DOCSLIB.ORG

3 Limiting Factors and Threats

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
3 Limiting Factors and Threats LOWER COLUMBIA SALMON RECOVERY & SUBBASIN PLAN December 2004 3 Limiting Factors and Threats 3 LIMITING FACTORS AND THREATS........................................................................3-1 3.1 HABITAT –STREAMS .....................................................................................................3-2 3.1.1 Background..........................................................................................................3-2 3.1.2 Limiting Factors...................................................................................................3-3 3.1.3 Threats................................................................................................................3-22 3.2 ESTUARY AND LOWER MAINSTEM HABITAT ..............................................................3-26 3.2.1 Background........................................................................................................3-26 3.2.2 Limiting Factors.................................................................................................3-27 3.2.3 Threats................................................................................................................3-36 3.3 HABITAT – OCEAN ......................................................................................................3-38 3.3.1 Background........................................................................................................3-38 3.3.2 Limiting Factors.................................................................................................3-38 3.3.3 Threats................................................................................................................3-43 3.4 HYDROPOWER.............................................................................................................3-45 3.4.1 Background........................................................................................................3-45 3.4.2 Limiting Factors.................................................................................................3-45 3.4.3 Threats................................................................................................................3-48 3.5 HARVEST ....................................................................................................................3-50 3.5.1 Background........................................................................................................3-50 3.5.2 Limiting Factors.................................................................................................3-67 3.5.3 Threats................................................................................................................3-74 3.6 HATCHERY..................................................................................................................3-77 3.6.1 Background........................................................................................................3-77 3.6.2 Limiting Factors.................................................................................................3-82 3.6.3 Threats................................................................................................................3-95 3.7 ECOLOGICAL INTERACTIONS.......................................................................................3-96 3.7.1 Background........................................................................................................3-96 3.7.2 Limiting Factors.................................................................................................3-96 3.7.3 Threats..............................................................................................................3-102 3.8 OTHER FISH AND WILDLIFE SPECIES ........................................................................3-104 3.8.1 Other Sensitive Species....................................................................................3-104 3.8.2 Species of Ecological Significance..................................................................3-107 3.8.3 Species of Recreational Significance...............................................................3-113 LIMITING FACTORS & THREATS 3-1 LOWER COLUMBIA SALMON RECOVERY & SUBBASIN PLAN December 2004 The combination of habitat degradation, dam building and operation, fishing, hatchery operations, ecological changes, and natural environmental fluctuations, has resulted in reduced Columbia River salmonid populations. Other fish and wildlife species have also been affected – many have decreased in numbers but others have increased. Understanding the threats and limiting factors and how they function is essential to the development of recovery actions. Thorough overviews of the threats and limiting factors have been provided in Volume I, Chapter 3 of the Technical Foundation. Extensive details of the local threats and limiting factors in each subbasin are presented in Volume II of the Technical Foundation. This chapter summarizes the limiting factors and ongoing threats to salmon, steelhead, and trout species. Limiting factors are described in relation to the biological needs of the species, and the threats are those activities that lead to the limiting factors. By identifying the threats to recovery, specific recovery strategies and measures can be developed which would guide actions at the subbasin level to mitigate the threats. Limiting factors and threats for salmon and steelhead are described under the broad categories of stream habitat, mainstem and estuary habitat, hydropower, harvest, and hatchery operations. Limiting factors and threats are also summarized for other fish and wildlife species. 3.1 Habitat –Streams 3.1.1 Background Healthy stream habitat is critical for recovering and sustaining populations of salmon, steelhead and trout in the lower Columbia region. Many essential habitat features have been altered or degraded by human activities such as dams, logging, agriculture, urban development, road building, gravel mining, channelization, and water withdrawals. Properly functioning conditions (PFC) represent favorable or optimum habitat for salmon as described by NOAA Fisheries in the “matrix of pathways and indicators” approach to assessing habitat (NMFS 1996). PFCs generally represent a reasonable upper bound of the potential for habitat improvement although, in some cases, the large-scale changes required would be difficult to implement (e.g., levee removal). The attainment of PFC stream conditions throughout an ESU’s historical habitat would increase the likelihood that an ESU would recover. However, PFC conditions may not be necessary for populations to reach recovery. Likewise, populations may fall short of recovery despite having PFC habitat conditions if distribution has been substantially reduced or out-of-subbasin mortality factors are severe. Estimates of current stream capacity to produce salmon and steelhead generally ranges from 6 to 84% of PFC benchmark conditions as determined using EDT modeling (Table 1). Species averages range from a low of 23% for chum to a high of 74% for summer steelhead. These percentages describe the scope for potential improvement and the relative scale of habitat degradation for different species and subbasins. Similar estimates of declines in habitat conditions do not exist for bull trout. Bull trout prefer cold water and are often most abundant within headwater areas of subbasins. Bull trout are affected by many of the same habitat changes that have affected other salmon and steelhead species. In the lower Columbia, bull trout movement within historical headwater areas has also been limited by tributary dams, particularly in the Lewis River and White Salmon River subbasins. LIMITING FACTORS & THREATS 3-2 LOWER COLUMBIA SALMON RECOVERY & SUBBASIN PLAN December 2004 Table 1. Current habitat condition by species relative to historical conditions. The current condition of stream habitat is expressed as a percentage of historical condition using the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) model and PFC as defined by NOAA Fisheries (NMFS 1996). Chinook Steelhead Subbasin Spring Fall (tule) Fall (bright) Chum Coho Winter Summer Grays/Chinook -- 69 -- 28 33 64 -- Eloch/Skam -- 70 -- 28 41 64 -- Mill/Ab/Ger -- 66 -- 28 68 75 -- L. Cowlitz -- 43 -- 14 26 15 -- U. Cowlitz 47 46 -- -- 47 61 -- Cispus 40 -- -- 70 62 -- Tilton 27 -- -- -- 8 20 -- NF Toutle 0 48 -- -- na 21 -- SF Toutle 0 -- -- -- 14 40 -- Coweeman -- 64 -- -- 30 64 -- Kalama 55 67 -- 27 47 72 83 NF Lewis 53 -- 93 -- 50 76 na EF Lewis -- 56 -- 30 32 57 55 Salmon -- na -- 0 17 28 -- Washougal -- 58 -- 18 25 55 73 L. Gorge -- 74 -- 41 46 90 -- U. Gorge (Wind) -- 39 -- 14 47 57 86 White Salmon na na -- na na -- -- Average 32 58 93 23 38 54 74 Note: “—“ indicates that an historical population for the species and subbasin did not exist. “na” indicates that an historical population for the species was present in the subbasin, but EDT habitat analyses are not available. 3.1.2 Limiting Factors The habitat limiting factors described below are believed to be impacting healthy life cycles and natural production of salmonids in the lower Columbia region. The information is based on the assessments and data gathering presented in the Technical Foundation and focused on limiting factors at the stream channel scale. Passage Obstructions Processes and Effects — Fish passage barriers that limit habitat connectivity and access to spawning and rearing habitats are a significant factor affecting salmon populations in many Northwest watersheds.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rhythms of the Brain
    Rhythms of the Brain György Buzsáki OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS Rhythms of the Brain This page intentionally left blank Rhythms of the Brain György Buzsáki 1 2006 3 Oxford University Press, Inc., publishes works that further Oxford University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education. Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Copyright © 2006 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 www.oup.com Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Buzsáki, G. Rhythms of the brain / György Buzsáki. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13 978-0-19-530106-9 ISBN 0-19-530106-4 1. Brain—Physiology. 2. Oscillations. 3. Biological rhythms. [DNLM: 1. Brain—physiology. 2. Cortical Synchronization. 3. Periodicity. WL 300 B992r 2006] I. Title. QP376.B88 2006 612.8'2—dc22 2006003082 987654321 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper To my loved ones. This page intentionally left blank Prelude If the brain were simple enough for us to understand it, we would be too sim- ple to understand it.
    [Show full text]
  • A Limiting Factor
    Published on Plants in Action (http://plantsinaction.science.uq.edu.au/edition1) Home > Printer-friendly > Printer-friendly Chapter 15 - Water: a limiting factor [1] A superb stand of flooded gums, (Eucalyptus grandis) near Coffs Habour, northern New South Wales, 'each tall because of each' (Les Murray (1991), Collected Poems) (Photograph by Ken Eldridge, supplied by Peter Burgess, CSIRO Forestry and Forest Products) With perspective phrasing, Les Murray (1991) summarises structural aspects of a gum forest as: 'Flooded gums on creek ground, each tall because of each' and on conceptualising water relations, 'Foliage builds like a layering splash: ground water drily upheld in edge-on, wax rolled, gall-puckered leaves upon leaves. The shoal life of parrots up there.' (Les Murray, Collected Poems, 1991) Introduction Life-giving water molecules, fundamental to our biosphere, are as remarkable as they are abundant. Hydrogen bonds, enhanced by dipole forces, confer extraordinary physical properties on liquid water that would not be expected from atomic structure alone. Water has the strongest surface tension, biggest specific heat, largest latent heat of vaporisation and, with the exception of mercury, the best thermal conductivity of any known natural liquid. A high specific grav-ity is linked to a high specific heat, and very few natural substances require 1 calorie to increase the temperature of 1 gram by 1ºC. Similarly, a high heat of vaporisation means that 500 calories are required to convert 1 gram of water from liquid to vapour at 100ºC. This huge energy requirement (latent heat of vaporisation, Section 14.5) ties up much heat so that massive bodies of water contribute to climatic stability, while tiny bodies of water are significant for heat budgets of organisms.
    [Show full text]
  • Population Growth Is a Critical Factor in Specie’S Ability to Maintain Homeostasis Within Its Environment
    Chapter 4-B1 Population Ecology Population growth is a critical factor in specie’s ability to maintain homeostasis within its environment. Main themes ~Scientists study population characteristics to better understand growth and distribution of organisms. ~Populations have different distributions and densities depending on the species represented in the population ~Organisms in a population compete for energy sources, such as food and sunlight ~Homeostasis within a population is controlled by density-dependent and density-independent limiting factors ~Human population varies little overall, but can change greatly within small populations. I. Population dynamics A. 1. Population density a. defined- b. eg. deer in Newark deer in 5 mi. sq. area 2. a. defined-organism pattern in area (eg. more deer on Londondale than on Green Wave Drive) b. c. Types p. 93 -UNIFORM dispersion-relatively even distribution of a species. Eg. pine forest -CLUMPED dispersion-organism are clumped near food. Eg. schools of fish, eg. mushrooms on a fallen log -_________________-unpredictable & changing. Eg. deer, large fish, etc. 3. a. area where organisms CAN/ARE living b. Meaning of Distribution -in Science~it is area where something lives and reproduces -in everyday language ~it means distribution (passing out) eg. of report cards. B. 1. Limiting factors-biotic or abiotic factors that keep a population from increasing forever (indefinitely). a. b. amount of space=abiotic c. 2. Density-independent factors a. b. independent=doesn’t rely on the number of organisms, would happen regardless of the number of organisms c. it is usually abiotic (limits population growth) -flood (eg. no matter how many deer in an area) - -blizzard - -fire (Ponderosa pine needs fire to kill undergrowth which takes all the soil nutrients from them.
    [Show full text]
  • Memory, History, and the Preservation of Archival Records*
    The Past that Archives Keep: Memory, History, and the Preservation of Archival Records* BRIEN BROTHMAN RÉSUMÉ Est-ce que « le passé » prend des sens différents dans les contextes de l’histoire et de la mémoire? Est-ce que la réponse à cette question a une relation avec les archives? Cet article répond par l’affirmative à ces deux questions. Son argument principal est que d’attribuer un sens distinct au « passé » dans le cadre de la mémoire permet le développement d’une perspective sur le travail archivistique qui rehausse la valeur des documents anciens pour les organisations et la société contemporaines. Le raisonnement de l’auteur se dévoile en trois sections. La première veut démontrer que certains éléments du concept australien de continuum des documents sont plus compat- ibles avec l’idée de la mémoire sociale et organisationnelle que ne l’est celui du cycle de vie des documents et que de plus, sur un plan archivistique, le continuum des docu- ments est un concept plus cohérent au point de vue temporel que le cycle de vie des documents. La deuxième section se base sur des recherches de différentes disciplines pour démontrer que, dans le cadre de la mémoire, faire référence au passé représente simplement une autre façon de parler du présent. La troisième section se fonde sur les idées des deux premières pour proposer dix questions d’ordre conceptuel, organisation- nel et technologique qui requièrent l’attention en ce qui concerne les programmes de conservation à long terme des documents d’archives. ABSTRACT Does “the past” take on different meanings in the contexts of history and memory? Does the answer to this question have any bearing on archives? This arti- cle answers affirmatively to both these questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Holism Agriculture and Natural Resources
    Holism Agriculture and Natural Resources An Inaugural Lecture Given in the University of Rhodesia by Professor J. M. de Yilliers UNIVERSITY OF RHODESIA l.'nirersity of Rhodesia Printed in Rhodesia by Sebri Printers, Martin Drive, Msasa, Salisbury HOLISM, AGRICULTURE, AND NATURAL RESOURCES I am unable to resist the temptation to recall for you tonight what Mark Prestwich, on acceding to the Chair of History and Political Science in the University of Natal, had to say about the Inaugural Lecture — this ordeal to which new Professors are subjected. The occasion, said Professor Prestwich, affords his learned colleagues the opportunity to enjoy one of the pleasures of malice — the pleasure of noting his superficiality, his deficiencies of oratory and power of reasoning, the abysmal deeps of his ignorance. His students are able to taste revenge for what he has done or will do to them, and the lay public is treated to a display of academic nakedness which bears remarkable similarities to the initiation rites practised by primitive tribes. The purpose of all this, no doubt, is to ensure that he will not become too big for his boots. And there is the prospect of direr perils still. Such as the fate which befell a certain ninth-century philosopher — one Johannes Scotus Erigena — who so exasperated his audience that they rose up and slew him with their styluses. One is told also of Nicolas Cop who was compelled to flee for his life after his Inaugural Lec­ ture as Rector of the University of Paris in 1533. And of Ernest Renan whose Inaugural Lecture as Professor of Hebrew in 1862 led to his instant suspension from the Chair.
    [Show full text]
  • Successive Range Expansion Promotes Diversity and Accelerates Evolution in Spatially Structured Microbial Populations
    The ISME Journal (2017) 11, 2112–2123 © 2017 International Society for Microbial Ecology All rights reserved 1751-7362/17 www.nature.com/ismej ORIGINAL ARTICLE Successive range expansion promotes diversity and accelerates evolution in spatially structured microbial populations Felix Goldschmidt1,2, Roland R Regoes1 and David R Johnson2 1Department of Environmental Systems Science, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland and 2Department of Environmental Microbiology, Eawag, Dübendorf, Switzerland Successive range expansions occur within all domains of life, where one population expands first (primary expansion) and one or more secondary populations then follow (secondary expansion). In general, genetic drift reduces diversity during range expansion. However, it is not clear whether the same effect applies during successive range expansion, mainly because the secondary population must expand into space occupied by the primary population. Here we used an experimental microbial model system to show that, in contrast to primary range expansion, successive range expansion promotes local population diversity. Because of mechanical constraints imposed by the presence of the primary population, the secondary population forms fractal-like dendritic structures. This divides the advancing secondary population into many small sub-populations and promotes intermixing between the primary and secondary populations. We further developed a mathematical model to simulate the formation of dendritic structures in the secondary population during succession. By introducing mutations in the primary or dendritic secondary populations, we found that mutations are more likely to accumulate in the dendritic secondary populations. Our results thus show that successive range expansion can promote intermixing over the short term and increase genetic diversity over the long term. Our results therefore have potentially important implications for predicting the ecological processes and evolutionary trajectories of microbial communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Shelford's Law & Concept of Limiting Factor
    Shelford’S Law & Concept of Limiting Factor Dr. Md. Osaid Alam Guest Faculty (Environmental Science & Management) Department of Zoology Patna University 1 Shelford’s Law of Intolerance • Shelford's law of tolerance is a principle developed by American zoologist Victor Ernest Shelford in 1911. • Shelford's law of tolerance states that an organism’s success is based on a complex set of conditions and that each organism has a certain minimum, maximum, and optimum environmental factor or combination of factors that determine success. • According to the law of tolerance, populations have optimal survival conditions within critical minimal and maximal thresholds. • As population is exposed to the extremes of a particular limiting factor, the rates of survival begin to drop. 2 Shelford’s Law of Intolerance • The distribution of a species in response to a limiting factor can be represented as a bell-shaped curve with three distinct regions: 1. Optimal zone: Central portion of curve which has conditions that favour maximal reproductive success and survivability. 2. Zones of stress: Regions flanking the optimal zone, where organisms can survive but with reduced reproductive success. 3. Zones of intolerance: Outermost regions in which organisms cannot survive (represents extremes of the limiting factor). 3 Shelford’s Law of Intolerance • According to the Shelford’s law of tolerance, there are upper and lower threshold value on the gradient beyond which the species cannot survive. Tolerance range differ for one species to another. 4 Definition of Limiting Factor • A limiting factor is a resource or environmental condition which limits the growth, distribution or abundance of an organism or population within an ecosystem.
    [Show full text]
  • AVID for Higher Education: High Engagement Practices for Teaching and Learning
    AVID for Higher Education: High Engagement Practices for Teaching and Learning DEVELOPED BY: Debra Shapiro, J.D. Joseph Cuseo, Ph.D. I DEVELOPED WITH SUPPORT FROM: Instructional Strategists: Rachel Juarez-Torres, Ed.D. Ben Solomon Shannon McAndrews, Ed.D. Project Lead: Jaime Rae Sandoval Contributors: Julia Howe Alma Montemayor Sandigo, Ed.D. Gloria Pindi, Ph.D. Aaron Thompson, Ph.D. Editor: Moon Wilkman Proofreaders: Mariyama Scott Megan Zid Graphic Designer: Tracy Castle Copyright © 2018 AVID Center • San Diego, CA All rights reserved. HEPTL-20171221 II AVID for Higher Education: High Engagement Practices for Teaching and Learning Table of Contents AVID History and Philosophy ........................................................................V Foreword by Dr. Joseph Cuseo ............................................................... VIII Chapter 1: Relational Capacity: The Importance of Building Positive Student–Instructor and Student–Student Relationships ...................................... 1 Chapter 2: Writing to Learn ...................................................................... 29 Chapter 3: Inquiry ............................................................................................57 Chapter 4: Collaboration .......................................................................... 103 Chapter 5: Organization of Thought and Materials ................. 123 Chapter 6: Reading to Learn .................................................................. 153 Resources ..........................................................................................................205
    [Show full text]
  • Endocytosis As a Stabilizing Mechanism for Tissue Homeostasis
    Endocytosis as a stabilizing mechanism for tissue homeostasis Miri Adlera, Avi Mayoa, Xu Zhoub,c, Ruth A. Franklinb,c, Jeremy B. Jacoxb,c, Ruslan Medzhitovb,c,1, and Uri Alona,1 aDepartment of Molecular Cell Biology, Weizmann Institute of Science, 76100 Rehovot, Israel; bHoward Hughes Medical Institute, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06510; and cDepartment of Immunobiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06510 Contributed by Ruslan Medzhitov, January 2, 2018 (sent for review August 15, 2017; reviewed by Michael B. Elowitz and Wendell A. Lim) Cells in tissues communicate by secreted growth factors (GF) and also has another fixed point: Below a certain initial concentra- other signals. An important function of cell circuits is tissue home- tion of T cells the population decays to zero cells, converging to a ostasis: maintaining proper balance between the amounts of stable OFF state (14, 18). A stable OFF state in addition to a different cell types. Homeostasis requires negative feedback on stable ON state is a form of bistability (24–28). The OFF state the GFs, to avoid a runaway situation in which cells stimulate each may help to avoid unwanted fluctuations in which a small group other and grow without control. Feedback can be obtained in at of cells expands to give rise to a new tissue. least two ways: endocytosis in which a cell removes its cognate GF To approach the complexity of a multicell-type tissue there is by internalization and cross-inhibition in which a GF down-regulates need to explore circuits of more than one cell type.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantifying Environmental Limiting Factors on Tree Cover Using Geospatial Data
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Forest Management Faculty Publications Forest Management 2-18-2015 Quantifying Environmental Limiting Factors on Tree Cover Using Geospatial Data Johnathan A. Greenberg University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Maria J. Santos Utrecht University Solomon Z. Dobrowski University of Montana - Missoula Vern C. Vanderbilt NASA Ames Research Center Susan L. Ustin University of California - Davis Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/forest_pubs Part of the Forest Management Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Greenberg JA, Santos MJ, Dobrowski SZ, Vanderbilt VC, Ustin SL (2015) Quantifying Environmental Limiting Factors on Tree Cover Using Geospatial Data. PLoS ONE 10(2): e0114648. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0114648 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Forest Management at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Forest Management Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RESEARCH ARTICLE Quantifying Environmental Limiting Factors on Tree Cover Using Geospatial Data Jonathan A. Greenberg1*, Maria J. Santos2, Solomon Z. Dobrowski3, Vern C. Vanderbilt4, Susan L. Ustin5 1 Department of Geography and Geographic Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, United States of America, 2 Department of Innovation,
    [Show full text]
  • Population Growth Is a Critical Factor in Specie's Ability to Maintain
    1 Chapter 4-HB Population Ecology Population growth is a critical factor in specie’s ability to maintain homeostasis within its environment. Populations of species are described by density, spatial distribution & growth rate. I. Population dynamics A. Population characteristics 1. Population density a. b. eg. coyotes in Newark coyotes in 5 mi. sq. area 2. Spatial distribution a. defined- b. dispersion-how organisms are placed in an area c. Types p. 93 -UNIFORM dispersion-relatively even distribution of a species. Eg. pine forest -CLUMPED dispersion- Eg. schools of fish, eg. mushrooms on a fallen log -RANDOM dispersion- Eg. deer, large fish, etc. 3. Population ranges- a. b. Distribution ~terminology p. 94 -Science~area where something lives and reproduces -Common~distribution (passing out) eg. of report cards. B. 1. Limiting factors-biotic or abiotic factors that keep a population from increasing forever (indefinitely). a. b. amount of space c. 2. Density-independent factors a. b. independent=doesn’t rely on the number of organisms, would happen regardless of the number of organisms c. usually abiotic (limit population growth) - -hurricane - -drought -fire (Ponderosa pine needs fire to kill undergrowth which takes all 2 the soil nutrients from them. Heat releases seeds). d. -building dams -pollution 3. a. dependent= depends on b. factors which depend on density of organisms c. -parasites - -predation - TYPES OF DENSITY DEPENDENT FACTORS d. Predation (Predator/prey populations fluctuate due to the amount of food available) - -wolves inc./ moose dec., moose dec./wolves inc. e. -disease spreads by contact with individual organisms -the higher the density the higher the disease the higher the deathrate (limiting factor) f.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Can't You Stick to Our Guns on Your Decision. Paul Bradley Says He Wants to Expand Boating to "Allow for Boating Opportunities Above S.C
    You guys are infuriating! Why can't you stick to our guns on your decision. Paul Bradley says he wants to expand boating to "allow for boating opportunities above S.C. Highway 28". STOP! DON'T DO IT! There was ALREADY a compromise with boaters, and that was made some years ago. More recently American Whitewater started a lawsuit and you responded by having the studies and hearings, and you reached another compromise in 2009. But clearly you are buckling under their pressure, and the only result is to buckle further to their pressure. If you were starting over, then it would mean things could go either way. But with the American Whitewater side applying the pressure it's clear you want to make them happier, and give more ground to that Some alternatives will consider no boating in the narrow special interest group. What about us common folks who don't have lobbyists and upper Chattooga River, while other alternatives will lawyers? How about the wild lands that also lack the same? It is clear that the big money lawyers consider boating opportunities that incorporate behind American Whitewater will keep spending money in lawsuits and will not be happy with user separation techniques (reach, zone, flow) to 1 anything less than total victory. reduce user‐conflicts. Response sent out: I just checked the FMS website and the link is working fine. you can copy and paste the following linking into your web browser to learn more about the scoping letter. http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/fms/sumter/resources/Ch After typing in the exact website address for getting more information than this brief attooga.php.
    [Show full text]