Hi folks, The colonial narrative of North America seems to be focused on the East Coast, with the major European powers competing to control the region. Yet, it is well known that the Russian fur trade was a major player in the Pacific Northwest during the 18th century. Aside from the settlement of Sitka, do we see any evidence for Russian efforts to permanently colonize the West Coast, as opposed to simply extracting the resources?
I'm not totally sure what you mean by "permanently colonize" as opposed to "simply extracting the resources," as for the Russians, one was generally done to support the other. But Russian colonization of the lower west coast was complicated by Spanish claims to the region. Specifically, the Spanish had a decently-large settlement in San Francisco, and after achieving independence, the Mexicans had stationed soldiers as far north as Sonoma, under Mariano Vallejo.
Nevertheless, Russia's first joint-stock company, the Russian American Company, was an effort at settling California just north of the Mexican presence. Their goal was primarily economic--the plan was for the colony to produce a stable food supply for Russian sailors and fishers in the north Pacific, as well as their Alaskan colonies. The primary nexus of their efforts was Fort Ross, California, much of which remains today as a State Park. (One receiving funding, amusingly, from the Russian government) The area around the colony became known as Fortress Ross or Colony Ross, and at its height boasted a permanent population in the hundreds, with a few minor villages and even an island outpost just off the coast of San Francisco. The colony was noteworthy for relying extensively on the native population, both as laborers in the colony itself and as trade partners. The decline of the colony is why I consider the question's phrasing relevant. There was no huge outpouring of Russian settlers to Fort Foss, and it was even at its height a purely commercial venture. The colony entered decline predominantly because it never generated anything but debt for the Russian American Company, and failed to generate a great deal of food for the northern colonies, either. Ultimately, the colony was sold to John Sutter (later of Sutter's Mill fame) and abandoned. Nevertheless, the Russian impact on the region remains to this day--from the naming of the Russian River to the city of Sebastopol, California.
Check out http://www.fortross.org/ for greater detail on all of this; it's a pretty well-done website for a fairly low-profile historical site. I would argue that while the colony did fail, it does demonstrate an effort at permanent settlement at least as concerted as the Virginia Company's.