DOCSLIB.ORG

South Santiam HGMP

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
South Santiam HGMP HATCHERY AND GENETIC MANAGEMENT PLAN (HGMP) Hatchery Program: South Santiam Spring Chinook Salmon Species or Hatchery Stock: Spring Chinook Salmon (stock 024) Operator/Funding Agency: Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife/ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Watershed and Region: Upper Willamette Watershed District Date Submitted: September 1, 2016 Date Last Updated: August 23, 2016 SECTION 1. GENERAL PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ............................................................... 7 1.1) Name of hatchery or program: ......................................................................................... 7 1.2) Species and population (or stock) under propagation and Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: ............................................................................................................................... 7 1.3) Responsible organization and individuals: ....................................................................... 7 1.4) Funding source, staffing level, and annual hatchery program operational costs: ............ 8 1.5) Location of hatchery and associated facilities: ................................................................ 9 1.6) Type of program: ............................................................................................................ 10 1.7) Purpose (goal) of program: ............................................................................................ 11 1.8) Justification for the program: ......................................................................................... 11 1. 9 & 1.10) List of program "Performance Standards" and “Performance Indicators": .......... 12 1.11) Expected size of program: ............................................................................................. 21 1.11.1) Proposed annual broodstock collection level: ........................................................ 21 1.11.2) Proposed annual fish releases: ................................................................................ 21 1.12) Current program performance: ...................................................................................... 21 1.13) Date program started: ..................................................................................................... 24 1.14) Expected duration of program: ...................................................................................... 24 1.15) Target watersheds: ......................................................................................................... 24 1.16) Alternative actions considered: ...................................................................................... 24 1.16.1) Key issues and alternatives: ................................................................................... 25 SECTION 2. PROGRAM EFFECTS ON ESA-LISTED SALMONID POPULATIONS ......... 25 2.1) ESA permits or authorizations: ...................................................................................... 25 2.2) ESA-listed natural populations in the target area ........................................................... 26 2.2.1) Description of ESA-listed Salmonid population(s) affected by the program ........ 26 2.2.2) Status of ESA-listed Salmonid population(s) affected by the program: ................ 31 2.2.3) Potential take of listed fish due to hatchery activities: ........................................... 37 SECTION 3. RELATIONSHIP OF PROGRAM TO OTHER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................................................................... 40 3.1) Alignment of the hatchery program with any Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU)-wide hatchery plan: ............................................................................................................................ 40 3.2) Existing cooperative agreements, memoranda of understanding, memoranda of agreement, or other management plans or court orders under which program operates: ......... 49 3.3) Relationship to harvest objectives: ................................................................................. 49 3.3.1) Fisheries benefiting from the program: ...................................................................... 49 3.4) Relationship to habitat protection and recovery strategies: ........................................... 50 3.5) Ecological interactions: .................................................................................................. 51 SECTION 4. WATER SOURCE ................................................................................................. 52 4.1) Water source, water quality profile, and water-driven limitations to production: ......... 52 4.2) Measures to minimize take associated with hatchery water withdrawal, screening, or effluent discharge: ..................................................................................................................... 52 SECTION 5. FACILITIES .......................................................................................................... 53 5.1) Broodstock collection facilities: ..................................................................................... 53 5.2) Fish transportation equipment: ....................................................................................... 53 5.3) Broodstock holding and spawning facilities: ................................................................. 54 5.4) Incubation facilities: ....................................................................................................... 54 5.5) Rearing facilities: ........................................................................................................... 54 2 5.6) Acclimation/release facilities: ........................................................................................ 55 5.7) Operational difficulties or disasters: .............................................................................. 55 5.8) Back-up systems and risk aversion measures to minimize the take of listed natural fish: 55 SECTION 6. BROODSTOCK ORIGIN AND IDENTITY ........................................................ 55 6.1) Source: ............................................................................................................................ 55 6.2) Supporting information: ................................................................................................. 55 6.2.1) History: ................................................................................................................... 55 6.2.2) Annual size: ............................................................................................................ 58 6.2.3) Past and proposed level of natural-origin fish in broodstock: ................................ 58 6.2.4) Genetic or ecological differences: .......................................................................... 59 6.2.5) Reasons for choosing: ............................................................................................ 60 6.3) Risk aversion measures to minimize adverse effects to listed natural fish due to broodstock selection practices: ................................................................................................. 60 SECTION 7. BROODSTOCK COLLECTION .......................................................................... 60 7.1) Life stage to be collected:............................................................................................... 60 7.2) Collection or sampling design: ....................................................................................... 60 7.3) Identity: .......................................................................................................................... 61 7.4) Proposed number to be collected: .................................................................................. 61 7.4.1) Program goal: ......................................................................................................... 61 7.4.2) Broodstock collection levels in recent years: ......................................................... 61 7.5) Disposition of surplus hatchery-origin fish: ................................................................... 62 7.6) Fish transportation and holding methods: ...................................................................... 63 7.7) Fish health maintenance and sanitation procedures: ...................................................... 64 7.8) Disposition of carcasses: ................................................................................................ 64 7.9) Risk aversion measures to minimize adverse effects to listed natural fish due to broodstock collection: ............................................................................................................... 64 SECTION 8. MATING ................................................................................................................ 65 8.1) Selection method: ........................................................................................................... 65 8.2) Males: ............................................................................................................................. 65 8.3) Fertilization: ................................................................................................................... 65 8.4) Cryopreserved gametes: ................................................................................................. 66 8.5) Risk
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Endangered Species Act Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NA TIO NAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard. SUite 1100 PORT LAND, OREGON 97232·1274 January 11 , 2013 Lorri Lee Pacific Northwest Regional Director U .S. Bureau ofReclamation 1160 North Curtis Road, Suite 100 Boise, Idaho 83706-1234 Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Odessa Subarea Modified Partial Groundwater Replacement Project. (NWR-2012-9371) Dear Ms. Lee: Enclosed is the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Consultation prepared by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation) Odessa Subarea Modified Partial Groundwater Replacement Project on the Colwnbia River in Adams, Lincoln, Franklin and Grant Counties, Washington. NMFS received a final biological assessment (BA) from Reclamation on November 6, 2012. Reclamation's BA determined that Columbia River chum salmon were likely to be adversely affected by the proposed action, 12 other species ofESA listed salmon and steelhead would not likely be adversely affected by the proposed action, and that Pacific eulachon, green sturgeon, and southern resident killer whales would not likely be adversely affected by the proposed action. NMFS disagreed with Reclamation's "Not Likely
    [Show full text]
  • South Santiam Hatchery
    SOUTH SANTIAM HATCHERY PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PLAN 2020 South Santiam Hatchery/Foster Adult Collection Facility INTRODUCTION South Santiam Hatchery is located on the South Santiam River just downstream from Foster Dam, 5 miles east of downtown Sweet Home. The facility is at an elevation of 500 feet above sea level, at latitude 44.4158 and longitude -122.6725. The site area is 12.6 acres, owned by the US Army Corps of Engineers and is used for egg incubation and juvenile rearing. The hatchery currently receives water from Foster Reservoir. A total of 8,400 gpm is available for the rearing units. An additional 5,500 gpm is used in the large rearing pond. All rearing ponds receive single-pass water. ODFW has no water right for water from Foster Reservoir, although it does state in the Cooperative agreement between the USACE and ODFW that the USACE will provide adequate water to operate the facility. The Foster Dam Adult Collection Facility was completed in July of 2014 which eliminated the need to transport adults to and hold brood stock at South Santiam Hatchery. ODFW took over operations of the facility in April of 2014. The new facility consists of an office/maintenance building, pre-sort pool, fish sorting area, 5 long term post-sort pools, 4 short term post-sort pools, and a water-to-water fish-to-truck loading system. Adult fish collection, adult handling, out planting, recycling, spawning, carcass processing, and brood stock holding will take place at Foster The Foster Dam Adult Collection Facility is located about 2 miles east of Sweet Home, Oregon at the base of Foster Dam along the south shore of the South Santiam River at RM 37.
    [Show full text]
  • Foster Dam Adult Fish Facility and in Foster Dam Reservoir on the South Santiam River, 2017
    Technical Report 2018-3-FINAL _______________________________________________________________ EVALUATION OF ADULT CHINOOK SALMON BEHAVIOR AT THE FOSTER DAM ADULT FISH FACILITY AND IN FOSTER DAM RESERVOIR ON THE SOUTH SANTIAM RIVER, 2017 M.L. Keefer, T.S. Clabough, M.A. Jepson, T. Blubaugh, G. Brink, G.P. Naughton, C.T. Boggs, and C.C. Caudill Department of Fish and Wildlife Sciences University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho 83844-1136 For U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Portland District 2018 1 i Technical Report 2018-3-FINAL _______________________________________________________________ EVALUATION OF ADULT CHINOOK SALMON BEHAVIOR AT THE FOSTER DAM ADULT FISH FACILITY AND IN FOSTER DAM RESERVOIR ON THE SOUTH SANTIAM RIVER, 2017 M.L. Keefer, T.S. Clabough, M.A. Jepson, T. Blubaugh, G. Brink, G.P. Naughton, C.T. Boggs, and C.C. Caudill Department of Fish and Wildlife Sciences University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho 83844-1136 For U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Portland District 2018 ii Acknowledgements This research project was funded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and we thank Fenton Khan, Rich Piakowski, Glenn Rhett, Deberay Charmichael, Sherry Whittaker, and Steve Schlenker for their support. We also thank Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife staff Bob Mapes, Brett Boyd, and Cameron Sharpe for project coordination and support. We are grateful to the University of Idaho’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee for reviewing and approving the protocols used in this study. We thank Stephanie Burchfield and Diana Dishman (NOAA Fisheries) and Michele Weaver and Holly Huchko (ODFW) for their assistance securing study permits and Bonnie Johnson (U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Willamette Valley Projects Configuration/Operation Plan (COP)
    Phase II Report Willamette Valley Projects Configuration/Operation Plan (COP) October 2015 Final Report Willamette Valley Projects Configuration/Operation Plan, Phase II Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Configuration/Operation Plan (COP), Phase II Report, for the Willamette Valley system provides recommendations to address the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) contained in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries or NMFS) 2008 Biological Opinion (BiOp) for the Willamette System (WS) operated and maintained by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE or Corps). The RPA listed actions to be implemented to avoid jeopardy to Upper Willamette River (UWR) spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and UWR winter steelhead (O. mykiss) from continued operations and maintenance of the WS. This COP Phase II report was guided by the development of alternatives documented in the 2009 COP Phase I Report. Although this document does not meet the EC 11-2-208 (dated 31 Mar 2015) definition as a “Decision Document”, it is being used to document the long-term plan for implementing the 2008 Willamette Biological Opinion. BACKGROUND The WS system consists of 13 multipurpose dams and reservoirs, and approximately 92 miles of riverbank protection projects in the Willamette River Basin in Oregon. Each project contributes to the overall water resources management in the basin which is designed to provide flood risk management, hydropower generation, irrigation, navigation, recreation, fish and wildlife, and improved water quality on the Willamette River and many of its tributaries. The fish species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) affected by operation of the WS1 include UWR spring Chinook salmon, UWR winter steelhead, and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus, threatened).
    [Show full text]
  • Green Peter Lake and Foster Lake, Oregon
    Public Information: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Green Peter Lake Green Peter and Foster lakes are located on the middle and Project Data Portland District and Foster Lake, south forks of the Santiam River. They are operated by the Corps P.O. Box 2946 of Engineers as part of a system of thirteen multi-purpose dams Green Peter Lake Portland, Oregon 97208-2946 Oregon and reservoirs that make up the Willamette Valley Project. These Measure Metric http://www.nwp.usace.army.mil dams and reservoirs work together for the purposes of flood dam- Phone: 503-808-4510 Dam age reduction, hydropower generation, irrigation, recreation, fish Length 1,500ft 457.2m 2009 and wildlife enhancement and downstream water quality improve- Height 327ft 99.7m ment within the Willamette River drainage system. Elevation (NGVD*) 1,020ft 310.9m TO ENJOY A SAFE OUTING Total kilowatt capacity 80,000kw OBSERVE THESE SAFETY TIPS Lake BOATING Length 10mi 16.1km Wear a personal flotation device (PFD), and observe Area when full 3,720ac 1,505.4ha posted boating speeds at all times. Foster Lake WATER SKIING Measure Metric Have two people in the tow boat, one to drive and one Dam Length 4,565ft 1,391m to watch the skier. Avoid skiing near swimmers and Height 126ft 38.4m fishermen. ALWAYS wear a life jacket when skiing and Elevation (NGVD*) 646ft 196m NEVER ski after dusk. Total kilowatt capacity 20,000kw FISHING Stay clear of boat channels and swimming areas. While Lake trolling, watch the water ahead for boats, swimmers and Length 3.5mi 5.6km underwater obstacles.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    SANTIAM AND CALAPOOIA SUBBASIN FISH MANAGEMENT PLAN Prepared by Mary Jo Wevers Joe Wetherbee Wayne Hunt Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife March 1992 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 GENERAL CONSTRAINTS .......................................................................................................................... 3 HABITAT....................................................................................................................................................... 6 Background and Status.................................................................................................................... 6 Basin Description................................................................................................................. 6 Land Use............................................................................................................................. 9 Habitat Protection.............................................................................................................. 22 Habitat Restoration............................................................................................................ 22 Policies........................................................................................................................................... 23 Objectives......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Reliability, Sensitivity, and Uncertainty of Reservoir Performance Under Climate Variability 1 in Basins with Different Hydrog
    1 1 Reliability, sensitivity, and uncertainty of reservoir performance under climate variability 2 in basins with different hydrogeologic settings 3 Cristina Mateus1 and Desiree Tullos2 4 Abstract. This study investigates how reservoir performance varies across different 5 hydrogeologic settings and under plausible future climate scenarios. The study is conducted in 6 the Santiam River basin, OR, USA, comparing the North Santiam basin (NSB), with high 7 permeability and extensive groundwater storage, and the South Santiam basin (SSB), with low 8 permeability, little groundwater storage, and rapid runoff response. We apply projections of 9 future temperature and precipitation from global climate models to a rainfall-runoff model, 10 coupled with a formal Bayesian uncertainty analysis, to project future inflow hydrographs as 11 inputs to a reservoir operations model. The performance of reservoir operations is evaluated as 12 the reliability in meeting flood management, spring and summer environmental flows, and 13 hydropower generation objectives. Despite projected increases in winter flows and decreases in 14 summer flows, results provide little evidence of a response in reservoir operation performance to 15 a warming climate, with the exception of summer flow targets in the SSB. Independent of 16 climate impacts, historical prioritization of reservoir operations appeared to impact reliability, 17 suggesting areas where operation performance may be improved. Results also highlight how 18 hydrologic uncertainty is likely to complicate planning for climate change in basins with 19 substantial groundwater interactions. 20 Key words: Uncertainty; reliability; sensitivity; climate change; reservoir operations; rule curves 21 1 Introduction 22 In addition to long-standing uncertainties related to variable inflows and the market price 23 of power, reservoir operators face many new uncertainties related to hydrologic nonstationarity, 24 changing environmental regulations, and increasing water and energy demands.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Willamette Falls Dam Radio-Tagging Results
    TECHNICAL REPORT 2013-1 ______________________________________________________________ MIGRATORY BEHAVIOR, RUN TIMING, AND DISTRIBUTION OF RADIO- TAGGED ADULT WINTER STEELHEAD, SUMMER STEELHEAD, AND SPRING CHINOOK SALMON IN THE WILLAMETTE RIVER – 2012 by M.A. Jepson, M.L. Keefer, T.S. Clabough, and C.C. Caudill Department of Fish and Wildlife Sciences University of Idaho Moscow, ID 83844-1136 and C.S. Sharpe ODFW Corvallis Research Lab Corvallis, Oregon 97333 For U. S. Army, Corps of Engineers Portland District, Portland, OR 2013 TECHNICAL REPORT 2013-1 MIGRATORY BEHAVIOR, RUN TIMING, AND DISTRIBUTION OF RADIO- TAGGED ADULT WINTER STEELHEAD, SUMMER STEELHEAD, AND SPRING CHINOOK SALMON IN THE WILLAMETTE RIVER – 2012 by M.A. Jepson, M.L. Keefer, T.S. Clabough, and C.C. Caudill Department of Fish and Wildlife Sciences University of Idaho Moscow, ID 83844-1136 and C.S. Sharpe ODFW Corvallis Research Lab Corvallis, Oregon 97333 For U. S. Army, Corps of Engineers Portland District, Portland, OR 2013 i Summary In this study, we collected information on run composition, run timing, and migration behaviors of adult winter and summer steelhead and spring Chinook salmon during migration in the Willamette River basin. Adults were collected at Willamette Falls Dam, radio-tagged using anesthetic (AQUI-S®E, unclipped) or with a fish restraining device (FRD, some unclipped and all clipped adults). Upstream movements and final distribution were monitored using an array of fixed site antennas, mobile tracking, and returns to collection facilities. Adults tagged in the FRD handling treatment were more likely to exit to the Willamette Falls tailrace after tagging and were less likely to escape to monitored tributaries.
    [Show full text]
  • An Environmental Streamflow Assessment for the Santiam River Basin, Oregon
    An Environmental Streamflow Assessment for the Santiam River Basin, Oregon By John C. Risley, J. Rose Wallick, Joseph F. Mangano, and Krista L. Jones Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Open-File Report 2012–1133 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: North Santiam River downstream from Detroit Lake near Niagara at about river mile 57. (Photograph by Casey Lovato, U.S. Geological Survey, June 2011.) ` Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers An Environmental Streamflow Assessment for the Santiam River Basin, Oregon By John C. Risley, J. Rose Wallick, Joseph F. Mangano, and Krista L. Jones Open-File Report 2012–1133 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Suggested citation: Risley, J.C., Wallick, J.R., Mangano, J.F., and Jones, K.F, 2012, An environmental streamflow assessment for the Santiam River basin, Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012-1133, 60 p. plus appendixes. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Sweet Home PWS #4100851
    Updated Source Water Assessment City of Sweet Home PWS #4100851 December 2018 Prepared for: City of Sweet Home Prepared by: Department of Environmental Quality Agency Headquarters 700 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 600 Kate Brown, Governor Portland, OR 97232 (503) 229-5696 FAX (503) 229-6124 TTY 711 December 21, 2018 Steve Haney, Project Manager City of Sweet Home PO Box 750 Sweet Home, OR 97386 Greg Springman, Public Works Director City of Sweet Home 1140 12th Avenue Sweet Home, OR 97386 Re: Updated Source Water Assessment for PWS # 4100851 Dear Mr. Haney and Mr. Springman, On behalf of the Oregon Health Authority (OHA), the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is pleased to provide your community with important information in this Updated Source Water Assessment. The updated assessment is intended to provide information and resources to assist you and your community to implement local drinking water protection efforts. Since the first source water assessments were completed in 2005, state agencies have significantly expanded analytical capabilities, including more detailed data for analyzing natural characteristics and potential pollutant sources. DEQ is currently completing the updated assessments for surface water systems and OHA is updating the groundwater system assessments. As you know, assuring safe drinking water depends on public water suppliers implementing multiple successful practices. First, protect the drinking water source. Second, practice effective water treatment. Third, conduct regular monitoring for contaminants to assure safety. Fourth, protect the distribution system piping and finished water storage from recontamination. Finally, practice competent water system operation, maintenance, and construction. These practices are collectively called “multiple barrier public health protection”.
    [Show full text]
  • July 2017 Report POPULATION PRODUCTIVITY of SPRING CHINOOK SALMON REINTRODUCED ABOVE FOSTER DAM on the SOUTH SANTIAM RIVER Prepa
    July 2017 Report POPULATION PRODUCTIVITY OF SPRING CHINOOK SALMON REINTRODUCED ABOVE FOSTER DAM ON THE SOUTH SANTIAM RIVER Prepared for: U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PORTLAND DISTRICT - WILLAMETTE VALLEY PROJECT 333 SW First Ave. Portland, Oregon 97204 Prepared by: Kathleen G. O’Malley1, Andrew N. Black1, Marc A. Johnson 2, 3, Dave Jacobson1 1Oregon State University Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Coastal Oregon Marine Experiment Station Hatfield Marine Science Center 2030 SE Marine Science Drive Newport, Oregon 97365 2Oregon State University Department of Fisheries and Wildlife 2820 SW Campus Way Corvallis, Oregon 97331 3Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Upper Willamette Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation Corvallis Research Laboratory 28655 Highway 34 Corvallis, Oregon 97333 21 SUMMARY On the South Santiam River in Oregon, access to ~85% of historical spawning habitat for spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) is impeded by two dams; Foster and Green Peter. To sustain natural productivity of salmon in above-dam habitat, trap-and-transport operations are used to facilitate salmon dispersal above Foster Dam. Implementation of genetic parentage analysis has been used to reconstruct a pedigree for salmon released above Foster Dam since 2007, though trap-and-transport operations began in 1996. Information from this pedigree has allowed management to evaluate the population productivity of spring Chinook salmon on the South Santiam for three cohort years (2007 - 2009). Here, we extend the genetic pedigree reported in O’Malley et al. (2014, 2015) by assigning the 2015 adult returns to salmon previously reintroduced above Foster or sampled as carcasses in below-dam habitat. This updated pedigree is then used to determine replacement rates for the 2010 cohort and provide fitness estimates for salmon sampled during 2010 - 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • 10-16-20 Domingue Declaration
    Case 3:18-cv-00437-HZ Document 120 Filed 10/16/20 Page 1 of 49 Lauren M. Rule (OSB # 015174) Elizabeth H. Potter (OSB #105482) ADVOCATES FOR THE WEST 3701 SE Milwaukie Ave. Suite B Portland, Oregon 97202 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL Case No. 3:18-cv-00437-HZ DEFENSE CENTER, WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, and NATIVE FISH SOCIETY, Third Declaration of Richard A. Domingue In Support of Plaintiffs’ Request for Plaintiffs, Permanent Injunctive Relief v. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS and NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, Defendants. CITY OF SALEM and MARION COUNTY, Intervenors. Case 3:18-cv-00437-HZ Document 120 Filed 10/16/20 Page 2 of 49 I, Richard A. Domingue, declare as follows: 1. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below and if called as a witness I would and could truthfully testify to these facts. 2. I was asked by the Plaintiffs in this litigation to provide my expert opinion on their request for injunctive relief to remedy the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (“Corps”) failure to adopt meaningful protective measures to address the adverse effects of its Willamette Valley Project (WVP or Project) on threatened Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon and steelhead following NMFS’ issuance of the 2008 Biological Opinion (“BiOp”).1 3. Attached as Exhibit 1 is my resume and a summary of my professional experience and qualifications to provide this testimony. In brief, I have over 30 years of experience dealing with dam-related environmental issues.
    [Show full text]