DOCSLIB.ORG

State of the River Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
State of the River Report Lower American River State of the River Report Water Forum 660 J Street, Suite 260 Sacramento, CA 95814 1 April 2005 Lower American River The Water Forum is a diverse group of business and agricultural leaders, citizens groups, environmentalists, water managers, and local governments in the Sacramento Region that have joined to fulfill two co-equal objectives: • Provide a reliable and safe water supply for the region’s economic health and planned development to the year 2030; and • Preserve the fishery, wildlife, recreational, and aesthetic values of the lower American River. In 2000, Water Forum members approved a comprehensive Water Forum Agreement, consisting of integrated actions necessary to provide a regional solution to potential water shortages, environmental degradation, groundwater contamination, threats to groundwater reliability, and limits to economic prosperity. The Water Forum Agreement allows the region to meet its needs in a balanced way through implementation of seven elements. The seven elements of the Water Forum Agreement are: 1) increased surface water diversions, 2) actions to meet customers’ needs while reducing diversion impacts in drier years, 3) an improved pattern of fishery flow releases from Folsom Reservoir, 4) lower American River Habitat Management Element, 5) water conservation, 6) groundwater management, and 7) the Water Forum Successor Effort (WFSE). The WFSE was created to implement the seven elements of the Water Forum Agreement over the next 30 years. Additional information can be found on the Water Forum’s web site at: www.waterforum.org. Water Forum 660 J Street, Suite 260 Sacramento, CA 95814 April 2005 2 Lower American River State of the River Report 3 Letter to Readers Dear Reader, This is the first lower American River State of the River Report. The purpose of this report is to review the health of the lower American River ecosystem as of 2004. It is meant to be an easy-to-read overview, and will be of use to anyone who is interested in learning more about and protecting the lower American River. This report summarizes information developed to support the Fisheries and In-Stream Habitat Management and Restoration Plan for the Lower American River (FISH Plan) as well as other reports and actions about the lower American River ecosystem. A complete list of information sources is at the end of this report. The lower American River and the land adjacent to the river (much which is encompassed by the American River Parkway) are tremendous resources, managed by a number of different agencies and organizations, for a variety of purposes. In the last decade especially, we have learned that to protect these resources it is critical that those who have an interest in the lower American River come together to share information, work with resource managers, and creatively partner to plan, fund, and implement projects that benefit the lower American River. For this report, we decided to focus on the following elements of river management and consider “how are we doing?” in five areas: • Managing the lower American River to protect fish and river habitat • Maintaining and/or improving habitats adjacent to the lower American River • Meeting water quality goals and achieving regulatory standards for the lower American River • Implementing lower American River levee stabilization and erosion control measures • Communicating among lower American River stakeholders to inform and improve current and future management As you will see when you read this document, many actions and projects have been put in place that benefit the lower American River and its resources. You will also note that much still needs to be accomplished. It is important that stakeholders continue to work together to make informed decisions, improve dialogue, and implement actions to maintain or enhance the lower American River. The Water Forum plans to provide a lower American River State of the River Report every five years. We hope that this report informs you, inspires you, and encourages you to enjoy and protect the lower American River. Regards, Leo Winternitz Executive Director Water Forum 2 Lower American River State of the River Report 3 Table of Contents About the Water Forum..........................................................................................................................................................................................2 Letter to Readers.........................................................................................................................................................................................................3 Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................................................................................4 List of Figures..................................................................................................................................................................................................................5 List of Tables.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................5 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations..................................................................................................................................................................5 Summary of Key Findings.........................................................................................................................................................................................6 1. A Resource of Local, Regional, and Statewide Importance..........................................................................................................10 2. Key Findings — The State of the lower American River................................................................................................................20 Managing the lower American River to protect fish and river habitat................................................................... 20 Maintaining and/or improving habitat areas adjacent to the river.............................................................................37 Communicating among lower American River stakeholders.......................................................................................51 Appendix 1 — River Corridor Management Plan Endorsements................................................................................................53 Appendix 2 — River Corridor Management Plan Accomplishments as of 2004................................................................ 54 Appendix 3 — OEHHA Fish Consumptions Guidelines...................................................................................................................56 Information Sources for the State of the River Report ......................................................................................................................57 Photo Credits ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................58 Acknowledgments Editors Brian Deason and David Robinson, U.S. Bureau of Catherine McCracken, Center for Collaborative Policy Reclamation Leo Winternitz and Sarah Foley, Water Forum Rod Hall, Water Forum Consultant Teresa Haenggi and Amy van Riessen, City of Design Sacramento/Parks & Recreation Department Blue Cat Studio Andrew Hamilton and Nick Hindman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Gary Kukkola, County of Sacramento/Department of The Water Forum thanks the following individuals Regional Parks, Recreation, & Open Space who reviewed this report or portions of this report Mike Laing, Northern California Council — Federation of as a “work in progress” and provided numerous Fly Fishers helpful suggestions and comments: Catherine Doyle McCracken — Artist Paul Olmstead, Sacramento Municipal Utility District John Baker, NOAA Fisheries Jim Ray, Water Forum Business Caucus Paul Bartkiewicz, Bartkiewicz, Kronick &Shanahan Felix Smith, Save the American River Association, Inc. Rick Bettis, Water Forum Environmental Caucus Jack Sohl, Save the American River Association, Inc. Paul Bratovich, Brian Ellrott, and Janice Pinero, Surface Rob Titus, California Department of Fish and Game Water Resources, Inc. Frank Wallace, California Native Plant Society David Brent and Mel Johnson, City of Sacramento/ Sunny Williams, County of Sacramento/Department of Utilities Department Planning & Community Development Randall Brown, Water Forum Consultant Ed Winkler, Regional Water Authority Bill Crooks, City of Sacramento Consultant Lois Wright, American River Parkway Foundation Peter Buck, Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency Bob Caikoski. County of Sacramento/Department of Published April 2005 Environmental Review & Assessment 4 Lower American River State of the River Report 5 List of Figures Figure 1 The American River Watershed Figure 7 Total Number of Steelhead Entering Figure 2 The lower American River Nimbus Hatchery from 1955 – 2002 Figure 3 Significant Events in the History of the Figure 8 Schematic Diagram of Folsom lower American River Coldwater Pool Figure 4 Fall-Run Chinook Salmon Life Cycle Figure 9 Lower American River Flow Averages Figure 5 Fall-Run Chinook Salmon Escapement and Existing D-893 Requirements Estimates
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Folsom50booklet 1 5/10/2006, 10:22 AM This Booklet Was Printed in Cooperation With
    U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region Folsom50Booklet 1 5/10/2006, 10:22 AM This booklet was printed in cooperation with Folsom50Booklet 2 5/10/2006, 10:22 AM U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region Folsom50Booklet 3 5/10/2006, 10:22 AM Dedication I am pleased to offer my congratulations as Folsom Dam celebrates its 50th Anniversary. For half a century, through drought and flood, Folsom Dam has managed American River flows for the benefit of people, farms, industry, and the environment. Since its completion in 1956, it has effectively controlled flooding. Even several months before its final William E. Rinne completion, Folsom Dam prevented flood Acting Commissioner damage when a major tropical storm Bureau of Reclamation triggered rapid snowmelt. The dam impounded so much runoff that Folsom Lake filled in one week rather than the one year anticipated by engineers. It is estimated that this magnificent dam has prevented more than $5 billion in flood damage to downstream agricultural and urban areas, a testament to the foresight of the men and women who envisioned and built it. Today, Folsom Dam provides 500,000 acre-feet of water for irrigation and urban uses annually. It plays an important role in fisheries enhancement and water quality improvement in the San Francisco Bay-Delta. The dam also provides clean, renewable electricity. In 2005, it produced more than 690 million kilowatt hours. As a recreational facility, Folsom Lake is one of the most visited recreation areas operated by the California Department of Parks and Recreation.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Valley Project Integrated Resource Plan
    Summary Report Central Valley Project Integrated Resource Plan U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................................................................5 STUDY APPROACH ...................................................................................................................................................7 CLIMATE IMPACTS ON WATER SUPPLIES AND DEMANDS ...............................................................................11 COMPARISON OF PROJECTED WATER SUPPLIES AND DEMANDS .................................................................21 PERFORMANCE OF POTENTIAL FUTURE WATER MANAGEMENT ACTIONS .................................................27 PORTFOLIO TRADEOFFS .......................................................................................................................................37 CVP IRP STUDY LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................39 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN FIGURES ......................................................................................41 Tables Table 1. Simulation Suites and Assumptions Inlcuded in Each Portfolio .............................................................27 Figures Figure 1a. Projected changes in Temperature in Ensemble-Informed Transient Climate Scenarios between 2012
    [Show full text]
  • Riverine Nutrient Trends in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins, California
    Peer Reviewed Title: Riverine Nutrient Trends in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins, California: A Comparison to State and Regional Water Quality Policies Journal Issue: San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 13(4) Author: Schlegel, Brandon, California State University, Sacramento Domagalski, Joseph L., U.S Geological Survey, California Water Science Center Publication Date: 2015 Permalink: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4c37m6vz Keywords: Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta, nutrients, nitrogen, phosphorus, nutrient transport, nutrient loads, agricultural drainage Local Identifier: jmie_sfews_29499 Abstract: doi: http://dx.doi.org/1015447/sfews.2015v13iss4art2 Non-point source (NPS) contaminant control strategies were initiated in California in the late 1980s under the authority of the State Porter–Cologne Act and eventually for the development of total maximum daily load (TMDL) plans, under the federal Clean Water Act. Most of the NPS TMDLs developed for California’s Central Valley (CV) region were related to pesticides, but not nutrients. Efforts to reduce pesticide loads and concentrations began in earnest around 1990. The NPS control strategies either encouraged or mandated the use of management practices (MPs). Although TMDLs were largely developed for pesticides, the resultant MPs might have affected the runoff of other potential contaminants (such as nutrients). This study evaluates the effect of agricultural NPS control strategies implemented in California’s CV before and between 1990 and 2013, on nutrients, by comparing trends in surface-water concentrations and loads. In general, use of MPs was encouraged during a “voluntary” period (1990 to 2004) and mandated during an “enforcement” period (2004 to 2013). Nutrient concentrations, loads, and trends were estimated by using a recently developed Weighted Regressions on Time, Discharge, and Season (WRTDS) model.
    [Show full text]
  • 3A.12 Parks and Recreation - Land
    3A.12 PARKS AND RECREATION - LAND The two local roadway connections from the Folsom Heights property off-site into El Dorado Hills would not generate direct increases in population that could result in additional demand for parkland facilities in El Dorado County. Therefore, the “Affected Environment” does not contain a discussion of conditions in El Dorado County related to parks and recreation. 3A.12.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT REGIONAL ENVIRONMENT Folsom Lake Folsom Lake State Recreation Area (SRA), located approximately 5 miles north of the SPA, serves the greater Sacramento area for recreation in the form of camping, hiking, biking, boating, and other outdoor recreation activities. The lake also hosts bass fishing tournaments that frequently draw fishermen from throughout the state. California State Parks manages the Folsom Lake SRA, which includes Folsom Lake and the surrounding facilities. The lake features approximately 75 miles of shoreline and 80 miles of trails that provide opportunities for hiking, horseback riding, nature studies, camping, and picnicking. There are seven major recreation areas with facilities located around the lake. The Folsom Lake SRA, including Folsom Lake, is one of the most heavily used recreational facilities in the California State Park system, with 2 to 3 million visitor days per year. Approximately 75% of the annual visitations to the Folsom Lake SRA occur during the spring and summer, and many (85%) of the Folsom Lake SRA activities are water dependent. The Lake Natoma sub-unit of the Folsom Lake SRA is located adjacent to the City of Folsom, between Hazel Avenue and Folsom Dam, upstream from the Sacramento County-operated portion of the American River Parkway.
    [Show full text]
  • Folsom City Council Staff Re Ort
    Folsom City Council Staff Re ort MEETING DATE: 5/12/2020 AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar SUBJECT: Resolution No. I 0434- A Resolution Approving the Preliminary Engineer's Report for the following Landscaping and Lighting Districts for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 American River Canyon North, American River Canyon North No. 2, American River Canyon North No. 3, Blue Ravine Oaks, Blue Ravine Oaks No. 2, Briggs Ranch, Broadstone, Broadstone No. 4, Broadstone Unit No. 3, Cobble Ridge, Cobble Hills Ridge II/Reflections II, Folsom Heights, Folsom Heights No. 2, Hannaford Cross, Lake Natoma Shores, Los Cerros, Natoma Station, Natoma Valley, Prairie Oaks Ranch, Prospect Ridge, Sierra Estates, Silverbrook, Steeplechase, The Residences at American River Canyon, The Residences at American River Canyon II, Willow Creek Estates East, Willow Creek Estates East No. 2, Willow Creek Estates South, and Willow Springs FROM: Parks and Recreation Department RECOMMENDATION I CITY COUNCIL ACTION Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution No.10434- A Resolution Approving the Preliminary Engineer's Report for the following Landscaping and Lighting Districts for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 American River Canyon North, American River Canyon North No. 2, American River Canyon North No. 3, Blue Ravine Oaks, Blue Ravine Oaks No. 2, Briggs Ranch, Broadstone, Broadstone No. 4, Broadstone Unit No. 3, Cobble Ridge, Cobble Hills Ridge II/Reflections II, Folsom Heights, Folsom Heights No. 2, Hannaford Cross, Lake Natoma Shores, Los Cerros, Natoma Station, Natoma Valley, Prairie Oaks Ranch, Prospect Ridge, Sierra Estates, Silverbrook, Steeplechase, The Residences at American River Canyon, The Residences at American River Canyon II, Willow Creek Estates East, Willow Creek Estates East No.
    [Show full text]
  • Mining's Toxic Legacy
    Mining’s Toxic Legacy An Initiative to Address Mining Toxins in the Sierra Nevada Acknowledgements _____________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The Sierra Fund would like to thank Dr. Carrie Monohan, contributing author of this report, and Kyle Leach, lead technical advisor. Thanks as well to Dr. William M. Murphy, Dr. Dave Brown, and Professor Becky Damazo, RN, of California State University, Chico for their research into the human and environmental impacts of mining toxins, and to the graduate students who assisted them: Lowren C. McAmis and Melinda Montano, Gina Grayson, James Guichard, and Yvette Irons. Thanks to Malaika Bishop and Roberto Garcia for their hard work to engage community partners in this effort, and Terry Lowe and Anna Reynolds Trabucco for their editorial expertise. For production of this report we recognize Elizabeth “Izzy” Martin of The Sierra Fund for conceiving of and coordinating the overall Initiative and writing substantial portions of the document, Kerry Morse for editing, and Emily Rivenes for design and formatting. Many others were vital to the development of the report, especially the members of our Gold Ribbon Panel and our Government Science and Policy Advisors. We also thank the Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment and The Abandoned Mine Alliance who provided funding to pay for a portion of the expenses in printing this report. Special thanks to Rebecca Solnit, whose article “Winged Mercury and
    [Show full text]
  • Figure 6-3. California's Water Infrastructure Network
    DA 17 DA 67 DA 68 DA 22 DA 29 DA 39 DA 40 DA 41 DA 46 N. FORK N. & M. TUOLOMNE YUBA RIVER FORKS CHERRY CREEK, RIVER Figure 6-3. California's Water Infrastructure ELEANOR CREEK AMERICAN M & S FORK RIVER YUBA RIVER New Bullards Hetch Hetchy Res Bar Reservoir GREENHORN O'Shaughnessy Dam Network Configuration for CALVIN (1 of 2) SR- S. FORK NBB CREEK & BEAR DA 32 SR- D17 AMERICAN RIVER HHR DA 42 DA 43 DA 44 RIVER STANISLAUS SR- LL- C27 RIVER & 45 Camp Far West Reservoir DRAFT Folsom Englebright C31 Lake DA 25 DA 27 Canyon Tunnel FEATHER Lake 7 SR- CALAVERAS New RIVER SR-EL CFW SR-8 RIVER Melones Lower Cherry Creek MERCED MOKELUMNE Reservoir SR-10 Aqueduct ACCRETION CAMP C44 RIVER FAR WEST TO DEER CREEK C28 FRENCH DRY RIVER CREEK WHEATLAND GAGE FRESNO New Hogan Lake Oroville DA 70 D67 SAN COSUMNES Lake RIVER SR- 0 SR-6 C308 SR- JOAQUIN Accretion: NHL C29 RIVER 81 CHOWCHILLA American River RIVER New Don Lake McClure Folsom to Fair D9 DRY Pardee Pedro SR- New Exchequer RIVER Oaks Reservoir 20 CREEK Reservoir Dam SR- Hensley Lake DA 14 Tulloch Reservoir SR- C33 Lake Natoma PR Hidden Dam Nimbus Dam TR Millerton Lake SR-52 Friant Dam C23 KELLY RIDGE Accretion: Eastside Eastman Lake Bypass Accretion: Accretion: Buchanan Dam C24 Yuba Urban DA 59 Camanche Melones to D16 Upper Merced D64 SR- C37 Reservoir C40 2 SR-18 Goodwin River 53 D62 SR- La Grange Dam 2 CR Goodwin Reservoir D66 Folsom South Canal Mokelumne River Aqueduct Accretion: 2 D64 depletion: Upper C17 D65 Losses D85 C39 Goodwin to 3 Merced River 3 3a D63 DEPLETION mouth C31 2 C25 C31 D37
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Year in Review — California
    2020 Year in Review CALIFORNIA–GREAT BASIN REGION U.S. Department of the Interior January 2021 Mission Statements The Department of the Interior conserves and manages the Nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage for the benefit and enjoyment of the American people, provides scientific and other information about natural resources and natural hazards to address societal challenges and create opportunities for the American people, and honors the Nation’s trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities to help them prosper. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. 2020 Year in Review: Highlights of Key Initiatives in the California-Great Basin Region Cover Photo: The “Three Shastas:” Shasta Dam, Shasta Lake, and Mount Shasta U.S. Department of the Interior January 2021 2020 Year in Review: Highlights of Key Initiatives in the California-Great Basin Region 3 Contents Welcome from Regional Director Conant ...................................................................................6 Implementing New Central Valley Project Operating Plan......................................7 Annual Report on the Long-Term Operation of the CVP and SWP for Water Year 2020 ......................................................................................................................8 Modernizing Reclamation Infrastructure
    [Show full text]
  • Open House Summary Report
    Nimbus Hatchery Fish Passage Project Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report Open House Summary Report Rancho Cordova, California US Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation California Department of Fish and Game February 2011 Contents Page 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................1 1.1 Overview of the Public Involvement Process ..............................................1 1.2 Description of the Public Involvement Process to Date ..............................2 2. Meeting Overview ..................................................................................................5 3. Comment Summary ...............................................................................................7 4. Future Steps ............................................................................................................9 4.1 Summary of Future Steps and Public Participation Opportunities ..............9 4.2 Contact Information .....................................................................................9 Table Page 3-1 Summary of Comments ...........................................................................................8 Appendix Draft EIS/EIR Public Involvement Materials Nimbus Hatchery Fish Passage Project EIS/EIR February 2011 Open House Summary Report i Acronyms Acronym Full Phrase CCAO Central California Area Office CCR California Code of Regulations CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CEQA California
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2. Project Update/Activities U.S
    Chapter 2 Project Update/Activities since Publication of the Draft EIR/EIS Chapter 2 Project Update/Activities since Publication of the Draft EIR/EIS This chapter is intended to provide an update on various aspects of the project that have changed since issuance of the draft EIR/EIS on August 8, 2003. Many of these changes are a result of comments received on the draft EIR/EIS during the comment period, which ended December 15, 2003. Changes to the project are presented in the list below, followed by a more detailed description of each. 1. Modifications to the layout and configuration of the intake facilities 2. Site identification for Zone 40 water treatment plant 3. Revised modeling and coordinated operation agreement assumptions 4. Water contract settlement agreements None of these changes results in new impacts. In some cases they result in a reduction of severity of impacts identified in the draft EIR/EIS. A revised summary of impacts and mitigation measures is provided at the end of this chapter in Tables S-1, S-2, and S-3. Table S-1 summarizes the significant environmental impacts and Table S-2 summarizes the less-than-significant environmental impacts of the FRWP alternatives. Table S-3 summarizes significant cumulative impacts. The tables are organized to present impacts by environmental topic area and to indicate the significance of each impact, available mitigation measures, and the significance of each impact if mitigation is implemented. Responsibility for Project Implementation As noted in Chapter 1 of the draft EIR/EIS, FRWA is a joint powers agency formed by the Sacramento County Water Agency and East Bay Municipal Utility District.
    [Show full text]
  • Folsom Lake State Recreation Area
    Folsom Lake State Recreation Area 7755 Folsom-Auburn Road • Folsom, CA 95630 • (916) 988-0205 Folsom Lake State Recreation Area offers scenic panoramas of open grasslands, rolling hills, the Sierra Nevada, Sacramento Valley, and the Bay Area’s Mount Diablo. Folsom Lake’s miles of shoreline and waterside trails attract millions of boaters, equestrians, cyclists, and hikers each year. RATTLESNAKES are common to the area and are FISHING is perhaps the most popular activity at important members of the natural community. They Folsom Lake. The fish varieties include trout, catfi sh, will not attack, but if disturbed or cornered, will large and smallmouth bass, perch, and kokanee. defend themselves. Give them distance and respect. Bottom anglers have even caught sturgeon. BOATERS should be alert for fl oating debris, Fishing regulations change annually, check with the particularly in spring, and underwater hazards created California Department of Fish and Wildlife at as the lake draws down in the summer. www.wildlife.ca.gov for current changes in catch limits and licensing requirements. QUIET HOURS are from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. Generators may be operated from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. PLEASE REMEMBER: Radios and other sound-producing devices must • Poison oak is nearly everywhere in the park. not be audible beyond your immediate campsite “Leaves of three, let them be!” Check with staff for regardless of the time, day or night. further information. • The consumption of any alcoholic beverage in all CHECK-OUT TIME is noon. If you wish to stay day-use areas and all shorelines of Folsom Lake another night, please re-register by 10 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Annual Report of Activities
    Annual Report of Activities October 1, 2017 to October 22, 2018 Weir and fish ladder at Nimbus Fish Hatchery on the Lower American River below Nimbus Dam. Photo credit: Spencer Marshall, Sarah Perrin, and Zarela Guerrero, USBR American River Group (ARG) November 2018 i Acronyms and Abbreviations ARG American River Group BiOp Biological Opinion cfs Cubic Feet Per Second CVP Central Valley Project CVPIA Central Valley Project Improvement Act CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife CWP Coldwater Pool FMS Flow Management Standard LAR Lower American River MRR Minimum Release Requirements NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation RM River Mile RPA Reasonable and Prudent Alternative RTDOT Real-Time Drought Operations Management Team SWP State Water Project SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TAF Thousand Acre-Feet TCD Temperature Control Device USFWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ii Table of Contents Chapter 1 – Background ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 American River Geographic Orientation ................................................................................... 1 1.2 Lower American River Historical Background ......................................................................... 2 Chapter 2 –Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) Actions (NMFS 2009 BiOp) ................................ 3 2.1 Summary of RPA Actions ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]