DOCSLIB.ORG

Columbia River Hatchery Reform System-Wide Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Columbia River Hatchery Reform System-Wide Report Columbia River Hatchery Reform System-Wide Report February 2009 Prepared by Hatchery Scientific Review Group Acknowledgements Performing this analysis and developing recommendations for over 351 salmonid populations in the Columbia River Basin would not have been possible without the knowledge, commitment and hard work of many individuals. The HSRG members extend special thanks to the contracting staff that supported them: Gary Affonso, Greg Blair, Jeff Boyce, Amy Corsini, Nancy Bond Hemming, Michael Kern, B.J. Mirk, Joan Nichol, Grant Novak, Denise Kelsey, Robyn Redekopp, Joel Rice, Shannon Riper, Jason Shappart, Jason Volk, Jim Waldo and especially Dan Warren. Many regional fishery biologists and managers contributed both their time and expertise in meetings, tours and report reviews, notably: Paul Abbot Richard Carmichael Rod French Todd Alsbury Mark Chilcote Amy Gaskill Bill Arnsburg Guy Chilton Mike Gauvin John Arterburn Bob Clubb John Gebhards Bill Bacon Michael Coffey Jim Gidley Greg Baesler Charlie Corrarino Bryce Glaser Ronald Ballard Patty Crandell Judy Gordon Duane Banks Tim Culberson Steve Grabowski Heather Bartlett Wolf Dammers Jenny Grace Shane Bickford Greg Davis David Graves Joe Blodgett Doug DeHart Tony Grover Steve Boe Greg Delwiche Susan Gutenberger Jeff Boechler Lytle Denny Ronald Hardy Bill Bosch Dan Diggs Rod Harrod Ken Bourne James Dixon Peter Hassemer Ed Bowles Speros Doulos Steve Hays Brett Boyd Tom Dresser Jeff Heindel Robert Bradley John Easterbrooks John Hitron Keith Braun Bruce Eddy Brad Houslet Kat Brigham Roger Elmore Donna Hughes Claudeo Broncho Manuel Farinas Jack Hurst Stephen Brown Brett Farman Tom Iverson Chris Brun Chris Fisher Gary James Howard Burge Randy Fisher Loren Jensen Jody Calica Hilary Forrest Becky Johnson Dave Carie Patrick Frazier Dave Johnson Chris Carlson Chris Frederickson Mark Johnson Columbia River Hatchery Reform Project Page i Final Systemwide Report – Part 1 Brian Jonasson John North Kristi Van Leuven Rob Jones Doug Olson Steven Vigg Tod Jones Bill Otto Jason Vogel Tom Kahler Allyson Ouzts Purcell Rob Walton Pam Kahut Scott Patterson Paul Ward Cory Kamphouse Todd Pearsons Roger Warren Jeff Keonings Dan Peck Ron Warren Keith Keown Larry Peltz Bruce Watson Sharon Kiefer Aaron Penny John Weinheimer Eric Kinne Joe Peone Bill West Bill Kinney Rock Peters John Whalen Rick Klinge Chuck Peven Geoffrey Whisler Kathryn Kostow Patrick Phillips Greg Wilke Chris Kozfkay Julie Pyper Brian Zimmerman Joe Krakker Dan Rawding Bryan Zimmerman Kurt Kremers Phillip Rigdon Sara Laborde Aaron Roberts Russ Langshaw Phil Roger Mark LaRiviere Tom Rogers Ed Larsen Denny Rohl Muhammad Latif Bob Rose Cindy LeFleur Robert Rose Brian Leth Roy Sampsel Stefanie Leth Mel Sampson Mike Lewis Bruce Schmidt Peter Lofy Mark Schuck John Lovrak Jim Scott Kevin Malone Shaun Seaman Larry Marchant Bill Sharp Jerry Marco Sam Sharr Craig Martin John Shurts Steve Martin Mindy Simmons Bill Maslen Charles Strom Chip McConnaha Bruce Suzumoto Bruce McIntosh Doug Taki Mike McLean Larry Telles Gene McPherson John Thorpe Glen Mendel Mark Traynor Alan Meyer Kirk Truscott Guy Norman Robert Turner Columbia River Hatchery Reform Project Page ii Final Systemwide Report – Part 1 Table of Contents Part 1 – Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Background, Purpose, and Scope ....................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Organization and Implementation ...................................................................... 3 Columbia River Hatchery Scientific Review Group ...........................................................3 Review Process ....................................................................................................................5 1.3 HSRG Analytical Approach ........................................................................................... 6 Well-Defined Goals .............................................................................................................6 Scientific Defensibility ........................................................................................................7 Informed Decision Making and Adaptive Management ......................................................8 1.4 Report Overview ............................................................................................................. 9 Part 2 – Summary Conclusions, Principles and System-Wide Recommendations ....................................................................................... 11 2.1 Summary Conclusions .................................................................................................. 11 Manage Hatchery Broodstocks to Achieve Proper Genetic Integration with, or Segregation from, Natural Populations ..................................................................12 Promote Local Adaptation of Natural and Hatchery Populations .....................................13 Minimize Adverse Ecological Interactions between Hatchery- and Natural-Origin Fish .........................................................................................................................13 Minimize Effects of Hatchery Facilities on the Ecosystem ...............................................14 Maximize Survival of Hatchery Fish .................................................................................14 2.2 Principles and System-Wide Recommendations .......................................................... 14 Principle: Develop Clear, Specific, Quantifiable Harvest and Conservation Goals for Natural and Hatchery Populations within an “All H” Context ..............................15 Principle: Design and Operate Hatchery Programs in a Scientifically Defensible Manner ...................................................................................................................16 Principle: Monitor, Evaluate and Adaptively Manage Hatchery Programs ......................24 2.3 Next Steps in Hatchery Reform .................................................................................... 26 Implementation Recommendations ...................................................................................27 Part 3 – ESU/MPG Roll-Up Reports ............................................................................ 29 3.1 Chinook ......................................................................................................................... 29 3.1.1 Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU ......................................................29 3.1.2 Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU ....................................................41 3.1.3 Middle Columbia River Spring-run Chinook Salmon ESU ..................................50 Columbia River Hatchery Reform Project Page iii Final Systemwide Report – Part 1 3.1.4 Deschutes River Summer/Fall-run Chinook ESU .................................................59 3.1.5 Upper Columbia River Spring Chinook ESU ........................................................64 3.1.6 Upper Columbia River Summer/Fall Chinook Salmon ESU ................................71 3.1.7 Snake River Fall-Run Chinook ESU .....................................................................82 3.1.8 Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook MPG .........................................................89 3.1.8.1 Upper Salmon River Chinook MPG ..........................................................89 3.1.8.2 Middle Fork Salmon River Chinook MPG ................................................98 3.1.8.3 South Fork Salmon River Chinook MPG ................................................106 3.1.8.4 Grand Ronde and Imnaha Spring Chinook MPG ....................................113 3.1.8.5 Tucannon-Asotin Chinook MPG .............................................................121 3.1.8.6 Clearwater River Spring Chinook MPG ..................................................129 3.2 Coho ESU ................................................................................................................... 139 3.2.1 Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon ESU .........................................................139 3.2.2 Upper Columbia River Coho Salmon ..................................................................151 3.3 Chum ESU .................................................................................................................. 157 3.3.1 Lower Columbia River Chum ESU .....................................................................157 3.4 Steelhead Distinct Population Segments .................................................................... 167 3.4.1 Southwest Washington Steelhead DPS ................................................................167 3.4.2 Lower Columbia River Steelhead DPS ................................................................174 3.4.3 Upper Willamette River Winter Steelhead DPS ..................................................184 3.4.4 Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS ..............................................................193 3.4.5 Upper Columbia River Steelhead DPS ................................................................202 3.4.6 Snake River Steelhead DPS .................................................................................209 3.4.6.1 Salmon River Steelhead MPG .................................................................209 3.4.6.2 Clearwater River Steelhead MPG ............................................................219 3.4.6.3
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Riggins & Salmon River Canyon
    RRiiggggiinnss && SSaallmmoonn RRiivveerr CCaannyyoonn EEccoonnoommiicc DDeevveellooppmmeenntt SSttrraatteeggyy (FINAL DRAFT) Prepared for the City of Riggins February 2006 by James A. Birdsall & Associates The Hingston Roach Group, Inc. Bootstrap Solutions FINAL DRAFT [Inside cover.] RIGGINS AREA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY FEBRUARY 2006 FINAL DRAFT CONTENTS 1. Introduction......................................................................................1 Planning Process and Project Phases ..............................................................1 Riggins History and Assets. ..............................................................................2 2. Socio-Economic Trends....................................................................4 Population. ..........................................................................................................4 Age Composition................................................................................................5 Education & Enrollment...................................................................................5 Industry Trends..................................................................................................6 Employment, Wages & Income.......................................................................7 Business Inventory.............................................................................................9 Retail Trends.......................................................................................................9 Tourism
    [Show full text]
  • Characterizing Migration and Survival Between the Upper Salmon River Basin and Lower Granite Dam for Juvenile Snake River Sockeye Salmon, 2011-2014
    Characterizing migration and survival between the Upper Salmon River Basin and Lower Granite Dam for juvenile Snake River sockeye salmon, 2011-2014 Gordon A. Axel, Christine C. Kozfkay,† Benjamin P. Sandford, Mike Peterson,† Matthew G. Nesbit, Brian J. Burke, Kinsey E. Frick, and Jesse J. Lamb Report of research by Fish Ecology Division, Northwest Fisheries Science Center National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle, Washington 98112 and †Idaho Department of Fish and Game 1800 Trout Road, Eagle, Idaho 83616 for Division of Fish and Wildlife, Bonneville Power Administration U.S. Department of Energy P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon 97208-3621 Project 2010-076-00; covers work performed and completed under contract 46273 REL 78 from March 2010 to March 2016 May 2017 This report was funded by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), U.S. Department of Energy, as part of its program to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the development and operation of hydroelectric facilities on the Columbia River and its tributaries. Views in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of BPA. ii Executive Summary During spring 2011-2014, we tagged and released groups of juvenile hatchery Snake River sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka to Redfish Lake Creek in the upper Salmon River Basin. These releases were part of a coordinated study to characterize migration and survival of juvenile sockeye to Lower Granite Dam. We estimated detection probability, survival, and travel time based on detections of fish tagged with either a passive integrated transponder (PIT) or radio transmitter and PIT tag.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Assessment
    TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION .................................................................................................................... 1 3 PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................................................................. 2 3.1 Project Area ............................................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................ 4 3.2.1 Current Permit ....................................................................................................................... 4 3.2.2 Grazing System ..................................................................................................................... 4 3.2.3 Conservation Measures ........................................................................................................ 5 3.2.4 Changes From Existing Management ................................................................................... 5 3.2.5 Resource Objectives and Standards .................................................................................... 6 3.2.6 Annual Grazing Use indicators .............................................................................................. 7
    [Show full text]
  • Instream Flow Characterization of Upper Salmon River Basin Streams, Central Idaho, 2004
    Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation Instream Flow Characterization of Upper Salmon River Basin Streams, Central Idaho, 2004 Ellis River Challis Fork Salmon Yankee Squaw T h o m Valley p s o n Creek Creek Creek Creek Elk Salmon River Stanley Iron Creek Salmon River Redfish Lake Obsidian July Salmon of Creek Fourth Champion Creek River Alturas Fork Lake Pole Creek Creek East Creek Beaver Smiley Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5212 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Instream Flow Characterization of Upper Salmon River Basin Streams, Central Idaho, 2004 By Terry R. Maret, Jon E. Hortness, and Douglas S. Ott Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5212 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2005 For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services Box 25286, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 For more information about the USGS and its products: Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/ Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Maret, T.R., Hortness, J.E., and Ott, D.S., 2005, Instream flow characterization of upper Salmon River Basin streams, Central Idaho, 2004: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Idaho LSRCP Hatcheries Assessments and Recommendations Report – March 2011
    4U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region Columbia River Basin Hatchery Review Team Columbia River Basin, Mountain Snake Province Snake, Salmon, and Clearwater River Watersheds Idaho Lower Snake River Compensation Plan State Operated Hatcheries Clearwater, Magic Valley, McCall, and Sawtooth Fish Hatcheries Assessments and Recommendations Final Report, Summary March 2011 Please cite as: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Review of Idaho Lower Snake River Compensation Plan State-Operated Hatcheries, Clearwater, Magic Valley, McCall, and Sawtooth Fish Hatcheries: Assessments and Recommendations. Final Report, Summary, March 2011. Hatchery Review Team, Pacific Region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/Pacific/fisheries/ hatcheryreview/reports.html. USFWS COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN HATCHERY REVIEW TEAM Idaho LSRCP Hatcheries Assessments and Recommendations Report – March 2011 Preface The assessments and recommendations presented in this report represent the independent evaluations of the Hatchery Review Team and do not necessarily represent the conclusions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The Review Team used the most current scientific information available and the collective knowledge of its members to develop the recommendations presented in this report. The Service will respect existing agreements with comanagers when considering the recommendations presented in this report. The Review Team and Service acknowledge that the U.S. v Oregon process is the appropriate
    [Show full text]
  • Characterization of Ecoregions of Idaho
    1 0 . C o l u m b i a P l a t e a u 1 3 . C e n t r a l B a s i n a n d R a n g e Ecoregion 10 is an arid grassland and sagebrush steppe that is surrounded by moister, predominantly forested, mountainous ecoregions. It is Ecoregion 13 is internally-drained and composed of north-trending, fault-block ranges and intervening, drier basins. It is vast and includes parts underlain by thick basalt. In the east, where precipitation is greater, deep loess soils have been extensively cultivated for wheat. of Nevada, Utah, California, and Idaho. In Idaho, sagebrush grassland, saltbush–greasewood, mountain brush, and woodland occur; forests are absent unlike in the cooler, wetter, more rugged Ecoregion 19. Grazing is widespread. Cropland is less common than in Ecoregions 12 and 80. Ecoregions of Idaho The unforested hills and plateaus of the Dissected Loess Uplands ecoregion are cut by the canyons of Ecoregion 10l and are disjunct. 10f Pure grasslands dominate lower elevations. Mountain brush grows on higher, moister sites. Grazing and farming have eliminated The arid Shadscale-Dominated Saline Basins ecoregion is nearly flat, internally-drained, and has light-colored alkaline soils that are Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and America into 15 ecological regions. Level II divides the continent into 52 regions Literature Cited: much of the original plant cover. Nevertheless, Ecoregion 10f is not as suited to farming as Ecoregions 10h and 10j because it has thinner soils.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume II Willamette Spring Chinook
    Oregon Native Fish Status Report – Volume II Willamette Spring Chinook Existing Populations The Willamette Spring Chinook SMU consists of six populations (Table 63). The status of four of these populations including the Molalla, South Santiam, Calapooia, and Upper Willamette is somewhat uncertain. Little is known about these populations, but what is known indicates that the native populations are extremely depressed. While some natural spawning occurs, it is likely that these spawners are the offspring of naturally-spawning hatchery fish since hatchery fish comprise almost the entire naturally-spawning population each year in these basins. Future inventory work is needed for these populations so that they may be more appropriately assessed. Table 63. Population list and existence status for the Willamette Spring Chinook SMU. Exist Population Description Yes Molalla Molalla River basin. Yes North Santiam North Santiam River basin. Yes South Santiam South Santiam River basin. Yes Calapooia Calapooia River basin. Yes McKenzie McKenzie River basin. Yes Upper Willamette Willamette River basin upstream from mouth of McKenzie River. Habitat Use Distribution The distribution criterion was based on proportions of accessible and inaccessible habitat. It must be recognized that these estimates are derived at the 1:100,000 scale and thus will not capture habitat lost in many smaller (1:24,000) streams resulting from barriers such as culverts. Habitat lost in smaller streams will vary by population, but is not likely to account for 50% of any population, and thus does not alter assessment outcomes derived using data at the 1:100,000 scale. Data presented in this report on accessibility of habitat should be viewed as general approximations and not as a definitive analysis on habitat availability/accessibility.
    [Show full text]
  • 5 Analysis of Ecological Characteristics
    Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report 5 ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 5.1 Methods A GIS-based semi-quantitative method was developed to characterize the relative performance of relevant ecological processes and functions by shoreline reach, within the County, as outlined in WAC 173-26-201(3)(d)(i). The assessment used the available information gathered as part of the shoreline inventory and applied ranking criteria to provide a consistent methodological treatment among reaches. These semi-quantitative results will help provide a consistent treatment of all reaches in approximating existing ecological conditions, yet allow for a qualitative evaluation of functions for data that are not easily summarized by GIS data alone. The results are intended to complement the mapped inventory information (Appendix B) and numerical data (Table 4-3) and provide a comparison of watershed functions relative to other reaches in the County. The analysis of the ecological characteristics of the Coastal Ocean AU is different than the analysis for the other AUs. The main distinguishers for the Coastal Ocean AU are that 1) the Coastal Ocean AU does not contain distinct shoreline segments, and 2) there is a paucity of data on the dynamic, biophysical characteristics in the AU, so they are supplemented with human use data as proxies for nodes of ecological function. Reach Delineation In order to assess shoreline functions at a local scale, the ten AUs with upland areas within the County were broken into discrete reaches based on a review of maps and aerial photography. The Coastal Ocean AU is considered as a singular section (i.e., no distinct reaches) for this assessment.
    [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]
  • Lemhi County, Idaho
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, DIRECTOR BUIJLETIN 528 GEOLOGY AND ORE DEPOSITS 1 OF LEMHI COUNTY, IDAHO BY JOSEPH B. UMPLEBY WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1913 CONTENTS. Page. Outline of report.......................................................... 11 Introduction.............................................................. 15 Scope of report......................................................... 15 Field work and acknowledgments...................................... 15 Early work............................................................ 16 Geography. .........> ....................................................... 17 Situation and access.........................--.-----------.-..--...-.. 17 Climate, vegetation, and animal life....................----.-----.....- 19 Mining................................................................ 20 General conditions.......... 1..................................... 20 History..............................-..............-..........:... 20 Production.................................,.........'.............. 21 Physiography.............................................................. 22 Existing topography.................................................... 22 Physiographic development............................................. 23 General features...............................................'.... 23 Erosion surface.................................................... 25 Correlation............. 1..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Idaho: Lewis Clark Byway Guide.Pdf
    The Lewis and Clark Backcountry Byway AND ADVENTURE ROAD Tendoy, Idaho Meriwether Lewis’s journal entry on August 18, 1805 —American Philosophical Society The Lewis and Clark Back Country Byway AND ADVENTURE ROAD Tendoy, Idaho The Lewis and Clark Back Country Byway and Adventure Road is a 36 mile loop drive through a beautiful and historic landscape on the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail and the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. The mountains, evergreen forests, high desert canyons, and grassy foothills look much the same today as when the Lewis and Clark Expedition passed through in 1805. THE PUBLIC LANDS CENTER Salmon-Challis National Forest and BLM Salmon Field Office 1206 S. Challis Street / Salmon, ID 83467 / (208)756-5400 BLM/ID/GI-15/006+1220 Getting There The portal to the Byway is Tendoy, Idaho, which is nineteen miles south of Salmon on Idaho Highway 28. From Montana, exit from I-15 at Clark Canyon Reservoir south of Dillon onto Montana Highway 324. Drive west past Grant to an intersection at the Shoshone Ridge Overlook. If you’re pulling a trailer or driving an RV with a passenger vehicle in tow, it would be a good idea to leave your trailer or RV at the overlook, which has plenty of parking, a vault toilet, and interpretive signs. Travel road 3909 west 12 miles to Lemhi Pass. Please respect private property along the road and obey posted speed signs. Salmon, Idaho, and Dillon, Montana, are full- service communities. Limited services are available in Tendoy, Lemhi, and Leadore, Idaho and Grant, Montana.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5 State(S): Oregon Recovery Unit Name: Willamette River
    Chapter 5 State(s): Oregon Recovery Unit Name: Willamette River Recovery Unit Region 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed necessary to recover and protect listed species. Plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and, in this case, with the assistance of recovery unit teams, contractors, State and Tribal agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or indicate the approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Recovery plans represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Director or Regional Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature Cited: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Chapter 5, Willamette River Recovery Unit, Oregon. 96 p. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Two working groups are active in the Willamette River Recovery Unit: the Upper Willamette (since 1989) and Clackamas Bull Trout Working Groups. In 1999, these groups were combined, and, along with representation from the Santiam subbasin, comprise the Willamette River Recovery Unit Team.
    [Show full text]