willapa Hills Section 3 occ 3 occ 6 occ<br />

50 %<br />

Lance-Fruited Draba Draba lonchocarpa var vestita North Isle Mountains Section 4 occ 4 occ 7 occ<br />

57 %<br />

Lance-Fruited Draba Draba lonchocarpa var vestita Wind Isle Mountains Section 1 occ 1 occ 6 occ<br />

17 %<br />

Large-Flowered Goldfields Lasthenia macrantha ssp prisca <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 10 occ 10 occ 25 occ<br />

40 %<br />

Leach's Brodiaea Triteleia hendersonii var leachiae <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 37 occ 3 occ 13 occ<br />

23 %<br />

Least Bladdery Milk-Vetch Astragalus microcystis Olympic Section 2 occ 2 occ 13 occ<br />

15 %<br />

Nelson's Checker-Mallow Sidalcea nelsoniana <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 42 occ 7 occ 2 occ<br />

350 %<br />

Nelson's Checker-Mallow Sidalcea nelsoniana Willapa Hills Section 2 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Olympic Mountain Aster Aster paucicapit<strong>at</strong>us Lee Isle Mountains Section 2 occ 2 occ 12 occ<br />

17 %<br />

Olympic Mountain Aster Aster paucicapit<strong>at</strong>us Wind Isle Mountains Section 3 occ 3 occ 13 occ<br />

23 %<br />

Pink Sandverbena Abronia umbell<strong>at</strong>a ssp breviflora <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 8 occ 6 occ 8 occ<br />

75 %<br />

Pink Sandverbena Abronia umbell<strong>at</strong>a ssp breviflora Wind Isle Mountains Section 1 occ 1 occ 7 occ<br />

14 %<br />

Queen-Of-The-Forest Filipendula occidentalis <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 3 occ 3 occ 6 occ<br />

50 %<br />

Queen-Of-The-Forest Filipendula occidentalis Willapa Hills Section 26 occ 25 occ 19 occ<br />

132 %<br />

Saddle Mt. Bittercress Cardamine p<strong>at</strong>tersonii Willapa Hills Section 1 occ 1 occ 25 occ<br />

4 %<br />

Saddle Mt. Saxifrage Saxifraga hitchcockiana <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 1 occ 1 occ 13 occ<br />

8 %<br />

Saddle Mt. Saxifrage Saxifraga hitchcockiana Willapa Hills Section 2 occ 2 occ 12 occ<br />

17 %<br />

Salish Daisy Erigeron salishii Lee Isle Mountains Section 3 occ 3 occ 13 occ<br />

23 %<br />

Salish Daisy Erigeron salishii North Isle Mountains Section 1 occ 1 occ 12 occ<br />

8 %<br />

Salt-Marsh Bird's-Beak<br />

Cordylanthus maritimus ssp<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 20 occ 15 occ 25 occ<br />

60 %<br />

palustris<br />

San Francisco Bluegrass Poa unil<strong>at</strong>eralis <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 2 occ 2 occ 3 occ<br />

67 %<br />

San Francisco Bluegrass Poa unil<strong>at</strong>eralis Willapa Hills Section 4 occ 4 occ 4 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Sand-Dwelling Wallflower Erysimum arenicola var torulosum Lee Isle Mountains Section 2 occ 2 occ 13 occ<br />

15 %<br />

Sand-Dwelling Wallflower Erysimum arenicola var torulosum Wind Isle Mountains Section 2 occ 2 occ 12 occ<br />

17 %<br />

Scurvygrass Cochlearia officinalis <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 1 occ 1 occ 6 occ<br />

17 %<br />

Seaside Cryptantha Cryptantha leiocarpa <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 2 occ 2 occ 7 occ<br />

29 %<br />

Seaside Gilia Gilia millefoli<strong>at</strong>a <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 3 occ 3 occ 13 occ<br />

23 %<br />

Several-Flowered Sedge Carex pluriflora Olympic Section 3 occ 3 occ 4 occ<br />

75 %<br />

Several-Flowered Sedge Carex pluriflora Willapa Hills Section 1 occ 1 occ 3 occ<br />

33 %<br />

Sierra Wood Fern Thelypteris nevadensis Lee Isle Mountains Section 1 occ 1 occ 7 occ<br />

14 %<br />

Silvery Phacelia Phacelia argentea <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 17 occ 16 occ 13 occ<br />

123 %<br />

Smooth Douglasia Douglasia laevig<strong>at</strong>a var ciliol<strong>at</strong>a Lee Isle Mountains Section 1 occ 1 occ 4 occ<br />

25 %<br />

Smooth Douglasia Douglasia laevig<strong>at</strong>a var ciliol<strong>at</strong>a North Isle Mountains Section 1 occ 1 occ 3 occ<br />

33 %<br />

Smooth Douglasia Douglasia laevig<strong>at</strong>a var ciliol<strong>at</strong>a Wind Isle Mountains Section 6 occ 6 occ 6 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Tall Bugbane Cimicifuga el<strong>at</strong>a <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 40 occ 14 occ 4 occ<br />

350 %<br />

Tall Bugbane Cimicifuga el<strong>at</strong>a Olympic Section 1 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Tall Bugbane Cimicifuga el<strong>at</strong>a Willapa Hills Section 9 occ 3 occ 2 occ<br />

150 %<br />

Thin-Leaved Peavine L<strong>at</strong>hyrus holochlorus Willapa Hills Section 1 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Tisch's Saxifrage Saxifraga tischii Olympic Section 2 occ 2 occ 25 occ<br />

8 %<br />

Wandering Daisy Erigeron peregrinus ssp peregrinus <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 1 occ 1 occ 6 occ<br />

17 %<br />

Wandering Daisy Erigeron peregrinus ssp peregrinus Willapa Hills Section 2 occ 2 occ 7 occ<br />

29 %<br />

Page 7 of 32<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er Bur-Reed Sparganium fluctuans Lee Isle Mountains Section 3 occ 2 occ 4 occ<br />

50 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er Bur-Reed Sparganium fluctuans Olympic Section 2 occ 2 occ 4 occ<br />

50 %<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er Bur-Reed Sparganium fluctuans Wind Isle Mountains Section 1 occ 1 occ 5 occ<br />

20 %<br />

Western Lily Lilium occidentale <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 18 occ 18 occ 25 occ<br />

72 %<br />

Whorled Marsh Pennywort Hydrocotyle verticill<strong>at</strong>a <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 5 occ 5 occ 7 occ<br />

71 %<br />

Willamette Valley Larkspur Delphinium oreganum Willapa Hills Section 1 occ 1 occ 7 occ<br />

14 %<br />

Wolf's Evening-Primrose Oenothera wolfii <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 7 occ 5 occ 25 occ<br />

20 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Lowland Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Wetlands (Mineral Soils Calnut) <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 1 occ 1 occ 3 occ<br />

33 %<br />

Lowland Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Wetlands (Mineral Soils Salhoo Malfus / Carobn Lysame) <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 7 occ 4 occ 3 occ<br />

133 %<br />

Lowland Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Wetlands (Mineral Soils Vaculi / Desces Carobn) <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 6 occ 5 occ 3 occ<br />

167 %<br />

Lowland Coniferous Forested Wetlands (Picsit / Carobn Lysame) <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 6 occ 6 occ 3 occ<br />

200 %<br />

Lowland Coniferous Forested Wetlands (Picsit / Carobn Lysame) Willapa Hills Section 2 occ 1 occ 3 occ<br />

33 %<br />

Lowland Coniferous Forested Wetlands (Pinconc / Carobn) <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 4 occ 3 occ 3 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Mineral Spring <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 39 occ 22 occ 12 occ<br />

183 %<br />

Mineral Spring Olympic Section 2 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Mineral Spring Willapa Hills Section 19 occ 7 occ 6 occ<br />

117 %<br />

Sphagnum Bogs And Poor Fens (Caraqud / Compal) Caraqud / compal <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 1 occ 1 occ 3 occ<br />

33 %<br />

Sphagnum Bogs And Poor Fens (Caraqud) Caraqud Willapa Hills Section 1 occ 1 occ 3 occ<br />

33 %<br />

Sphagnum Bogs And Poor Fens (Carobn / Sphagn) Carobn / sphagn <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 1 occ 1 occ 3 occ<br />

33 %<br />

Sphagnum Bogs And Poor Fens (Ledgla / Carobn / Sphagn) Ledgla / carobn / sphagn <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 10 occ 6 occ 3 occ<br />

200 %<br />

Sphagnum Bogs And Poor Fens (Ledgla / Carobn / Sphagn) Ledgla / carobn / sphagn Willapa Hills Section 2 occ 1 occ 3 occ<br />

33 %<br />

Sphagnum Bogs and Poor Fens (Ledgla / Darcal / Sphagn) Ledgla / darcal / sphagn <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 9 occ 7 occ 3 occ<br />

233 %<br />

Sphagnum Bogs and Poor Fens (Ledgla / sanoff / sphagn) Ledgla / sanoff / sphagn <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 2 occ 2 occ 2 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Sphagnum Bogs and Poor Fens (Vaccae / Sanoff) Vaccae / sanoff <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 1 occ 1 occ 3 occ<br />

33 %<br />

Sphagnum Bogs And Poor Fens (Xerten- Sanoff - Sphagn) Xerten- sanoff - sphagn <strong>Coast</strong> Ranges Section 2 occ 2 occ 3 occ<br />

67 %<br />

Marine<br />

Species<br />

Birds<br />

Aleutian Canada Goose Branta canadensis leucopareia Cape Arago North Marine Section 5 occ 3 occ 2 occ<br />

150 %<br />

Aleutian Canada Goose Branta canadensis leucopareia Cape Arago South Marine Section 13 occ 5 occ 4 occ<br />

125 %<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani Cape Arago North Marine Section 118 occ 61 occ 35 occ<br />

174 %<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani Cape Arago South Marine Section 119 occ 52 occ 36 occ<br />

144 %<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani JdF Strait Marine Section 5 occ 2 occ 2 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani Pt Grenville North Marine Section 47 occ 28 occ 14 occ<br />

200 %<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani Pt Grenville South Marine Section 3 occ 3 occ 1 occ<br />

300 %<br />

Black Oysterc<strong>at</strong>cher Haem<strong>at</strong>opus bachmani VI Shelf Marine Section 63 occ 26 occ 19 occ<br />

137 %<br />

Brandt's Cormorant Phalacrocorax penicill<strong>at</strong>us Cape Arago North Marine Section 53 occ 29 occ 16 occ<br />

181 %<br />

Brandt's Cormorant Phalacrocorax penicill<strong>at</strong>us Cape Arago South Marine Section 40 occ 19 occ 12 occ<br />

158 %<br />

Brandt's Cormorant Phalacrocorax penicill<strong>at</strong>us Pt Grenville North Marine Section 2 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Brandt's Cormorant Phalacrocorax penicill<strong>at</strong>us VI Shelf Marine Section 5 occ 2 occ 2 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Page 8 of 32<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia Pt Grenville South Marine Section 3 occ 3 occ 1 occ<br />

300 %<br />

Cassin's Auklet Ptychoramphus aleuticus Cape Arago South Marine Section 2 occ 2 occ 1 occ<br />

200 %<br />

Cassin's Auklet Ptychoramphus aleuticus Pt Grenville North Marine Section 6 occ 3 occ 2 occ<br />

150 %<br />

Cassin's Auklet Ptychoramphus aleuticus VI Shelf Marine Section 7 occ 4 occ 2 occ<br />

200 %<br />

Common Murre Cape Arago North Marine Section 42 occ 26 occ 13 occ<br />

200 %<br />

Common Murre Cape Arago South Marine Section 35 occ 15 occ 10 occ<br />

150 %<br />

Common Murre Pt Grenville North Marine Section 15 occ 8 occ 4 occ<br />

200 %<br />

Common Murre Pt Grenville South Marine Section 2 occ 2 occ 1 occ<br />

200 %<br />

Common Murre VI Shelf Marine Section 6 occ 4 occ 2 occ<br />

200 %<br />

Double-Crested Cormorant Phalacroscorax auritus Cape Arago North Marine Section 20 occ 9 occ 6 occ<br />

150 %<br />

Double-Crested Cormorant Phalacroscorax auritus Cape Arago South Marine Section 12 occ 10 occ 4 occ<br />

250 %<br />

Double-Crested Cormorant Phalacroscorax auritus Pt Grenville North Marine Section 14 occ 7 occ 4 occ<br />

175 %<br />

Double-Crested Cormorant Phalacroscorax auritus Pt Grenville South Marine Section 3 occ 3 occ 1 occ<br />

300 %<br />

Fork-Tailed Storm Petral Pt Grenville North Marine Section 4 occ 3 occ 1 occ<br />

300 %<br />

Fork-Tailed Storm Petral VI Shelf Marine Section 7 occ 3 occ 2 occ<br />

150 %<br />

Leach's Storm-Petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa Cape Arago North Marine Section 5 occ 4 occ 2 occ<br />

200 %<br />

Leach's Storm-Petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa Cape Arago South Marine Section 13 occ 10 occ 4 occ<br />

250 %<br />

Leach's Storm-Petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa Pt Grenville North Marine Section 4 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Leach's Storm-Petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa VI Shelf Marine Section 10 occ 6 occ 3 occ<br />

200 %<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus Cape Arago North Marine Section 101 occ 51 occ 30 occ<br />

170 %<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus Cape Arago South Marine Section 117 occ 56 occ 35 occ<br />

160 %<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus JdF Strait Marine Section 4 occ 3 occ 1 occ<br />

300 %<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus Pt Grenville North Marine Section 42 occ 25 occ 13 occ<br />

192 %<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus Pt Grenville South Marine Section 3 occ 3 occ 1 occ<br />

300 %<br />

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus VI Shelf Marine Section 47 occ 17 occ 14 occ<br />

121 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba Cape Arago North Marine Section 170 occ 90 occ 51 occ<br />

176 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba Cape Arago South Marine Section 140 occ 65 occ 42 occ<br />

155 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba JdF Strait Marine Section 4 occ 3 occ 1 occ<br />

300 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba Pt Grenville North Marine Section 22 occ 13 occ 7 occ<br />

186 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba Pt Grenville South Marine Section 5 occ 5 occ 2 occ<br />

250 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba QC Strait Marine Section 4 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba VI Shelf Marine Section 40 occ 20 occ 12 occ<br />

167 %<br />

Rhinoceros Auklet Cerorhinca monocer<strong>at</strong>a Cape Arago North Marine Section 4 occ 2 occ 1 occ<br />

200 %<br />

Rhinoceros Auklet Cerorhinca monocer<strong>at</strong>a Cape Arago South Marine Section 2 occ 2 occ 1 occ<br />

200 %<br />

Rhinoceros Auklet Cerorhinca monocer<strong>at</strong>a Pt Grenville North Marine Section 3 occ 2 occ 1 occ<br />

200 %<br />

Rhinoceros Auklet Cerorhinca monocer<strong>at</strong>a VI Shelf Marine Section 4 occ 2 occ 1 occ<br />

200 %<br />

Shorebird Concentr<strong>at</strong>ion Area Cape Arago North Marine Section 16 occ 14 occ 4 occ<br />

350 %<br />

Shorebird Concentr<strong>at</strong>ion Area Pt Grenville South Marine Section 1 occ 1 occ 11 occ<br />

9 %<br />

Tufted Puffin Fr<strong>at</strong>ercula cirrh<strong>at</strong>a Cape Arago North Marine Section 33 occ 18 occ 10 occ<br />

180 %<br />

Tufted Puffin Fr<strong>at</strong>ercula cirrh<strong>at</strong>a Cape Arago South Marine Section 25 occ 15 occ 8 occ<br />

188 %<br />

Tufted Puffin Fr<strong>at</strong>ercula cirrh<strong>at</strong>a JdF Strait Marine Section 2 occ 2 occ 1 occ<br />

200 %<br />

Tufted Puffin Fr<strong>at</strong>ercula cirrh<strong>at</strong>a Pt Grenville North Marine Section 19 occ 12 occ 6 occ<br />

200 %<br />

Tufted Puffin Fr<strong>at</strong>ercula cirrh<strong>at</strong>a Pt Grenville South Marine Section 2 occ 2 occ 1 occ<br />

200 %<br />

Tufted Puffin Fr<strong>at</strong>ercula cirrh<strong>at</strong>a VI Shelf Marine Section 13 occ 8 occ 4 occ<br />

200 %<br />

Page 9 of 32<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

Western Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Cape Arago North Marine Section 8 occ 6 occ 3 occ<br />

200 %<br />

Western Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Cape Arago South Marine Section 3 occ 3 occ 2 occ<br />

150 %<br />

Western Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Pt Grenville South Marine Section 3 occ 2 occ 6 occ<br />

33 %<br />

Fishes<br />

Herring Spawning High Cover Pt Grenville South Marine Section 71,820 m 71,820 m 21,546 m<br />

333 %<br />

Herring Spawning High Cover QC Strait Marine Section 2,622 m 2,622 m 787 m<br />

333 %<br />

Herring Spawning High Cover VI Shelf Marine Section 206,678 m 68,348 m 62,003 m<br />

110 %<br />

Herring Spawning Low Cover QC Strait Marine Section 45,426 m 41,684 m 13,628 m<br />

306 %<br />

Herring Spawning Low Cover VI Shelf Marine Section 706,297 m 286,609 m 211,889 m<br />

135 %<br />

Smelt spawn JdF Strait Marine Section 6,202 m 3,265 m 1,861 m<br />

175 %<br />

Smelt spawn Pt Grenville North Marine Section 33,066 m 13,567 m 9,920 m<br />

137 %<br />

Smelt spawn Pt Grenville South Marine Section 3,079 m 898 m 924 m<br />

97 %<br />

Invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

Mussels and barnacles JdF Strait Marine Section 45,839 m 28,104 m 13,752 m<br />

204 %<br />

Mussels and barnacles Johnstone Strait Marine Section 23,474 m 10,346 m 7,042 m<br />

147 %<br />

Mussels and barnacles Pt Grenville North Marine Section 141,551 m 78,845 m 42,465 m<br />

186 %<br />

Mussels and barnacles Pt Grenville South Marine Section 8,248 m 7,758 m 2,474 m<br />

314 %<br />

Mussels and barnacles QC Sound Marine Section 11,400 m 9,148 m 3,420 m<br />

267 %<br />

Mussels and barnacles QC Strait Marine Section 949 m 949 m 285 m<br />

333 %<br />

Mussels and barnacles VI Shelf Marine Section 893,026 m 310,786 m 267,908 m<br />

116 %<br />

Mammals<br />

Northern Elephant Seal Mirounga angustirostris Pt Grenville North Marine Section 1 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Northern Elephant Seal Mirounga angustirostris Pt Grenville South Marine Section 7 occ 7 occ 2 occ<br />

350 %<br />

Stellar's Sea Lion Eumetopias jub<strong>at</strong>us Cape Arago South Marine Section 13 occ 9 occ 4 occ<br />

225 %<br />

Stellar's Sea Lion Eumetopias jub<strong>at</strong>us Pt Grenville North Marine Section 12 occ 9 occ 4 occ<br />

225 %<br />

Stellar's Sea Lion Eumetopias jub<strong>at</strong>us Pt Grenville South Marine Section 1 occ 1 occ 4 occ<br />

25 %<br />

Stellar's Sea Lion haulout Cape Arago North Marine Section 9 occ 7 occ 3 occ<br />

233 %<br />

Stellar's Sea Lion haulout Cape Arago South Marine Section 12 occ 10 occ 4 occ<br />

250 %<br />

Stellar's Sea Lion haulout JdF Strait Marine Section 3 occ 3 occ 1 occ<br />

300 %<br />

Stellar's Sea Lion haulout Pt Grenville North Marine Section 9 occ 6 occ 3 occ<br />

200 %<br />

Stellar's Sea Lion haulout VI Shelf Marine Section 7 occ 2 occ 2 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Stellar's Sea Lion rookery VI Shelf Marine Section 3 occ 2 occ 1 occ<br />

200 %<br />

Nonvascular Plants<br />

Marine Algae (Desmarestia) Desmarestia tortuosa VI Shelf Marine Section 1 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Plant Communities<br />

Algal Beds (ha) Cape Arago North Marine Section 735 ha 606 ha 220 ha<br />

275 %<br />

Algal Beds (ha) Cape Arago South Marine Section 56 ha 56 ha 17 ha<br />

329 %<br />

Algal Beds (ha) JdF Strait Marine Section 16 ha 16 ha 5 ha<br />

320 %<br />

Algal Beds (ha) Pt Grenville South Marine Section 10,475 ha 10,475 ha 3,142 ha<br />

333 %<br />

Algal Beds Estuary JdF Strait Marine Section 4,307 m 2,325 m 1,292 m<br />

180 %<br />

Algal Beds Estuary Johnstone Strait Marine Section 3,979 m 3,858 m 1,194 m<br />

323 %<br />

Page 10 of 32<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

Algal Beds Estuary Pt Grenville South Marine Section 74,167 m 74,167 m 22,250 m<br />

333 %<br />

Algal Beds Estuary QC Sound Marine Section 1,427 m 1,427 m 428 m<br />

333 %<br />

Algal Beds Estuary QC Strait Marine Section 28,545 m 26,808 m 8,563 m<br />

313 %<br />

Algal Beds Estuary VI Shelf Marine Section 262,913 m 93,294 m 78,874 m<br />

118 %<br />

Algal Beds Shore JdF Strait Marine Section 107,024 m 48,691 m 32,107 m<br />

152 %<br />

Algal Beds Shore Johnstone Strait Marine Section 23,788 m 11,926 m 7,136 m<br />

167 %<br />

Algal Beds Shore Pt Grenville North Marine Section 134,814 m 71,041 m 40,444 m<br />

176 %<br />

Algal Beds Shore QC Sound Marine Section 11,172 m 5,105 m 3,352 m<br />

152 %<br />

Algal Beds Shore QC Strait Marine Section 150,485 m 75,505 m 45,146 m<br />

167 %<br />

Algal Beds Shore VI Shelf Marine Section 2,704,162 m 904,403 m 810,904 m<br />

112 %<br />

Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic Bed (ha) Cape Arago North Marine Section 646 ha 498 ha 194 ha<br />

257 %<br />

Aqu<strong>at</strong>ic Bed (ha) Cape Arago South Marine Section 12 ha 12 ha 4 ha<br />

300 %<br />

Bedrock (ha) Cape Arago North Marine Section 65 ha 42 ha 20 ha<br />

210 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Willow Defl<strong>at</strong>ion Plain Wetland Salhoc-myrcal Cape Arago North Marine Section 1 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Sand Dunes Fesrub dune Pt Grenville South Marine Section 1 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Dune grass (Ha) JdF Strait Marine Section 16 ha 16 ha 5 ha<br />

320 %<br />

Dune grass (Ha) Pt Grenville South Marine Section 573 ha 573 ha 172 ha<br />

333 %<br />

Dune grass Estuary JdF Strait Marine Section 8,138 m 7,952 m 2,442 m<br />

326 %<br />

Dune grass Estuary Pt Grenville North Marine Section 6,571 m 5,740 m 1,971 m<br />

291 %<br />

Dune grass Estuary Pt Grenville South Marine Section 101,734 m 88,067 m 30,520 m<br />

289 %<br />

Dune grass Estuary QC Sound Marine Section 1,659 m 1,659 m 498 m<br />

333 %<br />

Dune grass Estuary VI Shelf Marine Section 90,023 m 36,605 m 27,007 m<br />

136 %<br />

Dune grass Shore JdF Strait Marine Section 25,970 m 14,312 m 7,791 m<br />

184 %<br />

Dune grass Shore Pt Grenville North Marine Section 80,716 m 31,833 m 24,215 m<br />

131 %<br />

Dune grass Shore Pt Grenville South Marine Section 100,137 m 18,944 m 30,041 m<br />

63 %<br />

Dune grass Shore QC Sound Marine Section 1,692 m 1,459 m 508 m<br />

287 %<br />

Dune grass Shore VI Shelf Marine Section 380,602 m 126,141 m 114,181 m<br />

110 %<br />

Eelgrass (Ha) JdF Strait Marine Section 27 ha 27 ha 8 ha<br />

338 %<br />

Eelgrass (Ha) Johnstone Strait Marine Section 29 ha 24 ha 9 ha<br />

267 %<br />

Eelgrass (Ha) VI Shelf Marine Section 1,419 ha 482 ha 426 ha<br />

113 %<br />

Eelgrass Estuary Cape Arago North Marine Section 220,321 m 157,186 m 66,096 m<br />

238 %<br />

Eelgrass Estuary Cape Arago South Marine Section 2,841 m 2,841 m 852 m<br />

333 %<br />

Eelgrass Estuary Johnstone Strait Marine Section 986 m 986 m 296 m<br />

333 %<br />

Eelgrass Estuary Pt Grenville South Marine Section 109,939 m 106,869 m 32,982 m<br />

324 %<br />

Eelgrass Estuary QC Strait Marine Section 6,153 m 5,153 m 1,846 m<br />

279 %<br />

Eelgrass Estuary VI Shelf Marine Section 225,897 m 107,327 m 67,769 m<br />

158 %<br />

Eelgrass Shore JdF Strait Marine Section 12,146 m 4,410 m 3,644 m<br />

121 %<br />

Eelgrass Shore Johnstone Strait Marine Section 3,325 m 2,781 m 997 m<br />

279 %<br />

Eelgrass Shore QC Strait Marine Section 5,451 m 3,396 m 1,635 m<br />

208 %<br />

Eelgrass Shore VI Shelf Marine Section 603,490 m 263,451 m 181,047 m<br />

146 %<br />

Intertidal Salt Marshes (Desces Junbal Tidal) Desces - junbal tidal Cape Arago North Marine Section 8 occ 2 occ 2 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Intertidal Salt Marshes (Salvir Disspi Trimar) Salvir - disspi - trimar - (jaucar) Cape Arago North Marine Section 68 occ 55 occ 22 occ<br />

250 %<br />

Kelp Estuary Cape Arago North Marine Section 425 m 425 m 127 m<br />

335 %<br />

Kelp Estuary Johnstone Strait Marine Section 2,441 m 1,125 m 732 m<br />

154 %<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals<br />

Page 11 of 32

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

Kelp Estuary QC Sound Marine Section 1,181 m 1,181 m 354 m<br />

334 %<br />

Kelp Estuary QC Strait Marine Section 2,769 m 2,033 m 831 m<br />

245 %<br />

Kelp Estuary VI Shelf Marine Section 18,409 m 11,444 m 5,523 m<br />

207 %<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) Cape Arago North Marine Section 262 ha 95 ha 79 ha<br />

120 %<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) Cape Arago South Marine Section 2,078 ha 824 ha 623 ha<br />

132 %<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) JdF Strait Marine Section 862 ha 294 ha 259 ha<br />

114 %<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) Johnstone Strait Marine Section 645 ha 265 ha 193 ha<br />

137 %<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) QC Sound Marine Section 1,586 ha 647 ha 476 ha<br />

136 %<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) QC Strait Marine Section 3,241 ha 649 ha 972 ha<br />

67 %<br />

Kelp habit<strong>at</strong> (OR, BC) VI Shelf Marine Section 10,807 ha 3,372 ha 3,242 ha<br />

104 %<br />

Kelp high persistence (WA) JdF Strait Marine Section 784 ha 320 ha 235 ha<br />

136 %<br />

Kelp high persistence (WA) Pt Grenville North Marine Section 336 ha 244 ha 101 ha<br />

242 %<br />

Kelp low persistence (WA) JdF Strait Marine Section 1,222 ha 573 ha 366 ha<br />

157 %<br />

Kelp low persistence (WA) Pt Grenville North Marine Section 1,087 ha 546 ha 326 ha<br />

167 %<br />

Kelp medium persistence (WA) JdF Strait Marine Section 696 ha 333 ha 209 ha<br />

159 %<br />

Kelp medium persistence (WA) Pt Grenville North Marine Section 369 ha 208 ha 111 ha<br />

187 %<br />

Kelp Shore Cape Arago North Marine Section 34,888 m 16,714 m 10,466 m<br />

160 %<br />

Kelp Shore Cape Arago South Marine Section 90,628 m 41,708 m 27,188 m<br />

153 %<br />

Kelp Shore JdF Strait Marine Section 421 m 421 m 126 m<br />

334 %<br />

Kelp Shore Johnstone Strait Marine Section 101,697 m 45,310 m 30,509 m<br />

149 %<br />

Kelp Shore Pt Grenville North Marine Section 47,780 m 25,907 m 14,334 m<br />

181 %<br />

Kelp Shore QC Sound Marine Section 36,913 m 20,743 m 11,074 m<br />

187 %<br />

Kelp Shore QC Strait Marine Section 84,997 m 43,830 m 25,499 m<br />

172 %<br />

Kelp Shore VI Shelf Marine Section 1,019,547 m 405,300 m 305,864 m<br />

133 %<br />

Low Intertidal Brackish Saltmarsh On Sands To Silts Cape Arago South Marine Section 1 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Low Intertidal High Salinity Sandy Saltmarsh Cape Arago North Marine Section 1 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Low Intertidal High Salinity Silty Saltmarsh Cape Arago North Marine Section 1 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Lowland Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Wetlands (Mineral Soils Carlyn Freshw<strong>at</strong>er) Carlyn freshw<strong>at</strong>er Cape Arago North Marine Section 1 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Lowland Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Wetlands (Mineral Soils Corser Salix) Corser - salix (salhoo - salsit) Cape Arago North Marine Section 5 occ 4 occ 1 occ<br />

400 %<br />

Lowland Floodplain-Low Terrace Riparian Forests And ShrublandsPopbalt / corser / impcap Cape Arago North Marine Section 8 occ 2 occ 2 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Mid Intertidal Brackish Fine Substr<strong>at</strong>e Saltmarsh JdF Strait Marine Section 1 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Mixed Fine: Partly Enclosed Eulittoral, Polyhaline (Marsh) Op Silty, moder<strong>at</strong>e salinity, low marsh Cape Arago North Marine Section 1 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

op<br />

Mixed-Fine And Mud: Partly Enclosed, Eulittoral, Mesohaline Silty, low salinity, low marsh op Pt Grenville South Marine Section 13 occ 13 occ 4 occ<br />

325 %<br />

Old-Growth Sitka Spruce/Creek Dogwood Tideland Swamp Picsit/corser tideland swamp Cape Arago North Marine Section 3 occ 3 occ 1 occ<br />

300 %<br />

Organic, Sand, Mixed-Fine Or Mud: Partly Enclosed, Backshore Transition zone wetland op Cape Arago North Marine Section 1 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Organic: Partly Enclosed, Backshore, Mesohaline (Marsh) Op Low salinity high marsh op Pt Grenville South Marine Section 9 occ 9 occ 3 occ<br />

300 %<br />

Organic: Partly Enclosed, Backshore, Polyhaline (Marsh) Op Moder<strong>at</strong>e salinity high marsh op Pt Grenville North Marine Section 1 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Organic: Partly Enclosed, Backshore, Polyhaline (Marsh) Op Moder<strong>at</strong>e salinity high marsh op Pt Grenville South Marine Section 11 occ 11 occ 2 occ<br />

550 %<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> Reedgrass - <strong>Pacific</strong> Silverweed - Baltic Rush<br />

Calamagrostis nutkaensis -<br />

Pt Grenville South Marine Section 2 occ 2 occ 1 occ<br />

200 %<br />

argentina egedii - juncus balticu<br />

Red Fescue Stabilized Sand Dunes Fesrub dune grassland Pt Grenville South Marine Section 1 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) Cape Arago North Marine Section 6,614 ha 4,606 ha 1,984 ha<br />

232 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) Cape Arago South Marine Section 229 ha 212 ha 69 ha<br />

307 %<br />

Page 12 of 32<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) JdF Strait Marine Section 17 ha 17 ha 5 ha<br />

340 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) Johnstone Strait Marine Section 247 ha 179 ha 74 ha<br />

242 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) Pt Grenville North Marine Section 135 ha 112 ha 41 ha<br />

273 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) Pt Grenville South Marine Section 2,835 ha 2,159 ha 851 ha<br />

254 %<br />

Saltmarsh (ha) VI Shelf Marine Section 482 ha 265 ha 145 ha<br />

183 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary Cape Arago North Marine Section 532,253 m 354,180 m 159,676 m<br />

222 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary Cape Arago South Marine Section 32,305 m 32,305 m 9,692 m<br />

333 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary JdF Strait Marine Section 13,372 m 13,186 m 4,012 m<br />

329 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary Johnstone Strait Marine Section 47,682 m 37,718 m 14,305 m<br />

264 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary Pt Grenville North Marine Section 10,515 m 5,740 m 3,154 m<br />

182 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary Pt Grenville South Marine Section 493,111 m 399,074 m 147,933 m<br />

270 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary QC Sound Marine Section 2,180 m 2,180 m 654 m<br />

333 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary QC Strait Marine Section 21,821 m 20,820 m 6,546 m<br />

318 %<br />

Saltmarsh Estuary VI Shelf Marine Section 321,283 m 144,850 m 96,385 m<br />

150 %<br />

Saltmarsh Shore Cape Arago South Marine Section 1,062 m 1,041 m 318 m<br />

327 %<br />

Saltmarsh Shore JdF Strait Marine Section 4,823 m 4,219 m 1,447 m<br />

292 %<br />

Saltmarsh Shore Johnstone Strait Marine Section 11,897 m 6,509 m 3,569 m<br />

182 %<br />

Saltmarsh Shore Pt Grenville North Marine Section 683 m 683 m 205 m<br />

333 %<br />

Saltmarsh Shore Pt Grenville South Marine Section 15,735 m 5,354 m 4,720 m<br />

113 %<br />

Saltmarsh Shore QC Sound Marine Section 1,692 m 1,459 m 508 m<br />

287 %<br />

Saltmarsh Shore QC Strait Marine Section 24,922 m 15,744 m 7,477 m<br />

211 %<br />

Saltmarsh Shore VI Shelf Marine Section 486,331 m 158,371 m 145,899 m<br />

109 %<br />

Sand: Partly Enclosed, Eulittoral, Euhaline (Marsh) Op Sandy, high salinity, low marsh op Pt Grenville South Marine Section 1 occ 1 occ 2 occ<br />

50 %<br />

Sand: Partly Enclosed, Eulittoral, Mesohaline (Marsh) Op Sandy, low salinity, low marsh op Pt Grenville South Marine Section 8 occ 8 occ 1 occ<br />

800 %<br />

Sand: Partly Enclosed, Eulittoral, Polyhaline (Marsh) Op<br />

Sandy, moder<strong>at</strong>e salinity, low Pt Grenville South Marine Section 2 occ 2 occ 1 occ<br />

200 %<br />

marsh op<br />

Seagrass (ha) Cape Arago North Marine Section 2,266 ha 1,579 ha 680 ha<br />

232 %<br />

Seagrass (ha) Cape Arago South Marine Section 5 ha 5 ha 1 ha<br />

500 %<br />

Seagrass (ha) Pt Grenville South Marine Section 30,622 ha 27,404 ha 9,187 ha<br />

298 %<br />

Seashore Lupine Dunes Lupinus littoralis (dune community) VI Shelf Marine Section 7 occ 2 occ 1 occ<br />

200 %<br />

Shorepine/Slough Sedge Pincon/carobn Cape Arago South Marine Section 2 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Surfgrass Estuary QC Sound Marine Section 2,796 m 1,615 m 839 m<br />

192 %<br />

Surfgrass Estuary VI Shelf Marine Section 20,198 m 13,192 m 6,059 m<br />

218 %<br />

Surfgrass Shore JdF Strait Marine Section 61,074 m 24,490 m 18,322 m<br />

134 %<br />

Surfgrass Shore Pt Grenville North Marine Section 87,325 m 48,385 m 26,198 m<br />

185 %<br />

Surfgrass Shore QC Sound Marine Section 43,857 m 24,144 m 13,157 m<br />

184 %<br />

Surfgrass Shore QC Strait Marine Section 4,333 m 3,247 m 1,300 m<br />

250 %<br />

Surfgrass Shore VI Shelf Marine Section 1,014,092 m 376,886 m 304,228 m<br />

124 %<br />

Marine Ecological Systems<br />

Estuary<br />

Boulder (ha) Cape Arago North Marine Section 133 ha 112 ha 40 ha<br />

280 %<br />

Cobble/Gravel (ha) Cape Arago North Marine Section 126 ha 98 ha 38 ha<br />

258 %<br />

Cobble/Gravel (ha) Cape Arago South Marine Section 57 ha 57 ha 17 ha<br />

335 %<br />

Cobble/Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) Cape Arago North Marine Section 10 ha 10 ha 3 ha<br />

333 %<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals<br />

Page 13 of 32

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

Cobble/Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) Cape Arago South Marine Section 189 ha 189 ha 57 ha<br />

332 %<br />

Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) Cape Arago North Marine Section 861 ha 291 ha 258 ha<br />

113 %<br />

Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) JdF Strait Marine Section 8 ha 8 ha 2 ha<br />

400 %<br />

Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) Pt Grenville North Marine Section 45 ha 16 ha 14 ha<br />

114 %<br />

Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) Pt Grenville South Marine Section 17 ha 8 ha 5 ha<br />

160 %<br />

Mud (ha) Cape Arago North Marine Section 506 ha 367 ha 152 ha<br />

241 %<br />

Mud (ha) Cape Arago South Marine Section 11 ha 11 ha 3 ha<br />

367 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) Cape Arago North Marine Section 1,384 ha 536 ha 415 ha<br />

129 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) Pt Grenville South Marine Section 27,705 ha 24,473 ha 8,311 ha<br />

294 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) VI Shelf Marine Section 1,472 ha 1,313 ha 442 ha<br />

297 %<br />

Organics/fines (ha) Cape Arago North Marine Section 14,162 ha 8,323 ha 4,249 ha<br />

196 %<br />

Organics/fines (ha) Cape Arago South Marine Section 416 ha 373 ha 125 ha<br />

298 %<br />

Organics/fines (ha) JdF Strait Marine Section 32 ha 32 ha 10 ha<br />

320 %<br />

Organics/fines (ha) Johnstone Strait Marine Section 119 ha 114 ha 36 ha<br />

317 %<br />

Organics/fines (ha) Pt Grenville North Marine Section 269 ha 182 ha 81 ha<br />

225 %<br />

Organics/fines (ha) Pt Grenville South Marine Section 3,146 ha 2,184 ha 944 ha<br />

231 %<br />

Organics/fines (ha) VI Shelf Marine Section 180 ha 96 ha 54 ha<br />

178 %<br />

Rock (ha) Cape Arago North Marine Section 70 ha 70 ha 21 ha<br />

333 %<br />

Sand (ha) Cape Arago North Marine Section 26,568 ha 19,040 ha 7,970 ha<br />

239 %<br />

Sand (ha) Cape Arago South Marine Section 17 ha 17 ha 5 ha<br />

340 %<br />

Sand (ha) Pt Grenville South Marine Section 6 ha 6 ha 2 ha<br />

300 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) QC Strait Marine Section 245 ha 212 ha 74 ha<br />

286 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) VI Shelf Marine Section 471 ha 186 ha 141 ha<br />

132 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) Cape Arago North Marine Section 5,791 ha 3,510 ha 1,737 ha<br />

202 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) Cape Arago South Marine Section 12 ha 12 ha 4 ha<br />

300 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) Johnstone Strait Marine Section 128 ha 65 ha 38 ha<br />

171 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) Pt Grenville South Marine Section 2,997 ha 2,997 ha 899 ha<br />

333 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) VI Shelf Marine Section 1,302 ha 293 ha 391 ha<br />

75 %<br />

Sand/Mud (ha) Cape Arago North Marine Section 4,123 ha 3,025 ha 1,237 ha<br />

245 %<br />

Sand/Mud (ha) Cape Arago South Marine Section 44 ha 44 ha 13 ha<br />

338 %<br />

Sand/Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) Cape Arago North Marine Section 8,458 ha 6,485 ha 2,537 ha<br />

256 %<br />

Sand/Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (ha) Cape Arago South Marine Section 44 ha 44 ha 13 ha<br />

338 %<br />

Shell (ha) Cape Arago North Marine Section 17 ha 3 ha 5 ha<br />

60 %<br />

Unconsolid<strong>at</strong>ed (ha) Cape Arago North Marine Section 194 ha 31 ha 58 ha<br />

53 %<br />

Unconsolid<strong>at</strong>ed (ha) Cape Arago South Marine Section 110 ha 79 ha 33 ha<br />

239 %<br />

Wood Debris/Organic (ha) Cape Arago North Marine Section 22 ha 9 ha 7 ha<br />

129 %<br />

Wood Debris/Organic (ha) Cape Arago South Marine Section 4 ha 4 ha 1 ha<br />

400 %<br />

Intertidal Habit<strong>at</strong><br />

Rocky intertidal habit<strong>at</strong> (Embayment) QC Sound Marine Section 2,796 m 1,615 m 839 m<br />

192 %<br />

Rocky intertidal habit<strong>at</strong> (Embayment) QC Strait Marine Section 526 m 441 m 158 m<br />

279 %<br />

Rocky intertidal habit<strong>at</strong> (Embayment) VI Shelf Marine Section 14,119 m 8,820 m 4,236 m<br />

208 %<br />

Shoreline<br />

Channel Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 10,705 m 2,880 m 3,212 m<br />

90 %<br />

Page 14 of 32<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

Gravel Beach (Embayment) Cape Arago South Marine Section 5,656 m 5,656 m 1,697 m<br />

333 %<br />

Gravel Beach (Embayment) VI Shelf Marine Section 467 m 467 m 140 m<br />

334 %<br />

Gravel Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago North Marine Section 1,008 m 242 m 302 m<br />

80 %<br />

Gravel Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago South Marine Section 1,770 m 1,514 m 531 m<br />

285 %<br />

Gravel Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 8,173 m 3,425 m 2,452 m<br />

140 %<br />

Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) Cape Arago North Marine Section 24,929 m 13,485 m 7,479 m<br />

180 %<br />

Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) Cape Arago South Marine Section 40,092 m 30,662 m 12,028 m<br />

255 %<br />

Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago North Marine Section 168 m 168 m 51 m<br />

329 %<br />

Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago South Marine Section 1,618 m 256 m 485 m<br />

53 %<br />

Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 839 m 283 m 252 m<br />

112 %<br />

Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) Cape Arago North Marine Section 4,858 m 4,516 m 1,457 m<br />

310 %<br />

Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) VI Shelf Marine Section 99,001 m 28,701 m 29,700 m<br />

97 %<br />

Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago North Marine Section 394 m 394 m 118 m<br />

334 %<br />

Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago South Marine Section 480 m 291 m 144 m<br />

202 %<br />

Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Johnstone Strait Marine Section 13,632 m 4,591 m 4,089 m<br />

112 %<br />

Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) QC Strait Marine Section 194 m 194 m 58 m<br />

334 %<br />

Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) Cape Arago North Marine Section 10,238 m 7,504 m 3,071 m<br />

244 %<br />

Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) Cape Arago South Marine Section 6,206 m 6,206 m 1,862 m<br />

333 %<br />

Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago North Marine Section 17,477 m 5,376 m 5,243 m<br />

103 %<br />

Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago South Marine Section 31,113 m 7,586 m 9,334 m<br />

81 %<br />

Gravel Beach Very Protected (Embayment) Cape Arago North Marine Section 1,020 m 1,020 m 306 m<br />

333 %<br />

Gravel Beach Very Protected (Embayment) Cape Arago South Marine Section 821 m 821 m 246 m<br />

334 %<br />

Gravel Beach Very Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago North Marine Section 1,288 m 1,288 m 386 m<br />

334 %<br />

Gravel Beach Very Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago South Marine Section 3,382 m 2,401 m 1,015 m<br />

237 %<br />

Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 4,103 m 779 m 1,231 m<br />

63 %<br />

Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Embayment) JdF Strait Marine Section 1,057 m 1,057 m 317 m<br />

333 %<br />

Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) JdF Strait Marine Section 5,819 m 2,236 m 1,746 m<br />

128 %<br />

Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) JdF Strait Marine Section 1,350 m 1,350 m 405 m<br />

333 %<br />

Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) QC Strait Marine Section 904 m 904 m 271 m<br />

334 %<br />

Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) JdF Strait Marine Section 3,623 m 1,294 m 1,087 m<br />

119 %<br />

Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Johnstone Strait Marine Section 1,136 m 630 m 341 m<br />

185 %<br />

Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) QC Strait Marine Section 1,041 m 1,041 m 312 m<br />

334 %<br />

Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 20,208 m 2,651 m 6,062 m<br />

44 %<br />

High Tide Lagoon Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 444 m 444 m 133 m<br />

334 %<br />

High Tide lagoon Protected (Embayment) VI Shelf Marine Section 1,194 m 1,194 m 358 m<br />

334 %<br />

High Tide Lagoon protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 7,915 m 5,382 m 2,375 m<br />

227 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) JdF Strait Marine Section 564 m 564 m 169 m<br />

334 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Embayment) Cape Arago North Marine Section 2,775 m 2,194 m 832 m<br />

264 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Embayment) Cape Arago South Marine Section 139 m 139 m 42 m<br />

331 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) Cape Arago North Marine Section 61 m 61 m 18 m<br />

339 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) Pt Grenville South Marine Section 12,500 m 8,087 m 3,750 m<br />

216 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) QC Strait Marine Section 447 m 447 m 134 m<br />

334 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) VI Shelf Marine Section 6,640 m 4,637 m 1,992 m<br />

233 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Johnstone Strait Marine Section 683 m 668 m 205 m<br />

326 %<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals<br />

Page 15 of 32

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) QC Strait Marine Section 533 m 533 m 160 m<br />

333 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 9,703 m 2,666 m 2,911 m<br />

92 %<br />

Mud Fl<strong>at</strong> Very Protected (Embayment) Pt Grenville South Marine Section 9,378 m 9,378 m 2,813 m<br />

333 %<br />

Organics/fines (Embayment) Cape Arago North Marine Section 95,053 m 61,335 m 28,516 m<br />

215 %<br />

Organics/fines (Embayment) Cape Arago South Marine Section 412 m 412 m 124 m<br />

332 %<br />

Organics/fines (Embayment) VI Shelf Marine Section 55,212 m 36,722 m 16,564 m<br />

222 %<br />

Organics/fines (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 49,005 m 5,001 m 14,702 m<br />

34 %<br />

Organics/fines Exposed (Embayment) Cape Arago North Marine Section 454,866 m 290,523 m 136,460 m<br />

213 %<br />

Organics/fines Exposed (Embayment) Cape Arago South Marine Section 17,288 m 9,813 m 5,186 m<br />

189 %<br />

Organics/fines Exposed (Embayment) JdF Strait Marine Section 711 m 580 m 213 m<br />

272 %<br />

Organics/fines Exposed (Embayment) Pt Grenville North Marine Section 7,258 m 7,258 m 2,177 m<br />

333 %<br />

Organics/fines Exposed (Embayment) VI Shelf Marine Section 2,470 m 2,470 m 741 m<br />

333 %<br />

Organics/fines Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Pt Grenville North Marine Section 1,989 m 917 m 597 m<br />

154 %<br />

Organics/fines Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 1,209 m 1,209 m 363 m<br />

333 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) Cape Arago North Marine Section 73,147 m 33,378 m 21,944 m<br />

152 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) Cape Arago South Marine Section 5,218 m 4,124 m 1,565 m<br />

264 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) JdF Strait Marine Section 4,375 m 4,189 m 1,313 m<br />

319 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) Johnstone Strait Marine Section 43,691 m 35,516 m 13,107 m<br />

271 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) Pt Grenville South Marine Section 404,386 m 327,384 m 121,316 m<br />

270 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) QC Sound Marine Section 2,180 m 2,180 m 654 m<br />

333 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) QC Strait Marine Section 16,124 m 16,021 m 4,837 m<br />

331 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Embayment) VI Shelf Marine Section 249,139 m 112,184 m 74,742 m<br />

150 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) JdF Strait Marine Section 739 m 601 m 222 m<br />

271 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Johnstone Strait Marine Section 1,548 m 957 m 465 m<br />

206 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) QC Strait Marine Section 3,291 m 1,954 m 987 m<br />

198 %<br />

Organics/fines Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 117,438 m 47,128 m 35,232 m<br />

134 %<br />

Organics/fines Very Protected (Embayment) Cape Arago North Marine Section 69,765 m 38,987 m 20,929 m<br />

186 %<br />

Organics/fines Very Protected (Embayment) Cape Arago South Marine Section 3,863 m 3,863 m 1,159 m<br />

333 %<br />

Organics/fines Very Protected (Embayment) Pt Grenville North Marine Section 10,783 m 4,625 m 3,235 m<br />

143 %<br />

Organics/fines Very Protected (Embayment) Pt Grenville South Marine Section 15,674 m 10,630 m 4,702 m<br />

226 %<br />

Organics/fines Very Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Pt Grenville North Marine Section 2,079 m 683 m 624 m<br />

109 %<br />

Organics/fines Very Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Pt Grenville South Marine Section 998 m 134 m 299 m<br />

45 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form (Embayment) VI Shelf Marine Section 449 m 449 m 135 m<br />

333 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago North Marine Section 5,177 m 4,846 m 1,553 m<br />

312 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago South Marine Section 1,102 m 1,102 m 330 m<br />

334 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 119,406 m 18,529 m 35,822 m<br />

52 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Exposed (Embayment) Cape Arago North Marine Section 1,104 m 1,029 m 331 m<br />

311 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Exposed (Embayment) JdF Strait Marine Section 1,527 m 882 m 458 m<br />

193 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Exposed (Embayment) VI Shelf Marine Section 2,802 m 2,802 m 841 m<br />

333 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago South Marine Section 71 m 71 m 21 m<br />

338 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) JdF Strait Marine Section 28,439 m 13,676 m 8,532 m<br />

160 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Pt Grenville North Marine Section 6,936 m 3,246 m 2,081 m<br />

156 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) QC Sound Marine Section 5,903 m 5,337 m 1,771 m<br />

301 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 281,785 m 86,368 m 84,535 m<br />

102 %<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals<br />

Page 16 of 32

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago North Marine Section 1,010 m 843 m 303 m<br />

278 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago South Marine Section 211 m 211 m 63 m<br />

335 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Johnstone Strait Marine Section 708 m 271 m 212 m<br />

128 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) QC Strait Marine Section 3,254 m 1,975 m 976 m<br />

202 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 13,109 m 5,492 m 3,933 m<br />

140 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago North Marine Section 19,174 m 5,150 m 5,752 m<br />

90 %<br />

Rock Pl<strong>at</strong>form Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago South Marine Section 3,533 m 1,782 m 1,060 m<br />

168 %<br />

Rock With Gravel Beach (Embayment) VI Shelf Marine Section 2,019 m 860 m 606 m<br />

142 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) JdF Strait Marine Section 365 m 365 m 110 m<br />

332 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 103,610 m 34,785 m 31,083 m<br />

112 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) Cape Arago North Marine Section 182 m 182 m 55 m<br />

331 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) JdF Strait Marine Section 1,664 m 723 m 499 m<br />

145 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) VI Shelf Marine Section 1,709 m 744 m 513 m<br />

145 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) JdF Strait Marine Section 20,170 m 3,752 m 6,051 m<br />

62 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Pt Grenville North Marine Section 16,638 m 12,980 m 4,991 m<br />

260 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) QC Sound Marine Section 3,984 m 2,685 m 1,195 m<br />

225 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) QC Strait Marine Section 10,910 m 2,331 m 3,273 m<br />

71 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 164,535 m 52,402 m 49,361 m<br />

106 %<br />

Rock With Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) JdF Strait Marine Section 350 m 350 m 105 m<br />

333 %<br />

Rock With Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) Johnstone Strait Marine Section 1,500 m 760 m 450 m<br />

169 %<br />

Rock With Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) Pt Grenville South Marine Section 460 m 460 m 138 m<br />

333 %<br />

Rock With Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) VI Shelf Marine Section 14,447 m 4,303 m 4,334 m<br />

99 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago North Marine Section 320 m 320 m 96 m<br />

333 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago South Marine Section 2,626 m 2,406 m 788 m<br />

305 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) JdF Strait Marine Section 2,139 m 1,572 m 642 m<br />

245 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Johnstone Strait Marine Section 35,809 m 13,009 m 10,743 m<br />

121 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) QC Strait Marine Section 8,410 m 4,599 m 2,523 m<br />

182 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 595,356 m 148,266 m 178,607 m<br />

83 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago North Marine Section 4,376 m 2,664 m 1,313 m<br />

203 %<br />

Rock with Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago South Marine Section 6,355 m 1,335 m 1,906 m<br />

70 %<br />

Rock With Sand And Gravel Beach (Embayment) VI Shelf Marine Section 1,427 m 1,427 m 428 m<br />

333 %<br />

Rock with Sand and Gravel Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) JdF Strait Marine Section 1,755 m 1,755 m 526 m<br />

334 %<br />

Rock with Sand and Gravel Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 96,365 m 17,353 m 28,909 m<br />

60 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago North Marine Section 339 m 339 m 102 m<br />

332 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 10,429 m 5,973 m 3,129 m<br />

191 %<br />

Rock With Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) Cape Arago North Marine Section 1,317 m 1,317 m 395 m<br />

333 %<br />

Rock With Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) JdF Strait Marine Section 282 m 282 m 85 m<br />

332 %<br />

Rock With Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) Pt Grenville South Marine Section 848 m 848 m 254 m<br />

334 %<br />

Rock With Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) VI Shelf Marine Section 9,281 m 4,113 m 2,784 m<br />

148 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) JdF Strait Marine Section 18,469 m 8,625 m 5,541 m<br />

156 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Pt Grenville North Marine Section 28,959 m 14,728 m 8,688 m<br />

170 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Pt Grenville South Marine Section 1,779 m 1,290 m 534 m<br />

242 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) QC Sound Marine Section 2,818 m 2,447 m 845 m<br />

290 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) QC Strait Marine Section 955 m 955 m 286 m<br />

334 %<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals<br />

Page 17 of 32

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 128,005 m 46,457 m 38,401 m<br />

121 %<br />

Rock With Sand Beach Protected (Embayment) Johnstone Strait Marine Section 143 m 143 m 43 m<br />

333 %<br />

Rock With Sand Beach Protected (Embayment) VI Shelf Marine Section 4,191 m 1,555 m 1,257 m<br />

124 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) JdF Strait Marine Section 1,249 m 1,249 m 375 m<br />

333 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Johnstone Strait Marine Section 1,246 m 303 m 374 m<br />

81 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) QC Strait Marine Section 2,628 m 1,992 m 788 m<br />

253 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 57,404 m 36,996 m 17,221 m<br />

215 %<br />

Rock With Sand Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) Cape Arago North Marine Section 572 m 572 m 172 m<br />

333 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago North Marine Section 11,066 m 4,407 m 3,320 m<br />

133 %<br />

Rock with Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago South Marine Section 385 m 134 m 116 m<br />

116 %<br />

Rocky intertidal habit<strong>at</strong> (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) QC Sound Marine Section 45,250 m 25,359 m 13,575 m<br />

187 %<br />

Rocky intertidal habit<strong>at</strong> (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) QC Strait Marine Section 39,563 m 10,947 m 11,869 m<br />

92 %<br />

Rocky intertidal habit<strong>at</strong> (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 897,371 m 325,593 m 269,211 m<br />

121 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff (Embayment) Cape Arago North Marine Section 2,791 m 2,049 m 837 m<br />

245 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff (Embayment) Cape Arago South Marine Section 792 m 792 m 238 m<br />

333 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Exposed (Embayment) Cape Arago North Marine Section 90,823 m 53,204 m 27,247 m<br />

195 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Exposed (Embayment) Cape Arago South Marine Section 3,500 m 3,500 m 1,050 m<br />

333 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Exposed (Embayment) JdF Strait Marine Section 285 m 285 m 85 m<br />

335 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Exposed (Embayment) Pt Grenville South Marine Section 924 m 924 m 277 m<br />

334 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Exposed (Embayment) QC Strait Marine Section 526 m 441 m 158 m<br />

279 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Exposed (Embayment) VI Shelf Marine Section 2,695 m 889 m 808 m<br />

110 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Protected (Embayment) Cape Arago North Marine Section 16,573 m 10,058 m 4,972 m<br />

202 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Protected (Embayment) Pt Grenville South Marine Section 25,672 m 25,672 m 7,702 m<br />

333 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Protected (Embayment) VI Shelf Marine Section 10,417 m 3,339 m 3,125 m<br />

107 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Very Exposed (Embayment) Cape Arago North Marine Section 786 m 786 m 236 m<br />

333 %<br />

Rocky Shore/Cliff Very Exposed (Embayment) Cape Arago South Marine Section 227 m 227 m 68 m<br />

334 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago North Marine Section 25,323 m 14,479 m 7,597 m<br />

191 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago South Marine Section 45,578 m 19,430 m 13,673 m<br />

142 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) JdF Strait Marine Section 967 m 967 m 290 m<br />

333 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 317,997 m 104,520 m 95,399 m<br />

110 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) JdF Strait Marine Section 20,674 m 8,276 m 6,202 m<br />

133 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Pt Grenville North Marine Section 47,362 m 23,027 m 14,208 m<br />

162 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) QC Sound Marine Section 3,532 m 1,849 m 1,060 m<br />

174 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) QC Strait Marine Section 20,025 m 2,983 m 6,008 m<br />

50 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 230,329 m 70,287 m 69,099 m<br />

102 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago North Marine Section 156 m 156 m 47 m<br />

332 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago South Marine Section 97 m 97 m 29 m<br />

334 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) JdF Strait Marine Section 390 m 84 m 117 m<br />

72 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Johnstone Strait Marine Section 56,914 m 24,381 m 17,074 m<br />

143 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) QC Strait Marine Section 23,664 m 12,086 m 7,099 m<br />

170 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 672,756 m 194,077 m 201,827 m<br />

96 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago North Marine Section 50,690 m 19,640 m 15,207 m<br />

129 %<br />

Rocky/Cliff Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago South Marine Section 29,659 m 11,363 m 8,898 m<br />

128 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach (Embayment) Cape Arago North Marine Section 377 m 377 m 113 m<br />

334 %<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals<br />

Page 18 of 32

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach (Embayment) Cape Arago South Marine Section 1,340 m 1,340 m 402 m<br />

333 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago North Marine Section 876 m 170 m 263 m<br />

65 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago South Marine Section 303 m 303 m 91 m<br />

333 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 34,976 m 5,821 m 10,493 m<br />

55 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) Cape Arago North Marine Section 43,138 m 28,490 m 12,941 m<br />

220 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) Cape Arago South Marine Section 5,740 m 5,740 m 1,722 m<br />

333 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) JdF Strait Marine Section 5,117 m 5,117 m 1,535 m<br />

333 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) Pt Grenville North Marine Section 1,378 m 1,378 m 413 m<br />

334 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Embayment) VI Shelf Marine Section 1,014 m 1,014 m 304 m<br />

334 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago South Marine Section 464 m 47 m 139 m<br />

34 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) JdF Strait Marine Section 6,379 m 809 m 1,914 m<br />

42 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Pt Grenville North Marine Section 782 m 782 m 235 m<br />

333 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) QC Sound Marine Section 4,426 m 2,457 m 1,328 m<br />

185 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) QC Strait Marine Section 3,540 m 2,875 m 1,062 m<br />

271 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 6,414 m 3,153 m 1,924 m<br />

164 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) Cape Arago North Marine Section 612 m 204 m 184 m<br />

111 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) Johnstone Strait Marine Section 663 m 497 m 199 m<br />

250 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) Pt Grenville South Marine Section 7,373 m 7,373 m 2,212 m<br />

333 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) QC Sound Marine Section 380 m 380 m 114 m<br />

333 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) QC Strait Marine Section 842 m 842 m 253 m<br />

333 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Protected (Embayment) VI Shelf Marine Section 24,403 m 15,692 m 7,321 m<br />

214 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) JdF Strait Marine Section 4,379 m 1,966 m 1,314 m<br />

150 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Johnstone Strait Marine Section 12,341 m 5,836 m 3,702 m<br />

158 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) QC Strait Marine Section 4,087 m 1,587 m 1,226 m<br />

129 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 172,846 m 47,792 m 51,854 m<br />

92 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) Cape Arago North Marine Section 7,871 m 4,839 m 2,361 m<br />

205 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) Cape Arago South Marine Section 2,007 m 2,007 m 602 m<br />

333 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago North Marine Section 50,486 m 17,621 m 15,146 m<br />

116 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago South Marine Section 60,614 m 22,075 m 18,184 m<br />

121 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Beach Very Protected (Embayment) Cape Arago North Marine Section 3,227 m 2,216 m 968 m<br />

229 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach Very Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago North Marine Section 684 m 684 m 205 m<br />

334 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Beach Very Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago South Marine Section 3,614 m 1,120 m 1,084 m<br />

103 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> (Embayment) VI Shelf Marine Section 18,745 m 9,738 m 5,624 m<br />

173 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) JdF Strait Marine Section 1,740 m 1,740 m 522 m<br />

333 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 67,718 m 10,187 m 20,315 m<br />

50 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Embayment) JdF Strait Marine Section 907 m 255 m 272 m<br />

94 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Embayment) QC Sound Marine Section 1,188 m 856 m 357 m<br />

240 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Embayment) VI Shelf Marine Section 855 m 843 m 257 m<br />

328 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) JdF Strait Marine Section 2,236 m 351 m 671 m<br />

52 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Pt Grenville North Marine Section 8,587 m 2,007 m 2,576 m<br />

78 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) QC Strait Marine Section 266 m 266 m 80 m<br />

333 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 11,232 m 2,901 m 3,370 m<br />

86 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) Johnstone Strait Marine Section 4,357 m 3,946 m 1,307 m<br />

302 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) Pt Grenville South Marine Section 4,443 m 4,443 m 1,333 m<br />

333 %<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals<br />

Page 19 of 32

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

Sand And Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) QC Sound Marine Section 373 m 373 m 112 m<br />

333 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) QC Strait Marine Section 3,629 m 1,910 m 1,089 m<br />

175 %<br />

Sand And Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) VI Shelf Marine Section 43,467 m 13,587 m 13,040 m<br />

104 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) JdF Strait Marine Section 6,708 m 5,580 m 2,013 m<br />

277 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Johnstone Strait Marine Section 17,099 m 6,454 m 5,130 m<br />

126 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) QC Strait Marine Section 21,307 m 10,840 m 6,392 m<br />

170 %<br />

Sand and Gravel Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 160,628 m 35,427 m 48,188 m<br />

74 %<br />

Sand Beach (Embayment) Cape Arago North Marine Section 2,875 m 2,643 m 862 m<br />

307 %<br />

Sand Beach (Embayment) Cape Arago South Marine Section 516 m 516 m 155 m<br />

333 %<br />

Sand Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago North Marine Section 9,997 m 2,936 m 2,999 m<br />

98 %<br />

Sand Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago South Marine Section 2,857 m 1,889 m 857 m<br />

220 %<br />

Sand Beach (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 51,997 m 12,455 m 15,599 m<br />

80 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) Cape Arago North Marine Section 60,008 m 45,451 m 18,002 m<br />

252 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) Cape Arago South Marine Section 9,242 m 9,242 m 2,773 m<br />

333 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) JdF Strait Marine Section 2,347 m 1,716 m 704 m<br />

244 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) Pt Grenville South Marine Section 4,765 m 4,765 m 1,430 m<br />

333 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) QC Sound Marine Section 1,631 m 1,631 m 489 m<br />

334 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Embayment) VI Shelf Marine Section 19,194 m 11,404 m 5,758 m<br />

198 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago North Marine Section 12,658 m 5,977 m 3,797 m<br />

157 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) JdF Strait Marine Section 7,179 m 4,915 m 2,154 m<br />

228 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Pt Grenville North Marine Section 6,627 m 2,441 m 1,988 m<br />

123 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) QC Sound Marine Section 9,955 m 4,145 m 2,987 m<br />

139 %<br />

Sand Beach Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 70,537 m 21,433 m 21,161 m<br />

101 %<br />

Sand Beach Protected (Embayment) Cape Arago North Marine Section 2,699 m 1,210 m 810 m<br />

149 %<br />

Sand Beach Protected (Embayment) Johnstone Strait Marine Section 1,722 m 1,097 m 516 m<br />

213 %<br />

Sand Beach Protected (Embayment) Pt Grenville South Marine Section 19,540 m 19,337 m 5,862 m<br />

330 %<br />

Sand Beach Protected (Embayment) VI Shelf Marine Section 7,158 m 4,296 m 2,147 m<br />

200 %<br />

Sand Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Johnstone Strait Marine Section 688 m 562 m 207 m<br />

271 %<br />

Sand Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) QC Strait Marine Section 1,980 m 1,697 m 594 m<br />

286 %<br />

Sand Beach Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 36,240 m 9,913 m 10,872 m<br />

91 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) Cape Arago North Marine Section 17,946 m 16,165 m 5,384 m<br />

300 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Embayment) Cape Arago South Marine Section 7,437 m 7,330 m 2,231 m<br />

329 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago North Marine Section 204,790 m 69,676 m 61,437 m<br />

113 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago South Marine Section 63,301 m 28,308 m 18,990 m<br />

149 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Protected (Embayment) Cape Arago North Marine Section 3,129 m 3,129 m 939 m<br />

333 %<br />

Sand Beach Very Protected (Embayment) Pt Grenville South Marine Section 5,020 m 5,020 m 1,506 m<br />

333 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (Embayment) Cape Arago North Marine Section 793 m 793 m 238 m<br />

333 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (Embayment) VI Shelf Marine Section 2,590 m 2,049 m 777 m<br />

264 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 7,851 m 1,954 m 2,355 m<br />

83 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Embayment) Cape Arago North Marine Section 1,519 m 1,519 m 456 m<br />

333 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Embayment) Cape Arago South Marine Section 155 m 155 m 47 m<br />

330 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Embayment) JdF Strait Marine Section 1,852 m 1,852 m 556 m<br />

333 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Embayment) Pt Grenville South Marine Section 10,849 m 9,009 m 3,255 m<br />

277 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Embayment) VI Shelf Marine Section 4,240 m 1,075 m 1,272 m<br />

85 %<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals<br />

Page 20 of 32

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Pt Grenville North Marine Section 52,537 m 15,224 m 15,761 m<br />

97 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Pt Grenville South Marine Section 3,017 m 3,017 m 905 m<br />

333 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 9,644 m 7,128 m 2,893 m<br />

246 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) Cape Arago South Marine Section 387 m 387 m 116 m<br />

334 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) JdF Strait Marine Section 1,798 m 1,798 m 539 m<br />

334 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) Johnstone Strait Marine Section 2,643 m 854 m 793 m<br />

108 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) Pt Grenville South Marine Section 17,333 m 16,565 m 5,200 m<br />

319 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) QC Strait Marine Section 3,638 m 3,638 m 1,091 m<br />

333 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Embayment) VI Shelf Marine Section 32,633 m 17,141 m 9,790 m<br />

175 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) JdF Strait Marine Section 4,222 m 1,486 m 1,267 m<br />

117 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Johnstone Strait Marine Section 519 m 519 m 156 m<br />

333 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) QC Strait Marine Section 6,580 m 5,439 m 1,974 m<br />

276 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Protected (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) VI Shelf Marine Section 76,616 m 29,240 m 22,985 m<br />

127 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Very Exposed (Embayment) Pt Grenville South Marine Section 3,938 m 3,211 m 1,181 m<br />

272 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Cape Arago North Marine Section 117 m 117 m 35 m<br />

334 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Very Exposed (Outer <strong>Coast</strong>) Pt Grenville South Marine Section 99,273 m 18,944 m 29,782 m<br />

64 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Very Protected (Embayment) Cape Arago South Marine Section 300 m 300 m 90 m<br />

333 %<br />

Sand Fl<strong>at</strong> Very Protected (Embayment) Pt Grenville South Marine Section 3,672 m 3,672 m 1,102 m<br />

333 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Species<br />

Fishes<br />

Bull Trout Salmon, <strong>Coast</strong>al and Puget Sound ESU Salvelinus confluentus Olympic-Chehalis EDU 135,223 m 112,402 m 67,612 m<br />

166 %<br />

Chinook Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Vancouver Island EDU 616,091 m 285,202 m 184,827 m<br />

154 %<br />

Chinook Salmon, North Island Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Vancouver Island EDU 2,668 m 1,280 m 1,334 m<br />

96 %<br />

Chinook Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Vancouver Island EDU 922,688 m 486,070 m 276,806 m<br />

176 %<br />

Chum Salmon, Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 3 Lower Columbia EDU 340,387 m 227,043 m 170,194 m<br />

133 %<br />

Chum Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus keta Vancouver Island EDU 556,321 m 130,412 m 166,896 m<br />

78 %<br />

Chum Salmon, Hood Canal Summer Run ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop ? Puget Sound EDU 154,240 m 11,441 m 77,120 m<br />

15 %<br />

Chum Salmon, North Island Oncorhynchus keta Vancouver Island EDU 154,925 m 75,489 m 46,478 m<br />

162 %<br />

Chum Salmon, <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop 4 <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> EDU 2,407,651 m 1,081,245 m 722,295 m<br />

150 %<br />

Chum Salmon, Puget Sound/Strait ESU Oncorhynchus keta pop ? Puget Sound EDU 227,660 m 12,537 m 68,298 m<br />

18 %<br />

Chum Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus keta Vancouver Island EDU 910,859 m 394,040 m 273,258 m<br />

144 %<br />

Coho Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus kisutch Vancouver Island EDU 1,839,060 m 670,781 m 551,718 m<br />

122 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 1 Lower Columbia EDU 4,800,039 m 1,679,528 m 1,440,012 m<br />

117 %<br />

Coho Salmon, North Island Oncorhynchus kisutch Vancouver Island EDU 388,661 m 224,423 m 116,598 m<br />

192 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Olympic Peninsula ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop ? Olympic-Chehalis EDU 1,868,503 m 610,462 m 560,551 m<br />

109 %<br />

Coho Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 3 <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> EDU 8,993,755 m 4,474,992 m 4,496,878 m<br />

100 %<br />

Coho Salmon, Puget Sound ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop ? Puget Sound EDU 669,348 m 78,744 m 200,804 m<br />

39 %<br />

Coho Salmon, S <strong>Oregon</strong>/N California ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop 2 <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> EDU 206,515 m 98,123 m 103,258 m<br />

95 %<br />

Coho Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus kisutch Vancouver Island EDU 2,246,248 m 1,044,817 m 673,874 m<br />

155 %<br />

Cutthro<strong>at</strong> Trout, East Island Oncorhynchus clarki Vancouver Island EDU 755,664 m 259,760 m 377,832 m<br />

69 %<br />

Cutthro<strong>at</strong> Trout, North Island Oncorhynchus clarki Vancouver Island EDU 76,400 m 38,564 m 38,200 m<br />

101 %<br />

Page 21 of 32<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

Cutthro<strong>at</strong> Trout, West Island Oncorhynchus clarki Vancouver Island EDU 765,803 m 391,194 m 382,902 m<br />

102 %<br />

Dolly Varden, East Island Salvelinus malma Vancouver Island EDU 307,136 m 188,525 m 153,568 m<br />

123 %<br />

Dolly Varden, North Island Salvelinus malma Vancouver Island EDU 8,228 m 8,046 m 4,114 m<br />

196 %<br />

Dolly Varden, West Island Salvelinus malma Vancouver Island EDU 205,121 m 151,920 m 102,560 m<br />

148 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Lower Columbia EDU 532,228 m 227,561 m 266,114 m<br />

86 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> EDU 4,434,793 m 2,306,336 m 1,330,438 m<br />

173 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Puget Sound ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Puget Sound EDU 199,910 m 38,182 m 99,955 m<br />

38 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, S <strong>Oregon</strong>/N California ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> EDU 253,207 m 68,948 m 75,962 m<br />

91 %<br />

Fall Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Olympic-Chehalis EDU 3,143,558 m 1,216,815 m 943,067 m<br />

129 %<br />

Olympic Mudminnow Novumbra hubbsi Olympic-Chehalis EDU 22 occ 12 occ 11 occ<br />

109 %<br />

Pink Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Vancouver Island EDU 283,434 m 47,940 m 85,030 m<br />

56 %<br />

Pink Salmon, North Island Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Vancouver Island EDU 155,119 m 96,464 m 46,536 m<br />

207 %<br />

Pink Salmon, Odd-year ESU Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Puget Sound EDU 121,488 m 41,582 m 36,446 m<br />

114 %<br />

Pink Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Vancouver Island EDU 380,317 m 182,790 m 114,095 m<br />

160 %<br />

Pygmy Whitefish Prosopium coulteri Puget Sound EDU 1 occ 1 occ 7 occ<br />

14 %<br />

River Lamprey Lampetra ayresi Vancouver Island EDU 3,567 m 3,567 m 1,070 m<br />

333 %<br />

Sockeye Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus nerka Vancouver Island EDU 289,655 m 154,229 m 86,896 m<br />

177 %<br />

Sockeye Salmon, Lake Pleasant ESU Oncorhynchus nerka Olympic-Chehalis EDU 6,107 m 6,107 m 6,107 m<br />

100 %<br />

Sockeye Salmon, North Island Oncorhynchus nerka Vancouver Island EDU 86,701 m 85,977 m 26,010 m<br />

331 %<br />

Sockeye Salmon, Ozette Lake ESU Oncorhynchus nerka Olympic-Chehalis EDU 34,400 m 30,339 m 34,400 m<br />

88 %<br />

Sockeye Salmon, Quinault Lake ESU Oncorhynchus nerka Olympic-Chehalis EDU 84,075 m 84,075 m 84,075 m<br />

100 %<br />

Sockeye Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus nerka Vancouver Island EDU 733,650 m 420,053 m 220,095 m<br />

191 %<br />

Spring Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Olympic-Chehalis EDU 1,042,175 m 584,405 m 312,652 m<br />

187 %<br />

Steelhead Salmon, North Island Oncorhynchus mykiss Vancouver Island EDU 136,255 m 111,623 m 40,876 m<br />

273 %<br />

Summer Chinook Salmon, Washington <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Olympic-Chehalis EDU 486,454 m 209,787 m 145,936 m<br />

144 %<br />

Summer Run Steelhead Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus mykiss Vancouver Island EDU 1,471,118 m 587,937 m 441,335 m<br />

133 %<br />

Summer Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 30 <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> EDU 243,359 m 102,017 m 73,008 m<br />

140 %<br />

Winter Run Steelhead Salmon, East Island Oncorhynchus mykiss Vancouver Island EDU 792,583 m 296,807 m 237,775 m<br />

125 %<br />

Winter Run Steelhead Salmon, West Island Oncorhynchus mykiss Vancouver Island EDU 2,030,659 m 1,025,829 m 609,198 m<br />

168 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Klam<strong>at</strong>h Mountains Province ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> EDU 465,722 m 219,216 m 139,717 m<br />

157 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Lower Columbia ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? Lower Columbia EDU 448,021 m 104,039 m 224,010 m<br />

46 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Olympic Peninsula ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? Olympic-Chehalis EDU 1,138,997 m 420,987 m 341,699 m<br />

123 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop 31 <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> EDU 8,291,070 m 4,086,186 m 2,487,321 m<br />

164 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Puget Sound ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? Puget Sound EDU 434,722 m 77,279 m 130,417 m<br />

59 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Southwest Washington ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> EDU 3,391,702 m 1,389,619 m 1,017,511 m<br />

137 %<br />

Winter Steelhead Salmon, Upper Willamette River ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss pop ? Willamette EDU 648,582 m 105,974 m 194,575 m<br />

54 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Macrohabit<strong>at</strong>s<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Erodable<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 669 m 669 m 334 m<br />

200 %<br />

Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Granitic-Silicic<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 7,016 m 6,359 m 3,508 m<br />

181 %<br />

Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone Vancouver Island EDU 3,276 m 1,673 m 1,638 m<br />

102 %<br />

Page 22 of 32<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 25,527 m 25,527 m 5,105 m<br />

500 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 1,266,425 m 372,577 m 126,642 m<br />

294 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 199,789 m 112,956 m 39,958 m<br />

283 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 47,304 m 36,588 m 9,461 m<br />

387 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 3,807,811 m 1,739,935 m 380,781 m<br />

457 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 51,925 m 31,210 m 10,385 m<br />

301 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 61,902 m 34,529 m 12,380 m<br />

279 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 74,408 m 34,705 m 14,882 m<br />

233 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 26,574 m 20,929 m 5,315 m<br />

394 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 791 m 791 m 396 m<br />

200 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 13,516 m 8,908 m 2,703 m<br />

330 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 2,449 m 2,131 m 1,224 m<br />

174 %<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On Sl<strong>at</strong>e<br />

Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Ultramafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Erodable<br />

Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Granitic-Silicic<br />

Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On Basaltic-<br />

Mafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On Basaltic-<br />

Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 7,702 m 7,702 m 3,851 m<br />

200 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 327,584 m 232,217 m 65,517 m<br />

354 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 2,037 m 2,037 m 1,018 m<br />

200 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 408 m 408 m 204 m<br />

200 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 861 m 861 m 430 m<br />

200 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 10,092 m 6,241 m 2,018 m<br />

309 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 263,995 m 69,530 m 52,799 m<br />

132 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 44,039 m 23,245 m 8,808 m<br />

264 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 18,930 m 12,430 m 3,786 m<br />

328 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 1,182,304 m 543,250 m 118,230 m<br />

459 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 5,591 m 3,539 m 2,796 m<br />

127 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 31,772 m 16,403 m 6,354 m<br />

258 %<br />

Page 23 of 32<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 15,346 m 6,586 m 3,069 m<br />

215 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 3,046 m 3,046 m 1,523 m<br />

200 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 2,083 m 1,000 m 1,042 m<br />

96 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 41,380 m 3,204 m 8,276 m<br />

39 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 2,213 m 1,343 m 1,106 m<br />

121 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 866 m 656 m 433 m<br />

152 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 607 m 607 m 304 m<br />

200 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 65,784 m 52,507 m 13,157 m<br />

399 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 1,483 m 1,483 m 742 m<br />

200 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 3,570 m 2,938 m 1,785 m<br />

165 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 14,284 m 14,284 m 2,857 m<br />

500 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 844,528 m 201,685 m 168,906 m<br />

119 %<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On Sl<strong>at</strong>e<br />

Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Ultramafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The Douglas Fir Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Erodable<br />

Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Granitic-Silicic<br />

Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Ultramafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Douglas Fir Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Ge<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geo<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 143,414 m 77,050 m 28,683 m<br />

269 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 26,781 m 16,768 m 5,356 m<br />

313 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 3,063,965 m 1,371,605 m 306,396 m<br />

448 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 41,186 m 34,143 m 8,237 m<br />

415 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 60,177 m 32,135 m 12,035 m<br />

267 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 15,362 m 8,518 m 3,072 m<br />

277 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 10,816 m 8,207 m 2,163 m<br />

379 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 5,156 m 2,331 m 2,578 m<br />

90 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 29,704 m 2,699 m 5,941 m<br />

45 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 7,493 m 4,855 m 3,746 m<br />

130 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 1,413 m 685 m 706 m<br />

97 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 2,961 m 2,961 m 1,480 m<br />

200 %<br />

Page 24 of 32<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

First Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 172,855 m 117,764 m 34,571 m<br />

341 %<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Erodable Volcanics<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 886 m 886 m 443 m<br />

200 %<br />

Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Granitic-Silicic<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 9,466 m 7,166 m 4,733 m<br />

151 %<br />

Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On Basaltic-<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 21,918 m 20,487 m 4,384 m<br />

467 %<br />

Mafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On Basaltic-<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 215,232 m 69,903 m 43,046 m<br />

162 %<br />

Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 56,787 m 23,919 m 11,357 m<br />

211 %<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On Erodable<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 45,836 m 33,031 m 9,167 m<br />

360 %<br />

Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On Granitic-<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 1,368,160 m 592,382 m 136,816 m<br />

433 %<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 4,681 m 1,689 m 2,340 m<br />

72 %<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On Siltstone<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 17,404 m 10,478 m 3,481 m<br />

301 %<br />

Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On Sl<strong>at</strong>e<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 15,419 m 9,688 m 3,084 m<br />

314 %<br />

Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 1,812 m 711 m 906 m<br />

78 %<br />

Ultramafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 53,148 m 35,216 m 10,630 m<br />

331 %<br />

Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Douglas Fir Zone On Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 3,336 m 284 m 1,668 m<br />

17 %<br />

Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Douglas Fir Zone On Granitic-Silicic<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 53,382 m 10,149 m 10,676 m<br />

95 %<br />

Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Douglas Fir Zone On W<strong>at</strong>er Geology Vancouver Island EDU 3,832 m 2,191 m 1,916 m<br />

114 %<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 4,243 m 2,021 m 2,122 m<br />

95 %<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 2,199 m 1,408 m 1,100 m<br />

128 %<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 2,753 m 2,753 m 1,376 m<br />

200 %<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On Granitic<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 124,590 m 95,822 m 24,918 m<br />

385 %<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 969 m 969 m 484 m<br />

200 %<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 501 m 501 m 250 m<br />

200 %<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Erodable<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 904 m 904 m 452 m<br />

200 %<br />

Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Granitic-<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 139,837 m 108,068 m 27,967 m<br />

386 %<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

Page 25 of 32<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 5,168 m 4,530 m 2,584 m<br />

175 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 29,317 m 29,317 m 5,863 m<br />

500 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 2,458,825 m 809,809 m 245,882 m<br />

329 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 435,210 m 162,505 m 87,042 m<br />

187 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 211,258 m 172,570 m 42,252 m<br />

408 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 8,180,340 m 4,793,400 m 818,034 m<br />

586 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 38,034 m 25,227 m 7,607 m<br />

332 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 98,061 m 50,445 m 19,612 m<br />

257 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 148,463 m 89,866 m 29,693 m<br />

303 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 15,071 m 14,714 m 3,014 m<br />

488 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 6,630 m 5,070 m 3,315 m<br />

153 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 3,046 m 3,046 m 1,523 m<br />

200 %<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Siltstone<br />

Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Ultramafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Douglas Fir Zone On W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Ultramafic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Erodable<br />

Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Alpine Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic Geology<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 1,829 m 1,829 m 914 m<br />

200 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 54,611 m 23,040 m 10,922 m<br />

211 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 30,003 m 16,585 m 6,001 m<br />

276 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 70,771 m 70,771 m 14,154 m<br />

500 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 1,998,159 m 1,359,633 m 199,816 m<br />

680 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 2,254 m 1,442 m 1,127 m<br />

128 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 40,436 m 27,414 m 8,087 m<br />

339 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 1,392 m 1,392 m 696 m<br />

200 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 2,590 m 2,590 m 1,295 m<br />

200 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 852 m 852 m 426 m<br />

200 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 4,900 m 4,076 m 2,450 m<br />

166 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 20,493 m 17,867 m 4,099 m<br />

436 %<br />

Page 26 of 32<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 210,407 m 59,382 m 42,081 m<br />

141 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 41,626 m 27,515 m 8,325 m<br />

331 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 38,892 m 27,014 m 7,778 m<br />

347 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 1,104,827 m 449,760 m 110,483 m<br />

407 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 4,601 m 2,359 m 2,300 m<br />

103 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 29,725 m 18,238 m 5,945 m<br />

307 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 6,979 m 3,185 m 3,490 m<br />

91 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 3,874 m 3,008 m 1,937 m<br />

155 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 63,323 m 6,807 m 12,665 m<br />

54 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 1,314 m 974 m 657 m<br />

148 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 1,131 m 605 m 566 m<br />

107 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 1,853 m 1,853 m 926 m<br />

200 %<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Douglas Fir Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

First Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

Fourth Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Fourth Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Fourth Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Douglas Fir Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

Fourth Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 60,779 m 48,191 m 12,156 m<br />

396 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 1,179 m 1,179 m 590 m<br />

200 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 1,397 m 614 m 698 m<br />

88 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 113,731 m 57,901 m 22,746 m<br />

255 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 1,908 m 1,908 m 954 m<br />

200 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 10,299 m 4,222 m 2,060 m<br />

205 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 13,817 m 4,471 m 2,763 m<br />

162 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 5,506 m 458 m 2,753 m<br />

17 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 1,454 m 1,454 m 727 m<br />

200 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 197,759 m 117,333 m 39,552 m<br />

297 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 4,566 m 3,335 m 2,283 m<br />

146 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 8,026 m 7,888 m 4,013 m<br />

197 %<br />

Page 27 of 32<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 1,795 m 1,795 m 898 m<br />

200 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 182,602 m 47,176 m 36,520 m<br />

129 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 76,601 m 22,202 m 15,320 m<br />

145 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 11,649 m 11,649 m 2,330 m<br />

500 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 957,005 m 465,996 m 287,102 m<br />

162 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 15,421 m 13,380 m 3,084 m<br />

434 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 9,022 m 9,018 m 4,511 m<br />

200 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 8,637 m 4,340 m 4,318 m<br />

101 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 8,695 m 8,695 m 4,348 m<br />

200 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 9,926 m 4,086 m 3,308 m<br />

124 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 3,421 m 1,616 m 1,710 m<br />

95 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 513 m 513 m 256 m<br />

200 %<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Ultramafic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream of low gradient in the Douglas Fir Zone on Granitic-<br />

Silicic geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Ultramafic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 129,391 m 29,543 m 25,878 m<br />

114 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 47,275 m 10,956 m 9,455 m<br />

116 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 21,641 m 21,641 m 4,328 m<br />

500 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 995,034 m 478,107 m 199,007 m<br />

240 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 6,333 m 4,277 m 3,166 m<br />

135 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 1,971 m 1,958 m 986 m<br />

199 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 4,189 m 4,140 m 2,094 m<br />

198 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 11,528 m 4,865 m 2,306 m<br />

211 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 3,347 m 142 m 1,674 m<br />

8 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 2,241 m 1,723 m 1,120 m<br />

154 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 155,354 m 50,558 m 31,071 m<br />

163 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 18,407 m 10,994 m 3,681 m<br />

299 %<br />

Page 28 of 32<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 13,286 m 7,139 m 2,657 m<br />

269 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 820,495 m 458,794 m 246,148 m<br />

186 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 1,319 m 1,319 m 660 m<br />

200 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 4,544 m 4,544 m 2,272 m<br />

200 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 5,396 m 5,396 m 2,698 m<br />

200 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 6,081 m 6,081 m 3,040 m<br />

200 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 6,867 m 23 m 3,434 m<br />

1 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 38,318 m 1,481 m 7,664 m<br />

19 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 7,037 m 6,517 m 3,518 m<br />

185 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 845 m 289 m 422 m<br />

68 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 26,846 m 17,040 m 5,369 m<br />

317 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 1,720 m 1,720 m 860 m<br />

200 %<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On Sl<strong>at</strong>e<br />

Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Ultramafic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On W<strong>at</strong>er<br />

Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Douglas Fir Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone<br />

On Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very High Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Siltstone Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sl<strong>at</strong>e Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Ultramafic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Douglas Fir Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Second Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Mountain Hemlock Zone<br />

On Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 1,378 m 1,378 m 689 m<br />

200 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 281,637 m 85,238 m 56,327 m<br />

151 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 61,414 m 15,320 m 12,283 m<br />

125 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 5,343 m 5,060 m 2,672 m<br />

189 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 965,240 m 512,178 m 193,048 m<br />

265 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 9,760 m 9,760 m 4,880 m<br />

200 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 7,463 m 7,302 m 3,732 m<br />

196 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 5,550 m 3,842 m 2,775 m<br />

138 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 1,691 m 1,691 m 846 m<br />

200 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 6,051 m 4,546 m 3,026 m<br />

150 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 99,205 m 25,499 m 19,841 m<br />

129 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 4,546 m 3,522 m 2,273 m<br />

155 %<br />

Page 29 of 32<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 908 m 573 m 454 m<br />

126 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 7,258 m 5,458 m 3,629 m<br />

150 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 1,145 m 1,123 m 572 m<br />

196 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 76,857 m 32,384 m 15,371 m<br />

211 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 1,155 m 1,155 m 578 m<br />

200 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 3,420 m 3,420 m 1,710 m<br />

200 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 886 m 840 m 443 m<br />

190 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 23,688 m 11,322 m 4,738 m<br />

239 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 75,947 m 44,825 m 15,189 m<br />

295 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 48,334 m 26,912 m 9,667 m<br />

278 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 1,590 m 1,590 m 795 m<br />

200 %<br />

Third Order Stream Of High Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Medium Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On Basaltic-<br />

Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On Granitic-<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On Siltstone<br />

Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of No Gradient In The Douglas Fir Zone On Granitic-Silicic<br />

Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Basaltic-Mafic-Extrusive-Volcanic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Carbon<strong>at</strong>e-Limestone Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Erodable Volcanics Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Granitic-Silicic Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The <strong>Coast</strong>al Hemlock Zone On<br />

Sandstone Geology<br />

Third Order Stream Of Very Low Gradient In The Douglas Fir Zone On Granitic<br />

Silicic Geology<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 644,778 m 325,818 m 128,956 m<br />

253 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 7,589 m 7,589 m 3,794 m<br />

200 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 3,889 m 3,811 m 1,944 m<br />

196 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 38,137 m 14,421 m 7,627 m<br />

189 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 33,091 m 16,858 m 6,618 m<br />

255 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 15,128 m 15,111 m 3,026 m<br />

499 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 3,129 m 3,129 m 1,564 m<br />

200 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 473,838 m 208,157 m 94,768 m<br />

220 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 12,992 m 12,992 m 2,598 m<br />

500 %<br />

Vancouver Island EDU 37,737 m 17,441 m 7,547 m<br />

231 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 2<br />

Chehalis Tributary Small Rivers - Volcanic/Outwash, Low To Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion Olympic-Chehalis EDU 4 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Range Small River - Basalt, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion Willamette EDU 2 occ 5 occ 1 occ<br />

500 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Range small rivers - sedimentary, low to mid elev<strong>at</strong>ion <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> EDU 22 occ 9 occ 7 occ<br />

129 %<br />

Page 30 of 32<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Range small rivers - sedimentary, low to mid elev<strong>at</strong>ion Rogue-Umpqua EDU 7 occ 1 occ 2 occ<br />

50 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Range small rivers - serpentine, low to mid elev<strong>at</strong>ion <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> EDU 2 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Tributaries - Outwash, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradients Olympic-Chehalis EDU 33 occ 12 occ 10 occ<br />

120 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Rivers - Volcanic To Granite, Low To Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Mixed Gradient <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> EDU 5 occ 2 occ 2 occ<br />

100 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Small Rivers - Outwash, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion Olympic-Chehalis EDU 3 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Upland - Alluvium-Colluvium, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradients Olympic-Chehalis EDU 11 occ 3 occ 3 occ<br />

100 %<br />

East Olympics small rivers - predominantly mafic, low to mid elev<strong>at</strong>ion, low to<br />

Puget Sound EDU 3 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

moder<strong>at</strong>e gradient<br />

Inland <strong>Coast</strong>al Headw<strong>at</strong>ers Streams - Granitic, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, High Gradient <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> EDU 5 occ 2 occ 2 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Lower Columbia Tributary Small Rivers - Sedimentary Lower Columbia EDU 2 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Lower Columbia Tributary Small Rivers - Volcanics Lower Columbia EDU 5 occ 3 occ 2 occ<br />

150 %<br />

Northern Olympics rivers - sandstone, mid to low elev<strong>at</strong>ion, mixed gradient Puget Sound EDU 5 occ 3 occ 2 occ<br />

150 %<br />

Olympics Small Rivers - Sandstone, Low To Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Low To Moder<strong>at</strong>e<br />

Olympic-Chehalis EDU 7 occ 2 occ 2 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Gradient<br />

Straight of Juan de Fuca small rivers - predominantly sandstone, low elev<strong>at</strong>ion,<br />

Puget Sound EDU 3 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

variable gradient<br />

Unclassified Class 2 Freshw<strong>at</strong>er System Vancouver Island EDU 2 occ 2 occ 1 occ<br />

200 %<br />

Willapa Hills small rivers - sandstone, low elev<strong>at</strong>ion Olympic-Chehalis EDU 3 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Freshw<strong>at</strong>er Ecological Systems - Class 1<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Range Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sedimentary, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion Willamette EDU 31 occ 6 occ 9 occ<br />

67 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Range Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Volcanics, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion Willamette EDU 13 occ 4 occ 4 occ<br />

100 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong> Range Tributaries - Shales, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient Willamette EDU 11 occ 2 occ 3 occ<br />

67 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Alluvium <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> EDU 2 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sediment <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> EDU 12 occ 8 occ 4 occ<br />

200 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sediment Rogue-Umpqua EDU 24 occ 7 occ 7 occ<br />

100 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Volcanic <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> EDU 4 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Ocean Tributaries - Alluvium <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> EDU 5 occ 4 occ 2 occ<br />

200 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Ocean Tributaries - Sediment <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> EDU 16 occ 11 occ 5 occ<br />

220 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Ocean Tributaries - Serpentine <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> EDU 2 occ 2 occ 1 occ<br />

200 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Ocean Tributaries - Volcanic <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> EDU 6 occ 5 occ 2 occ<br />

250 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Range Tributaries - Sediment Rogue-Umpqua EDU 16 occ 1 occ 5 occ<br />

20 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Ridge - Sediment <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> EDU 7 occ 3 occ 2 occ<br />

150 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Ridge Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Intrusive Geology <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> EDU 4 occ 2 occ 1 occ<br />

200 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Ridge Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sediment <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> EDU 2 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Ridge Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Volcanic <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> EDU 5 occ 1 occ 2 occ<br />

50 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Upland - Glacial Till, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Low To Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient Olympic-Chehalis EDU 41 occ 16 occ 12 occ<br />

133 %<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Upland - Sandstones, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient Olympic-Chehalis EDU 40 occ 16 occ 12 occ<br />

133 %<br />

Columbia Estuary Tributaries - Sedimentary, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient Lower Columbia EDU 18 occ 8 occ 5 occ<br />

160 %<br />

Inland Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sediment <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> EDU 59 occ 19 occ 18 occ<br />

106 %<br />

Inland Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Volcanic <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> EDU 9 occ 2 occ 3 occ<br />

67 %<br />

Inland Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Willapa Hills <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> EDU 11 occ 4 occ 3 occ<br />

133 %<br />

Juan De Fuca <strong>Coast</strong>al Streams - Sandstone , Low To Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e<br />

Puget Sound EDU 28 occ 4 occ 8 occ<br />

50 %<br />

Gradient<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals<br />

Page 31 of 32

Targets and Goals Summary<br />

c d<br />

e<br />

% of Goal<br />

Captured<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Goal<br />

Captured in<br />

Porfolio<br />

b<br />

Amount<br />

Known<br />

a<br />

Scientific Name Geographic<br />

Section<br />

Habit<strong>at</strong> Type<br />

Level of Biological Organiz<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Taxon<br />

Common Name<br />

Lower Columbia Sloughs And Tributaries - Fl<strong>at</strong> Gradient Lower Columbia EDU 6 occ 4 occ 2 occ<br />

200 %<br />

Lower Columbia Tributaries - Volcanics, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradient Lower Columbia EDU 25 occ 7 occ 8 occ<br />

88 %<br />

Lower Columbia Tributaries -Alluvium/Colluvium Streams, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Low<br />

Lower Columbia EDU 7 occ 1 occ 2 occ<br />

50 %<br />

Gradient<br />

Lower Columbia Tributaries- Sedimentary, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e<br />

Lower Columbia EDU 16 occ 5 occ 5 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Gradient<br />

Lower Columbia Tributary Small Rivers - Outwash Lower Columbia EDU 2 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Olympics - Sandstones, High Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, High Gradient Olympic-Chehalis EDU 12 occ 12 occ 4 occ<br />

300 %<br />

Olympics - Sandstones, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, High Gradient Olympic-Chehalis EDU 30 occ 19 occ 9 occ<br />

211 %<br />

Olympics Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sandstone, Mid To High Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e To High<br />

Puget Sound EDU 24 occ 23 occ 7 occ<br />

329 %<br />

Gradient<br />

Olympics Rainshadow <strong>Coast</strong>al Headw<strong>at</strong>ers Puget Sound EDU 8 occ 2 occ 2 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Olympics Rainshadow <strong>Coast</strong>al Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Mafic, Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e<br />

Puget Sound EDU 32 occ 13 occ 10 occ<br />

130 %<br />

To High Gradient<br />

Puget lowland headw<strong>at</strong>ers north - glacial drift, low elev<strong>at</strong>ion, low to moder<strong>at</strong>e<br />

Puget Sound EDU 34 occ 4 occ 10 occ<br />

40 %<br />

gradient<br />

Puget lowland headw<strong>at</strong>ers west - glacial drift, low elev<strong>at</strong>ion, low to moder<strong>at</strong>e<br />

Puget Sound EDU 41 occ 15 occ 12 occ<br />

125 %<br />

gradient<br />

Puget Lowlands - Outwash, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradients Olympic-Chehalis EDU 5 occ 1 occ 2 occ<br />

50 %<br />

Puget Lowlands - Glacial Till, Low Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e Gradients Olympic-Chehalis EDU 2 occ 1 occ 1 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Willapa Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ions, High Gradients Olympic-Chehalis EDU 30 occ 12 occ 9 occ<br />

133 %<br />

Willapa Headw<strong>at</strong>ers - Sandstones, Low To Mid Elev<strong>at</strong>ion, Moder<strong>at</strong>e/Low<br />

Olympic-Chehalis EDU 38 occ 11 occ 11 occ<br />

100 %<br />

Gradient<br />

Page 32 of 32<br />

<strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment - Summary of Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Targets and Goals

Appendix 8F Site Prioritiz<strong>at</strong>ion Results<br />

Euclidean<br />

Percent Biodiversity Vulnerability Euclidean Distance Distance Low<br />

PORTFOLIO NAME Hectares Protected Score Score High Vulnerability Vulnerability<br />

Fanno Meadows (Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion Easement) 241.317 100 357.668 323.107 367.1572301 215.3089213<br />

Bobby Creek RNA 775.685 100 298.171 163.097 464.5821812 217.681196<br />

North Fork/Hunter Creek ACEC 762.213 100 286.014 197.999 454.5232768 235.7772449<br />

Cougar Creek ACEC 116.779 100 265.137 245.457 444.4034355 264.9960631<br />

Columbia Refuge Islands 6252.866 100 236.304 108.178 518.0465233 269.1861815<br />

Lost Creek ACEC 35.267 100 256.786 299.894 426.2512787 285.7221598<br />

Copalis River (TNC) 111.688 100 218.164 204.81 487.3533779 299.8638273<br />

Martin Creek ACEC 65.968 100 216.623 363.634 426.0785674 336.6896874<br />

Devils Punch Bowl St<strong>at</strong>e N<strong>at</strong>ural Area 23.81 100 238.11 469.626 372.7070124 351.7435388<br />

Boiler Bay St<strong>at</strong>e Scenic Viewpoint 20.218 100 212.886 410.463 411.4886603 352.9226793<br />

Yaquina Head ONA/ACEC 40.545 100 252.358 505.904 349.7989058 353.9933255<br />

Beverly Beach St<strong>at</strong>e Park 65.618 100 237.707 476.533 370.5429029 354.3565194<br />

China Wall ACEC 82.488 100 104.093 260.909 541.5775376 416.8461697<br />

Shipwreck Point NAP 202 100 129.683 392.993 478.799598 419.2201748<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong> Islands NWR 162.864 100 50.535 20.637 664.6854577 449.5834268<br />

North Fork Coquille River ACEC 125.707 100 55.324 377.334 542.8305278 483.0444926<br />

Copalis Rock NWR 12.004 100 11.681 48.889 681.6219475 488.9304443<br />

Quillayute Needles NWR 79.788 100 6.559 5.226 700.6267539 493.4479185<br />

Forest Park 1443.459 100 292.937 1000 207.063 541.1793473<br />

Flynn Creek RNA 256.622 99.999 329.855 182.776 442.620704 193.1348947<br />

South Beach St<strong>at</strong>e Park 173.454 99.998 310.813 316.226 390.7408882 246.5592053<br />

Golden Bar ACEC 29.871 99.997 265.137 245.457 444.4034355 264.9960631<br />

Umpqua Lighthouse St<strong>at</strong>e Park 65.062 99.997 154.705 387.402 461.5709203 395.9150344<br />

Lost Prairie ACEC 24.501 99.996 253.655 433.013 375.5721283 327.9648206<br />

Fogarty Creek St<strong>at</strong>e Recre<strong>at</strong>ion Area 68.943 99.996 219.968 424.117 401.6568541 351.2644708<br />

Brads Creek ACEC 67.163 99.996 154.489 411.727 453.7555859 402.1910389<br />

Hult Marsh ACEC 71.684 99.994 148.226 193.987 534.9384882 364.9009264<br />

Chinook River BLM Site 42.894 99.991 180.586 428.536 428.56514 384.6245952<br />

Rocky Creek St<strong>at</strong>e Wayside 23.903 99.987 217.312 418.997 405.3438378 351.8552641<br />

Myrtle Island RNA 9.243 99.968 256.786 299.894 426.2512787 285.7221598<br />

Fl<strong>at</strong>tery Rocks NWR 46.182 99.931 0.845 0.841 706.2120013 499.1551771<br />

Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional Park 420222.991 91.887 152.719 54.606 586.5548114 348.3526184<br />

Str<strong>at</strong>hcona 320853.528 78.304 278.682 114.817 494.842291 228.6425004<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8F, page 1 of 5

Euclidean<br />

Percent Biodiversity Vulnerability Euclidean Distance Distance Low<br />

PORTFOLIO NAME Hectares Protected Score Score High Vulnerability Vulnerability<br />

Brooks Peninsula 71140.966 56.043 138.807 86.156 582.4414969 363.752797<br />

Ellsworth Creek 13828.699 47.11 195.087 238.611 487.7501819 327.4228763<br />

Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional Park-<strong>Coast</strong>al Unit/Ozette La 34399.386 41.015 315.186 247.796 419.0571906 222.5015258<br />

Broken Group 3175.228 39.999 162.677 40.221 586.5839569 337.9219415<br />

Nitin<strong>at</strong>-Carmanah-Walbran 93396.171 37.799 219.957 151.164 508.4827633 290.0633044<br />

Cummins-Rock Creek 22034.187 35.248 241.691 121.242 509.6836716 265.3270531<br />

Tsitika-Nimpkish 46389.171 32.66 196.66 147.195 523.2917423 312.1405895<br />

Alsea Bay-Drift Creek 8297.072 26.411 89.975 133.119 596.649954 415.3921854<br />

Cape Blanco-Elk River 44238.426 18.048 252.884 289.456 432.7638056 286.3782664<br />

Cascade Head-Salmon River 19975.019 17.91 355.229 249.521 402.1981164 191.1120739<br />

Hesqui<strong>at</strong> 56722.082 16.634 128.741 113.147 578.3254326 375.5446791<br />

Cape Scott-Port Hardy 117323.056 16.361 201.201 156.769 516.7595884 308.9093269<br />

Cl<strong>at</strong>sop Plains-Necanicum River 17248.745 14.653 281.108 492.691 335.0437479 329.5448574<br />

Nimpkish-Tahsish 121060.353 13.541 249.058 169.353 485.2478717 264.8433443<br />

Clayoquot-Alberni 172444.221 13.162 212.303 147.716 514.1658954 297.0262076<br />

Cape Arago-South Slough 16009.11 12.97 282.438 261.372 428.6327734 253.7953003<br />

Grays Harbor 29165.875 12.707 255.546 139.739 494.7423624 254.2430041<br />

Willapa Bay 48453.028 11.264 261.068 154.051 485.7941213 251.0406905<br />

Cl<strong>at</strong>skanie River 8871.831 10.753 271.617 345.592 399.025378 286.3865435<br />

Nestucca River 31765.359 10.697 270.36 235.448 445.947833 258.0571056<br />

Long Beach Peninsula 8761.763 9.62 256.264 520.568 341.8640056 356.5879952<br />

Juan de Fuca 14703.575 9.528 208.964 234.9 480.6729198 313.8414501<br />

Cape Lookout-Sandlake 13121.054 8.647 346.518 291.393 386.1187569 211.6227645<br />

Cape Sebastian-Hunter Creek 9262.306 8.493 389.067 346.551 345.0435181 205.7438441<br />

Sooke 5583.598 8.28 295.564 339.596 388.3650846 265.7544711<br />

Saddle Mountain 16869.675 7.249 293.89 457.269 340.7646793 307.8231094<br />

Tenmile Lake 25012.374 6.713 275.459 247.476 438.1686357 256.3781452<br />

Gold River-Nootka 151075.392 6.708 238.907 184.149 484.3271293 276.8524304<br />

Cape Falcon-Lower Nehalem 23754.241 6.528 233.45 335.695 425.8804829 314.9947393<br />

Humbug Mtn-Nesika Beach 11563.148 6.453 337.096 252.362 407.7724341 206.0566863<br />

Tahkenitch-Siltcoos Lakes 32851.088 4.706 186.422 250.297 488.7175147 337.6289519<br />

Lower Coquille River 21111.053 4.678 139.085 446.831 454.7071837 424.4692249<br />

Clearw<strong>at</strong>er River 21433.292 4.362 114.345 168.491 567.0816372 394.749393<br />

New River 21323.545 4.349 325.416 393.631 349.8577055 263.0891752<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8F, page 2 of 5

Euclidean<br />

Percent Biodiversity Vulnerability Euclidean Distance Distance Low<br />

PORTFOLIO NAME Hectares Protected Score Score High Vulnerability Vulnerability<br />

Blind Slough Swamp 9796.823 3.611 302.298 255.557 421.4675858 235.4005647<br />

Marys Peak 8825.661 3.548 282.262 257.531 430.377614 252.9632199<br />

Smith River (OR) 46252.949 2.97 60.629 241.209 580.5065211 455.6230032<br />

South Fork Coquille River 26463.246 2.678 152.144 267.113 505.2569994 372.6139228<br />

Rock Creek (Coquille) 7414.169 2.576 133.612 293.268 509.0262238 394.641225<br />

Tsable-Stamp-Qualicum 79892.207 1.886 309.469 414.834 349.1516488 281.6449429<br />

Coos Mtn 13134.946 1.821 217.12 314.689 444.3353307 323.6948966<br />

Sutton Lake 5798.884 1.59 322.298 220.668 428.2728013 209.1688131<br />

Beaver Creek Marsh 10403.092 1.421 289.637 299.638 408.5086591 258.2601877<br />

Chehalis River 30987.347 1.197 208.594 517.466 378.3215856 389.6924712<br />

Copalis River 12155.001 0.987 192.944 320.788 457.837987 346.4240499<br />

Grays River 11077.225 0.931 228.79 288.696 447.2619022 307.2315238<br />

Nimpkish-Zeballos 33546.15 0.78 248.737 173.035 483.8397183 265.7411767<br />

Lower Rogue River 21428.009 0.655 223.337 298.738 446.6368925 314.4097863<br />

Lower Rogue River 21428.009 0.655 223.337 298.738 446.6368925 314.4097863<br />

Chemainus-Cowichan 59489.061 0.626 343.845 474.723 305.5541944 284.1212166<br />

Mill Creek 13884.794 0.52 271.68 322.368 408.5661565 279.4822074<br />

Campbell-Quadra 14708.782 0.518 269.481 235.555 446.3552944 258.8639582<br />

Coos-Millacoma Rivers 62394.649 0.481 202.769 413.547 417.5261042 362.079477<br />

Hoh River 23841.936 0.361 265.25 276.171 431.3811167 272.3511847<br />

Columbia Mainstem Islands 2903.992 0.311 162.497 1.969 602.4323566 337.5044359<br />

Nanaimo River 40934.09 0.279 325.455 479.378 313.413104 296.5076285<br />

Willapa Hills 21731.456 0.196 183.941 428.819 425.9756157 381.9224073<br />

Marys River 15068.577 0.184 327.547 343.471 370.806714 243.3785512<br />

Salmon River 45965.203 0.144 294.401 155.921 469.4553103 219.8835791<br />

Columbia River Mainstem 34216.036 0.124 299.33 234.219 432.2887737 232.3426002<br />

Luckiamute River 17111.051 0.104 145.878 359.946 477.30459 397.2312571<br />

North Fork Siletz River 21474.924 0.097 338.165 387.172 346.5257662 252.3214351<br />

South Fork Coos River 25383.527 0.066 185.081 277.152 479.3759322 344.0600011<br />

Siuslaw River 157098.869 0.065 142.17 243.771 520.588978 378.019026<br />

Mt. Townsend 1114.443 0 447.81 58.413 473.6774385 59.80648579<br />

Quillayute-Sol Duc River 6754.231 0 402.925 255.227 384.8314709 160.3395179<br />

Siletz Bay-Drift Creek 10363.189 0 341.35 191.573 434.2330896 185.3237062<br />

Wilson River 12096.883 0 326.478 175.112 447.4594257 194.3603293<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8F, page 3 of 5

Euclidean<br />

Percent Biodiversity Vulnerability Euclidean Distance Distance Low<br />

PORTFOLIO NAME Hectares Protected Score Score High Vulnerability Vulnerability<br />

Lake Crescent 8405.767 0 294.661 134.841 478.8414443 216.124105<br />

Cape Elizabeth 5120.293 0 344.469 305.774 380.3647286 218.0924729<br />

Columbia River Estuary 19169.984 0 282.682 104.984 497.4841939 223.567715<br />

Shelton-South Sound 4200.958 0 327.767 318.68 381.7243009 234.6346988<br />

Goodman Creek 9052.083 0 287.058 226.671 441.4223951 241.224441<br />

Yaquina Bay 1620.009 0 500 510.89 244.555 255.445<br />

Quilcene River-Dabob Bay 5370.698 0 244.824 145.583 497.616211 265.3552213<br />

North River Headw<strong>at</strong>ers 8078.214 0 288.101 321.237 400.1012231 265.8937546<br />

Quinault River 12481.925 0 229.977 128.357 512.6917206 277.5451322<br />

Wynoochee River 30803.92 0 280.486 372.053 383.1001891 287.736433<br />

Boistfort 25956.652 0 375.183 524.284 268.6181521 290.340682<br />

East Fork Humptulips River 11284.853 0 211.332 76.818 544.4221391 291.2120628<br />

Alsea-Five Rivers 35273.302 0 218.307 193.903 491.7306576 297.9102878<br />

Elochoman River 19502.142 0 247.795 325.412 421.1586452 300.1343107<br />

Tillamook Bay-Kilchis River 30007.472 0 247.703 343.305 414.0843597 305.1530058<br />

Skokomish River 7058.433 0 216.573 238.637 474.6043286 307.5187291<br />

Cape Ferrelo 9421.701 0 226.005 289.802 448.5181823 309.9508991<br />

Salmon River (Queets) 6921.086 0 185.583 131.575 536.0956492 321.2258474<br />

Skamokowa 8214.468 0 224.427 332.417 432.8478298 321.81632<br />

S<strong>at</strong>sop W<strong>at</strong>ershed 12270.463 0 220.916 335.815 433.7894738 325.7004876<br />

Yach<strong>at</strong>s River 11063.897 0 189.928 208.683 502.6830948 327.1571393<br />

Trask Mountain 11997.115 0 197.33 264.464 476.3007776 330.2944606<br />

Nacelle River 19880.785 0 232.727 403.507 400.4819987 334.8721118<br />

Upper Nehalem River 56149.647 0 185.722 261.264 484.9777116 340.3459721<br />

Lower Umpqua River 16644.649 0 194.162 302.891 463.7101699 341.2808546<br />

Adam River 89.107 0 161.928 96.136 564.3892361 341.4721216<br />

South Yamhill River 9445.957 0 196.051 315.708 457.6558531 342.4950801<br />

Elk Creek (Umpqua) 11192.459 0 162.763 155.8 540.275119 346.1173272<br />

Umpqua River tributaries 16431.806 0 167.41 232.507 507.8163884 352.3222734<br />

Hamma Hamma River 8894.408 0 148.61 99.109 571.2933402 354.86699<br />

Capital St<strong>at</strong>e Forest 15261.616 0 161.024 237.94 509.9888131 359.247254<br />

Scappoose Creek 15225.674 0 177.184 372.794 450.0633416 372.7653571<br />

Cloquallum River 8417.942 0 170.147 396.24 447.1403985 384.7785545<br />

East Fork Hoquiam River 5880.493 0 106.821 211.459 556.8114162 407.146722<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8F, page 4 of 5

Euclidean<br />

Percent Biodiversity Vulnerability Euclidean Distance Distance Low<br />

PORTFOLIO NAME Hectares Protected Score Score High Vulnerability Vulnerability<br />

Sequim Bay 4838.732 0 95.608 166.208 580.8056168 412.8427842<br />

Doty Hills 25439.398 0 142.537 419.194 460.5580298 414.3798967<br />

Duckabush River 5099.965 0 82.566 175.807 586.5787839 426.5889938<br />

Milton Creek 8017.39 0 69.938 445.314 511.7347589 484.2824212<br />

Castle Rock 11601.066 0 86.639 525.429 476.6253506 489.7818135<br />

Chetco River 16084.266 0 4.51 0.672 703.6863314 495.4901139<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8F, page 5 of 5

Appendix 8G Lowest Vulnerability Sites--Top 25%<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/<br />

Protected Percent Biodiversity<br />

Vulnerability Adusted Vulnerability Euclidian Low<br />

PORTFOLIO NAME<br />

Province Hectares Hectares Protected Score Marine Score<br />

Score<br />

Vulnerability<br />

Mt. Townsend WA 1114.443 0.00 0.00 448 58.41 29.21 59.81<br />

Quillayute-Sol Duc River WA 6754.231 0.00 0.00 403 255.23 127.61 160.34<br />

Siletz Bay-Drift Creek OR 10363.189 0.00 0.00 341 Y 191.57 95.79 185.32<br />

Cascade Head-Salmon River OR 19975.019 3577.45 17.91 355 Y 249.52 124.76 191.11<br />

Wilson River OR 12096.883 0.00 0.00 326 175.11 87.56 194.36<br />

Cape Sebastian-Hunter Creek OR 9262.306 786.62 8.49 389 Y 346.55 173.28 205.74<br />

Humbug Mtn-Nesika Beach OR 11563.148 746.16 6.45 337 Y 252.36 126.18 206.06<br />

Sutton Lake OR 5798.884 92.23 1.59 322 Y 220.67 110.33 209.17<br />

Cape Lookout-Sandlake OR 13121.054 1134.61 8.65 347 Y 291.39 145.70 211.62<br />

Lake Crescent WA 8405.767 0.00 0.00 295 134.84 67.42 216.12<br />

Cape Elizabeth WA 5120.293 0.00 0.00 344 305.77 152.89 218.09<br />

Salmon River BC 45965.203 66.11 0.14 294 Y 155.92 77.96 219.88<br />

Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional Park-<strong>Coast</strong>al<br />

Unit/Ozette Lake WA 34399.386 14109.00 41.02 315 Y 247.80 123.90 222.50<br />

Columbia River Estuary OR/WA 19169.984 0.00 0.00 283 Y 104.98 52.49 223.57<br />

Str<strong>at</strong>hcona BC 320853.528 251239.83 78.30 279 Y 114.82 57.41 228.64<br />

Columbia River Mainstem OR/WA 34216.036 41.94 0.12 299 Y 234.22 117.11 232.34<br />

Shelton-South Sound WA 4200.958 0.00 0.00 328 318.68 159.34 234.63<br />

Blind Slough Swamp OR 9796.823 353.72 3.61 302 Y 255.56 127.78 235.40<br />

Goodman Creek WA 9052.083 0.00 0.00 287 226.67 113.34 241.22<br />

Marys River OR 15068.577 27.71 0.18 328 343.47 171.74 243.38<br />

Willapa Bay WA 48453.028 5457.67 11.26 261 Y 154.05 77.03 251.04<br />

North Fork Siletz River OR 21474.924 20.81 0.10 338 387.17 193.59 252.32<br />

Marys Peak OR 8825.661 313.11 3.55 282 257.53 128.77 252.96<br />

Cape Arago-South Slough OR 16009.110 2016.15 12.97 282 Y 261.37 130.69 253.80<br />

Grays Harbor WA 29165.875 3705.00 12.71 256 Y 139.74 69.87 254.24<br />

Yaquina Bay OR 1620.009 0.00 0.00 500 Y 510.89 255.45 255.45<br />

Tenmile Lake OR 25012.374 1677.18 6.71 275 Y 247.48 123.74 256.38<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8G, page 1 of 2

HIGHEST VULNERABILITY<br />

SITES--TOP 25%<br />

St<strong>at</strong>e/<br />

Protected Percent Biodiversity<br />

Vulnerability Adusted Vulnerability Euclidian Low<br />

PORTFOLIO NAME<br />

Province Hectares Hectares Protected Score Marine Score<br />

Score<br />

Vulnerability<br />

Yaquina Bay OR 1620.009 0.00 0.00 500 Y 510.89 255.45 244.56<br />

Boistfort WA 25956.652 0.00 0.00 375 524.28 262.14 268.62<br />

Chemainus-Cowichan BC 59489.061 372.44 0.63 344 474.72 237.36 305.55<br />

Nanaimo River BC 40934.090 114.15 0.28 325 479.38 239.69 313.41<br />

Cl<strong>at</strong>sop Plains-Necanicum River OR 17248.745 2527.40 14.65 281 Y 492.69 246.35 335.04<br />

Saddle Mountain OR 16869.675 1222.82 7.25 294 Y 457.27 228.63 340.76<br />

Long Beach Peninsula WA 8761.763 841.23 9.62 256 Y 520.57 260.28 341.86<br />

Cape Sebastian-Hunter Creek OR 9262.306 786.62 8.49 389 Y 346.55 173.28 345.04<br />

North Fork Siletz River OR 21474.924 20.81 0.10 338 387.17 193.59 346.53<br />

Tsable-Stamp-Qualicum BC 79892.207 1504.26 1.89 309 414.83 207.42 349.15<br />

New River OR 21323.545 927.28 4.35 325 Y 393.63 196.82 349.86<br />

Marys River OR 15068.577 27.71 0.18 328 343.47 171.74 370.81<br />

Chehalis River WA 30987.347 371.00 1.20 209 517.47 258.73 378.32<br />

Cape Elizabeth WA 5120.293 0.00 0.00 344 305.77 152.89 380.36<br />

Shelton-South Sound WA 4200.958 0.00 0.00 328 318.68 159.34 381.72<br />

Wynoochee River WA 30803.920 0.00 0.00 280 372.05 186.03 383.10<br />

Quillayute-Sol Duc River WA 6754.231 0.00 0.00 403 255.23 127.61 384.83<br />

Cape Lookout-Sandlake OR 13121.054 1134.61 8.65 347 Y 291.39 145.70 386.12<br />

Sooke BC 5583.598 462.30 8.28 296 Y 339.60 169.80 388.37<br />

Cl<strong>at</strong>skanie River OR 8871.831 953.95 10.75 272 345.59 172.80 399.03<br />

North River Headw<strong>at</strong>ers WA 8078.214 0.00 0.00 288 321.24 160.62 400.10<br />

Nacelle River WA 19880.785 0.00 0.00 233 403.51 201.75 400.48<br />

Cascade Head-Salmon River OR 19975.019 3577.45 17.91 355 Y 249.52 124.76 402.20<br />

Humbug Mtn-Nesika Beach OR 11563.148 746.16 6.45 337 Y 252.36 126.18 407.77<br />

Beaver Creek Marsh OR 10403.092 147.80 1.42 290 Y 299.64 149.82 408.51<br />

Mill Creek OR 13884.794 72.24 0.52 272 322.37 161.18 408.57<br />

Tillamook Bay-Kilchis River OR 30007.472 0.00 0.00 248 Y 343.31 171.65 414.08<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8G, page 2 of 2

Appendix 8H: Thre<strong>at</strong>s Analysis<br />

8H.1 Introduction<br />

We used a suitability index to direct the site selection algorithm toward the best places for<br />

biodiversity conserv<strong>at</strong>ion. The suitability index incorpor<strong>at</strong>ed factors such as road density and<br />

percent urban area which reflect the current condition of each assessment unit. Yet, actual<br />

conserv<strong>at</strong>ion success is as dependent upon the future condition of a site as its current condition.<br />

Human disturbances th<strong>at</strong> cause, or have the potential to cause, the future destruction, or<br />

degrad<strong>at</strong>ion of biodiversity <strong>at</strong> a site are characterized as “thre<strong>at</strong>s” to the site (Ervin and Parrish,<br />

2004).<br />

Identifying and quantifying thre<strong>at</strong> has been a part of site conserv<strong>at</strong>ion planning <strong>at</strong> The N<strong>at</strong>ure<br />

Conservancy for many years. At the scale of an ecoregion, however, the process for identifying<br />

thre<strong>at</strong>s has generally been subjective, and difficult to standardize across the entire ecoregion.<br />

Past efforts have largely relied on expert opinion and the ranking of a pre-determined suite of<br />

thre<strong>at</strong>s <strong>at</strong> each portfolio site within the ecoregion. Using GIS d<strong>at</strong>a we have <strong>at</strong>tempted to<br />

develop a more objective "thre<strong>at</strong> surface" for the PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregion th<strong>at</strong> allows for an<br />

assessment of major thre<strong>at</strong>s to the biodiversity of the ecoregion. This method offers an<br />

altern<strong>at</strong>ive to past thre<strong>at</strong> assessments where the value of a thre<strong>at</strong> <strong>at</strong> any given site was based<br />

upon "professional judgment", and no objective criteria were applied.<br />

The <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment analyzed thre<strong>at</strong>s to the conserv<strong>at</strong>ion of<br />

biodiversity by looking <strong>at</strong> factors th<strong>at</strong> have broad impacts across the landscape. We completed<br />

a thre<strong>at</strong>s analysis which looked <strong>at</strong> four individual thre<strong>at</strong>s – incomp<strong>at</strong>ible timber harvest, human<br />

popul<strong>at</strong>ion growth, altered fire regime, and hydrologic alter<strong>at</strong>ion. These thre<strong>at</strong>s were primarily<br />

analyzed through GIS coverages, not expert judgment. Although we did not use this analysis to<br />

prioritize areas, it may be useful for looking <strong>at</strong> individual thre<strong>at</strong>s and providing a found<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

for future thre<strong>at</strong>s analysis. One of the primary reasons for undertaking the thre<strong>at</strong>s analysis was<br />

to use it to inform future prioritiz<strong>at</strong>ion of potential conserv<strong>at</strong>ion areas. This chapter discusses<br />

the thre<strong>at</strong>s surface analyses as well as briefly introducing other thre<strong>at</strong>s not examined.<br />

In choosing the inform<strong>at</strong>ion to use in this thre<strong>at</strong> analysis, we have relied upon the experience of<br />

our field staff and partners to identify which thre<strong>at</strong>s are significant across our ecoregion.<br />

Mining, grazing and fire suppression, for example, are minor thre<strong>at</strong>s in the PNWC.<br />

Incomp<strong>at</strong>ible timber harvest practices (i.e., incomp<strong>at</strong>ible with biodiversity conserv<strong>at</strong>ion),<br />

human popul<strong>at</strong>ion growth, dams, and invasive weeds, on the other hand, are very serious thre<strong>at</strong>s<br />

to biodiversity. A serious limit<strong>at</strong>ion to the development of a thre<strong>at</strong> surface is the availability of<br />

digital d<strong>at</strong>a correl<strong>at</strong>ing to each thre<strong>at</strong> th<strong>at</strong> is identified. The introduction and spread of invasive<br />

species, for example, is a serious concern, although explicit sp<strong>at</strong>ial d<strong>at</strong>a and predictive models<br />

are generally not available. Additional thre<strong>at</strong>s to biodiversity within the ecoregion, th<strong>at</strong> were<br />

not included in the analysis, will be discussed <strong>at</strong> the end of this chapter.<br />

The main value of cre<strong>at</strong>ing a “thre<strong>at</strong>s surface” was to standardize the way individual thre<strong>at</strong>s<br />

were assessed and then to combine these thre<strong>at</strong>s across the ecoregion. We calcul<strong>at</strong>ed the total<br />

thre<strong>at</strong> of each assessment unit (AU) by normalizing the values of each thre<strong>at</strong>, weighting thre<strong>at</strong>s<br />

rel<strong>at</strong>ive to each other, and summing the weighted normalized values. Core team members<br />

ranked the rel<strong>at</strong>ive importance of each of the four individual thre<strong>at</strong>s (timber harvest, human<br />

popul<strong>at</strong>ion growth, hydrologic alter<strong>at</strong>ion, and altered fire regime) to develop weighting factors<br />

for each thre<strong>at</strong> used in the analysis. Analyses like this could provide conserv<strong>at</strong>ion planners<br />

with quantit<strong>at</strong>ive sp<strong>at</strong>ial inform<strong>at</strong>ion th<strong>at</strong> displays the rel<strong>at</strong>ive severity of thre<strong>at</strong>s, both<br />

individually and cumul<strong>at</strong>ively, across the ecoregion.<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8H, page 1 of 18

8H.2 Incomp<strong>at</strong>ible Timber Harvest Practices<br />

Temper<strong>at</strong>e coniferous forests in the PNWC are managed primarily for either conserv<strong>at</strong>ion or<br />

timber production, with some areas targeted for a blend of these two management goals.<br />

Conserv<strong>at</strong>ion areas are predominantly found on public lands, often <strong>at</strong> higher elev<strong>at</strong>ions, while<br />

multiple-use and timber management areas are found <strong>at</strong> lower elev<strong>at</strong>ions on both public and<br />

priv<strong>at</strong>e lands. Over the last 40 years or so, timber harvest practices have evolved into highly<br />

efficient oper<strong>at</strong>ions. Even-aged silvicultural systems are typical, with regener<strong>at</strong>ion harvests<br />

(clearcutting) occurring <strong>at</strong> a stand age of approxim<strong>at</strong>ely 45-60 years and harvest areas of 30-<br />

100 acres. Harvested stands are replanted <strong>at</strong> rel<strong>at</strong>ively high densities using superior stock of a<br />

preferred species, often Douglas fir (Psuedotsuga menziesii), and are generally precommercially<br />

thinned <strong>at</strong> a stand age of 15-25 years. Such forest management has resulted in<br />

highly simplified forest stands, and fragmented landscapes dissected by extensive road<br />

networks to provide access to the majority of the managed landscape. New regul<strong>at</strong>ions and the<br />

evolving socioeconomics of forestry in the <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong>, however, are changing forest<br />

management paradigms and will affect future forest conditions and habit<strong>at</strong> suitability.<br />

Timber harvest practices are a thre<strong>at</strong> to many species in the <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ecoregion,<br />

but the impacts are particularly borne by species whose preferred habit<strong>at</strong>s are within l<strong>at</strong>esuccessional,<br />

low elev<strong>at</strong>ion forests. The best known of these species is the northern spotted<br />

owl and the marbled murrelet but a gre<strong>at</strong> many other species are also restricted to these forests<br />

(Thomas et al. 1993). Harvest activities also pose a thre<strong>at</strong> to aqu<strong>at</strong>ic habit<strong>at</strong>s (e.g., Church and<br />

E<strong>at</strong>on 2001) as roads used to access timber deliver sediment to stream systems and timber<br />

harvests degrade riparian forest function.<br />

8H.2.1 Current Condition<br />

Public policies and social desires will have a large impact on how forests are managed in the<br />

future. Forest regul<strong>at</strong>ions throughout the PNWC have recently been strengthened to provide<br />

additional protections to areas of critical habit<strong>at</strong> concern and particularly to reduce thre<strong>at</strong>s to<br />

stream systems and salmonids. Washington’s Forest and Fish Rules, for example, require<br />

significant upgrading to forest road systems and additional protection of riparian buffers and<br />

landslide prone areas from harvest. Public pressure and economic concerns have also resulted<br />

in voluntary habit<strong>at</strong> protection measures being adopted by priv<strong>at</strong>e companies. These measures<br />

include habit<strong>at</strong> conserv<strong>at</strong>ion plans (HCP’s) and forest certific<strong>at</strong>ion. For example, in British<br />

Columbia the Weyerhaeuser Corpor<strong>at</strong>ion adopted a policy of harvesting all of its managed<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al Tenure lands using a variable-retention harvesting system (an additional 36% of the<br />

landscape is design<strong>at</strong>ed as old-growth reserves) (Beese et al. 2003). Today’s priv<strong>at</strong>e forests are<br />

certainly managed under stricter standards and more public oversight than in the past; however,<br />

the long-term conserv<strong>at</strong>ion value and continuity of these regul<strong>at</strong>ory and voluntary measures is<br />

largely unknown.<br />

Clearly, the r<strong>at</strong>e of harvest within old-growth forests of the PNWC has declined. Similarly,<br />

riparian buffers have been given additional protection, a gre<strong>at</strong>er focus has been placed on<br />

reducing the thre<strong>at</strong> from forest roads, and the ecological benefits of uneven-aged silvicultural<br />

systems are being tested. How these new regul<strong>at</strong>ions and management practices will affect the<br />

long-term distribution and quality of forest habit<strong>at</strong>s is, however, unknown. Moreover, there is<br />

considerable uncertainty in the longevity of these new policies and management practices,<br />

particularly given changes in the global timber economy and changes in forest ownership<br />

p<strong>at</strong>terns.<br />

Federal forest policies in the United St<strong>at</strong>es were also gre<strong>at</strong>ly modified under the <strong>Northwest</strong><br />

Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service and BLM 1994) and the short-term results of this plan are<br />

just now beginning to be quantified (Haynes et al. 2006). Recent analysis of changes in the<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8H, page 2 of 18

amount of l<strong>at</strong>e-successional forest remaining on federal lands found th<strong>at</strong> approxim<strong>at</strong>ely 4,000<br />

acres have been lost in the vicinity of the PNWC through management, fire, and damage from<br />

insects or disease (Table 8H.1). Wh<strong>at</strong> is more difficult to calcul<strong>at</strong>e, however, is the amount of<br />

new habit<strong>at</strong> th<strong>at</strong> has been produced through active management (i.e., restor<strong>at</strong>ion) or succession.<br />

The success of the <strong>Northwest</strong> Forest Plan ultim<strong>at</strong>ely relies on a system of l<strong>at</strong>e-successional<br />

forest reserves, riparian reserves, other conserv<strong>at</strong>ion measures, and a set of scientific<br />

assumptions th<strong>at</strong> were developed when the plan was cre<strong>at</strong>ed. As the Forest Plan includes forest<br />

reserves throughout the PNWC ecoregion, policy changes th<strong>at</strong> alter the intent of the plan, or<br />

unintended ecological changes, could have a significant neg<strong>at</strong>ive impact on conserv<strong>at</strong>ion targets<br />

throughout the Washington and <strong>Oregon</strong> portions of the ecoregion.<br />

Table 8H.1 Loss of northern spotted owl habit<strong>at</strong> (l<strong>at</strong>e successional forest) on U.S. Federal lands from 1994 to<br />

2004 within physiographic provinces th<strong>at</strong> overlap with the <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> (Adapted from Courtney et al.<br />

2004). Note: Only portions of the <strong>Oregon</strong> Klam<strong>at</strong>h provinces are within the <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong><br />

ecoregion, and habit<strong>at</strong> loss from fires occurring in 2003 are not included as d<strong>at</strong>a was not available.<br />

Cause of Habit<strong>at</strong> Loss<br />

Baseline Area<br />

Insect/ TOTAL<br />

Province (1994) acres Management Fire Wind Disease (acres)<br />

Olympic Peninsula 560,200 -100 -300 0 0 -400<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong><br />

Range<br />

516,600 -3,300 -100 0 0 -3,300<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong> Klam<strong>at</strong>h 786,300 -53,500 -117,600 0 0 -171,100<br />

TOTAL (acres) 1,863,100 -56,800 -118,000 0 0 -174,800<br />

Forest ownership p<strong>at</strong>terns in the PNWC are changing and the interaction between ownership<br />

changes and new regul<strong>at</strong>ory requirements will have a significant affect on future ecological and<br />

societal values received from managed forests. Large industrial owners are merging,<br />

undergoing financial difficulty (e.g., Crown <strong>Pacific</strong> Company), trading timberlands, and selling<br />

off land for higher and better uses such as development. Increasingly, buyers of large<br />

timberland acreage are timber investment management organiz<strong>at</strong>ions which acquire and manage<br />

land for the financial benefit of large institutional investors. Small timber landowners are also<br />

selling land and dividing land parcels into smaller and smaller ownerships. How current and<br />

future changes in timber ownership p<strong>at</strong>terns will affect forest management and the conserv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

value of working forests is becoming a fruitful topic for deb<strong>at</strong>e.<br />

8H.2.2 Analysis<br />

For modeling the thre<strong>at</strong> of incomp<strong>at</strong>ible timber harvest we used two factors: ownership (public<br />

or priv<strong>at</strong>e) and stand age (i.e., tree diameter). Both variables were thought to be good<br />

indic<strong>at</strong>ors of the likelihood of timber harvest.<br />

Forests were divided into 3 seral stage classes based on the size of dominant trees: early seral<br />

(0 - 10 inches dbh), mid-seral (10 - 30 inches dbh), and l<strong>at</strong>e seral (> 30 inches dbh). Ownership<br />

was then used to derive the percentage of each seral stage on both public and priv<strong>at</strong>e lands<br />

within each assessment unit. A factor was then calcul<strong>at</strong>ed based on the percentage of each seral<br />

stage th<strong>at</strong> occurred on each ownership class within an assessment unit to represent the<br />

vulnerability to logging.<br />

We assumed th<strong>at</strong> protections for l<strong>at</strong>e seral trees are stronger on public than priv<strong>at</strong>e lands,<br />

reducing their vulnerability. Logging of second-growth forests on public lands in the region<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8H, page 3 of 18

occurs in mid-seral stand ages, making the mid-seral stands the most vulnerable to cutting. The<br />

resulting public lands factors were hectares of early seral x 0.19, mid-seral x 0.66, l<strong>at</strong>e seral x<br />

0.15. N<strong>at</strong>ional Parks and Wilderness areas were scored as 0 for all seral stages. The factors<br />

were developed by the core team members where they compared the rel<strong>at</strong>ive potential for<br />

harvest among various ownership/management st<strong>at</strong>us c<strong>at</strong>egories and stand seral condition.<br />

On priv<strong>at</strong>e lands the protections of l<strong>at</strong>e seral trees are considerably less than on public lands<br />

and the value of those trees makes them more vulnerable. Factors on priv<strong>at</strong>e lands were<br />

percentage of early seral x 0.09, mid-seral x 0.43, and l<strong>at</strong>e seral x 0.48. The sum of the public<br />

and priv<strong>at</strong>e tree scores were then calcul<strong>at</strong>ed for each AU, then normalized independently on a 0<br />

- 100 scale for units in the U.S. and British Columbia.<br />

8H.3 Human Popul<strong>at</strong>ion Growth<br />

8H.3.1 Current condition<br />

The <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> has seen a steady increase in popul<strong>at</strong>ion throughout the 20 th century.<br />

Altogether, British Columbia, Washington, <strong>Oregon</strong>, and Idaho was popul<strong>at</strong>ed by 15.1 million<br />

people in January of 2003 (<strong>Northwest</strong> Environment W<strong>at</strong>ch 2003). The r<strong>at</strong>e of popul<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

increase, however, has slowed since 1986 and in 2002 the region’s popul<strong>at</strong>ion grew by<br />

approxim<strong>at</strong>ely 144,000 people, or 16 people per hour. In comparison, 1992 had the highest r<strong>at</strong>e<br />

of increase with approxim<strong>at</strong>ely 37 new people popul<strong>at</strong>ing the region each hour. Popul<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

increases are dependent on birth r<strong>at</strong>es and migr<strong>at</strong>ion, and it appears th<strong>at</strong> while birth r<strong>at</strong>es have<br />

slowly and steadily declined, migr<strong>at</strong>ion r<strong>at</strong>es have dropped considerably although with less<br />

consistency due to fluctu<strong>at</strong>ing economic conditions.<br />

Popul<strong>at</strong>ion density and increase is concentr<strong>at</strong>ed near the urban centers of the PNWC ecoregion.<br />

Highest densities are found in the vicinity of Portland (OR) and Victoria (BC). Smaller towns<br />

along the pacific coast also have higher popul<strong>at</strong>ion densities. Areas with the highest popul<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

increase between 1990 and 2000 are mostly found in areas surrounding Portland and to a lesser<br />

degree the Astoria/Warrenton region of the <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong>. Areas with decreasing popul<strong>at</strong>ion are<br />

found near Grays Harbor (WA), areas along the Columbia River, and rural areas in the central<br />

and southern portions of the <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> Range.<br />

8H.3.2 Analysis<br />

The popul<strong>at</strong>ion growth thre<strong>at</strong>s analysis looked <strong>at</strong> both current popul<strong>at</strong>ion size as well as growth<br />

in previous years. Census d<strong>at</strong>a for the U.S. was obtained for the 1990 and 2000 censuses. The<br />

d<strong>at</strong>a included a sp<strong>at</strong>ial coverage of census tracts and tables containing demographic d<strong>at</strong>a. The<br />

1996 and 2001 census d<strong>at</strong>a were used for the BC portion of the Ecoregion. As parallel analyses<br />

were carried out for both countries, we will describe the U.S. analysis here.<br />

Many tract changes occurred between the censuses, primarily splits. Using the 1990 coverage<br />

as the base, figures for 2000 popul<strong>at</strong>ion were <strong>at</strong>tributed to the 1990 census tracts. In cases of<br />

tract splits, the sum of the 2000 tracts th<strong>at</strong> corresponded to the 1990 tract was <strong>at</strong>tributed to th<strong>at</strong><br />

polygon. In the few cases where two or more tracts had been merged, the difference between<br />

the 1990 and 2000 popul<strong>at</strong>ion was split evenly amongst the tracts. The difference between the<br />

1990 and 2000 popul<strong>at</strong>ions was then calcul<strong>at</strong>ed both as a raw number and as a percentage<br />

change. The trend over th<strong>at</strong> 10-year span was used for the thre<strong>at</strong> analysis because it is<br />

indic<strong>at</strong>ive of future condition. Current popul<strong>at</strong>ion could be considered a thre<strong>at</strong> in itself, but<br />

baseline condition was part of the analysis used to gener<strong>at</strong>e the portfolio.<br />

As public lands generally have no permanent popul<strong>at</strong>ion, the public lands were erased from the<br />

tracts coverage. The remaining footprint was used to calcul<strong>at</strong>e tract popul<strong>at</strong>ion densities and<br />

popul<strong>at</strong>ion trends, and then intersected with the assessment units. Many AU’s were subdivided<br />

into one or more AU/tract combin<strong>at</strong>ions. A percentage area calcul<strong>at</strong>ion was done to <strong>at</strong>tribute<br />

each of these combin<strong>at</strong>ions as a percentage of the total tract. The total of the percentage<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8H, page 4 of 18

popul<strong>at</strong>ion change and total percentage projected density of each site/tract combin<strong>at</strong>ion was<br />

calcul<strong>at</strong>ed. Each AU was scored by the weighted sum of these blended scores. The projected<br />

density for each AU was multiplied by 0.82, and the projected total popul<strong>at</strong>ion by 0.18. All<br />

values were then normalized independently on a 0 - 100 scale for AU’s in the U.S. and BC.<br />

8H.4 Hydrologic Alter<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

8H.4.1 Current Condition<br />

<strong>Coast</strong>al rivers, streams and lakes have undergone considerable ecological change with increases<br />

in human popul<strong>at</strong>ion and landscape alter<strong>at</strong>ion through urbaniz<strong>at</strong>ion, agriculture and forest<br />

management. Freshw<strong>at</strong>er systems often have degraded w<strong>at</strong>er quality, simplified habit<strong>at</strong><br />

structure, and modified biological communities. W<strong>at</strong>er withdrawal for human use, dam<br />

construction, and timber management has also altered the n<strong>at</strong>ural flow regime of many<br />

freshw<strong>at</strong>er systems in the ecoregion (e.g., Church and E<strong>at</strong>on 2001). Even with these<br />

modific<strong>at</strong>ions, however, the PNWC has several coastal river systems, such as the Queets and<br />

Hoh Rivers (Olympic Peninsula, Washington), which are recognized for their high ecological<br />

integrity.<br />

Declining salmonid popul<strong>at</strong>ions have brought significant <strong>at</strong>tention to the health of freshw<strong>at</strong>er<br />

systems throughout the <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong>. This has resulted in proposals for dam removal<br />

(e.g., Elwha River) and increased regul<strong>at</strong>ory constraints on timber management. Because of<br />

these changes, new dam construction and thre<strong>at</strong> of freshw<strong>at</strong>er degrad<strong>at</strong>ion from timber harvest<br />

are expected to decline. Continuing thre<strong>at</strong> is expected from w<strong>at</strong>er withdrawal, degraded w<strong>at</strong>er<br />

quality, floodplain conversion and development, levee construction and fisheries management.<br />

8H.4.2 Analysis<br />

W<strong>at</strong>er withdrawals and other hydrologic alter<strong>at</strong>ions are a current and ongoing thre<strong>at</strong> to this<br />

ecoregion. Given the difficulties in permitting and licensing new dams, it is unlikely any new<br />

structures will be built in the near future. Therefore, we chose to assess the ongoing impacts of<br />

dams as we had their current impacts when developing the PNWC suitability index. A total of<br />

381 dams are known to exist in the PNWC, with the vast majority being in the U.S. portion.<br />

Most of these are small diversion structures, as only 7 <strong>at</strong>tain the highest level of impact.<br />

For the suitability index, the impacts to hydrology were recorded on a 6-point (100, 200, 500,<br />

1000, 2000, 5000, 10000) scale for every dam in every affected assessment unit. This semilogarithmic<br />

scale was used because the effects of huge hydro dams had to be accommod<strong>at</strong>ed in<br />

the same scale as small diversion structures. The impacts were scored using a modified decay<br />

function with impacts diminishing as distance from a dam increases. For example, a high hydro<br />

dam might earn the assessment unit it occupies a penalty of 10,000. The adjacent, downstream<br />

assessment unit contains an undamed stream of similar order th<strong>at</strong> merges with the dammed<br />

stream. The penalty in th<strong>at</strong> assessment unit would fall to 5000, as only half its flow is<br />

controlled. Similarly, all downstream assessment units from th<strong>at</strong> point would receive<br />

diminished penalties until another dam affected the system. The effects of multiple dams<br />

impacting an assessment unit were additive.<br />

The values from our suitability work were used to gauge the hydrologic thre<strong>at</strong>s to the portfolio.<br />

Each assessment unit was scored by normalizing its hydrologic penalty 0 - 100 scale.<br />

The 303(d) listed streams were also part of the hydrologic thre<strong>at</strong> calcul<strong>at</strong>ion for AU’s in the<br />

United St<strong>at</strong>es. Each AU was either impacted by 303(d) streams or not, our d<strong>at</strong>a did not support<br />

any in-depth quantit<strong>at</strong>ive analysis. Each impacted AU was assigned a score of 100 for w<strong>at</strong>er<br />

quality. There was no 303(d) inform<strong>at</strong>ion for AU’s on Vancouver Island, therefore the<br />

hydrologic thre<strong>at</strong> score was based purely on dams in th<strong>at</strong> portion of the ecoregion.<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8H, page 5 of 18

The final hydrologic score was calcul<strong>at</strong>ed by multiplying the normalized hydrological penalty<br />

score (from dams) by 0.72, multiplying the 303d value by 0.28 (in the U.S. portion), adding the<br />

results and normalizing on a 0 - 100 scale. Scores were normalized independently for units in<br />

the U.S. and BC.<br />

8H.5 Altered Fire Regime<br />

8H.5.1 Current Condition<br />

The historic frequency and severity of fires varied considerably throughout the PNWC<br />

ecoregion. Clim<strong>at</strong>e variability, anthropogenic influence, p<strong>at</strong>terns of fuel accumul<strong>at</strong>ion, and<br />

interactions between each of these factors influence fire p<strong>at</strong>terns. Historically, the <strong>Pacific</strong><br />

<strong>Northwest</strong>’s clim<strong>at</strong>ic regime went through wet and dry periods where fire frequency and<br />

severity varied (Long et al. 1998). Fire return intervals, therefore, were predominantly<br />

determined by these p<strong>at</strong>terns although burning by N<strong>at</strong>ive Americans also had an effect. Since<br />

the 1800’s, fire p<strong>at</strong>terns seem to have been more heavily influenced by humans, with increased<br />

sources of ignition and management th<strong>at</strong> has altered forest conditions through the prevention of<br />

n<strong>at</strong>ural forest fires (Duncan 2002). Fire suppression has also played a gre<strong>at</strong>er role in forest<br />

management since the 1950’s. These impacts may have had a larger total effect in areas th<strong>at</strong><br />

n<strong>at</strong>urally burned more frequently.<br />

An important future consider<strong>at</strong>ion will be how dry forests are managed given their n<strong>at</strong>urally<br />

frequent fire return interval and contrasting management th<strong>at</strong> often prevent fires from becoming<br />

a dominant process. This dichotomy is particularly an issue in forest systems within dedic<strong>at</strong>ed<br />

conserv<strong>at</strong>ion areas (Agee 2002). Although, prescribed fire may become a more commonly used<br />

management tool in the future, fire p<strong>at</strong>terns in general will continue to be determined by<br />

clim<strong>at</strong>ic vari<strong>at</strong>ion, human behavior and forest condition.<br />

8H.5.2 Analysis<br />

The N<strong>at</strong>ional Fire Condition Class map produced by the U.S. Forest Service was the basis for<br />

our fire thre<strong>at</strong> assessment. This map is a raster d<strong>at</strong>aset with a 1,000 meter pixel size. There are<br />

3 fire classes and 3 age classes in the fire condition class map. Condition 1 is the lowest fire<br />

thre<strong>at</strong> c<strong>at</strong>egory, condition 3 is the most. There is no fire d<strong>at</strong>a for BC, as fire is generally not<br />

considered a significant thre<strong>at</strong> on Vancouver Island due to a 500-year return interval.<br />

We converted our AUs into a raster d<strong>at</strong>aset then combined it with the fire condition class grid.<br />

The percentage of each AU within each fire class was multiplied by the following values to<br />

achieve a total score: Condition Class 1 x 0.01, Condition Class 2 x 0.12, and Condition Class 3<br />

x 0.87. The majority of the U.S. portion of the ecoregion is in Condition Class 1, almost evenly<br />

split between the middle and l<strong>at</strong>e age classes. There are some sites however, which are<br />

predominantly in condition class 3, most notably Portland's Forest Park (OR). Final values for<br />

each AU were normalized on a 0 - 100 scale.<br />

8H.6. Combined Thre<strong>at</strong>s Surface Analysis<br />

To cre<strong>at</strong>e a combined thre<strong>at</strong> surface for the ecoregion, a thre<strong>at</strong> index was developed for each<br />

assessment unit. The thre<strong>at</strong> index is used here to define the “vulnerability” of each assessment<br />

unit, or the rel<strong>at</strong>ive likelihood of losing the biological diversity th<strong>at</strong> currently exists within the<br />

unit for the thre<strong>at</strong>s we examined. The rel<strong>at</strong>ive importance of each of the four thre<strong>at</strong> factors<br />

(timber harvest, human popul<strong>at</strong>ion growth, hydrologic alter<strong>at</strong>ion, and altered fire regime) were<br />

ranked by core team members to arrive <strong>at</strong> the following thre<strong>at</strong> equ<strong>at</strong>ion:<br />

Overall thre<strong>at</strong> = A (Timber harvest thre<strong>at</strong>) + B (Human popul<strong>at</strong>ion growth thre<strong>at</strong>) + C (fire thre<strong>at</strong>) +<br />

D (hydrologic alter<strong>at</strong>ion thre<strong>at</strong>)<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8H, page 6 of 18

Weighting factors A, B, C, and D are calcul<strong>at</strong>ed based on the average rank assigned to each<br />

thre<strong>at</strong> (1 to 4) and the rel<strong>at</strong>ive importance of each thre<strong>at</strong>. Each core team member assigned a<br />

rel<strong>at</strong>ive importance (1 to 1000) to each thre<strong>at</strong> in comparison to all other thre<strong>at</strong>s in a pairwise<br />

fashion, a technique based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (Sa<strong>at</strong>y 1977, Sa<strong>at</strong>y 1980). The<br />

right eigenvector of the pair-wise comparison m<strong>at</strong>rix is then normalized to arrive <strong>at</strong> a final<br />

weighting factor for each thre<strong>at</strong> variable (Table 8H.2). Individual thre<strong>at</strong> scores in the equ<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

were the actual normalized total thre<strong>at</strong> value calcul<strong>at</strong>ed for th<strong>at</strong> variable (e.g., timber harvest)<br />

in an assessment unit.<br />

Table 8H.2. Final weighting factors given to individual thre<strong>at</strong>s in an<br />

ecoregion-wide sp<strong>at</strong>ial model. Weights were st<strong>at</strong>istically derived from an<br />

expert driven pairwise ranking process.<br />

Thre<strong>at</strong> Model Weighting<br />

Timber harvest 0.38<br />

Human popul<strong>at</strong>ion growth 0.51<br />

Altered fire regime 0.02<br />

Hydrologic alter<strong>at</strong>ion 0.09<br />

Overall thre<strong>at</strong> index scores were normalized between 1 and 100 to give a rel<strong>at</strong>ive thre<strong>at</strong><br />

ranking. Because of differences in d<strong>at</strong>a between the U.S. and Canada, the U.S. and Vancouver<br />

Island portions of the ecoregion had thre<strong>at</strong> scores calcul<strong>at</strong>ed independently. For example, fire<br />

was not considered a primary thre<strong>at</strong> on Vancouver Island, and no fire condition class d<strong>at</strong>a was<br />

available. All other factors were weighted the same in both regions for the total thre<strong>at</strong>s<br />

calcul<strong>at</strong>ion.<br />

8H.6.1 Discussion<br />

The total thre<strong>at</strong> scores and “thre<strong>at</strong>s surface” were not used to influence site selection in the<br />

PNWC ecoregional assessment. R<strong>at</strong>her, we determined th<strong>at</strong> the “suitability index” (see Chapter<br />

6) more accur<strong>at</strong>ely reflected existing ecological conditions within individual AU’s and their<br />

priority for conserv<strong>at</strong>ion. The value of this thre<strong>at</strong> analysis was ultim<strong>at</strong>ely a demonstr<strong>at</strong>ion of<br />

how thre<strong>at</strong>s could be modeled <strong>at</strong> an ecoregional scale using readily available inform<strong>at</strong>ion or<br />

d<strong>at</strong>a. Scores for individual thre<strong>at</strong>s (i.e., incomp<strong>at</strong>ible timber harvest), however, could prove<br />

valuable for setting conserv<strong>at</strong>ion str<strong>at</strong>egies and identifying multi-site str<strong>at</strong>egies <strong>at</strong> an<br />

ecoregional scale. For example, an analysis of the ecoregional portfolio may show th<strong>at</strong> many<br />

high priority sites contain high scores for the thre<strong>at</strong> “hydrological alter<strong>at</strong>ion.” Planning teams<br />

could then work on developing str<strong>at</strong>egies for ab<strong>at</strong>ing this thre<strong>at</strong> <strong>at</strong> an ecoregional scale.<br />

Ideally, future work on modeling thre<strong>at</strong>s <strong>at</strong> an ecoregional scale could incorpor<strong>at</strong>e both<br />

quantit<strong>at</strong>ive d<strong>at</strong>a and solid expert opinion to cre<strong>at</strong>e objective and predictive geographic<br />

inform<strong>at</strong>ion th<strong>at</strong> increase confidence in setting site conserv<strong>at</strong>ion priorities.<br />

8H.6.2 Interaction between Thre<strong>at</strong>s<br />

Ecosystems are changing <strong>at</strong> an increasing r<strong>at</strong>e due to human management, clim<strong>at</strong>e change, and<br />

the alter<strong>at</strong>ion of many fundamental ecological processes (Sala et al. 2000). It is the interactions<br />

between all of these processes th<strong>at</strong> represent one of the gre<strong>at</strong>est scientific uncertainties<br />

concerning future biodiversity. For example, clim<strong>at</strong>e change and fire return intervals are<br />

closely linked, and it’s easy to discern th<strong>at</strong> veget<strong>at</strong>ion communities will quickly respond to<br />

changes in these and other processes (e.g., Long et al. 1998). But how will the distribution of<br />

invasive species evolve as human systems and ecological systems undergo change, and how<br />

will their distribution influence r<strong>at</strong>es of change? How will pests and p<strong>at</strong>hogens respond as<br />

veget<strong>at</strong>ion is stressed from clim<strong>at</strong>e change or other disturbances? It is these interactive effects<br />

th<strong>at</strong> are indeed the gre<strong>at</strong>est thre<strong>at</strong> and the most difficult to predict.<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8H, page 7 of 18

8H.7 Thre<strong>at</strong>s not Addressed in Analysis<br />

There are a gre<strong>at</strong> many thre<strong>at</strong>s th<strong>at</strong> impact conserv<strong>at</strong>ion targets and ecological systems. Some<br />

of these are quite localized and may affect only a small portion of the range of target but others<br />

oper<strong>at</strong>e <strong>at</strong> the ecoregion scale and may have very broad effects. The thre<strong>at</strong>s addressed<br />

previously were selected because they oper<strong>at</strong>ed <strong>at</strong> the ecoregion scale and had sufficient digital<br />

d<strong>at</strong>a available to analyze them in th<strong>at</strong> context. A number of other very important thre<strong>at</strong>s th<strong>at</strong><br />

also oper<strong>at</strong>e <strong>at</strong> the ecoregion scale do not yet have suitable d<strong>at</strong>a th<strong>at</strong> can be used to analyze<br />

there overall impacts to conserving biodiversity in ecoregions. Two of the better known thre<strong>at</strong>s<br />

in this l<strong>at</strong>ter c<strong>at</strong>egory are invasive species and clim<strong>at</strong>e change. They are discussed in general,<br />

below, but a more rigorous analysis of these important consider<strong>at</strong>ions is beyond the scope of<br />

the present assessment.<br />

8H.7.1 Invasive Species, Pests, and P<strong>at</strong>hogens<br />

Invasive species are considered by many to be one of the top two thre<strong>at</strong>s to the conserv<strong>at</strong>ion of<br />

biological diversity, together with habit<strong>at</strong> loss. In this analysis, invasive species were not<br />

included, as sp<strong>at</strong>ial d<strong>at</strong>a is not available <strong>at</strong> a regional level. Limited inform<strong>at</strong>ion is available<br />

for infest<strong>at</strong>ions of particular species <strong>at</strong> a site or sub-regional level. In assessing thre<strong>at</strong>s to<br />

ecoregional portfolio sites, however, invasive species must be considered seriously, as many<br />

species are known to alter habit<strong>at</strong> quality and significant resources are being alloc<strong>at</strong>ed to<br />

eradic<strong>at</strong>ion efforts throughout the PNWC. Here we briefly discuss existing infest<strong>at</strong>ions of<br />

invasive species, point out new emerging thre<strong>at</strong>s, and highlight the potential implic<strong>at</strong>ions of<br />

further introductions.<br />

Exotic species are spreading through forest, freshw<strong>at</strong>er, and marine ecosystems in the PNWC <strong>at</strong><br />

r<strong>at</strong>es th<strong>at</strong> are alarming ecologists. Species such as English ivy (Hedera helix), holly (Illex<br />

aquifolium), Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspid<strong>at</strong>um), and spartina (Spartina spp.) have<br />

become well established in some areas and have been targeted for eradic<strong>at</strong>ion. Others like<br />

West-nile virus, sudden oak de<strong>at</strong>h (Phytophthora ramorum), citrus long-horned beetle<br />

(Anoplophera chinensis), zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), and the European green crab<br />

(Carcinus maenas) pose an enormous thre<strong>at</strong> to the region as they spread in nearby areas and are<br />

being closely monitored. The spread of these and other exotic species, and even n<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

p<strong>at</strong>hogens has benefited from human manipul<strong>at</strong>ions of habit<strong>at</strong>. Interst<strong>at</strong>e and intern<strong>at</strong>ional<br />

commerce, extensive road systems th<strong>at</strong> fragment habit<strong>at</strong>s, and the modific<strong>at</strong>ion of n<strong>at</strong>ural<br />

ecological processes such as fire have all contributed to the globaliz<strong>at</strong>ion of ecosystems<br />

(Duncan 2001). For example, it is thought th<strong>at</strong> the impacts of Swiss needle cast<br />

(Phaeocryptopus gaeumannii), a n<strong>at</strong>ive foliage p<strong>at</strong>hogen th<strong>at</strong> affects Douglas-fir in coastal<br />

areas, has intensified with the large-scale adoption of uniform silvicultural practices favoring<br />

Douglas-fir production across the ecoregion (Filip et al. 2000). Given current p<strong>at</strong>terns and<br />

conditions, we can only expect the list of exotic species to be concerned about and their<br />

distribution to grow over time.<br />

Invasive species have the potential to alter the structure, composition, and function of<br />

ecological communities and are known to directly elimin<strong>at</strong>e species from an ecosystem. For<br />

example, salt marshes along the <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> have been transformed by the<br />

introduction of Spartina grasses, adversely affecting n<strong>at</strong>ive species of plants and animals such<br />

as oysters, shorebirds, wading birds, bottom-dwelling algae, bottom-dwelling invertebr<strong>at</strong>es<br />

(Frenkel 1987). Although the long-term ecological impact of many invasive species is<br />

unknown, there is gre<strong>at</strong> concern with the increased number and distribution of species in our<br />

ecoregion. Moreover, the PNWC contains, or is close to, many ports of entry for these invasive<br />

species, which increases the likelihood of further introductions and infest<strong>at</strong>ions in the future.<br />

8H.7.2 Clim<strong>at</strong>e Change<br />

Many scientists are convinced th<strong>at</strong> our clim<strong>at</strong>e will change over the next century due to the<br />

world’s increased emissions of greenhouse gases. Global clim<strong>at</strong>e models, however, are still<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8H, page 8 of 18

quite variable with regard to predicted temper<strong>at</strong>ure increases and the seasonally of we<strong>at</strong>her<br />

p<strong>at</strong>terns. Most models gener<strong>at</strong>ed for the <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> show a rise in temper<strong>at</strong>ure of<br />

approxim<strong>at</strong>ely 3.5 °F (2 °C) and an increase in winter precipit<strong>at</strong>ion (Mote et al. 1999). Some<br />

models predict wetter summers and others predict drier summers. Clim<strong>at</strong>es will also continue<br />

to be modified by the El Niño-Southern Oscill<strong>at</strong>ion (ENSO) and the <strong>Pacific</strong> Decadal Oscill<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

(PDO) and the result of interactions between clim<strong>at</strong>e change and recurring clim<strong>at</strong>ic vari<strong>at</strong>ions is<br />

largely unknown. In general, the gre<strong>at</strong>est changes are expected to occur <strong>at</strong> lower and higher<br />

elev<strong>at</strong>ions where ecotones between some n<strong>at</strong>ural systems are sharply defined.<br />

Specific changes within ecological systems are difficult to predict due to the interaction of<br />

clim<strong>at</strong>e and large-scale ecological processes. Warmer and wetter winters in the <strong>Pacific</strong><br />

<strong>Northwest</strong> are expected to have widespread ecological consequences. Increased rainfall will<br />

cause higher streamflows, more flooding of coastal rivers, and possibly an increase in the<br />

extent and recurrence of landslides. A loss of lower elev<strong>at</strong>ion snowpack will also impact<br />

reservoir w<strong>at</strong>er levels and n<strong>at</strong>ural flow regimes th<strong>at</strong> support salmonid fisheries and other<br />

aqu<strong>at</strong>ic resources. Increased productivity from an increase in summer rainfall would be offset<br />

by increased evapotranspir<strong>at</strong>ion and many ecological systems would undergo significant change<br />

due to higher summer temper<strong>at</strong>ures. Fire seasons in the <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> typically are much<br />

more severe when dry, warm summers follow wet winters. Forests and other veget<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

communities may change quicker than expected as some studies have found quite rapid shifts in<br />

species composition following changes in fire p<strong>at</strong>terns associ<strong>at</strong>ed with clim<strong>at</strong>e change (e.g.,<br />

Long et al. 1998). Higher stream temper<strong>at</strong>ures could also alter aqu<strong>at</strong>ic communities. Finally,<br />

increases in sea level are more difficult to predict in the northwest, largely due to the<br />

interaction between sea level rise and geological forces along the continental margin.<br />

8H.8 Marine Thre<strong>at</strong>s<br />

Recent reports addressing thre<strong>at</strong>s to the coastal marine environment indic<strong>at</strong>e the vulnerability<br />

of marine ecosystems, habit<strong>at</strong>s and species to current and ongoing human activity (see Pew<br />

Oceans Commission 2003; U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 2004). Thre<strong>at</strong>s to the coastal<br />

zone come from conditions along the shoreline, in adjacent w<strong>at</strong>ersheds and in the marine<br />

environment brought in by tides. We have assessed the current conditions of the nearshore<br />

through a suitability analysis (see Chapter 6) but recognize more work needs to be done to<br />

adequ<strong>at</strong>ely address ongoing impacts and deterior<strong>at</strong>ing conditions.<br />

Thre<strong>at</strong>s as a criterion for setting conserv<strong>at</strong>ion priorities have been assessed in many different<br />

ways (Groves 2003). The N<strong>at</strong>ure Conservancy (TNC) has emphasized three aspects of thre<strong>at</strong>s<br />

in ecoregional planning: a) the geographic extent and level of community-wide impact, b)<br />

critical thre<strong>at</strong>s and c) the urgency for ab<strong>at</strong>ing thre<strong>at</strong>s. Identifying the scale of a thre<strong>at</strong> is an<br />

essential component in evalu<strong>at</strong>ing its impact across land and seascapes. Thre<strong>at</strong>s in coastal<br />

areas (e.g., increasing human popul<strong>at</strong>ions within 50 miles of the coast) are direct impacts to<br />

coastal ecosystems th<strong>at</strong> play out <strong>at</strong> rel<strong>at</strong>ively local scales. More distant human activities on<br />

land and in freshw<strong>at</strong>ers have significant, although often overlooked, effects on coastal and<br />

marine ecosystems (Beck 2003). Thre<strong>at</strong>s origin<strong>at</strong>ing in w<strong>at</strong>ersheds th<strong>at</strong> link the land to the sea<br />

can traverse very large distances (e.g., nonpoint source pollution such as nitrogen from<br />

agricultural runoff). Similarly, thre<strong>at</strong>s in the offshore marine environment occur <strong>at</strong> regional<br />

scales and their effects are felt throughout marine trophic structures. Beck (2003) identifies<br />

th<strong>at</strong> as fisheries deplete higher trophic levels, or top pred<strong>at</strong>ors, to economic and ecological<br />

extinction there is an ever increasing demand for fish <strong>at</strong> lower trophic levels. Although<br />

overfishing involves the direct take of targeted individuals, it affects other species through<br />

byc<strong>at</strong>ch as well as habit<strong>at</strong> communities through fishing practices such as bottom trawling.<br />

Critical thre<strong>at</strong>s are ones th<strong>at</strong> likely degrade conserv<strong>at</strong>ion targets in many places within a<br />

conserv<strong>at</strong>ion area or portfolio site. These thre<strong>at</strong>s are assessed by their degree of severity in<br />

damaging or destroying conserv<strong>at</strong>ion targets. Within the ecoregional planning framework<br />

thre<strong>at</strong>s are usually evalu<strong>at</strong>ed per conserv<strong>at</strong>ion area and not individual target. This is due to the<br />

fact th<strong>at</strong> a comprehensive study of wh<strong>at</strong> thre<strong>at</strong>s are impacting specific species and/or habit<strong>at</strong>s is<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8H, page 9 of 18

outside the scope of regional planning. This activity is better suited for planning within<br />

individual conserv<strong>at</strong>ion priority areas. Although critical thre<strong>at</strong>s can be identified in the marine<br />

environment, it is often quite difficult to evalu<strong>at</strong>e the severity an individual thre<strong>at</strong> has on a<br />

specific conserv<strong>at</strong>ion area.<br />

The third aspect, urgency for ab<strong>at</strong>ing thre<strong>at</strong>s, is determined by the likelihood of a thre<strong>at</strong><br />

neg<strong>at</strong>ively impacting an area within a set time frame. This too is a difficult parameter to<br />

evalu<strong>at</strong>e in marine ecosystems. Both of these aspects require qualit<strong>at</strong>ive determin<strong>at</strong>ions and are<br />

therefore subject to disagreement among stakeholder groups. Although assessing thre<strong>at</strong>s is<br />

arguably a critical aspect of prioritizing conserv<strong>at</strong>ion action, we are currently evalu<strong>at</strong>ing<br />

whether thre<strong>at</strong>s assessment methods within TNC’s planning framework adequ<strong>at</strong>ely apply in the<br />

marine environment.<br />

Expert opinion ranges widely in determining the severity of and urgency to act upon marine<br />

thre<strong>at</strong>s. Given th<strong>at</strong> the nearshore in particular is subject to both land and marine-based thre<strong>at</strong>s,<br />

expert groups are either bias in the ranking of severity or lacked adequ<strong>at</strong>e inform<strong>at</strong>ion across<br />

the proposed list of impacts (see Floberg et al. 2004). For instance, where fisheries agencies<br />

ranked overfishing as the most critical thre<strong>at</strong> affecting the inside w<strong>at</strong>ers of Puget Sound, others<br />

ranked coastal development as the number one factor affecting nearshore fishes. Based on<br />

these varying perspectives and lack of scientific references for ranking severity and urgency,<br />

we have not conducted a marine thre<strong>at</strong>s analysis for the <strong>Pacific</strong> <strong>Northwest</strong> <strong>Coast</strong> ecoregion.<br />

Instead, we have identified thre<strong>at</strong>s and proposed further research on a sp<strong>at</strong>ially-explicit thre<strong>at</strong>s<br />

analysis in subsequent work in the region (Chapter 4, section 4.5). The first step in this process<br />

was to outline a marine thre<strong>at</strong> taxonomy from various sources. From this outline we can begin<br />

to map the scale and extent of individual thre<strong>at</strong>s.<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8H, page 10 of 18

Table 8H.3. Portfolio sites in the United St<strong>at</strong>es with the highest rel<strong>at</strong>ive thre<strong>at</strong> of timber harvest.<br />

Priv<strong>at</strong>e<br />

Timber Harvest<br />

Unit Site Name<br />

Lands Public Lands Thre<strong>at</strong><br />

2397 Capitol St<strong>at</strong>e Forest 148.98 5056.82 100.00<br />

2809 Coos-Millacoma Rivers 424.65 4457.19 93.80<br />

2891 South Fork Coquille River 772.82 3997.84 91.60<br />

2794 Lower Umpqua River 659.11 3809.79 85.80<br />

2912 Cape Blanco-Elk River 73.30 4104.99 80.30<br />

2435 Willapa Hills 2306.64 1708.88 77.10<br />

2844 Coos Mtn 1277.14 2720.10 76.80<br />

2756 Siuslaw River 1633.77 2356.60 76.70<br />

2827 Coos-Millacoma Rivers 3218.61 683.93 75.00<br />

2628 Nestucca River 298.19 3551.08 73.90<br />

2785 Smith River 1183.16 2614.05 72.90<br />

2406 Chehalis River 974.72 2776.35 72.10<br />

2579 Tillamook Bay-Kilchis River 222.05 3505.05 71.60<br />

2446 Nacelle River 2703.26 1002.04 71.20<br />

2427 Doty Hills 2036.98 1650.28 70.80<br />

2922 Lower Rogue River 134.91 3453.18 68.90<br />

2430 Doty Hills 1830.39 1734.70 68.50<br />

2784 Smith River 1077.00 2471.86 68.20<br />

2285 Wynoochee River 2084.68 1375.65 66.50<br />

2758 Siuslaw River 1428.47 1932.51 64.60<br />

2759 Siuslaw River 1413.74 1911.31 63.90<br />

2539 Upper Nehalem River 830.68 2433.62 62.70<br />

2472 Elochoman River 928.62 2280.92 61.70<br />

2748 Siuslaw River 294.41 2906.42 61.50<br />

2832 Coos-Millacoma Rivers 2625.80 541.10 60.80<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8H, page 11 of 18

Table 8H.4. Portfolio sites in British Columbia with the highest rel<strong>at</strong>ive thre<strong>at</strong> of timber harvest.<br />

Public Timber Harvest<br />

Unit Site Name Priv<strong>at</strong>e Lands Lands Thre<strong>at</strong><br />

1383 Tsable-Stamp-Qualicum 2452.89 0.00 100.00<br />

1103 Tsable-Stamp-Qualicum 2322.03 0.00 94.69<br />

1517 Nanaimo River 2036.32 0.00 83.01<br />

563 Gold River-Nootka 122.54 1772.90 77.28<br />

993 Str<strong>at</strong>hcona 1857.86 9.88 76.22<br />

1224 Tsable-Stamp-Qualicum 1834.88 0.00 74.73<br />

941 Str<strong>at</strong>hcona 1792.70 0.05 73.04<br />

909 Str<strong>at</strong>hcona 1738.22 12.66 71.34<br />

231 Nimpkish-Tahsish 0.00 1714.62 69.85<br />

1403 Tsable-Stamp-Qualicum 1702.04 0.00 69.43<br />

159 Nimpkish-Tahsish 107.58 1557.26 67.94<br />

1491 Nitin<strong>at</strong>-Carmanah-Walbran 1659.32 0.00 67.73<br />

192 Nimpkish-Tahsish 54.67 1566.48 66.03<br />

471 Campbell-Quadra 0.00 1613.09 65.82<br />

918 Gold River-Nootka 208.78 1381.54 64.76<br />

607 Salmon River 0.00 1574.12 64.12<br />

92 Cape Scott-Port Hardy 37.61 1529.99 63.91<br />

1688 Nitin<strong>at</strong>-Carmanah-Walbran 65.15 1500.37 63.91<br />

746 Gold River-Nootka 0.00 1564.04 63.69<br />

78 Cape Scott-Port Hardy 4.19 1532.61 62.63<br />

114 Cape Scott-Port Hardy 55.80 1416.51 60.08<br />

291 Nimpkish-Tahsish 83.52 1372.13 59.45<br />

771 Gold River-Nootka 11.58 1433.09 59.02<br />

1583 Nanaimo River 1423.76 0.00 57.96<br />

429 Brooks Peninsula 0.00 1416.53 57.75<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8H, page 12 of 18

Table 8H.5. Portfolio sites in the United St<strong>at</strong>es with the highest rel<strong>at</strong>ive popul<strong>at</strong>ion thre<strong>at</strong>-ranking based on<br />

projected popul<strong>at</strong>ion increase over the next 20 years.<br />

Popul<strong>at</strong>ion Popul<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Popul<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Change Popul<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Unit Site Name<br />

2010 Density 2010 R<strong>at</strong>ing Thre<strong>at</strong><br />

2477 Cl<strong>at</strong>sop Plains-Necanicum<br />

River<br />

48126 4.66 1149 43.76<br />

2531 Cape Falcon-Lower Nehalem 35252 8.07 909 35.37<br />

2524 Milton Creek 6305 0.75 115 4.43<br />

2436 Long Beach Peninsula 6193 0.63 94 3.62<br />

2653 Cascade Head-Salmon River 6841 2.16 77 3.25<br />

2759 Siuslaw River 3659 0.45 66 2.55<br />

2432 Chehalis River 3720 0.28 61 2.33<br />

2550 Scappoose Creek 3556 0.61 58 2.27<br />

2537 Scappoose Creek 3132 0.41 57 2.20<br />

2839 Cape Arago-South Slough 4919 0.62 41 1.64<br />

2327 Copalis River 1749 0.22 37 1.42<br />

2440 Boistfort 1951 0.14 30 1.15<br />

2836 Cape Arago-South Slough 3391 0.55 28 1.14<br />

2478 Blind Slough Swamp 820 0.08 28 1.06<br />

2753 Sutton Lake 1344 0.47 26 1.05<br />

2394 Chehalis River 7482 0.86 23 1.01<br />

2526 Upper Nehalem River 729 0.09 25 0.95<br />

2463 Castle Rock 1951 0.17 24 0.93<br />

2832 Coos-Millacoma Rivers 12580 0.81 20 0.89<br />

2367 Copalis River 988 0.23 21 0.82<br />

2649 Cascade Head-Salmon River 1091 0.26 20 0.79<br />

2441 Boistfort 1264 0.11 20 0.77<br />

2539 Upper Nehalem River 715 0.08 20 0.76<br />

2500 Upper Nehalem River 589 0.08 20 0.76<br />

2378 Grays Harbor 912 0.22 19 0.75<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8H, page 13 of 18

Table 8H.6. Portfolio sites in British Columbia with the highest rel<strong>at</strong>ive popul<strong>at</strong>ion thre<strong>at</strong> ranking based on<br />

projected popul<strong>at</strong>ion increase over the next 20 years.<br />

Unit Site name Popul<strong>at</strong>ion 2010<br />

Popul<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Density 2010 Popul<strong>at</strong>ion Thre<strong>at</strong><br />

1701 Chemainus-Cowichan 3975 0.29 21.63<br />

1303 Tsable-Stamp-Qualicum 3848 0.61 20.95<br />

1257 Tsable-Stamp-Qualicum 3795 0.60 20.66<br />

1729 Chemainus-Cowichan 2523 0.27 13.73<br />

1777 Chemainus-Cowichan 2515 0.27 13.69<br />

1863 Sooke 1546 0.32 8.42<br />

1576 Nanaimo River 1112 0.11 6.05<br />

918 Gold River-Nootka 922 0.09 5.02<br />

1664 Chemainus-Cowichan 793 0.21 4.32<br />

1228 Tsable-Stamp-Qualicum 746 0.07 4.06<br />

728 Gold River-Nootka 666 0.09 3.63<br />

1656 Chemainus-Cowichan 608 0.08 3.31<br />

1653 Chemainus-Cowichan 589 0.07 3.21<br />

1103 Tsable-Stamp-Qualicum 540 0.05 2.94<br />

1264 Tsable-Stamp-Qualicum 514 0.13 2.80<br />

998 Gold River-Nootka 503 0.46 2.75<br />

993 Str<strong>at</strong>hcona 502 0.05 2.73<br />

1224 Tsable-Stamp-Qualicum 494 0.06 2.69<br />

1355 Tsable-Stamp-Qualicum 476 0.21 2.59<br />

994 Str<strong>at</strong>hcona 398 0.08 2.17<br />

1686 Broken Group 368 3.42 2.09<br />

1631 Broken Group 368 3.27 2.08<br />

1718 Broken Group 293 11.47 1.88<br />

1629 Broken Group 293 7.33 1.78<br />

1682 Broken Group 293 7.70 1.78<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8H, page 14 of 18

Table 8H.7. Portfolio sites in the United St<strong>at</strong>es with the highest thre<strong>at</strong> ranks for altered hydrology. This<br />

ranking takes into account 2 factors; w<strong>at</strong>er quality as modeled with 303(d) d<strong>at</strong>a, and effects from existing<br />

dams.<br />

Stream 303(d)<br />

Hydrological<br />

Unit Site Name<br />

R<strong>at</strong>ing Dam R<strong>at</strong>ing Thre<strong>at</strong><br />

2249 Skokomish River 100.000 98.00 98.56<br />

2285 Wynoochee River 100.000 72.00 79.88<br />

2047 Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional Park 100.000 65.50 75.21<br />

2235 Skokomish River 100.000 49.00 63.36<br />

2394 Chehalis River 100.000 33.00 51.86<br />

2341 Wynoochee River 100.000 33.00 51.86<br />

2615 Nestucca River 100.000 33.00 51.86<br />

2060 Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional Park 100.000 32.50 51.50<br />

2073 Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional Park 100.000 32.50 51.50<br />

2096 Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional Park 100.000 32.50 51.50<br />

2127 Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional Park 100.000 32.50 51.50<br />

2078 Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional Park 100.000 16.50 40.01<br />

2089 Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional Park 100.000 16.50 40.01<br />

1990 Sequim Bay 100.000 16.00 39.65<br />

2646 Mill Creek 100.000 14.00 38.21<br />

2477 Cl<strong>at</strong>sop Plains-Necanicum River 100.000 13.00 37.49<br />

2895 Cape Blanco-Elk River 100.000 13.00 37.49<br />

2005 Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional Park 0.000 49.00 35.20<br />

2203 Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional Park 0.000 49.00 35.20<br />

2221 Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional Park 0.000 49.00 35.20<br />

2435 Willapa Hills 100.000 8.50 34.26<br />

2520 Cl<strong>at</strong>sop Plains-Necanicum River 100.000 6.50 32.83<br />

2850 Lower Coquille River 100.000 6.50 32.83<br />

2891 South Fork Coquille River 100.000 6.50 32.83<br />

2900 South Fork Coquille River 100.000 6.50 32.83<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8H, page 15 of 18

Table 8H.8. Portfolio sites in British Columbia with the highest thre<strong>at</strong> ranks for altered hydrology. Rankings<br />

for assessment units in British Columbia only include the effects from existing dams. All other units ended<br />

with a value of 0 for the thre<strong>at</strong> from dams and total thre<strong>at</strong>.<br />

Unit Site Name Dam R<strong>at</strong>ing Hydrological Thre<strong>at</strong><br />

1860 Juan de Fuca 49.50 75.56<br />

1228 Tsable-Stamp-Qualicum 33.00 50.38<br />

1200 Tsable-Stamp-Qualicum 33.00 50.38<br />

1008 Str<strong>at</strong>hcona 32.50 49.62<br />

1201 Tsable-Stamp-Qualicum 13.00 19.85<br />

864 Str<strong>at</strong>hcona 8.00 12.22<br />

800 Str<strong>at</strong>hcona 2.00 3.06<br />

736 Str<strong>at</strong>hcona 1.50 2.29<br />

747 Str<strong>at</strong>hcona 1.50 2.29<br />

159 Nimpkish-Tahsish 1.00 1.53<br />

Table 8H.9. Portfolio sites in the United St<strong>at</strong>es with the highest thre<strong>at</strong> ranking for altered fire return interval.<br />

Unit Site Name Fire Thre<strong>at</strong><br />

2430 Doty Hills 78.22<br />

2922 Lower Rogue River 70.16<br />

2406 Chehalis River 64.93<br />

2427 Doty Hills 62.43<br />

2440 Boistfort 60.86<br />

2432 Chehalis River 56.53<br />

2397 Capitol St<strong>at</strong>e Forest 55.77<br />

2463 Castle Rock 53.37<br />

2931 Lower Rogue River 49.89<br />

2441 Boistfort 44.20<br />

2889 Bobby Creek RNA 39.90<br />

2176 Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional Park 25.50<br />

2524 Milton Creek 24.41<br />

2934 North Fork/Hunter Creek ACEC 23.35<br />

2679 Luckiamute River 22.73<br />

2682 Luckiamute River 21.88<br />

2393 Capital St<strong>at</strong>e Forest 21.04<br />

2537 Scappoose Creek 19.72<br />

2160 Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional Park 18.86<br />

2167 Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional Park 18.85<br />

2157 Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional Park 17.69<br />

2215 Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional Park 16.66<br />

2177 Olympic N<strong>at</strong>ional Park 16.49<br />

2708 Marys River 15.84<br />

2550 Scappoose Creek 15.56<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8H, page 16 of 18

Table 8H.10. Total thre<strong>at</strong>s score for portfolio sites in the United St<strong>at</strong>es as cre<strong>at</strong>ed from the thre<strong>at</strong>s surface<br />

analysis.<br />

Timber<br />

Harvest<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8H, page 17 of 18<br />

Popul<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Density<br />

Fire<br />

Hydrological<br />

Unit Site Name<br />

Thre<strong>at</strong> Thre<strong>at</strong> Thre<strong>at</strong> Thre<strong>at</strong><br />

2397 Capitol St<strong>at</strong>e Forest 55.77 100.00 0.72 0.48 63.95<br />

2477 Cl<strong>at</strong>sop Plains-Necanicum River 0.78 34.80 37.49 43.76 62.63<br />

2891 South Fork Coquille River 5.07 91.60 32.83 0.04 61.45<br />

2809 Coos-Millacoma Rivers 1.59 93.80 0.00 0.12 57.94<br />

2794 Lower Umpqua River 1.20 85.80 28.16 -0.18 56.88<br />

2912 Cape Blanco-Elk River 2.00 80.30 28.16 0.00 53.67<br />

2435 Willapa Hills 1.33 77.10 34.26 0.27 52.79<br />

2285 Wynoochee River 1.15 66.50 79.88 0.01 52.74<br />

2844 Coos Mtn 1.63 76.80 28.16 0.05 51.55<br />

2756 Siuslaw River 2.53 76.70 28.16 -0.03 51.45<br />

2406 Chehalis River 64.93 72.10 28.16 0.23 50.87<br />

2430 Doty Hills 78.22 68.50 28.87 0.58 49.48<br />

2785 Smith River 1.76 72.90 28.16 -0.03 49.08<br />

2579 Tillamook Bay-Kilchis River 1.06 71.60 28.87 -0.14 48.26<br />

2827 Coos-Millacoma Rivers 1.53 75.00 0.00 0.16 46.39<br />

2784 Smith River 2.15 68.20 28.16 -0.03 46.20<br />

2427 Doty Hills 62.43 70.80 0.00 0.27 45.89<br />

2628 Nestucca River 1.33 73.90 0.72 0.05 45.72<br />

2759 Siuslaw River 1.72 63.90 28.16 2.55 45.63<br />

2922 Lower Rogue River 70.16 68.90 0.00 0.00 44.76<br />

2758 Siuslaw River 1.58 64.60 28.16 0.00 43.98<br />

2446 Nacelle River 1.20 71.20 0.00 0.00 43.91<br />

2539 Upper Nehalem River 1.12 62.70 28.16 0.76 43.41<br />

2832 Coos-Millacoma Rivers 1.33 60.80 28.87 0.89 42.46<br />

2748 Siuslaw River 1.60 61.50 28.16 0.13 42.17<br />

Total<br />

Thre<strong>at</strong>

Table 8H.11. Total thre<strong>at</strong>s score for portfolio sites in British Columbia as cre<strong>at</strong>ed from the thre<strong>at</strong>s surface<br />

analysis. Thre<strong>at</strong> from altered fire regimes was not modeled for assessment units in British Columbia.<br />

Timber<br />

Harvest<br />

PNW <strong>Coast</strong> Ecoregional Assessment Appendix 8H, page 18 of 18<br />

Popul<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

Density<br />

Fire<br />

Hydrological<br />

Unit Site Name Thre<strong>at</strong> Thre<strong>at</strong> Thre<strong>at</strong> Thre<strong>at</strong><br />

1383 Tsable-Stamp-Qualicum 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.60 72.47<br />

1103 Tsable-Stamp-Qualicum 0.00 94.69 0.00 2.94 70.89<br />

1517 Nanaimo River 0.00 83.01 0.00 0.69 60.35<br />

993 Str<strong>at</strong>hcona 0.00 76.22 0.00 2.73 57.40<br />

1224 Tsable-Stamp-Qualicum 0.00 74.73 0.00 2.69 56.29<br />

563 Gold River-Nootka 0.00 77.28 0.00 0.39 55.95<br />

1701 Chemainus-Cowichan 0.00 48.83 0.00 21.63 55.69<br />

941 Str<strong>at</strong>hcona 0.00 73.04 0.00 0.17 52.68<br />

231 Nimpkish-Tahsish 0.00 69.85 0.00 1.55 51.70<br />

909 Str<strong>at</strong>hcona 0.00 71.34 0.00 0.23 51.51<br />

918 Gold River-Nootka 0.00 64.76 0.00 5.02 51.34<br />

159 Nimpkish-Tahsish 0.00 67.94 1.53 1.54 50.57<br />

1403 Tsable-Stamp-Qualicum 0.00 69.43 0.00 0.04 49.97<br />

192 Nimpkish-Tahsish 0.00 66.03 0.00 1.57 48.97<br />

1491 Nitin<strong>at</strong>-Carmanah-Walbran 0.00 67.73 0.00 0.23 48.92<br />

1257 Tsable-Stamp-Qualicum 0.00 39.07 0.00 20.66 47.75<br />

471 Campbell-Quadra 0.00 65.82 0.00 0.02 47.36<br />

1008 Str<strong>at</strong>hcona 0.00 52.23 49.62 0.99 47.00<br />

1688 Nitin<strong>at</strong>-Carmanah-Walbran 0.00 63.91 0.00 0.44 46.38<br />

607 Salmon River 0.00 64.12 0.00 0.03 46.14<br />

92 Cape Scott-Port Hardy 0.00 63.91 0.00 0.09 46.04<br />

746 Gold River-Nootka 0.00 63.69 0.00 0.11 45.91<br />

1228 Tsable-Stamp-Qualicum 0.00 46.07 50.38 4.06 45.61<br />

78 Cape Scott-Port Hardy 0.00 62.63 0.00 0.45 45.46<br />

114 Cape Scott-Port Hardy 0.00 60.08 0.00 0.77 43.94<br />

Total<br />

Thre<strong>at</strong>

logo

products

Resources

Company

Terms of service
Privacy policy
Cookie policy
Cookie settings
Imprint
Change language
Made with love in Switzerland
© 2024 Yumpu.com all rights reserved

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!