DOCSLIB.ORG

Cougar Downstream Passage Project DRAFT Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cougar Downstream Passage Project DRAFT Environmental Assessment DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT COUGAR DAM DOWNSTREAM PASSAGE WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN SOUTH FORK MCKENZIE RIVER, OREGON U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District 333 SW 1ST AVE, PORTLAND, OR 97208 1 Environmental Assessment Cougar Dam Downstream Fish Passage Project Willamette River Basin South Fork McKenzie River, Oregon January 2019 Responsible Party: The responsible lead Federal agency for this Environmental Assessment (EA) is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District (Corps). The National Marine Fisheries (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife are cooperating agencies. Abstract: The Corps proposes to construct a downstream passage facility and make improvements to and continue the operations and maintenance of associated fish facilities to enhance fish passage through the Cougar Dam and implement the NMFS Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) Measure 4, Fish Passage, as recommended in the Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Consultation, Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation & Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation on the Willamette River Basin Flood Control Project (BiOp) issued July 11, 2008 (NMFS 2008). USFWS similarly issued a BiOp in 2008 for the effects of the Willamette Valley System on Oregon chub (Oregonichthys crameri - now delisted), bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), and bull trout critical habitat. The USFWS BiOp reached a no jeopardy determination as long as the Corps implements the NMFS RPA and considers the effects of NMFS’ RPA on Oregon chub and bull trout. This EA evaluates the potential environmental effects of implementing downstream passage at Cougar Dam to meet the NMFS fish passage guidelines and Corps operator safety requirements. The dam and reservoir are located within areas deemed critical habitat for Upper Willamette River (UWR) Chinook salmon with high conservation value. The South Fork McKenzie population of UWR Chinook salmon is considered to be at moderate risk of extinction based on an analysis of its recent abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. The Corps considered various alternatives for downstream passage. The alternatives were then further refined to two alternatives: the No Action Alternative and the proposed action consisting of a Floating Surface Screen (FSS) fish collector paired with truck and haul to transport the fish downstream of Cougar Dam. Although the facility would be designed based on criteria for Chinook salmon, the facility design also accommodates other fish species, including cutthroat trout, resident rainbow trout, and bull trout. The Corps evaluated alternatives based on biological efficiency, constructability, environmental impact, operation, and overall cost. The agency proposed action provides for a volitional swim-up facility, the 2 ability to hold fish, and the capability for water-to-water transfer of fish from the FSS to the point of release in the river downstream of the dam. The agency’s proposed action works within the Cougar Dam authorized purposes, allows for the continued operations of the dam for temperature control, is a gravity-fed system, and meets the project objectives. The proposed action would meet the Corps’ purpose and need to enhance downstream passage and meet the requirements of the RPA of the NMFS and USFWS 2008 BiOps. Long-term effects of the project would be beneficial to fish as the action will result in improvements to the survival of fish spawned upstream of the Cougar Dam. However, short-term negligible to moderate effects would result from construction-related activities. 3 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 4 CONTENTS FIGURES 8 TABLES 10 ACRONYMS 11 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.10 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE ........................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.11 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................ 1-2 1.12 PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................................................................................................ 1-3 1.12.1 PURPOSE .............................................................................................................................................. 1-3 1.12.2 NEED ................................................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.12.3 PURPOSE AND NEED BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................. 1-4 1.13 LEAD AGENCY ......................................................................................................................................... 1-5 1.14 COOPERATING AGENCIES .......................................................................................................................... 1-5 1.15 AREA OF AFFECT ..................................................................................................................................... 1-5 2. ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................................................ 2-8 2.10 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED ................................................................................................ 2-8 2.10.1 OPERATIONAL ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED ............................................................................ 2-13 2.10.2 STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED .............................................................................. 2-14 2.11 ALTERNATIVE 1. NO ACTION.................................................................................................................... 2-15 2.11.1 COUGAR DAM AND RESERVOIR ................................................................................................................ 2-15 2.11.2 COUGAR FISH FACILITIES ........................................................................................................................ 2-19 2.12 ALTERNATIVE 2. FLOATING SCREEN STRUCTURE WITH TRAP AND HAUL .............................................................. 2-22 2.12.1 PROJECT FEATURES AND OPERATION ......................................................................................................... 2-23 2.12.2 OPERATIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION (I.E., DEEP DRAWDOWN) ....................................................................... 2-26 2.12.3 CONSTRUCTION DURING THE DRAWDOWN .................................................................................................. 2-32 2.12.4 FISH RELEASE SITE IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................................... 2-43 2.12.5 CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ......................................................................................................................... 2-45 2.12.6 CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC ........................................................................................................................ 2-46 2.12.7 TEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS ................................................................................................... 2-47 2.12.8 OPERATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 2-48 2.12.9 MONITORING AND EVALUATION ............................................................................................................... 2-52 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEQUENCES .................................................................... 3-54 3.10 AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................................................................ 3-55 3.10.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................................................ 3-56 3.11 NOISE ................................................................................................................................................ 3-57 3.11.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................................................ 3-57 3.12 GEOLOGY, SEISMOLOGY, AND SOILS .......................................................................................................... 3-57 3.12.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................................................ 3-60 3.13 HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS ................................................................................................................. 3-62 3.13.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................................................ 3-66 3.14 WATER QUALITY ................................................................................................................................... 3-69 3.14.1 TEMPERATURE...................................................................................................................................... 3-71 3.14.2 TOTAL DISSOLVED GAS ..........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • RISK ASSESSMENT of COUGAR DAM, MCKENZIE RIVER, OREGON Kevin S
    RISK ASSESSMENT OF COUGAR DAM, MCKENZIE RIVER, OREGON Kevin S. Richards, PhD Senior Advisor USACE Institute for Water Resources/Risk Management Center/East Division Date: 19 September 2019 “The views, opinions and findings contained in this report are those of the authors(s) and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy or decision, unless so designated by other official documentation.” 2 PRESENTATION OUTLINE 3 PRESENTATION OUTLINE – Project Background – Risk Assessment – Path Forward and Risk Reduction Measures 4 PROJECT BACKGROUND 5 PROJECT BACKGROUND Located in the Willamette River Basin, NW Oregon South Fork of the McKenzie River, 42 Miles East of Eugene/Springfield Conservation Pool 189,000 acre-feet (summer) and 51,000 acre-feet (winter) Purposes: Flood Risk Management, Hydropower, Water Quality, Water Supply Constructed in 1963 6 PROJECT BACKGROUND 7 PROJECT BACKGROUND - STRUCTURES Rockfill Embankment Dam Elevation Top of Dam, feet (NGVD29) 1,705 + Overbuild Length, feet 1,600 Maximum Height, feet 519 Outlet Works (Tunnel) Type 13.5-ft tunnel Size of Gates (Vertical Slide x2), feet 6.5 x 12.5 Design Discharge at Max Pool, cfs 12,050 Spillway (Gated Chute) Size of Gates (Tainter x2), feet 40 x 43.3 Design Discharge, ft3/s 76,140 Gross Crest Length, feet 89 Crest Elevation, feet (NGVD29) 1,656.75 Power Plant Penstock (x1) Diameter, feet 10.5 Number of Generating Units 2 Rated Capacity, MW 25 Reservoir Minimum Power Pool, feet (NGVD29) 1,516 Minimum Flood Control Pool, feet (NGVD29) 1,532 Maximum Conservation Pool, feet (NGVD29) 1,690 Maximum Pool, feet (NGVD29) 1,699 Operations Operated remotely from Lookout Point Dam approx.
    [Show full text]
  • Mckenzie River Sub-Basin Action Plan 2016-2026
    McKenzie River Sub-basin Strategic Action Plan for Aquatic and Riparian Conservation and Restoration, 2016-2026 MCKENZIE WATERSHED COUNCIL AND PARTNERS June 2016 Photos by Freshwaters Illustrated MCKENZIE RIVER SUB-BASIN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN June 2016 MCKENZIE RIVER SUB-BASIN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN June 2016 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The McKenzie Watershed Council thanks the many individuals and organizations who helped prepare this action plan. Partner organizations that contributed include U.S. Forest Service, Eugene Water & Electric Board, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, McKenzie River Trust, Upper Willamette Soil & Water Conservation District, Lane Council of Governments and Weyerhaeuser Company. Plan Development Team Johan Hogervorst, Willamette National Forest, U.S. Forest Service Kate Meyer, McKenzie River Ranger District, U.S. Forest Service Karl Morgenstern, Eugene Water & Electric Board Larry Six, McKenzie Watershed Council Nancy Toth, Eugene Water & Electric Board Jared Weybright, McKenzie Watershed Council Technical Advisory Group Brett Blundon, Bureau of Land Management – Eugene District Dave Downing, Upper Willamette Soil & Water Conservation District Bonnie Hammons, McKenzie River Ranger District, U.S. Forest Service Chad Helms, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jodi Lemmer, McKenzie River Trust Joe Moll, McKenzie River Trust Maryanne Reiter, Weyerhaeuser Company Kelly Reis, Springfield Office, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife David Richey, Lane Council of Governments Kirk Shimeall, Cascade Pacific Resource Conservation and Development Andy Talabere, Eugene Water & Electric Board Greg Taylor, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jeff Ziller, Springfield Office, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife MCKENZIE RIVER SUB-BASIN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN June 2016 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Influence of Cougar Reservoir Drawdown on Sediment and DDT Transport and Deposition in the Mckenzie River Basin, Oregon, Water Years 2002–04
    Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Influence of Cougar Reservoir Drawdown on Sediment and DDT Transport and Deposition in the McKenzie River Basin, Oregon, Water Years 2002–04 Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5164 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Front Cover: Cougar Reservoir near Terwilliger Hot Springs, Oregon. (Photograph taken by Chauncey Anderson, U.S. Geological Survey.) Back Cover: Cougar Reservoir withdrawal tower upon completion of construction in 2005. (Photograph from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.) Influence of Cougar Reservoir Drawdown on Sediment and DDT Transport and Deposition in the McKenzie River Basin, Oregon, Water Years 2002–04 By Chauncey W. Anderson Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5164 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2007 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS--the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Analyzing Dam Feasibility in the Willamette River Watershed
    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses Spring 6-8-2017 Analyzing Dam Feasibility in the Willamette River Watershed Alexander Cameron Nagel Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the Geography Commons, Hydrology Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Nagel, Alexander Cameron, "Analyzing Dam Feasibility in the Willamette River Watershed" (2017). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 4012. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.5896 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Analyzing Dam Feasibility in the Willamette River Watershed by Alexander Cameron Nagel A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geography Thesis Committee: Heejun Chang, Chair Geoffrey Duh Paul Loikith Portland State University 2017 i Abstract This study conducts a dam-scale cost versus benefit analysis in order to explore the feasibility of each the 13 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) commissioned dams in Oregon’s Willamette River network. Constructed between 1941 and 1969, these structures function in collaboration to comprise the Willamette River Basin Reservoir System (WRBRS). The motivation for this project derives from a growing awareness of the biophysical impacts that dam structures can have on riparian habitats. This project compares each of the 13 dams being assessed, to prioritize their level of utility within the system.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Screening Exemption Proposal
    BakerCounty MasonDamHydroelectricProject _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ FishScreeningExemptionProposal October2013 Introduction: Baker County is seeking an exemption from screening for the existing Mason Dam in the following proposal. On April 30, 2013 Baker County filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a new hydroelectric license at the existing Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) Mason Dam. Because of the addition of the hydroelectric project this triggers Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 498.301 through 351 screening criteria. The following proposal provides background describing the project, a summary of the project impacts from the Entrainment and Mortality report, Baker County’s proposed mitigation and an explanation of how those measures will provide resource protection. Background: Existing Project Mason Dam is located in Baker County, Oregon approximately 11 miles southwest of Baker City on State Highway 7(Figure1). Mason Dam was built by the BOR on the Powder River for irrigation, water delivery and flood control. Mason Dam was constructed from 1965 – 1968 and has a total height of 173 feet and a maximum hydraulic height of 157 feet. Phillips Reservoir is a 2,234 acre-reservoir that was formed by the construction of Mason Dam. The reservoir has a total storage capacity of 95,500 acre-feet and an active storage capacity of 90,500 acre-feet. Existing Operation Water is generally stored between October through March with some releases above the minimum flow starting to occur in late March through April. Irrigation season starts in May and runs through September. Releases average approximately 10 cubic feet per second (cfs) between October and January, increase to an average of 20 to 50 cfs during February and March, gradually increasing to 100 cfs during April to early-May.
    [Show full text]
  • Mckenzie River Subbasin Assessment Summary Table of Contents
    McKenzie River, ca. 1944 McKenzie River Subbasin Assessment Summary Report February 2000 McKenzie River, ca. 2000 McKenzie River, ca. 2000 Prepared for the McKenzie Watershed Council Prepared By: Alsea Geospatial, Inc. Hardin-Davis, Inc. Pacific Wildlife Research, Inc. WaterWork Consulting McKenzie River Subbasin Assessment Summary Table of Contents High Priority Action Items for Conservation, Restoration, and Monitoring 1 The McKenzie River Watershed: Introduction 8 I. Watershed Overview 9 II. Aquatic Ecosystem Issues & Findings 17 Recommendations 29 III. Fish Populations Issues & Findings 31 Recommendations 37 IV. Wildlife Species and Habitats of Concern Issues & Findings 38 Recommendations 47 V. Putting the Assessment to work 50 Juvenile Chinook Habitat Modeling 51 Juvenile Chinook Salmon Habitat Results 54 VI. References 59 VII. Glossary of Terms 61 The McKenzie River Subbasin Assessment was funded by grants from the Bonneville Power Administration and the U.S. Forest Service. High Priority Action Items for Conservation, Restoration, and Monitoring Our analysis indicates that aquatic and wildlife habitat in the McKenzie River subbasin is relatively good yet habitat quality falls short of historical conditions. High quality habitat currently exists at many locations along the McKenzie River. This assessment concluded, however, that the river’s current condition, combined with existing management and regulations, does not ensure conservation or restoration of high quality habitat in the long term. Significant short-term improvements in aquatic and wildlife habitat are not likely to happen through regulatory action. Current regulations rarely address remedies for past actions. Furthermore, regulations and the necessary enforcement can fall short of attaining conservation goals. Regulations are most effective in ensuring that habitat quality trends improve over the long period.
    [Show full text]
  • Removal Action Report US Forest Service, Blue River Administration Site Blue River, Oregon
    Removal Action Report US Forest Service, Blue River Administration Site Blue River, Oregon Prepared for: US Forest Service, Willamette National Forest McKenzie River Ranger District Report Date: August 2012 PBS Project No. 76127.000, Phase 0004 Removal Action Report US Forest Service, Blue River Administration Site Blue River, Oregon TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 2.0 SITE LOCATION AND SETTING ..................................................................................... 1 2.1 Location ............................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Physiographic Setting......................................................................................... 1 3.0 PREVIOUS SITE STUDIES .............................................................................................. 2 3.1 Assessment and Evaluation of Remedial Options ........................................... 2 3.2 Waste Determination ........................................................................................... 2 4.0 REMOVAL ACTION OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH ................................................... 2 5.0 SAFETY ............................................................................................................................ 3 6.0 SUMMARY OF FIELD ACTIVITIES.................................................................................. 4 6.1 Monitoring Well Abandonment
    [Show full text]
  • Bull Trout (Salvelinus Confluentus) Population and Habitat Surveys in the Middle Fork Willamette and Mckenzie River Systems
    Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Population and Habitat Surveys in the Middle Fork Willamette and McKenzie River Systems Andrea Hope and Coulter Rose Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 3150 Main St. Springfield, OR 97478 November 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................... 1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA........................................................................................................... 2 McKenzie River Sub-Basin....................................................................................................................... 3 Middle Fork Willamette River Sub-Basin .................................................................................................. 4 METHODS .................................................................................................................................................... 4 Distribution Surveys and Population Estimates........................................................................................ 4 Juveniles............................................................................................................................................... 4 Adults...................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan (Hgmp)
    HATCHERY AND GENETIC MANAGEMENT PLAN (HGMP) Hatchery Program: McKenzie Hatchery Spring Chinook Salmon Species or Hatchery Stock: Spring Chinook Salmon (stock 23) Agency/Operator: US Army Corps of Engineers / Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Watershed and Region: McKenzie River, Willamette River, Columbia River Date Submitted: February 2016 Revised Draft Submitted: May 04, 2018 Date Last Updated: May 1, 2018 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan (HGMP) describes the current management of the McKenzie Hatchery Spring Chinook Program. This HGMP is required to initiate formal Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to allow for artificial propagation of threatened natural-origin fish from the Upper Willamette River (UWR) Spring Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU). There is a two-part purpose of the McKenzie Hatchery spring Chinook program: to provide ESA conservation benefits, consistent with survival and recovery of the ESU, and, to mitigate for habitat lost or made inaccessible by the construction and operation of Blue River and Cougar Dams, which will provide adult returns to help meet harvest objectives for the McKenzie River, lower basin, and ocean fisheries. Because the McKenzie Hatchery Spring Chinook Program provides important conservation and reintroduction benefits to the natural population, the broodstock will be managed as an integrated stock with the natural population in the McKenzie River. Natural-origin spring Chinook salmon will be regularly incorporated into the hatchery broodstock when conditions permit. Natural-origin spring Chinook integration will be performed at levels that minimize the impact to the natural population. Hatchery spring Chinook spawning naturally in the McKenzie River Basin will be managed at less than 10% proportion of hatchery origin spawners (pHOS) in the entire McKenzie subbasin excluding the intentional reintroduction area upstream Cougar Dam.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5 State(S): Oregon Recovery Unit Name: Willamette River
    Chapter 5 State(s): Oregon Recovery Unit Name: Willamette River Recovery Unit Region 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed necessary to recover and protect listed species. Plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and, in this case, with the assistance of recovery unit teams, contractors, State and Tribal agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or indicate the approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Recovery plans represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Director or Regional Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature Cited: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Chapter 5, Willamette River Recovery Unit, Oregon. 96 p. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Two working groups are active in the Willamette River Recovery Unit: the Upper Willamette (since 1989) and Clackamas Bull Trout Working Groups. In 1999, these groups were combined, and, along with representation from the Santiam subbasin, comprise the Willamette River Recovery Unit Team.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021.06.11 BBR Resort Map Ktk.Indd
    Fire Dept.non–emergency: 541-693-6911 | 911 | 541-693-6911 Dept.non–emergency: Fire . 13511 Hawks Beard, near Bishop’s Cap Cap Bishop’s near Beard, Hawks 13511 ROCK CLIMBING helicopters transport from the Sports Field. Field. Sports the from transport helicopters EXPLORE THE make up the Ranch. Ranch. the up make First Ascent Climbing o¡ers specialized climbing and has a fully-equipped fi rst aid room. Medical Medical room. aid rst fi fully-equipped a has and ums and various cabin clusters. About 1,200 homesites homesites 1,200 About clusters. cabin various and ums ADVENTURES services at Smith Rock State Park for all abilities. The BBR Fire Dept. is sta¡ ed with paramedics 24/7 24/7 paramedics with ed sta¡ is Dept. Fire BBR The Meadow (south). There also are three sets of condomini- of sets three are also There (south). Meadow BBR recommends helmets for all riders. all for helmets recommends BBR 1-866-climb11 | GoClimbing.com Home, South Meadow and Rock Ridge (center), and Glaze Glaze and (center), Ridge Rock and Meadow South Home, FIRST AID AID FIRST BACKYARD WITH OUTFITTERS when operating a bicycle, Razor, or inline skates. skates. inline or Razor, bicycle, a operating when into sections: Golf Home (NW), East Meadow (NE), Spring Spring (NE), Meadow East (NW), Home Golf sections: into BLACK BUTTE LOOKOUT • Anyone under 16 needs to wear a HELMET HELMET a wear to needs 16 under Anyone • for such a large residential resort. The Ranch is divided divided is Ranch The resort. residential large a such for FLY FISHING Police non–emergency: 541-693-6911 | 911 | 541-693-6911 non–emergency: Police Ranch Homeowners’ Association, a unique arrangement arrangement unique a Association, Homeowners’ Ranch Hike BBR’s namesake in this 3.6 mile, 1,556 foot climb.
    [Show full text]
  • A Genetics-Based Evaluation of the Spring Chinook Salmon Reintroduction Program Above Cougar Dam, South Fork Mckenzie River, 2007- 2013
    A genetics-based evaluation of the spring Chinook salmon reintroduction program above Cougar Dam, South Fork McKenzie River, 2007- 2013 Prepared by: Michael A. Banks1, Nicholas M. Sard1, Kathleen G. O’Malley1, Dave P. Jacobson1, Michael Hogansen2, Kirk Schroeder 2 and Marc A. Johnson1,2 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 Department of Fish and Wildlife, Upper Willamette Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation, Corvallis Research Laboratory, 28655 Highway 34, Corvallis, Oregon 97333 June 2014 Report Prepared for: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District – Willamette Valley Project 333 SW First Ave., Portland, Oregon 97204 1 List of Acronyms • AIC – Akaike information criterion • CI – Confidence interval • CRR – Cohort replacement rate • LSDR – Late season downstream release • ESA – Endangered Species Act • FDR – False discovery rate • GLM – Generalized linear model • GLMM – Generalized linear mixed-effects model • HCR – Head of Cougar Reservoir • HOR – Hatchery origin • HWE – Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium • LE – Linkage equilibrium • LOD – Likelihood-odds ratio • Ne – Effective population size • NOR – Natural origin • ODFW – Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife • PCR – Polymerase chain reaction • POPs – Parent-offspring pairs • RET – Reservoir entrance timing • RO – Regulating outlet • RRS – Relative reproductive success • RS – Reproductive success • TLF – Total lifetime
    [Show full text]