DOCSLIB.ORG

Columbia River Fish Runs and Fisheries 1938-2000

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Columbia River Fish Runs and Fisheries 1938-2000 STATUS REPORT COLUMBIA RIVER FISH RUNS AND FISHERIES 1938-2000 TEXT ONLY Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife August 2002 THE JOINT COLUMBIA RIVER MANAGEMENT STAFF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CRAIG BURLEY - PROGRAM LEADER MIKE WALL WOLF DAMMERS JOE HYMER RON ROLER CINDY LEFLEUR RICK HEITZ RICH PETTIT BRAD JAMES BRAD CADY MARC MILLER SHANE HAWKINS DAN RAWDING BOB WOODARD STEVE GRAY STEVE CAMPBELL KELLY HARLAN LISA HARLAN DENNIS GILLILAND KEN KELLER VICTOR ALBALDEJO JOHN SEWALL MICHELLE SMITH JOHN WEINHEIMER STACIE KELSEY BRYCE GLASSER JIM BYRNE STEVE THIESFELD OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE PATRICK A. FRAZIER - PROGRAM LEADER PAUL HIROSE RAY BEAMESDERFER CURT MELCHER KEVLEEN MELCHER DOUGLAS CASE WAYNE VAN DER NAALD JIMMY WATTS BRET MORGAN TOM NEILL JEFF WHISLER JEFF FULOP ROY CLARK BRYANT SPELLMAN ERIC OLLERENSHAW MATT HUNTER ROBERT BROOKS SUSAN ENGWALL The Joint Staff is comprised of biologists and technicians from Oregon and Washington cooperating to provide scientific information for the management of Columbia River fisheries that harvest salmon (four species), steelhead trout, shad, smelt, walleye, and sturgeon (two species). Fisheries are monitored to obtain complete fishery statistics used to determine their influence on the various runs. Run size predictions are developed preseason to establish seasons. Run size updates, through the use of dam counts, test fishing, environmental indices, and early season catches, are used to assist in adjusting seasons to allow maximum harvest while permitting the desired escapement. Escapement and subsequent production are studied to determine the success and contribution to the fishery by brood year. Fish taken in fisheries are sampled for biological data. Many of these duties are carried out in cooperation with the Columbia River treaty Indian tribes, the United States, and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Contents Page INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ...................................................................................... 2 Hydro Development............................................................................................ 2 Hatchery Development ....................................................................................... 6 Fishery Development.......................................................................................... 6 FISHERIES ................................................................................................................. 11 Introduction....................................................................................................... 11 Regulations....................................................................................................... 11 Columbia River Compact ....................................................................... 11 Columbia River Fish Management Plan................................................. 13 Endangered Species Act ....................................................................... 13 Management Agreements...................................................................... 13 In-season Management ......................................................................... 14 Water Conditions .............................................................................................. 14 Non-Indian Commercial Fishery ....................................................................... 18 Treaty Indian Fishery........................................................................................ 22 Non-Indian Recreational Fishery ...................................................................... 25 Lower Columbia Fishery ........................................................................ 25 Buoy 10 Fishery..................................................................................... 26 FISH RUNS................................................................................................................. 28 Spring Chinook Salmon.................................................................................... 28 Biology ................................................................................................... 28 Historic Status........................................................................................ 28 Summer Chinook Salmon................................................................................. 29 Biology ................................................................................................... 29 Historic Status........................................................................................ 29 Fall Chinook Salmon ........................................................................................ 30 Biology ................................................................................................... 30 Historic Status........................................................................................ 30 Sockeye Salmon............................................................................................... 32 Biology ................................................................................................... 32 Historic Status........................................................................................ 32 Coho Salmon.................................................................................................... 33 Biology ................................................................................................... 33 Historic Status........................................................................................ 33 Chum Salmon................................................................................................... 34 Biology ................................................................................................... 34 Historic Status........................................................................................ 34 Winter Steelhead .............................................................................................. 35 Biology ................................................................................................... 35 Historic Status........................................................................................ 35 Summer Steelhead........................................................................................... 36 Biology ................................................................................................... 36 Historic Status........................................................................................ 36 Smelt ................................................................................................................ 37 Biology ................................................................................................... 37 Historic Status........................................................................................ 37 Shad ................................................................................................................. 38 Biology ................................................................................................... 38 Historic Status........................................................................................ 38 White Sturgeon................................................................................................. 39 Biology ................................................................................................... 39 Historic Status........................................................................................ 39 Green Sturgeon................................................................................................ 41 Biology ................................................................................................... 41 Historic Status........................................................................................ 41 Walleye............................................................................................................. 42 Biology ................................................................................................... 42 Historic Status........................................................................................ 42 RUN STATUS AND HARVEST................................................................................... 43 Spring Chinook ................................................................................................. 43 Lower River Run .................................................................................... 43 Status............................................................................................ 43 Non-Indian Commercial Harvest ................................................... 43 Non-Indian Recreational Harvest .................................................. 46 Upriver Run............................................................................................ 47 Status............................................................................................ 47 Non-Indian Commercial Harvest ................................................... 49 Treaty Indian Commercial Harvest................................................ 50 Treaty Indian Ceremonial and Subsistence Harvest ..................... 52 Non-Indian Recreational Harvest .................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 155891 WPO 43.2 Inside WSUP C.Indd
    MAY 2017 VOL 43 NO 2 LEWIS AND CLARK TRAIL HERITAGE FOUNDATION • Black Sands and White Earth • Baleen, Blubber & Train Oil from Sacagawea’s “monstrous fish” • Reviews, News, and more the Rocky Mountain Fur Trade Journal VOLUME 11 - 2017 The Henry & Ashley Fur Company Keelboat Enterprize by Clay J. Landry and Jim Hardee Navigation of the dangerous and unpredictable Missouri River claimed many lives and thousands of dollars in trade goods in the early 1800s, including the HAC’s Enterprize. Two well-known fur trade historians detail the keelboat’s misfortune, Ashley’s resourceful response, and a possible location of the wreck. More than Just a Rock: the Manufacture of Gunflints by Michael P. Schaubs For centuries, trappers and traders relied on dependable gunflints for defense, hunting, and commerce. This article describes the qualities of a superior gunflint and chronicles the evolution of a stone-age craft into an important industry. The Hudson’s Bay Company and the “Youtah” Country, 1825-41 by Dale Topham The vast reach of the Hudson’s Bay Company extended to the Ute Indian territory in the latter years of the Rocky Mountain rendezvous period, as pressure increased from The award-winning, peer-reviewed American trappers crossing the Continental Divide. Journal continues to bring fresh Traps: the Common Denominator perspectives by encouraging by James A. Hanson, PhD. research and debate about the The portable steel trap, an exponential improvement over snares, spears, nets, and earlier steel traps, revolutionized Rocky Mountain fur trade era. trapping in North America. Eminent scholar James A. Hanson tracks the evolution of the technology and its $25 each plus postage deployment by Euro-Americans and Indians.
    [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]
  • Volume II, Chapter 2 Columbia River Estuary and Lower Mainstem Subbasins
    Volume II, Chapter 2 Columbia River Estuary and Lower Mainstem Subbasins TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.0 COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY AND LOWER MAINSTEM ................................ 2-1 2.1 Subbasin Description.................................................................................................. 2-5 2.1.1 Purpose................................................................................................................. 2-5 2.1.2 History ................................................................................................................. 2-5 2.1.3 Physical Setting.................................................................................................... 2-7 2.1.4 Fish and Wildlife Resources ................................................................................ 2-8 2.1.5 Habitat Classification......................................................................................... 2-20 2.1.6 Estuary and Lower Mainstem Zones ................................................................. 2-27 2.1.7 Major Land Uses................................................................................................ 2-29 2.1.8 Areas of Biological Significance ....................................................................... 2-29 2.2 Focal Species............................................................................................................. 2-31 2.2.1 Selection Process............................................................................................... 2-31 2.2.2 Ocean-type Salmonids
    [Show full text]
  • ASTORIA PARKS & RECREATION Comprehensive Master Plan 2016
    ASTORIA PARKS & RECREATION Comprehensive Master Plan 2016 - 2026 Adopted July 18, 2016 by Ordinance 16-04 Acknowledgments Parks & Recreation Staff City Council Angela Cosby.......... Director Arline LaMear.......... Mayor Jonah Dart-Mclean... Maintenance Supervisor Zetty Nemlowill....... Ward 1 Randy Bohrer........... Grounds Coordinator Drew Herzig............ Ward 2 Mark Montgomery... Facilities Coordinator Cindy Price............. Ward 3 Terra Patterson........ Recreation Coordinator Russ Warr................ Ward 4 Erin Reding............. Recreation Coordinator Parks Advisory Board City Staff Norma Hernandez... Chair Brett Estes............... City Manager Tammy Loughran..... Vice Chair Kevin Cronin........... Community Josey Ballenger Development Director Aaron Crockett Rosemary Johnson... Special Projects Planner Andrew Fick John Goodenberger Historic Buildings Eric Halverson Consultant Jim Holen Howard Rub Citizen Advisory Committee Jessica Schleif Michelle Bisek......... Astoria Parks, Recreation, and Community Foundation Community Members Melissa Gardner...... Clatsop Community Kenny Hageman...... Lower Columbia Youth College Drafting and Baseball Historic Preservation Jim Holen................. Parks Advisory Board Program Craig Hoppes.......... Astoria School District Workshop attendees, survey respondents, Zetty Nemlowill....... Astoria City Council focus group participants, and volunteers. Jan Nybakke............ Volunteer Kassia Nye............... MOMS Club RARE AmeriCorps Ed Overbay............. Former Parks Advisory Ian
    [Show full text]
  • Water Column Primary Production in the Columbia River Estuary
    WATER COLUMN PRIMARY PRODUCTION IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY I a.~ ~~~~~~~~ 9 Final Report on the Water Column Primary Production Work Unit of the Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program WATER COLUMNNPRIMARY PRODUCTION IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY Contractor: Oregon State University College of Oceanography Principal Investigators: Lawrence F. Small and Bruce E. Frey College of Oceanography Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331 February 1984 OSU PROJECT TEAM PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS Dr. Bruce E. Frey Dr. Lawrence F. Small GRADUATE RESEARCH ASSISTANT Dr. Ruben Lara-Lara TECHNICAL STAFF Ms. RaeDeane Leatham Mr. Stanley Moore Final Report Prepared by Bruce E. Frey, Ruben Lara-Lara and Lawrence F. Small PREFACE The Columbia River Estuarv Data Development Program This document is one of a set of publications and other materials produced by the Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program (CREDDP). CREDDP has two purposes: to increase understanding of the ecology of the Columbia River Estuary and to provide information useful in making land and water use decisions. The program was initiated by local governments and citizens who saw a need for a better information base for use in managing natural resources and in planning for development. In response to these concerns, the Governors of the states of Oregon and Washington requested in 1974 that the Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission (PNRBC) undertake an interdisciplinary ecological study of the estuary. At approximately the same time, local governments and port districts formed the Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST) to develop a regional management plan for the estuary. PNRBC produced a Plan of Study for a six-year, $6.2 million program which was authorized by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Proceedings
    Day 1: Tuesday December 1st 9:00am Registration Begins 1:10pm Welcome: Scott Patterson (ODFW) 1:20pm Welcome: Curt Melcher (ODFW) 1:40pm Keynote Speaker, Steve Williams Session #1: Aquaculture in Fisheries Management Session Chair: Ryan Queen (ODFW) 2:10pm Kyle Bratcher (Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife) Getting 66th Annual Northwest Fish Culture paid to fish? Using a tag-reward model to evaluate a Concepts: stocked trout fishery in Wallowa Lake, Oregon 2:30pm Michelle Scanlan (Oregon State University) Trans-located Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar): Using geomagnetic A Workshop for Fish Culturists orientation responses for invasion risk assessment “Angling for Sustainability” 2:50pm Andy Dittman (NWFSC, NMFS) Effects of hatchery-rearing practices on olfactory imprinting in Pacific salmon 3:10pm Afternoon Break December 1 – 3, 2015 3:40pm Door Prize Drawing Holiday Inn Portland South 3:50pm Garth Wyatt (Portland General Electric (PGE)) “Hey you, Wilsonville, Oregon get your hands off me!” An overview of PGE’s new hands- free adult fish sorting facility at the North Fork Dam on the Clackamas River near Estacada, Oregon Hosted by: 4:10pm Todd Alsbury (Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife) The Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife Controlling stray hatchery fish with various styles of weirs 4:30pm Terry Shrader (Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife) Use of fluorescent grit marking as a means of mass marking salmonids 4:50pm Hall of Fame Induction 5:00pm Announcements/Door Prize Drawing/Adjourn 5:30-9:00pm Poster Session/Vendor Social Day 2: Wednesday
    [Show full text]
  • Stop Catching Aleutian Cod • Good Prices for Halibut
    LEARN HOW TO DROWN EFFECTIVELYY COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN’S FESTIVAL See Page 22 www.pacifi cfi shing.com THE BUSINESS MAGAZINE FOR FISHERMENN ■ SEPTEMBERSEPE TETEMBERR 201020010 BBigig mmoneyoney fforor ssalmonalmon US $2.95/CAN. $3.95 • BBiOp:iOp: SStoptop ccatchingatching AAleutianleutian ccodod 09 • GGoodood ppricesrices fforor hhalibutalibut 63126 • DDirectirect mmarketingarketing ffromrom yyourour bboatoat The first wholesale value of Alaska salmon reached $1,069,400,000, and the price paid to fishermen reached a 13-year high, boosting state and local economies and the private sector. Photo: © Steve Lee Photo: © Steve Lee Alaska Ex-Vessel Value, Alaska Salmon Value Growth: Key Commercial Species Ex-Vessel and First Wholesale $2,000 $1,200 $1,000 $1,600 $800 $1,200 $600 $800 2007-2008 $400 $400 Increase 14.4% Value ($ millions) Value ($ millions) $200 $0 $0 2003 2004 2005 20062007 2008 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Source: ADF&G, NMFS, SMIS estimates Ex-Vessel First Wholesale Value, selected products Combined value of salmon, pollock, P-cod, sablefish & halibut, Source: ADF&G, AK Dept. of Revenue shellfish, other groundfish Selected products: fresh and frozen H&G, fresh and frozen fillet, salmon roe, canned salmon Check out the industry e-newsletter Newsbrief on the Seafood Industry portion of the ASMI website, www.alaskaseafood.org. Subscribe to Newsbrief and Seafood Market Information Service. Check out Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute on Facebook, where you’ll find a link to a new 60-second video on You Tube about Alaska bears, whales and fishermen. iversar nn y A h t 0 1980-2010 3 IN THIS ISSUE Editor's note ® THE BUSINESS MAGAZINE FOR FISHERMEN Crapped up INSIDE: Don McManman Once, in my checkered career, I held a position of sobriety and trust.
    [Show full text]
  • Gearhart to Fort Stevens, Prelim
    NOTICE The Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries is publishing this paper because the information furthers the mission of the Department. To facilitate timely distribution of the information, this report is published as received from the authors and has not been edited to our usual standards. STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND MINERAL INDUSTRIES Suite 965, 800 NE Oregon St., #28 Portland, Oregon 97232 OPEN-FILE REPORT O-01-04 COASTAL EROSION HAZARD ZONES ALONG THE CLATSOP PLAINS, OREGON: GEARHART TO FORT STEVENS PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT TO CLATSOP COUNTY 2001 By JONATHAN C. ALLAN AND GEORGE R. PRIEST Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Coastal Field Office, 313 SW 2nd St, Suite D, Newport, OR 97365 NOTICE The results and conclusions of this report are necessarily based on limited geologic and geophysical data. At any given site in any map area, site-specific data could give results that differ from those shown in this report. This report cannot replace site-specific investigations. The hazards of an individual site should be assessed through geotechnical or engineering geology investigation by qualified practitioners. Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... iii INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 BEACH PROCESSES AND FEATURES......................................................................... 2 Beach Erosion –
    [Show full text]
  • Cannon Beach Cannon by Arthur M
    Cannon Beach Cannon By Arthur M. Prentiss This photograph, taken by Arthur M. Prentiss, depicts the cannon that gave Cannon Beach its name. The cannon’s history includes a period as a U.S. Navy weapon, a buried shipwreck “treasure,” and a roadside attraction. The cannon is now preserved in Astoria’s heritage museum. Cannon Beach’s cannon originated on the Shark, a U.S. Navy schooner built on the east coast in 1821. The vessel reached the Oregon coast in August 1846, only months after the United States and Great Britain signed the Treaty of Oregon establishing the border at the forty-ninth parallel. Despite rumors among the settlers that the U.S. sent the Shark in case conflict arose with Great Britain over the boundary question, the schooner’s mission was to survey the harbor at the mouth of the Columbia River. Upon the completion of the survey, the Shark struck the Clatsop Spit as it attempted to depart from the Columbia. One large section of the wreckage split from the vessel, drifted across the bar, and washed ashore just south of Tillamook Head. A U.S. midshipman and several Indians freed one cannon from the wreckage and dragged it from the shoreline to a creek bed for safekeeping. Over time the cannon was lost from view, perhaps the result of a shifting creek bed or blowing sands. Forty-five years later, former Seaside postmaster James Austin homesteaded and built a hostel south of Tillamook Head. The entrepreneur’s choice of location for the Austin House was a strategic business move—situated halfway along the Tillamook-Astoria mail route, the hostel served weary mail carriers and tourists alike.
    [Show full text]
  • State Waterway Navigability Determination
    BODY OF WATER & LOCATION NAV CG NON-NAV CG REMARKS yellow highlight = apply to USCG for permit up to RM stipulated Alsea Bay, OR X Estuary of Pacific Ocean. Alsea River, OR X Flows into Alsea Bay, Waldport, OR. Navigable to mile 13. Ash Creek, OR X Tributary of Willamette River at Independence, OR. Barrett Slough, OR X Tributary of Lewis and Clark River. Bayou St. John, OR X Court decision, 1935 AMC 594, 10 Mile Lake, Coos County, OR. Bear Creek (Coos County), OR X Tributary of Coquille River (tidal at mile 0.5) Beaver Creek, OR X Tributary of Nestucca River. Beaver Slough, OR X See Clatskanie River. Big Creek (Lane County), OR X At U.S. 101 bridge (tidal). Big Creek (Lincoln County), OR X Flows into Pacific Ocean. Big Creek Slough, OR X Upstream end at Knappa, OR (tidal). At site of Birch Creek (Sparks) Bridge on Canyon Road near Birch Creek, OR X Pendleton, OR. Side channel of Yaquina River. 3 mi. downstream from Toledo, Blind Slough, OR X OR (tidal). Tributary of Knappa Slough. 10 mi. upstream from Astoria, OR Blind Slough/ Gnat Creek, OR X (tidal at mile 2.0). Boone Slough, OR X Tributary of Yaquina River between Newport and Toledo, OR. Side channel of Willamette River. 3 miles upstream from Booneville Channel, OR X Corvallis, OR. Boulder Creek, OR X 7 miles N of Lake Quinalt. Side channel of Columbia River. 5 miles N of Clatskanie, OR Bradbury Slough, OR X (tidal). Brownlee Reservoir, ID /OR X See Snake River. Also known as South Channel.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Coastal Water Resources and Watershed Conditions at Lewis and Clark National Historical Park, Oregon and Washington
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resources Program Center Assessment of Coastal Water Resources and Watershed Conditions at Lewis and Clark National Historical Park, Oregon and Washington Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/WRD/NRTR—2007/055 ON THE COVER Upper left, Fort Clatsop, NPS Photograph Upper right, Cape Disappointment, Photograph by Kristen Keteles Center left, Ecola, NPS Photograph Lower left, Corps at Ecola, NPS Photograph Lower right, Young’s Bay, Photograph by Kristen Keteles Assessment of Coastal Water Resources and Watershed Conditions at Lewis and Clark National Historical Park, Oregon and Washington Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/WRD/NRTR—2007/055 Dr. Terrie Klinger School of Marine Affairs University of Washington Seattle, WA 98105-6715 Rachel M. Gregg School of Marine Affairs University of Washington Seattle, WA 98105-6715 Jessi Kershner School of Marine Affairs University of Washington Seattle, WA 98105-6715 Jill Coyle School of Marine Affairs University of Washington Seattle, WA 98105-6715 Dr. David Fluharty School of Marine Affairs University of Washington Seattle, WA 98105-6715 This report was prepared under Task Order J9W88040014 of the Pacific Northwest Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit (agreement CA9088A0008) September 2007 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resources Program Center Fort Collins, CO i The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the NPS conservation and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and is designed and published in a professional manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Plan Update, 2010 – 2030
    PACIFIC COUNTY, WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE 2010 - 2030 March 2010 (Final Draft) Acknowledgements The Pacific County Comprehensive Plan Update was made possible through the collective contribution and participation of County Officials, County Staff and the public. Pacific County Board of Commissioners Jon Kaino, District No. 1 Norman “Bud” Cuffel, District No. 2 Clay Harwood, District No. 3 Pacific County Planning Commission Rob Snow, Chairperson Ken Osborne Marlene Martin Eric deMontigny Bill Kennedy Stan Smith Jim Sayce Pacific County Staff Mike DeSimone AICP, Community Development Director Mike Stevens, Senior Planner Bryan Harrison, County Administrative Officer David Burke, Prosecuting Attorney Partial funding assistance for the Pacific County Comprehensive Plan Update was provided by the Washington State Department of Commerce. PACIFIC COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2010 – 2030) MARCH 2010 PAGE II TABLE OF CONTENTS (FINAL DRAFT) Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................x List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xii Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................E-1
    [Show full text]