DOCSLIB.ORG

Columbia Basin White Sturgeon Planning Framework

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Review Draft Review Draft Columbia Basin White Sturgeon Planning Framework Prepared for The Northwest Power & Conservation Council February 2013 Review Draft PREFACE This document was prepared at the direction of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council to address comments by the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) in their 2010 review of Bonneville Power Administration research, monitoring, and evaluation projects regarding sturgeon in the lower Columbia River. The ISRP provided a favorable review of specific sturgeon projects but noted that an effective basin-wide management plan for white sturgeon is lacking and is the most important need for planning future research and restoration. The Council recommended that a comprehensive sturgeon management plan be developed through a collaborative effort involving currently funded projects. Hatchery planning projects by the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (2007-155-00) and the Yakama Nation (2008-455-00) were specifically tasked with leading or assisting with the comprehensive management plan. The lower Columbia sturgeon monitoring and mitigation project (1986-050-00) sponsored by the Oregon and Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife and the Inter-Tribal Fish Commission also agreed to collaborate on this effort and work with the Council on the plan. The Council directed that scope of the planning area include from the mouth of the Columbia upstream to Priest Rapids on the mainstem and up to Lower Granite Dam on the Snake River. The plan was also to include summary information for sturgeon areas above Priest Rapids and Lower Granite. A planning group was convened of representatives of the designated projects. Development also involved collaboration with representatives of other agencies and tribes involved in related sturgeon projects throughout the region. The process was aided by the organization of a series of three regional sturgeon workshops. A 2009 workshop identified a shared vision, goals, objectives and strategies for sturgeon conservation, management and mitigation efforts in the lower Columbia and lower Snake region. A 2010 workshop addressed critical uncertainties highlighted by the IRSP including natural recruitment limitations, genetic population structure, and sturgeon carrying capacity. A 2011 workshop addressed this basin-wide planning framework and sturgeon passage. A planning framework (this document) was drafted based on a review and synthesis of published and unpublished material regarding sturgeon in the region and proceedings of the workshops. The draft planning framework was distributed for review by other agencies and tribes with an interest in sturgeon within the region and revised based on comments from those parties. Planning Group Blaine Parker Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Tom Rien Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife Brad James Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Ray Beamesderfer Cramer Fish Sciences Contributors Tucker Jones, Colin Chapman Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife Chad Jackson, Jeff Korth Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Steve Parker, Bob Rose Yakama Indian Nation Jeff Dillon Idaho Department of Fish & Game Ken Lepla Idaho Power Company Jason McLellan Colville Tribes Sue Ireland Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Paul Anders Cramer Fish Sciences Barbara Taylor Consultant 1 CONTENTS PREFACE 1 CONTENTS 2 INTRODUCTION 6 1.1 Background 6 1.2 Purpose of Framework 9 1.3 Plan Organization 9 1.4 Planning Area & Management Units 10 1.5 A Brief History of Sturgeon Planning 12 1.6 Planning & Policy Guidance 13 1.6.1 Northwest Power and Conservation Council 13 1.6.2 States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana 16 1.6.3 Columbia River Indian Tribes 19 1.6.4 U.S. v. Oregon / Columbia River Fishery Management Plan 20 1.6.5 Canada 22 1.6.6 Listing Status 23 1.6.7 FERC Licensing 24 2 SPECIES DESCRIPTION 26 2.1 Taxonomy & Morphology 26 2.2 Range 28 2.3 Life History 29 2.3.1 Spawning 30 2.3.2 Incubation & Early Life History 34 2.3.3 Food & Feeding 36 2.3.4 Movements & Habitat Use 37 2.4 Life History Parameters 39 2.4.1 Size 39 2.4.2 Age & Growth 41 2.4.3 Maturation & Fecundity 42 2.4.4 Recruitment 43 2.4.5 Survival/Mortality 44 2.5 Genetic Stock Structure 44 3 CURRENT STATUS 50 3.1 Distribution and Spatial Structure 50 3.2 Abundance 52 3.3 Productivity 55 4 OVERVIEW OF FISHERIES 56 4.1 History of White Sturgeon Fisheries 56 4.2 Current Fishery Types & Areas 59 4.2.1 Non-Indian Recreational 59 4.2.2 Non-Indian Commercial 60 4.2.3 Treaty Subsistence 60 4.2.4 Treaty Commercial 60 4.3 Harvest Guidelines, Yield, Exploitation & Effort 61 4.3.1 Below Bonneville Dam 61 Columbia Basin White Sturgeon Planning Framework Page | 2 Review Draft 4.3.2 Bonneville Dam to McNary Dam (Zone 6) 64 4.3.3 Columbia River upstream of McNary Dam 65 4.3.4 Upper Columbia 66 4.3.5 Snake River 66 5 OVERVIEW OF LIMITING FACTORS & THREATS 67 5.1 Habitat Fragmentation 67 5.2 Habitat Complexity, quantity and Quality 68 5.3 Flow & Flow Variation 69 5.4 Water Quality 71 5.5 Competition and Predation from changes in fish communities 73 5.5.1 Predation 73 5.5.2 Competition 74 5.6 Exploitation & Illegal Harvest 74 5.7 Climate Patterns & Trends 75 6 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 76 6.1 Vision 76 6.2 Goals & Objectives 76 6.3 Strategies 78 6.3.1 Improving Passage/Connectivity 78 6.3.2 Habitat Restoration 79 6.3.3 Fisheries Management 80 6.3.4 Hatcheries 80 6.4 Monitoring & Evaluation 82 6.5 Critical Uncertainties Research 82 6.6 Implementation 83 7 MANAGEMENT UNIT SUMMARIES 84 7.1 Lower Columbia (below Bonneville Dam) 84 7.1.1 Status 85 7.1.2 Limiting Factors & Threats 86 7.1.3 Plans, Objectives & Strategies 94 7.1.4 Programs, Projects, Actions & Schedules 94 7.1.5 Needs & Uncertainties 97 7.2 Lower Mid-Columbia (Bonneville Dam to Priest Rapids Dam) 99 7.2.1 Status 99 7.2.2 Limiting Factors & Threats 106 7.2.3 Plans, Objectives & Strategies 114 7.2.4 Programs, Projects, Actions & Schedules 114 7.2.5 Needs & Uncertainties 115 7.3 Upper Mid-Columbia (Priest Rapids Dam to Grand Coulee Dam) 117 7.3.1 Status 118 7.3.2 Limiting Factors & Threats 118 7.3.3 Plans, Objectives & Strategies 119 7.3.4 Programs, Projects, Actions & Schedules 121 7.3.5 Needs & Uncertainties 123 7.4 Transboundary Upper Columbia (Grand Coulee Dam to Hugh L. Keenleyside Dam) 124 7.4.1 Status 125 7.4.2 Limiting Factors & Threats 128 7.4.3 Plans, Objectives & Strategies 130 7.4.4 Programs, Projects, Actions & Schedules 131 3 7.4.5 Needs & Uncertainties 135 7.5 Headwaters Upper Columbia (Keenleyside Dam to Kinbasket Reservoir) 137 7.5.1 Status 138 7.5.2 Limiting Factors & Threats 138 7.5.3 Plans, Objectives & Strategies 140 7.5.4 Programs, Projects, Actions & Schedules 141 7.5.5 Needs & Uncertainties 141 7.6 Kootenay Lake & Kootenai River 142 7.6.1 Status 143 7.6.2 Limiting Factors & Threats 143 7.6.3 Plans, Objectives & Strategies 145 7.6.4 Programs, Projects, Actions & Schedules 148 7.6.5 Needs & Uncertainties 150 7.7 Lower Snake (Ice Harbor Dam to Lower Granite Dam) 151 7.7.1 Status 151 7.7.2 Limiting Factors & Threats 152 7.7.3 Plans, Objectives & Strategies 153 7.7.4 Programs, Projects, Actions & Schedules 153 7.7.5 Needs & Uncertainties 153 7.8 Middle Snake (Lower Granite Dam to Hells Canyon Dam) 155 7.8.1 Status 156 7.8.2 Limiting Factors and Threats 157 7.8.3 Plans, Objectives & Strategies 158 7.8.4 Programs, Projects, Actions & Schedules 160 7.8.5 Needs & Uncertainties 162 7.9 Upper Snake (Hells Canyon Dam to Shoshone Falls) 164 7.9.1 Status 169 7.9.2 Limiting Factors & Threats 169 7.9.3 Plans, Objectives & Strategies 171 7.9.4 Programs, Projects, Actions & Schedules 179 7.9.5 Needs & Uncertainties 183 8 BASIN-WIDE ASSESSMENT 184 8.1 Jurisdiction/Involvement 184 8.2 Assessment & Monitoring 185 8.3 Limiting Factors & Threats 187 8.4 Goals, Objectives & Targets 188 8.5 Strategies & Actions 189 8.6 Research Needs & Critical Uncertainties 191 9 FINDINGS 193 9.1 Conclusions 193 9.2 Critical Uncertainties 197 9.3 Research Needs 199 9.3.1 Stock Assessment 199 9.3.2 Distribution & Habitat Use 200 9.3.3 Limiting Factors 201 9.4 Conservation, Restoration & Mitigation Recommendations 204 10 REFERENCES 208 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 234 Columbia Basin White Sturgeon Planning Framework Page | 4 Review Draft GLOSSARY 236 5 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND The Columbia basin historically supported a very large and productive population of white sturgeon that ranged from the ocean upstream in the Columbia and Snake Rivers for hundreds of miles (Figure 7). White sturgeon had access as far upstream as Windermere Lake on the Columbia River in Canada (UCWSRI 2002) and Shoshone Falls on the Snake River in Idaho (IPC 2005). Columbia River white sturgeon also mixed in the ocean with white sturgeon from populations of other large rivers along the Pacific coast. Sturgeons are uniquely adapted to large mainstem rivers like the Columbia and Snake (Beamesderfer and Farr 1997). These systems provide diverse habitats that are distributed in large-scale patterns corresponding to the surrounding topography. Habitats are extremely dynamic with large seasonal and annual variation. Distribution and abundance of prey and predator species varies widely in response to spatial and temporal patterns. Anadromous fishes, including salmon, eulachon, and lamprey historically provided tremendous seasonally-abundant food resources. Figure 1. Large white sturgeon captured from a lower mid-Columbia River reservoir for population assessment.
Recommended publications
  • REVIEW of the ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION's INTERSTATE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN for SPINY DOGFISH (Squalus Acanthias)

    REVIEW of the ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION's INTERSTATE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN for SPINY DOGFISH (Squalus Acanthias)

    REVIEW OF THE ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION'S INTERSTATE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SPINY DOGFISH (Squalus acanthias) May 2004 – April 2005 FISHING YEAR Board Approved: February 2006 Prepared by the Spiny Dogfish Plan Review Team: Ruth Christiansen, ASMFC, Chair I. Status of the Fishery Management Plan Date of FMP Approval: November 2002 Date of Addendum I Approval: November 2005 Management Unit: Entire coastwide distribution of the resource from the estuaries eastward to the inshore boundary of the EEZ States With Declared Interest: Maine - Florida Active Boards/Committees: Spiny Dogfish and Coastal Shark Management Board, Advisory Panel, Technical Committee, Stock Assessment Subcommittee, and Plan Review Team In April 1998, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) declared spiny dogfish overfished. The Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils jointly manage the federal spiny dogfish fishery. NMFS partially approved the federal FMP in September 1999, but implementation did not begin until the May 2000, the start of the 2000-2001 fishing year. The federal FMP uses a target fishing mortality to specify a coastwide commercial quota and splits this quota into two seasonal periods (Period 1: May 1 to October 31 and Period 2: November 1 to April 30). The seasonal periods also have separate possession limits that are specified on an annual basis. In August 2000, ASMFC took emergency action to close state waters to the commercial harvest, landing, and possession of spiny dogfish when federal waters closed because the quota was fully harvested. With the emergency action in place, the Commission had time to develop an interstate FMP, which prevented the undermining of the federal FMP and prevented further overharvest of the coastwide spiny dogfish population.
  • Distribution and Movement of Chinese Sturgeon, Acipenser Sinensis, on the Spawning Ground Located Below the Gezhouba Dam During Spawning Seasons

    Distribution and Movement of Chinese Sturgeon, Acipenser Sinensis, on the Spawning Ground Located Below the Gezhouba Dam During Spawning Seasons

    J. Appl. Ichthyol. 22 (Suppl. 1) (2006), 145-151 Received: January 10, 2006 © 2006 Blackwell Verlag, Berlin Accepted: August 9, 2006 ISSN 0175-8659 Distribution and movement of Chinese sturgeon, Acipenser sinensis, on the spawning ground located below the Gezhouba Dam during spawning seasons By D. Yang1,3, B. Kynard2, Q. Wei1,3, X. Chen1,3, W. Zheng1 and H. Du1,3 1Key Laboratory of Freshwater Fish Germplasm Resources and Biotechnology, the Ministry of Agriculture of PRC. Yangtze River Fisheries Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences, Jinzhou 434000, China; 2Freshwater Fisheries Research Center, Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences, Wuxi 214081, China; 3S. C. Anadromous Fish Research Center, US Geological Service, MA 01376 USA Summary estuary to begin their upstream spawning migration as maturing adults. The age of females and males at this stage is commonly Sonic tracking of 40 adult pre-spawning Chinese sturgeons (35 above 14 years and 9 years, respectively. Migrating spawners usu- females, 5 males) was done during 8 spawning seasons (1996– ally arrive at the spawning ground about 18 months after starting 2004). Fish spent most of the time close to the dam (within 7 km). the upstream migration. Their gonads develop from stage III into A yearly mean of 64% of the tracking locations of pre-spawners stage IV during the upstream migration (Anonymous. 1988; were in the small area of 1.08 km distance below the dam (cell I-B Chang, 1999). The range of their spawning ground locations before of the tracking grid system). These movements indicate fish con- the construction of the Gezhouba Dam reached from the Maoshui tinue to attempt to move farther upstream to pass the dam.
  • 2004 Status Review of Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus Orca) Under the Endangered Species Act

    2004 Status Review of Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus Orca) Under the Endangered Species Act

    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-62 2004 Status Review of Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act December 2004 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS Series The Northwest Fisheries Science Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS series to issue infor- mal scientific and technical publications when com- plete formal review and editorial processing are not appropriate or feasible due to time constraints. Docu- ments published in this series may be referenced in the scientific and technical literature. The NMFS-NWFSC Technical Memorandum series of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center continues the NMFS-F/NWC series established in 1970 by the Northwest & Alaska Fisheries Science Center, which has since been split into the Northwest Fisheries Science Center and the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. The NMFS-AFSC Technical Memorandum series is now being used by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Reference throughout this document to trade names does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. This document should be cited as follows: Krahn, M.M., M.J. Ford, W.F. Perrin, P.R. Wade, R.P. Angliss, M.B. Hanson, B.L. Taylor, G.M. Ylitalo, M.E. Dahlheim, J.E. Stein, and R.S. Waples. 2004. 2004 Status review of Southern Resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS- NWFSC-62, 73 p. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-62 2004 Status Review of Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act Margaret M.
  • British Columbia Vegetation and Climate History with Focus on 6 Ka BP

    British Columbia Vegetation and Climate History with Focus on 6 Ka BP

    Document generated on 10/01/2021 4:51 p.m. Géographie physique et Quaternaire British Columbia Vegetation and Climate History with Focus on 6 ka BP Histoire du climat et de la végétation de la Colombie-Britannique, notamment de la période de 6 ka BP Geschichte der Vegetation und des Klimas in British Columbia während des Holozäns, besonders um 6 ka v.u.Z. Richard J. Hebda La paléogéographie et la paléoécologie d’il y a 6000 ans BP au Canada Article abstract Paleogeography and Paleoecology of 6000 yr BP in Canada British Columbia Holocene vegetation and climate is reconstructed from pollen Volume 49, Number 1, 1995 records. A coastal Pinus contorta paleobiome developed after glacier retreat under cool and probably dry climate. Cool moist forests involving Picea, Abies, URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/033030ar Tsuga spp., and Pinus followed until the early Holocene. Pseudotsuga menziesii DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/033030ar arrived and spread in the south 10 000-9000 BP, and Picea sitchensis - Tsuga heterophylla forests developed in the north. T. heterophylla increased 7500-7000 BP, and Cupressaceae expanded 5000-4000 BP. Bogs began to See table of contents develop and expland. Modern vegetation arose 4000-2000 BP. There were early Holocene grass and Artemisia communities at mid-elevations and pine stands at high elevations in southern interior B.C. Forests expanded downslope and Publisher(s) lakes formed 8500-7000 BP. Modern forests arose 4500-4000 BP while lower and upper tree lines declined. In northern B.C. non-arboreal communities Les Presses de l'Université de Montréal preceded middle Holocene Picea forests.
  • Eagle Creek Radio Telemetry Report

    Eagle Creek Radio Telemetry Report

    Ecological and Genetic Interactions between Hatchery and Wild Steelhead in Eagle Creek, Oregon Final Report Jeff Hogle and Ken Lujan collecting genetic and fish health samples in Eagle Creek, Oregon. Photo Credit: Maureen Kavanagh Ecological and Genetic Interactions between Hatchery and Wild Steelhead in Eagle Creek, Oregon Final Report Prepared by: Maureen Kavanagh, William R. Brignon and Doug Olson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Columbia River Fisheries Program Office Hatchery Assessment Team Vancouver, WA 98683 -and- Susan Gutenberger U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lower Columbia River Fish Health Center Willard, WA 98605 -and- Andrew Matala and William Ardren U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Abernathy Fish Technology Center Applied Research Program in Conservation Genetics Longview, WA 98632 July 23, 2009 Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 9 2.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 10 3.0 Geographic Area ................................................................................................................................... 12 4.0 Background Information on Winter Steelhead in the Clackamas River & Eagle Creek ....................... 13 5.0 Methods ...............................................................................................................................................
  • February 10, 2010 the Valley Voice 1

    February 10, 2010 the Valley Voice 1

    February 10, 2010 The Valley Voice 1 Volume 19, Number 3 February 10, 2010 Delivered to every home between Edgewood, Kaslo & South Slocan. Published bi-weekly. “Your independently owned regional community newspaper serving the Arrow Lakes, Slocan & North Kootenay Lake Valleys.” WE Graham and Winlaw Schools under review for closure or re-configuration by Jan McMurray The estimated savings of closing move the VWP to Mt. Sentinel. near Castlegar that was closed, but kindergarteners, and said she hoped School District No. 8’s board Winlaw School is $64,000. In this Campbell answered, “Anything is the funding was still coming in and parents would ask board members to of education will decide the fate of scenario, it was assumed that all possible.” there were still community programs consider this in their decision. Winlaw and WE Graham Schools kids from the two communities Another concern if WEG running at the school. Ahead of the February 16 on April 13, as part of the district’s would go to WEG, although it was closes is the fate of WE Graham Former Slocan Valley school meeting at WEG, parents are asked ongoing review of its facilities. acknowledged that some parents Community Service Society. The trustee, Penny Tees, commented to submit their ideas in writing to the At a public meeting in Winlaw would choose to send their children society gets some of its funding from that busing was at the core of the district office in Nelson, or to book on February 1, the board and some south to Brent Kennedy. The 7/8 the school district because WEG has three options.
  • OUTFITTER/GUIDE RIVER BOATING APPLICATION TRAINING REQUIREMENTS (FOR OG-11) See Rules for Complete Requirements

    OUTFITTER/GUIDE RIVER BOATING APPLICATION TRAINING REQUIREMENTS (FOR OG-11) See Rules for Complete Requirements

    OG-5 (10/15) OUTFITTER/GUIDE RIVER BOATING APPLICATION TRAINING REQUIREMENTS (FOR OG-11) See Rules for complete requirements. Unclassified river section qualifications: To qualify as a float boat guide on unclassified rivers and streams, the applicant shall have had one (1) complete trip on each of the rivers applied for under the supervision of a float boat guide licensed for each of those rivers. A completed OG-11 Training Log shall be submitted giving dates, river section, and the signatures of the supervisor, trainee, and licensed outfitter. Classified river section qualifications: A float boat guide on a classified river shall be licensed as a boatman or a lead boatman according to his experience on that specific river. Each float boat trip on a classified river shall have a lead boat operated by a guide licensed as a lead boatman for that specific river and all other boats participating in that trip shall follow the lead boat and shall be operated by a guide licensed as a boatman or a lead boatman for that specific river. (See Rule 040.01) Each training trip means the total section of river as designated by the Board. (See Rules 040, 041, 042 and 059) An applicant for a float boatman license on classified rivers may qualify in one of three ways: a. The guide shall have had three (3) complete float boat trips on each of the classified rivers applied for, under the direct supervision of a float boatman licensed for that river or they shall have had one or more complete float boat trips on each of the classified rivers applied for under the direct supervision of a float boatman licensed for that river with the remaining trip(s) in a boat with no more than one other trainee following a licensed float boatman for that river but they must not have passengers in the boat; or, b.
  • The Revelstoke Dam: a Case Study of the Selection, Licensing and Implementation of a Large Scale Hydroelectric Project in British Columbia

    The Revelstoke Dam: a Case Study of the Selection, Licensing and Implementation of a Large Scale Hydroelectric Project in British Columbia

    THE REVELSTOKE DAM: A CASE STUDY OF THE SELECTION, LICENSING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A LARGE SCALE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA By HEIDI ERIKA MISSLER B.A., The University of British Columbia, 1984 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Geography) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1988 QHeidi Erika Missler, 1988 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date DE-6G/81) ABSTRACT Procedures for the selection, licensing and implementation of large scale energy projects must evolve with the escalating complexity of such projects and. the changing public value system. Government appeared unresponsive to rapidly changing conditions in the 1960s and 1970s. Consequently, approval of major hydroelectric development projects in British Columbia under the Water Act became increasingly more contentious. This led, in 1980, to the introduction of new procedures—the Energy Project Review Process (EPRP)— under the B.C. Utilities Commission Act.
  • Columbia River Treaty History and 2014/2024 Review

    Columbia River Treaty History and 2014/2024 Review

    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Bonneville Power Administration Columbia River Treaty History and 2014/2024 Review 1 he Columbia River Treaty History of the Treaty T between the United States and The Columbia River, the fourth largest river on the continent as measured by average annual fl ow, Canada has served as a model of generates more power than any other river in North America. While its headwaters originate in British international cooperation since 1964, Columbia, only about 15 percent of the 259,500 square miles of the Columbia River Basin is actually bringing signifi cant fl ood control and located in Canada. Yet the Canadian waters account for about 38 percent of the average annual volume, power generation benefi ts to both and up to 50 percent of the peak fl ood waters, that fl ow by The Dalles Dam on the Columbia River countries. Either Canada or the United between Oregon and Washington. In the 1940s, offi cials from the United States and States can terminate most of the Canada began a long process to seek a joint solution to the fl ooding caused by the unregulated Columbia provisions of the Treaty any time on or River and to the postwar demand for greater energy resources. That effort culminated in the Columbia River after Sept.16, 2024, with a minimum Treaty, an international agreement between Canada and the United States for the cooperative development 10 years’ written advance notice. The of water resources regulation in the upper Columbia River U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Basin.
  • Passage Distribution and Federal Columbia River Power System Survival for Steelhead Kelts Tagged Above and at Lower Granite Dam, Year 2 Final Report

    Passage Distribution and Federal Columbia River Power System Survival for Steelhead Kelts Tagged Above and at Lower Granite Dam, Year 2 Final Report

    PNNL-23051 Rev.1 Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, under an Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Passage Distribution and Federal Columbia River Power System Survival for Steelhead Kelts Tagged Above and at Lower Granite Dam, Year 2 Final Report AH Colotelo KD Ham RA Harnish ZD Deng BW Jones RS Brown AC Hanson MA Weiland DM Trott X Li MJ Greiner T Fu GA McMichael December 2014 PNNL-23051 Rev.1 Passage Distribution and Federal Columbia River Power System Survival for Steelhead Kelts Tagged Above and at Lower Granite Dam, Year 2 Final Report AH Colotelo KD Ham RA Harnish ZD Deng BW Jones RS Brown AC Hanson MA Weiland DM Trott X Li MJ Greiner T Fu GA McMichael December 2014 Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, under an Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 Preface The study reported herein was funded as part of the Anadromous Fish Evaluation Program (AFEP), which is managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The AFEP study code is ADS-W-12-1: Steelhead kelt passage distributions and Federal Columbia River Power System survival and return rates for fish tagged above and at Lower Granite Dam. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) was the prime contractor for the USACE Walla Walla District. The USACE technical lead was Chris Pinney. The PNNL project manager was Alison Colotelo (509-371-7248).
  • Use of Passage Structures at Bonneville and John Day Dams by Pacific Lamprey, 2013 and 2014

    Use of Passage Structures at Bonneville and John Day Dams by Pacific Lamprey, 2013 and 2014

    Technical Report 2015-11-DRAFT USE OF PASSAGE STRUCTURES AT BONNEVILLE AND JOHN DAY DAMS BY PACIFIC LAMPREY, 2013 AND 2014 by M.A. Kirk, C.C. Caudill, C.J. Noyes, E.L. Johnson, S.R. Lee, and M.L. Keefer Department of Fish and Wildlife Sciences University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-1136 and H. Zobott, J.C. Syms, R. Budwig, and D. Tonina Center for Ecohydraulics Research University of Idaho Boise, ID 83702 for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Portland District 2015 Technical Report 2015-11-DRAFT USE OF PASSAGE STRUCTURES AT BONNEVILLE AND JOHN DAY DAMS BY PACIFIC LAMPREY, 2013 AND 2014 by M.A. Kirk, C.C. Caudill, C.J. Noyes, E.L. Johnson, S.R. Lee, and M.L. Keefer Department of Fish and Wildlife Sciences University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-1136 and H. Zobott, J.C. Syms, R. Budwig, and D. Tonina Center for Ecohydraulics Research University of Idaho Boise, ID 83702 for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Portland District 2015 i Acknowledgements This project was financed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District and was facilitated by Sean Tackley. We would like to thank Andy Traylor, Brian Bissell, Ida Royer, Ben Hausman, Miro Zyndol, Dale Klindt and the additional project biologists at Bonneville and John Day dams who provided on-site support. We would like to thank Dan Joosten, Kaan Oral, Inga Aprans, Noah Hubbard, Mike Turner, Robert Escobar, Kate Abbott, Matt Dunkle, Chuck Boggs, Les Layng, and Jeff Garnett from the University of Idaho for assisting with the construction, maintenance, and field sampling associated with both Lamprey Passage Structures (LPSs).
  • 2012 Wildearth Guardians and Friends of Animals Petition to List

    2012 Wildearth Guardians and Friends of Animals Petition to List

    PETITION TO LIST Fifteen Species of Sturgeon UNDER THE U.S. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Submitted to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Acting through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Marine Fisheries Service March 8, 2012 Petitioners WildEarth Guardians Friends of Animals 1536 Wynkoop Street, Suite 301 777 Post Road, Suite 205 Denver, Colorado 80202 Darien, Connecticut 06820 303.573.4898 203.656.1522 INTRODUCTION WildEarth Guardians and Friends of Animals hereby petitions the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)1 and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (hereinafter referred as the Secretary), to list fifteen critically endangered sturgeon species as “threatened” or “endangered” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.). The fifteen petitioned sturgeon species, grouped by geographic region, are: I. Western Europe (1) Acipenser naccarii (Adriatic Sturgeon) (2) Acipenser sturio (Atlantic Sturgeon/Baltic Sturgeon/Common Sturgeon) II. Caspian Sea/Black Sea/Sea of Azov (3) Acipenser gueldenstaedtii (Russian Sturgeon) (4) Acipenser nudiventris (Ship Sturgeon/Bastard Sturgeon/Fringebarbel Sturgeon/Spiny Sturgeon/Thorn Sturgeon) (5) Acipenser persicus (Persian Sturgeon) (6) Acipenser stellatus (Stellate Sturgeon/Star Sturgeon) III. Aral Sea and Tributaries (endemics) (7) Pseudoscaphirhynchus fedtschenkoi (Syr-darya Shovelnose Sturgeon/Syr Darya Sturgeon) (8) Pseudoscaphirhynchus hermanni (Dwarf Sturgeon/Little Amu-Darya Shovelnose/Little Shovelnose Sturgeon/Small Amu-dar Shovelnose Sturgeon) (9) Pseudoscaphirhynchus kaufmanni (False Shovelnose Sturgeon/Amu Darya Shovelnose Sturgeon/Amu Darya Sturgeon/Big Amu Darya Shovelnose/Large Amu-dar Shovelnose Sturgeon/Shovelfish) IV. Amur River Basin/Sea of Japan/Sea of Okhotsk (10) Acipenser mikadoi (Sakhalin Sturgeon) (11) Acipenser schrenckii (Amur Sturgeon) (12) Huso dauricus (Kaluga) V.