DOCSLIB.ORG

Oregon's John Day River

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Oregon's John Day River Water Resources Department NEIL GOLDSCHMIDT [ GOVERNOR 1 3850 PORTLAND ROAD NE, SALEM, OREGON 97310 MEMORANDUM TO: Water Resources Commission FROM: Director SUBJECT: ~~enda+It$h H, December 7,1990 Water R ources Commission meeting Request for approval of John Dav River Scenic Waterway flows for Diack findinys Backaound A first draft of the John Day River Scenic Waterway Flow Assessment was presented to the Commission at its August 3, 1990 meeting. The Commission reviewed the report and directed staff to hold workshops in the John Day basin to gather public input on the report.. Two workshops were held in October. At the October 26, 1990 meeting staff provided the Commission with a brief report on the workshops and indicated more detailed information would be presented at this Commission meeting. An analysis of comment and copies of hw written comments may be found in Attachment 1. In addition, at the October 26 meeting staff requested and received approval to incorporate public workshops into the flow assessment workplan for all Scenic Waterways and revise the schedule accordingly. Staff evaluated public comment and has revised portions of the assessment (Attachment 1) to reflect public concerns. Discussion In accordance with the Diack decision, before issuing new water rights, the Commission must find that recreation, fish and wildlife uses in the scenic waterway will not be impaired. The John Day Scenic Waterway Flow Assessment documents flow ranges needed to support recreation, fish, and wildlife. The Commission could use this documentation to make findings on pending and future water rights in or upstream from scenic waterway reaches. There are 204 pending water use applications in the John Day basin. Most of these are from the federal government for existing livestock watering poqds. The flow needs of recreation, fish and wildlife in the John Day Scenic Waterway are diverse, varying by use and season. The major flow-dependent uses are recreation and fisheries. By overlaying flow needs, staff identified flow ranges which support recreation, fish and wildlife. Flows supporting existing levels of recreation were identified through literature review and intewiews with experts. Flows identified for fish life were taken from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife studies. WRC Agenda Item I December 7,1990 Page 2 On the South and Middle Forks of the John Day, no flow-dependent recreation uses were documented. While there may be some limited recreational use, no specific flow requirements were identified. Therefore, flows recommended by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for fish life were used to identify scenic waterway flow needs. On the Mainstem and North Fork John Day, four flow ranges which support both recreation and fish life were identified. Each range offers a different level of protection for recreation and fisheries, and would have different impacts on future upstream appropriation. In both reaches, the Assessment identifies a mid-range flow as sufficientfor supporting scenic waterway values. Evaluation a) Public Comment Comments from the public on the first draft of the Assessment were mixed. Many basin residents believed the identified flows were unrealistic, unattainable and would essentially close the basin to further appropriation, including storage. Many recreation interests maintained that the flows were too low to protect all forms of existing recreation and, in addition, failed to consider future recreation needs. Others suggested that a more in-depth study is needed for more accurate depictions of fish and recreation flow needs. These major comments are addressed below. A workshop summary and written comments are in Attachment 1. Flows were identified from two different types of sources. The recreation flows were identified from direct observations based on current use. Generally, flows needed to support recreation are available. For example, on the Mainstem even the highest flows 4 identified for recreation usually occur at least half the time. The other source was ODFW's estimates of flow needed to support fish life. These estimates are based on the life histories of fish species and the physical fonn of specific streams. The estimates are not based on existing flows, or even flows that have occurred since streams have been gaged. ODFW's estimates generally are consistent with WRD's estimates of natural flows in most months (Tables 1 and 2. On the Middle Fork, flows during August, September and October exceed even the highest daily peaks for the period of record. All other flows identified on the Mainstem, North Fork and Middle Fork are flows that have been recorded as a monthly average during the period of record. Ultimately, when the Department reviews instream water right applications the rules require a comparison with natural flow and certificates may be for lower amdunts. It is true that attaining every flow identified in the assessment each year may be difficult or impossible. In many instances, some flows, such as those for recreation, are already attained during most years. Flows needed for fish life, however, may only be attained every several years or less. Some of the fish flows might be met by storage, but storing water in the winter and spring could adversely affect recreation. To some extent, then, recreation and fish uses can compete for the same water, although at different times of the year. The John Day Scenic Waterway Flow Assessment merely documents the needs of these uses. It does not propose a river management plan through which competing instream needs can be balanced. WRC Agenda Item I December 7,1990 Page 3 The Assessment identifies flows needed to support existing recreation. Just as the Commission cannot protect water rights for uses that do not yet exist, neither can it through this process protect recreational needs that have not yet developed. Expected recreational flow needs might be protected through an instream water right. The Parks and Recreation Commission would have to apply for such a right. The Commission cannot on its own motion issue instream rights for any purpose. Table 1: Mainstem (all flows in cubic feet per second) * Identified in John Day River Scenic Waterway Flow Assessment as satisfying purposes of scenic waterway. Table 2: North Fork (all flows in cubic feet per second) Identified in John Day River Scenic Waterway Flow Assessment as satisfying purposes of scenic waterway. WRC Agenda Item I December 7,1990 Page 4 The method used to produce scenic waterway flow assessments was presented to the Commission in March. Because of budget and staff constraints, it was decided to use a method that capitalized on existing information about existing uses. Through interviews and literature review, the method provides a first approximation of instream flow needs in scenic waterways. More intensive studies, such as those based on the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM), can yield more detailed information. However, these studies can take years and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. In addition, the results can still be debated, especially insofar as recreation is concerned. To date, IFIM-based studies for recreation have been rare. b) Flow Values The four ranges identified on the Mainstem and North Fork are described below. All ranges protect fish habitat, wildlife, and aesthetic values. They differ by the level of protection provided to boating uses. 1) Maximum: Protects expert recreational boating needs. 2) Upper-Range: Protects advanced recreational boating needs. 3) Mid-Range: Protects general boating needs. 4) Base: Protects minimum needs for passive boating. Flow values for the four ranges on the Mainstem and North Fork reaches of the Scenic Waterway are displayed in Tables 1 and 2. The Mainstem reach of the John Day Scenic Waterway system is downstream from all the other reaches. Flows identified in this reach, then, are "controlling." That is, they can determine how water resources decisions are made in the other scenic waterways. For maximum and upper-range protection, flow needs are met December, January, the first part of March, April, May and the first part of June at the 50 percent probability level. Using the more rigorous 80 percent probability level, flow needs are met only in the last part of April. For mid-range protection, flow needs are met December through June at the 50 percent probability level. At the 80 percent probability level, flow needs are met in April and May. For base protection, flow needs are met December through June at the 50 percent probability level. At the 80 percent probability level, flows are met February through May. The assessment identifies the mid-range level as that which provides the most reasonable level of protection for scenic waterway values. The mid-range level is characterized by flows of 500 cfs July through January; 1000 cfs in February and the last part of June; and 2000 cfs March through the first part of June. The relationship between mid-mge flows and flow frequencies is displayed in Figure 1 below. The late winter and spring flows represent recreational flows. While there is evidence that recreation occurs at both lower and higher flows, the recommended flow range falls within the acceptable range as identified by a large number of sources (see boating flow assessment table, p. 33 of the assessment). WRC Agenda Item I December 7, 1990 Page 5 Figure 1 MAINSTEM SCENIC WATERWAY FLOWS WRC Agenda Item I December 7, 1990 Page 6 ii) North Fork For all the ranges, flows are identical June through February. Only the March, April and May flows vary. At the 50 percent probability level, June through February flows would be met in June, July, January and the first part of February. None of the flows in this period are met at the 80 percent probability level. For maximum protection March through May, flow needs are met only in March at the 50 and 80 percent probability levels.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Timing of In-Water Work to Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources
    OREGON GUIDELINES FOR TIMING OF IN-WATER WORK TO PROTECT FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES June, 2008 Purpose of Guidelines - The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, (ODFW), “The guidelines are to assist under its authority to manage Oregon’s fish and wildlife resources has updated the following guidelines for timing of in-water work. The guidelines are to assist the the public in minimizing public in minimizing potential impacts to important fish, wildlife and habitat potential impacts...”. resources. Developing the Guidelines - The guidelines are based on ODFW district fish “The guidelines are based biologists’ recommendations. Primary considerations were given to important fish species including anadromous and other game fish and threatened, endangered, or on ODFW district fish sensitive species (coded list of species included in the guidelines). Time periods were biologists’ established to avoid the vulnerable life stages of these fish including migration, recommendations”. spawning and rearing. The preferred work period applies to the listed streams, unlisted upstream tributaries, and associated reservoirs and lakes. Using the Guidelines - These guidelines provide the public a way of planning in-water “These guidelines provide work during periods of time that would have the least impact on important fish, wildlife, and habitat resources. ODFW will use the guidelines as a basis for the public a way of planning commenting on planning and regulatory processes. There are some circumstances where in-water work during it may be appropriate to perform in-water work outside of the preferred work period periods of time that would indicated in the guidelines. ODFW, on a project by project basis, may consider variations in climate, location, and category of work that would allow more specific have the least impact on in-water work timing recommendations.
    [Show full text]
  • Irrigation and Streamflow Depletion in Columbia River Basin Above the Dalles, Oregon
    Irrigation and Streamflow Depletion in Columbia River Basin above The Dalles, Oregon Bv W. D. SIMONS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1220 An evaluation of the consumptive use of water based on the amount of irrigation UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1953 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Douglas McKay, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. - Price 50 cents (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Abstract................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 2 Purpose and scope....................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgments......................................................................................................... 3 Irrigation in the basin......................................................................................................... 3 Historical summary...................................................................................................... 3 Legislation................................................................................................................... 6 Records and sources for data..................................................................................... 8 Stream
    [Show full text]
  • 4. Lower Oregon Columbia Gorge Tributaries Watershed Assessment
    4. Lower Oregon Columbia Gorge Tributaries Watershed Assessment 4.1 Subbasin Overview General Description Location and Size The Lower Oregon Columbia Gorge Tributaries Watershed consists of the 19 small Columbia River tributaries located between Bonneville Dam and the Hood River. Its major streams are Herman and Eagle creeks. The watershed is located in Hood River County, except for a small part of the Eagle Creek drainage, and includes the City of Cascade Locks and part of the City of Hood River. The watershed covers a drainage area of 63,714 acres or 99.6 square miles. Geology Volcanic lava flows, glaciers, and flooding were the key forces forming the Columbia Gorge landscape of basalt cliffs, waterfalls, talus slopes and ridges. Land elevations rise rapidly from 72 feet above sea level to approximately 5,000 feet. Mt. Defiance is the highest peak at 4,960 feet. Landslides are the dominant erosional process in recent history (USFS, 1998). Debris torrents and ice and snow avalanches are not uncommon in the winter months. Alluvial fan deposits at the mouths of the steeper, more constricted creeks suggest the frequent routing of debris torrents down these channels. The lower mile or so of creeks have gradients of about 5 percent, rising steeply at middle elevations, with lower gradient channels in glaciated headwater valleys. Climate and Weather The watershed lies in the transition zone between the wet marine climate to the west and the dry continental climate to the east. Precipitation amounts vary dramatically from east to west and with elevation, ranging from 40 to 125 to inches annually.
    [Show full text]
  • John Day River Proposed Management Plan, Two Rivers and John Day Resource Management Plan Amendments and Final Environmental Impact Statement
    As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing tor the enjoyment of lite through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interest ot all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility tor American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in Island Territories under U.S. administration. B LM/O RJWAlPT-00/048+1792 JOHN DAY RIVER PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PLAN, TWO RIVERS AND JOHN DAY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT JOHN DAY RIVER PLAN AND EIS Comment Period Ending 3/03/00 Table of Contents Contents INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................1 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC MEETINGS .......................................................................................................................1 Redmond, Oregon.....................................................................................................................................1 Public Questions and Comments ...............................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Westslope Cutthroat Trout
    Oregon Native Fish Status Report – Volume II Westslope Cutthroat Trout Existing Populations Oregon populations of westslope cutthroat trout are disjunct from their greater contiguous distribution in the Upper Missouri and Columbia basins of Montana and Idaho (Behnke 1992). The Westslope Cutthroat Trout SMU is comprised of 17 populations in the upper mainstem John Day River basin (Table 1). Populations were identified according to those defined in the interagency westslope cutthroat trout range-wide assessment (Shepard et al. 2003). The interagency assessment identified westslope cutthroat trout in Laycock Creek and the Upper John Day Complex as a single population. This review considers trout in Laycock Creek as a separate population from the Upper John Day Complex due to the significant distance between the two creeks. Most populations express a resident life history strategy, although, migratory forms exist in the Upper John Day Complex and possibly in the Canyon Complex (Hemmingsen 1999a, Shepard et al. 2003). Table 1. Populations, existence status, and life history of the John Day Westslope Cutthroat Trout SMU. Exist Population Description Life History Yes Upper John Day Includes upper mainstem river and tributaries. Resident / Migratory Complex Yes Strawberry Strawberry, Slide, and Squaw Creeks. Resident Yes Dixie Dixie and Standard Creeks. Resident Yes Indian Indian, Little Indian, and Overholt Creeks. Resident Yes Bear Bear Creek. Resident Yes Pine Pine Creek. Resident Yes Dog Dog Creek. Resident Yes Little Pine Little Pine Creek. Resident Yes Canyon Complex Includes Berry, Crazy, and Canyon creeks and Resident / migratory tributaries. Yes Laycock Laycock Creek. Yes Ingle Ingle Creek. Resident Yes Beech Upper Beech, Bear, Cottonwood, and Lake creeks.
    [Show full text]
  • John Day River RMP Final
    JOHN DAY RIVER PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PLAN, TWO RIVERS AND JOHN DAY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT JOHN DAY RIVER PLAN AND EIS Comment Period Ending 3/03/00 Table of Contents Contents INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................1 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC MEETINGS .......................................................................................................................1 Redmond, Oregon.....................................................................................................................................1 Public Questions and Comments ...............................................................................................1 Salem, Oregon2 Public Questions and Comments ...............................................................................................2 Clackamas, Oregon ..................................................................................................................................4 Public Questions and Comments ...............................................................................................4 Fossil, Oregon6 Public Questions and Comments ...............................................................................................6 John Day, Oregon ......................................................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Ouzel Outfitters Trip Planner
    John Day River 4-Day Rafting Trip (Service Creek to Clarno –45 Miles) Trip Planner Thank you for choosing Ouzel Outfitters. This trip planner contains detailed information designed to help you prepare for your trip. COVID-19 Operating Plan & Guidelines By making a reservation you agreed to abide by our COVID-19 operating guidelines and requirements. We will combine groups according to vaccination status as allowed by CDC and OHA guidelines and with the express consent of participants. You will be asked on the registration form for your vaccination status and your preference with regard to mixing with other groups. In some cases, it may be difficult to accommodate small non-vaccinated groups (less than 4) on certain trips. If this is the case with your group, we will contact you as soon as this becomes evident. The day before your trip, you’ll receive an email with a link to a COVID-19 screening survey. If you will not have internet access the day before your trip, please call us to make other arrangements for completing the survey. Face coverings are required at the meeting location, during the safety briefing, at stops along the river, in camp and at the take-out if during those times we are not able to effectively distance from other groups. Face coverings are not required in the rafts or while dining. Reservation Account You can login to your reservation account by clicking the link provided in your confirmation email or CLICKING HERE . If you haven’t already done so, please login and fill out a registration form for each person included in your reservation.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper South Fork of the John Day River Watershed Assessment Study Area
    UPPER SOUTH FORK OF THE JOHN DAY RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT FINAL REPORT Prepared for Grant Soil and Water Conservation District 721 S. Canyon Blvd. John Day, Oregon 97845 Prepared by Michael B. Cole Rich J. Blaha and Jena L. Lemke ABR, Inc.—Environmental Research & Services P.O. Box 249 Forest Grove, Oregon 97116 November 2003 Printed on recycled paper. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................................... v WATERSHED ISSUES ................................................................................................................................ x ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.....................................................................................................xi CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE............................................................................................................................ 1 METHODS ................................................................................................................................................. 1 ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES................................................................................................................ 1 MAPPING ...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chris Bare1, Ian Tattam2, and Jim Ruzycki2 1 Oregon Department Of
    Hatchery Origin Strays Within the John Day River Steelhead Spawning Population Chris Bare1, Ian Tattam2, and Jim Ruzycki2 1 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 305 N Canyon Blvd, Canyon City, Oregon 97820 2 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 203 Badgley Hall, EOU, La Grande, Oregon 97850 Chris Bare Ian Tattam [email protected] [email protected] 35 INTRODUCTION RESULTS r² = 0.69 30 • The John Day River supports a wild population of 350 50 summer steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) with no Hatchery 25 45 hatchery supplementation and is part of the Middle 300 Wild Spawners Columbia River summer steelhead Distinct Population 20 % Hatchery 40 Segment that was listed as threatened under the Fish 250 35 Endangered Species Act in 1999 15 30 200 • The introduction of eight dams and reservoirs in the 10 lower Columbia and Snake rivers led to high juvenile 25 150 mortality rates; one mitigation strategy to increase 20 % Hatchery Origin Hatchery % 5 survival of salmonids has been mass juvenile % Hatchery transportation 100 15 Wild and and Hatchery Wild 0 10 • While the use of barges to transport smolts reduces 0 25 50 75 100 50 % Barged Hatchery Steelhead mortality associated with turbines and vulnerability to 5 predators, studies reveal the process may interfere 0 0 Figure 5. Relationship between the percentage of barged with juvenile olfactory imprinting: a process necessary '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 hatchery steelhead smolts and percentage of hatchery for returning adults to home to natal streams Year origin spawners observed in the John Day River basin from 2004 to 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter III Listed Fish Species, Designated Critical Habitat, And
    INVASIVE PLANT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests 9/8/2008 Chapter III Listed Fish Species, Designated Critical Habitat, and Essential Fish Habitat III-1 INVASIVE PLANT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests 9/8/2008 III-2 INVASIVE PLANT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests 9/8/2008 Chapter III Table of Contents Listed Fish Species, Designated Critical Habitat, and Essential Fish Habitat ................................. 4 Environmental Baseline for Aquatic Species .............................................................................. 4 Listed Species Habitat Information ........................................................................................... 10 Snake River Fall-Run Chinook ESU ......................................................................................... 10 Snake River Spring/Summer-Run Chinook ESU ...................................................................... 16 Snake River Sockeye ESU ........................................................................................................ 23 Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS .................................................................................... 25 Snake River Basin Steelhead DPS ............................................................................................ 34 Columbia River Bull Trout ........................................................................................................ 41 Effects Analysis ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • JOHN DAY RIVER SUBBASIN Salmon and Steelhead Production Plan September 1, 1990
    , JOHN DAY RIVER SUBBASIN Salmon and Steelhead Production Plan September 1, 1990 Lead Agency: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 59 Portland, Oregon 97207 Co-writers: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation P.O. Box 638 Pendleton, Oregon 97801 Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon P.O. Box C Warm Springs, Oregon 97761 Columbia Basin System Planning Funds Provided by the Northwest Power Planning Council, and the Agencies and Indian Tribes of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..................... 1 INTRODUCTION ...................... 3 PART I. DESCRIPTION OF SUBBASIN .................... 7 Location and General Environment . 7 Water Resources .................. 13 Land Use ...................... 23 PART II. HABITAT PROTECTION NEEDS ........... 29 History and Status of Habitat . 29 Constraints and Opportunities for Protection..... 43 Institutional Considerations ......... 43 Critical Data Gaps . 44 Habitat Protection 0bjectives and Strategies ... 45 PART III. CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ESTABLISHING I PRODUCTION OBJECTIVES . 49 Institutional Considerations . 49 Legal Considerations . 53 PART IV. ANADROMOUSFISH PRODUCTION PLANS . .. 61 SPRING CHINOOK SALMON . 65 Fisheries Resource . 65 Natural Production . 65 Hatchery Production' . 69 Harvest . 70 Specific Considerations. 70 Objectives . l . l . 74 Alternative Strategies.. 75 Recommended Strategy . 80 SUMMER STEELHEAD . 83 Fisheries Resource . 83 Natural Production . 83 Hatchery Production
    [Show full text]
  • Northwest Salmon & Steelhead Recovery Planning & Implementation
    Northwest Salmon & Steelhead Recovery Planning & Implementation Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS Recovery Plan NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes to adopt a recovery plan for the protection and restoration of Middle Columbia River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), which spawn and rear in tributaries to the Columbia River in central and eastern Washington and Oregon. The Middle Middle Columbia Columbia River steelhead distinct population segment (DPS) was first listed as Recovery Domain threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1999. Its threatened status was affirmed on January 5, 2006. The Proposed Middle Columbia River Listed Species: Steelhead Recovery Plan (the Plan) is currently available for public review and Middle Columbia River comment. Steelhead Eighteen of the 33 salmon and steelhead species in the Northwest are listed as threatened or endangered. The Middle Columbia River steelhead is among those Management Units: with the best prospects for recovery, although it will require considerable Oregon investment of long-term effort and funding for protection and restoration. Washington Gorge (White This recovery plan is based on four locally developed management unit plans, Salmon, Klickitat & Rock included as appendices to the Plan, that provide recovery actions for the Creek) steelhead populations and major population groups that make up the DPS. The Plan also draws upon the work of the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Yakima Subbasin Team (ICTRT), a team of scientists appointed by NMFS to provide a solid Southeast Washington scientific foundation for the plans. This Plan also uses information from two “modules” developed by NMFS to address conditions in the Columbia River mainstem and estuary: the Hydro Module, based on the NMFS 2008 Biological Opinion on the Federal Columbia River Power System, and the Estuary Module (NMFS 2007).
    [Show full text]