DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Consultation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Consultation Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Consultation Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery Spring Chinook Salmon Program (Reinitiation 2016) NMFS Consultation Number: WCR-2017-7345 Action Agencies: United States Fish and Wildlife Service United States Bureau of Reclamation United States Environmental Protection Agency Affected Species and Determinations: ESA-Listed Species Status Is the Action Is the Action Is the Action Likely To Likely to Likely To Destroy or Adversely Adversely Affect Jeopardize the Modify Critical Species or Critical Species? Habitat? Habitat? Upper Columbia River Threatened Yes No No steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Upper Columbia River Endangered Yes No No spring-run Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) Fishery Management Plan That Does the Action Have an Adverse Are EFH Conservation Describes EFH in the Project Area Effect on EFH? Recommendations Provided? Pacific Coast Salmon Yes Yes I I I I Consultation Conducted By: National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region Issued By: fbe_ _________________________ ff!).Barry A. Thom Regional Administrator West Coast Region Date: 9/29/2017 This page intentionally left blank. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1. Background ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Consultation History ....................................................................................................... 1 1.3. Proposed Action .............................................................................................................. 9 1.4. Action Area ................................................................................................................... 27 2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ..... 30 2.1. Analytical Approach--Overview ................................................................................... 30 2.2. Range-wide Status of the Species and Critical Habitat ................................................ 33 2.2.1, Status of Listed Species .......................................................................................... 33 2.2.1.1. Life History and Status of UCR Chinook Salmon .......................................... 34 2.2. 1.2. Life History and Status of UCR Steelhead ...................................................... 38 2.2.2. Status of Critical Habitat ......................................................................................... 46 2,2,2,1. Critical Habitat for Upper Columbia River Spring Chinook Salmon ............. 48 2.2.2.2. Critical Habitat for Upper Columbia River Steelhead ..................................... 50 2.2.3. Climate Change ....................................................................................................... 53 2.3. Environmental Baseline ................................................................................................ 55 2.3.1. Land Ownership ...................................................................................................... 56 2.3.2. Resource Development ........................................................................................... 56 2.3.3. Restoration .............................................................................................................. 61 2.3.4. Hatchery Propagation.............................................................................................. 64 2.3.5. Fisheries .................................................................................................................. 73 2.3.6. Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation (RM&E) .................................................... 75 2.3.7. Climate Change ....................................................................................................... 75 2.4. Effects of the Action on ESA Protected Species and on Designated Critical Habitat .. 76 2.4. I. Factors Considered When Analyzing Hatchery Effects ......................................... 76 2.4.1.1. Factor 1. The hatchery program does or does not remove fish from the natural population and use them for hatchery broodstock ............................................................ 80 2.4. I .2. Factor 2. Hatchery fish and the progeny of naturally spawning hatchery fish on spawning grounds and encounters with natural-origin and hatchery fish at adult collection facilities 80 2.4. I .2.1. Genetic effects ......................................................................................... 81 2.4. I .2.2. Ecological effects .................................................................................... 88 2.4.1.2.3. Adult Collection Facilities ...................................................................... 89 iii 2.4.1.3. Factor 3. Hatchery fish and the progeny of naturally spawning hatchery fish in juvenile rearing areas ........................................................................................................ 89 2.4. 1.3.1. Competition ............................................................................................. 89 2.4. 1.3.2. Predation.................................................................................................. 91 2.4.1.3.3. Disease .................................................................................................... 93 2.4.1 .3.4. Acclimation ............................................................................................. 94 2.4. 1.4. Factor 4. Hatchery fish and the progeny of naturally spawning hatchery fish in the migration corridor, in the estuary, and in the ocean .................................................... 95 2.4. 1.5. Factor 5. Research, monitoring, and evaluation that exists because of the hatchery program .............................................................................................................. 96 2.4. 1.5, 1. Observing/disturbing ............................................................................... 96 2.4. 1.5.2. Capturing/handling .................................................................................. 96 2.4.1.5.3. Fin clipping and tagging .......................................................................... 97 2.4. 1.6. Factor 6. Construction, operation, and maintenance, of facilities that exist because of the hatchery program ...................................................................................... 97 2.4. 1.7. Factor 7. Fisheries that exist because of the hatchery program ....................... 97 2.4.2. Effects of the Proposed Action ............................................................................... 98 2.4.2.1. Factor 1. The hatchery program does or does not remove fish from the natural population and use them for hatchery broodstock .......................................................... 108 2.4.2.2. Factor 2. Hatchery fish and the progeny of naturally spawning hatchery fish on spawning grounds and encounters with natural-origin and hatchery fish at adult collection facilities 108 2.4.2.2. 1, Genetic effects ....................................................................................... 108 2.4.2.2.2. Ecological effects .................................................................................. 113 2.4.2.2.3. Broodstock Collection Facility Effects ................................................. 114 2.4.2.3. Factor 3. Hatchery fish and the progeny of naturally spawning hatchery fish in juvenile rearing areas ...................................................................................................... 117 2.4.2.4. Factor 4. Hatchery fish and the progeny of naturally spawning hatchery fish in the migration corridor, estuary, and ocean ...................................................................... 122 2.4.2.5. Factor 5. Research, monitoring, and evaluation that exists because of the hatchery program ............................................................................................................ 124 2.4.2.6. Factor 6. Construction, operation, and maintenance of facilities that exist because of the hatchery programs ................................................................................... 125 2.4.2.6.1. Physical effects of the LNFH instream structures on spring Chinook salmon and steelhead .................................................................................................. 128 2.4.2.6.2. Effects on freshwater spawning, rearing, and migration areas from the LNFH instream structures on spring Chinook salmon and steelhead ......................... 153 2.4.2.7. Factor 7. Fisheries that exist because of the hatchery program ..................... 173 iv 2.4.2.8. Effects of the Action Under Climate Change ................................................ 174 2.4.2.8.1. Climate Change Effects for the Upper Columbia River Watershed ..... 175 2.4.2.8.2. Climate Change Effects for Icicle Creek Watershed ............................ 178 2.4.2.8.3. Summary of Climate Change Effects .................................................... 183 2.4.2.9. Effects of the Action on Critical Habitat ....................................................... 184 2.4.2.9.1. UCR Spring Chinook Salmon ............................................................... 184 2.4.2.9.2. UCR Steelhead
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fisheries and Aquaculture in Europe
    No 53 October 2011 Fisheries and aquaculture in Europe Reform: raising consumer awareness 2012 TACs & quotas: towards maximum sustainable yield Bluefin tuna: tightening controls Slow Fish: the sustainable fish fair A European Commission publication I Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries I ISSN 1830-6586 KLAG11053ENC_001.pdf 1 07/11/11 16:31 Calendar Conferences and meetings 2 Calendar NEAFC, annual meeting of parties, London (United Kingdom), 7-11 November 2011 3 > For more information: Editorial Website: www.neafc.org E-mail: [email protected] 4-7 Campaign Tel.: +44 207 631 00 16 CFP reform: ICCAT, regular meeting of the Commission, A campaign to raise consumers’ awareness Istanbul (Turkey), 11-19 November 2011 > For more information: Maria Damanaki: Website: www.iccat.int E-mail: [email protected] ‘I think we can make this fundamental Tel.: +34 91 416 56 00 change because people care about fisheries.’ WCPFC, regular session, Koror (Palau), 5-9 December 2011 8 Event > For more information: Website: www.wcpfc.int Slow Fish: the sustainable fish fair E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: +691 320 1992 or 320 1993 9 In the news Institutional agenda TACs 2012: moving closer to maximum sustainable yield Agriculture and Fisheries Council of the European Union • 14-15 November 2011, Brussels (Belgium) • 15-16 December 2011, Brussels (Belgium) 10-11 Out and about > For more information: Website: www.consilium.europa.eu Bluefin tuna: tighter controls produce results Committee on Fisheries, European Parliament • 22-23 November 2011, Brussels
    [Show full text]
  • Report on a Tour of Fish Facilities in the Republic of Ireland, September
    {!L-.4() c_ .;-1. k tP'R l i\J rs LI Bt<~\kY PACIFIC BJULUGlCAL Sl AllUN REPORT ON A TOUR OF FISH FACILITIES IN THE REPU BLIC OF IRELAND SEPTEMBER 27-29, 1962 by -C. H. Clay, Chief Fish Culture Development Branch Pacific Area Department of - Fisheries~ Canada Vancouver, B. c. CATNo 29202 Under sponsorship of the Department of Fisheries, Canada, the author is attending the 11-month International Course in Hydraulic Engineering at the Technological University, Delft, The Netherlands, commencing in October, 19620 While in Europe the author also plans to inspect fisheries installations in Scotland, Ireland, France, Germany, and the Scandinavian countries o Assisted by a financial grant from the Institute of Fisheries at the University of British Columbia he recently inspected a number of fish facilities in the Republic of Ireland. This report describes the installations visited and sets forth his observations. Photog raphs of many of the installations referred to in the text appear at the back of the report o On arrival in Dublin I was met by Mr. C. J. McGrath, who is in cparge of a staff of foµr engineers and several technicians engaged in work related to inland fisheries . This work involves mainly salmon stream improvement, fishways in dams, pollution control, and artificial propaga­ tion of salmon and trout. We proceeded to the offices of the Fisheries Division, Department of Lands, 3 Cathal Brugha St., in Dublin where I was introduced to Mr. B . Lenihan, T.D ., Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands, and Mr. L. Tobin, Assistant Secretary, Department of Lands, Fisheries Division.
    [Show full text]
  • Snow Lake Water Control Structure, Draft Environmental Assessment
    Draft Environmental Assessment Snow Lake Water Control Structure Chelan County, Washington U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region Columbia Cascades Area Office Yakima, Washington October 2017 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian tribes and our commitments to island communities. MISSION OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Cover Photograph: Existing butterfly valve and valve support. Acronyms and Abbreviations CCT Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Complex Leavenworth Fisheries Complex cfs cubic feet per second DAHP Washington Department of Archelogy and Historic Preservation dB decibel EA Environmental Assessment ESA Endangered Species Act IPID Icicle and Peshastin Irrigation Districts (IPID) ITAs Indian Trust Assets LNFH Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation USFS United States Forest Service USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service Wilderness Act Wilderness Act of 1964 Yakama Nation Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation This page intentionally left blank Table of Contents
    [Show full text]
  • Interactions Between Populations and Resources
    68 CHAPTER Interactions Between Populations and Resources You have learned in previous chapters that all organisms Engage need resources to live and grow. For example humans 33.1 Shopping for Fish breathe oxygen, eat food, drink water, and do many other things that require resources of one type or another. Although some resources are available in large quantities, all Explore are limited. 3.2 Going Fishin’ In this chapter you will investigate cause and effect Explain relationships as you examine how resources are affected by 3.3 Three Fisheries populations of organisms. You will analyze and interpret data as you look at how populations are affected by the resources available to them. You will also learn about some Elaborate ways that humans’ use of resources is managed to prevent 3.4 Dead Zones overuse. Finally, you will construct arguments supported by evidence for how increases in the human population impact Evaluate Earth’s systems. 3.5 Chesapeake Bay Oysters 69 Activity 3.1 Engage: Shopping for Fish ara and her mother were shopping for groceries one day. Sara had asked if they could have fish for dinner, because she knew fish S was really good for her. They stopped by the fish counter to see what looked good. Sara was hoping they would have her favorite, orange roughy, but she hadn’t seen it for sale in the store in a really long time. They looked at the fish in the case and the first thing she noticed was that there was no orange roughy, so she started looking a little more carefully to see if there were any others she liked.
    [Show full text]
  • Pauls Bay Sockeye Salmon Stock Assessment Operational Plan, 2015–2016
    Regional Operational Plan CF.4K.2015.04 Pauls Bay Sockeye Salmon Stock Assessment Operational Plan, 2015–2016 by Natura Richardson March 2015 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Divisions of Sport Fish and Commercial Fisheries Symbols and Abbreviations The following symbols and abbreviations, and others approved for the Système International d'Unités (SI), are used without definition in the following reports by the Divisions of Sport Fish and of Commercial Fisheries: Fishery Manuscripts, Fishery Data Series Reports, Fishery Management Reports, and Special Publications. All others, including deviations from definitions listed below, are noted in the text at first mention, as well as in the titles or footnotes of tables, and in figure or figure captions. Weights and measures (metric) General Mathematics, statistics centimeter cm Alaska Administrative all standard mathematical deciliter dL Code AAC signs, symbols and gram g all commonly accepted abbreviations hectare ha abbreviations e.g., Mr., Mrs., alternate hypothesis HA kilogram kg AM, PM, etc. base of natural logarithm e kilometer km all commonly accepted catch per unit effort CPUE liter L professional titles e.g., Dr., Ph.D., coefficient of variation CV meter m R.N., etc. common test statistics (F, t, 2, etc.) milliliter mL at @ confidence interval CI millimeter mm compass directions: correlation coefficient east E (multiple) R Weights and measures (English) north N correlation coefficient cubic feet per second ft3/s south S (simple) r foot ft west W covariance cov gallon gal copyright degree (angular ) ° inch in corporate suffixes: degrees of freedom df mile mi Company Co. expected value E nautical mile nmi Corporation Corp.
    [Show full text]
  • June 19, 2017 Tom Tebb Co-Convener of the Icicle Work
    June 19, 2017 Tom Tebb Keith Goehner Co-Convener of the Icicle Work Group Co-Convener of the Icicle Work Group Director, Office of the Columbia River Chelan County Commissioner Washington State Department of Ecology 400 Douglas Street, Suite 201 1250 Alder Street Wenatchee, WA 98801 Union Gap, WA 98903 Re: Conservation and Recreation Community Concern about Icicle Creek Water Resource Management Strategy Dear Mr. Tebb and Mr. Goehner: In anticipation of the release of a draft programmatic environmental impact statement (DPEIS) for the Icicle Creek Water Resource Management Strategy (Icicle Strategy), the 39 undersigned organizations would like to voice our collective concern regarding certain elements of the Icicle Strategy as well as composition and operation of the Icicle Work Group (IWG). We are gravely concerned that the DPEIS will not adequately address the environmental concerns documented through the scoping process. In light of new climate change impacts research, an IWG with increasingly limited environmental representation, and outstanding questions about how the Icicle Strategy will comply with federal law, including the Wilderness Act, we ask that you re-evaluate the proposed list of projects and craft an adequate range of DPEIS alternatives that will ensure compliance with the Wilderness Act, and will do no harm to the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, including its Enchantment Lakes region. I. INADEQUATE EFFORT INVESTED IN VIABLE OPTIONS COMPLIANT WITH THE WILDERNESS ACT. IWG has not adequately identified and explored viable options for improving stream flows that are compliant with the Wilderness Act. Since the PEIS scoping conducted in 2016, IWG appears undeterred from the construction proposed within the Alpine Lake Wilderness and its Enchantment Lakes region, despite the federal Wilderness designation and concomitant federal management requirements and responsibilities.
    [Show full text]
  • (Vaki Riverwatcher) to Quantify Fish Migrations in the Murray-Darling Basin
    Assessment of an infrared fish counter (Vaki Riverwatcher) to quantify fish migrations in the Murray-Darling Basin Lee Baumgartner, Mick Bettanin, Jarrod McPherson, Matthew Jones, Brenton Zampatti and Kathleen Beyer Industry & Investment NSW Narrandera Fisheries Centre PO Box 182 Narrandera NSW 2700 Australia January 2010 Industry & Investment NSW – Fisheries Final Report Series No. 116 ISSN 1837-2112 Assessment of an infrared fish counter (Vaki Riverwatcher) to quantify fish migrations in the Murray-Darling Basin January 2010 Authors: Lee Baumgartner, Mick Bettanin, Jarrod McPherson, Matthew Jones, Brenton Zampatti, Kathleen Beyer Published By: Industry & Investment NSW (now incorporating NSW Department of Primary Industries) Postal Address: PO Box 21 Cronulla NSW 2230 Internet: www.dpi.nsw.gov.au © Department of Industry and Investment (Industry & Investment NSW) and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority This work is copyright. Graphical and textual information in the work (with the exception of photographs and departmental logos) may be stored, retrieved and reproduced in whole or in part, provided the information is not sold or used for commercial benefit and its source (Assessment of an infrared fish counter (Vaki Riverwatcher) to quantify fish migrations in the Murray-Darling Basin) is acknowledged. Such reproduction includes fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968. Reproduction for other purposes is prohibited without prior permission of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Industry & Investment NSW or the individual photographers and artists with whom copyright applies. DISCLAIMER The publishers do not warrant that the information in this report is free from errors or omissions.
    [Show full text]
  • Seafood | Earth 911
    Good, Better, Best: Seafood | Earth 911 https://earth911.com/how-and-buy/good-better-best-seafood/ Good, Better, Best: Seafood | Earth 911 Gemma Alexander A vegan diet may be the single most effective way for individuals to minimize their environmental impact, but giving up meat is a huge challenge for many people. A pescatarian diet — that means eating fish and other seafood but no other meats — can be a practical step on the road to veganism or even a permanent middle ground between a harmful diet and one that’s hard to maintain. Fish is an easy, healthy protein source that can satisfy the meat craving without triggering (for some people) the same ethical concerns as eating mammals. Environmentally speaking, though, the impact of eating seafood can vary by quite a lot. Here’s how to make your seafood diet as eco-friendly as possible. Good According to Seafood Watch’s carbon emissions tool, crustaceans have the highest carbon footprint of all proteins, because so few are caught from each trip, and because they require so much bait. The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) has a certification for these crustaceans, but none of the certified lobsters and only a few of the crabs get the green light from Seafood Watch. It’s usually good to avoid eating crustaceans. Farmed prawns are almost as damaging to the environment as eating red meat. Poorly regulated shrimp farms in Asia destroy mangrove forests and pollute waterways, can produce antibiotic-contaminated shrimp, and have even been linked to human trafficking. To find responsibly harvested shrimp, look for shrimp certified by one of the three Seafood Watch-approved labels: Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC), Naturland, or Global Aquaculture Alliance.
    [Show full text]
  • LNFH 401 Draft Cert
    IN THE MATTER OF GRANTING A ) ORDER No. 7192 WATER QUALITY ) Certification of the Leavenworth National Fish CERTIFICATION TO ) Hatchery (NPDES Permit No. WA-000-190-2) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ) on Icicle Creek, Chelan County, Washington. 1790 Fish Hatchery Road Leavenworth, WA 98826 in accordance with 33 U.S.C. 1341 (FWPCA § 401), RCW 90.48.120, RCW 90.48.260 and Chapter 173-201A WAC TO: Julie Collins, Facility Manager U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 12790 Fish Hatchery Road Leavenworth, WA 98826 The Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery (Leavenworth NFH) is required to have a Clean Water Act (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authorizing the discharge of wastewater. In 2005, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), which manages and operates the Leavenworth NFH, applied to EPA to renew its NPDES Permit. On January 15, 2008, Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) received an application from the USFWS requesting a CWA Section 401 water quality certification (401 Certification), 33 USC §1341, for the draft NPDES permit. Pursuant to Ecology’s request, the USFWS prepared a Tier II Water Quality Analysis for the Leavenworth NFH and submitted it to Ecology on April 30, 2008. On January 9, 2009, Ecology received a request from the USFWS to withdraw and re-apply for a 401 Certification. On June 26, 2009, EPA issued a draft NPDES Permit and associated fact sheet for the Leavenworth NFH. This document represents Ecology’s Section 401 water quality certification and ch.
    [Show full text]
  • Leavenworth Fisheries Complex Planning Report
    United States Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service Leavenworth Fisheries Complex Planning Report Prepared For: United States Department of the Interior – Fish and Wildlife Service Prepared By: McMillen Jacobs Associates and DJ Warren Associates August 2016 Fish and Wildlife Service Leavenworth Fisheries Complex Planning Report TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... ES-1 ES-1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... ES-1 ES-2.0 Existing Conditions – Site Reconnaissance .................................................................. ES-2 ES-3.0 Biological Criteria and Operations Schedules .............................................................. ES-2 ES-4.0 Geographically Separate Alternatives ........................................................................... ES-2 ES-5.0 Existing Sites Alternative Evaluation ........................................................................... ES-3 ES-6.0 Infrastructure Alternatives – Existing Complex Sites ................................................... ES-5 ES-7.0 Conclusions and Implementation Recommendations ................................................... ES-6 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION, GOALS, AND DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION ........................................... 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Peggy Parker, William Sullivan, John Jensen, Mark Callahan, Bob Barnett, Carina Nichols
    Halibut/Sablefish Committee Monday, October 28, 2015 Beginning 1:30pm Resolution Room, Hotel Captain Cook in Anchorage, AK Dial-In Information Call in number: 800-315-6338 Alternate Call in number: 1-913-904-9376 Access Code: 60778 Draft minutes I. Roll Call The meeting was called to order at 1:30 by Chair Peggy Parker. Members present: Peggy Parker, William Sullivan, John Jensen, Mark Callahan, Bob Barnett, Carina Nichols Absent: William Rogers, Joe Childers Quorum was met. Others present: Kendall Whitney (Seafood Producers Cooperative), Jane Yao (ASMI China), Jim and Rhonda Hubbard (Kruzof Fisheries LLC), Matt Heres (Revelry Group), Jessie Keplinger (Icicle Seafoods, Inc.), Leah Krafft (ASMI), Kate Krane (Edelman), Michael Kohan (ASMI), Matthew Arnoldt (ASMI), Stefanie Mirseans (Trident Seafoods), Jeremy Woodrow (ASMI), Jack Schulties (ASMI Board), Alexa Tonkovich (ASMI), Arianna Elnes (ASMI) II. Approval of Agenda A. The agenda was amended to add “Whale Depredation” to Old Business 1 A motion was made by Jensen, seconded by Barnett to approve the agenda as amended. The motion passed unanimously. III. Approval of minutes from Friday, November 24, 2017 A. Under Public Comment, item ‘b,’ the discussion of stock assessment was regarding sablefish, not halibut. B. Under Old Business, item ‘a,’ it was added that the discussion on chalk in halibut included mitigating chalk with harvesters and processors. C. Under New Business, item ‘a,’ it was specified that the discussion around farmed fish competition was concerning farmed halibut. D. Under New Business, item ‘c,’ it was specified that the huge recruitment event was for 2014 sablefish, and corrected that the council would set the ABC, then the TAC.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hidden Side of Washington's Enchantments
    The Hidden Side of Washington’s Enchantments: Tips and Tales from a Wilderness Ranger ANDREA JIMENEZ: Welcome everyone to the first of our lineup of family weekend events. This is the Hidden Side of Washington's Enchantments. We have Hannah Kiser from OREC presenting for us today. She did a presentation for us a couple of weeks back on thru hiking, which was awesome. We're really happy to have her back. My name is Andrea Jimenez. I'm the Program Coordinator here at Global Connections. Yeah, Hannah, I'm going to pass it on to you. HANNAH KISER: Awesome. This is a beautiful mountain goat, and I'll just tell you a quick story about this really fast before I get started. Once I had someone come up to me and asked me, what we shampooed the mountain goats with? Giving a little bit of context, I used to work for the Forest Service in the Enchantments where we have these mountain goats. Someone asked me, "What do you shampoo the mountain goats with?" I was like, "This is not a petting zoo. This is a wild animal that I do not shampoo." Anyway, get lots of interesting responses. But we will move on to introductions. If you want to in the chat, it actually might work better, some people don't like unmuting themselves. If you want to write your name in experience recreating with family, have you heard of the Enchantments or been to the Enchantments, and what you're hoping to get out of this? If you don't want to write in the chat and you prefer to unmute yourself, then you can go ahead and speak now.
    [Show full text]