DOCSLIB.ORG

2018-2027 United States V. Oregon MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2018-2027 United States V. Oregon MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT Case 3:68-cv-00513-MO Document 2607-1 Filed 02/26/18 Page 1 of 120 2018-2027 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Case 3:68-cv-00513-MO Document 2607-1 Filed 02/26/18 Page 2 of 120 2018-2027 United States v. Oregon MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS PREAMBLE .................................................................................................................................. 1 I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 A. PARTICIPANTS ................................................................................................................. 1 B. SCOPE OF AGREEMENT ................................................................................................. 2 1. Nature of Agreement ........................................................................................................ 2 2. ESA Section 7 and NEPA Processes................................................................................ 3 3. Party Positions .................................................................................................................. 4 4. Court Technical Advisor .................................................................................................. 4 5. Availability of Funds ........................................................................................................ 5 6. Management Precision ..................................................................................................... 5 7. Duration of Agreement..................................................................................................... 5 8. Modification and Withdrawal .......................................................................................... 6 9. Communication ................................................................................................................ 6 C. UNITED STATES v. OREGON FRAMEWORK ................................................................. 7 1. Technical Advisory Committee ....................................................................................... 7 2. Production Advisory Committee ...................................................................................... 9 3. Strategic Work Groups ................................................................................................... 11 4. Regulatory Coordination Committee ............................................................................. 12 5. Policy Committee ........................................................................................................... 12 6. Dispute Resolution Procedure ........................................................................................ 13 7. Emergency Matters ........................................................................................................ 15 D. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DISPUTES................................................................................. 16 E. PROSECUTION REFERRAL AGREEMENTS ................................................................ 16 F. PERFORMANCE MEASURES, COMMITMENTS AND ASSURANCES ................... 17 1. General ........................................................................................................................... 17 2. Performance Evaluation ................................................................................................. 18 3. Policy Committee Consideration ................................................................................... 22 4. Public Notice/Education about Terms of Agreement .................................................... 23 G. DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................... 23 2018-2027 U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement Page i Case 3:68-cv-00513-MO Document 2607-1 Filed 02/26/18 Page 3 of 120 II. HARVEST ............................................................................................................................ 23 A. UPRIVER SPRING AND SNAKE RIVER SUMMER CHINOOK ................................ 24 1. Catch Expectations of the Parties ................................................................................... 24 2. Minimum Columbia River Treaty Indian Ceremonial and Subsistence Entitlement..... 26 3. Ocean Fisheries .............................................................................................................. 27 4. Non-treaty Mainstem Columbia River Fisheries ........................................................... 27 5. Treaty Indian Mainstem Columbia River Fisheries ....................................................... 27 6. Review if Escapement Goals Established ...................................................................... 27 7. Review of Impacts .......................................................................................................... 28 B. UPPER COLUMBIA RIVER SUMMER CHINOOK ...................................................... 28 1. Upper Columbia Summer Chinook Fishery Framework ............................................... 29 2. Ocean Fisheries .............................................................................................................. 30 3. Non-treaty Fisheries ....................................................................................................... 30 4. Treaty Indian Fisheries ................................................................................................... 30 C. SOCKEYE ......................................................................................................................... 31 1. Bonneville Dam Management Goal ............................................................................... 31 2. Non-treaty Columbia River Fisheries ............................................................................ 31 3. Treaty Indian Columbia River Fisheries ........................................................................ 31 4. Fisheries on Sockeye Returns Greater than 75,000 Adults ............................................ 31 D. FALL CHINOOK .............................................................................................................. 32 1. Snake River Fall Chinook Harvest ................................................................................. 32 2. Harvest Management Objectives for Fall Chinook ........................................................ 32 3. Escapement and Management Objectives ...................................................................... 33 4. Ocean Fisheries .............................................................................................................. 35 5. Non-treaty Columbia River Fisheries ............................................................................ 35 6. Treaty Indian Fisheries ................................................................................................... 36 7. In-Season Review ........................................................................................................... 36 E. STEELHEAD .................................................................................................................... 36 1. Management Principles .................................................................................................. 36 2. Steelhead Escapement Goals .......................................................................................... 37 3. Non-treaty Columbia River Harvest .............................................................................. 37 4. Treaty Indian Zone 6 Harvest......................................................................................... 38 F. COHO ................................................................................................................................ 38 1. Management Principles .................................................................................................. 38 2. United States v. Oregon Harvest Sharing Principle ....................................................... 38 3. Responsibilities for Costs ............................................................................................... 39 4. Escapement Objectives .................................................................................................. 39 5. Fisheries Management.................................................................................................... 39 2018-2027 U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement Page ii Case 3:68-cv-00513-MO Document 2607-1 Filed 02/26/18 Page 4 of 120 G. WHITE STURGEON ........................................................................................................ 40 1. Management Goals ......................................................................................................... 40 2. Management Measures ................................................................................................... 40 H. SHAD ................................................................................................................................. 41 I. WALLEYE AND OTHER NON-NATIVE SPECIES ...................................................... 42 J. LAMPREY ........................................................................................................................ 42 K. RESEARCH AND MONITORING .................................................................................. 42 1. Current Needs ................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Columbia River Treaty History and 2014/2024 Review
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Bonneville Power Administration Columbia River Treaty History and 2014/2024 Review 1 he Columbia River Treaty History of the Treaty T between the United States and The Columbia River, the fourth largest river on the continent as measured by average annual fl ow, Canada has served as a model of generates more power than any other river in North America. While its headwaters originate in British international cooperation since 1964, Columbia, only about 15 percent of the 259,500 square miles of the Columbia River Basin is actually bringing signifi cant fl ood control and located in Canada. Yet the Canadian waters account for about 38 percent of the average annual volume, power generation benefi ts to both and up to 50 percent of the peak fl ood waters, that fl ow by The Dalles Dam on the Columbia River countries. Either Canada or the United between Oregon and Washington. In the 1940s, offi cials from the United States and States can terminate most of the Canada began a long process to seek a joint solution to the fl ooding caused by the unregulated Columbia provisions of the Treaty any time on or River and to the postwar demand for greater energy resources. That effort culminated in the Columbia River after Sept.16, 2024, with a minimum Treaty, an international agreement between Canada and the United States for the cooperative development 10 years’ written advance notice. The of water resources regulation in the upper Columbia River U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Basin.
    [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]
  • Columbia River Treaty Review the Idaho Position This Position
    Columbia River Treaty Review The Idaho Position This position Statement outlines the current position of a broad range of Idaho stakeholders (identified below and collectively referred to as “Idaho Stakeholders”) on the efforts to modernize the Columbia River Treaty (“CRT”) with Canada. I. Hydropower: The CRT provides for an “entitlement” for power benefits derived from the agreement. See CRT Article V.1 (“Canada is entitled to one half the downstream power benefits determined under Article VII”). The entitlement is determined as “the difference in the hydroelectric power capable of being generated in the United States of America with and without the use of Canadian storage, determined in advance, and is referred to in the Treaty as the downstream power benefits.” CRT Article VII; see also CRT Annex B ¶ 1 (“The downstream power benefits in the United States of America attributable to operation in accordance with Annex A of the storage provided by Canada under Article II will be determined in advance and will be the estimated increase in dependable hydroelectric capacity in kilowatts for agreed critical stream flow periods and the increase in average annual usable hydroelectric energy output in kilowatt hours on the basis of an agreed period of stream flow record”). Over time, this “Canadian Entitlement” has proven to greatly exceed the actual benefits. Discontinuation of the Canadian Entitlement would result “in an overall increase in annual revenue for the United States (about $180 million to $280 million).”1 As explained in the Regional Recommendation, at page 4, “rebalancing is necessary because the present Treaty power benefits are not equitably shared and Canada is deriving substantially greater value from coordinated power operations than the United States.” Idaho Stakeholders take the following position on Hydropower: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia River Treaty: Issues for the 21St Century
    SCIENCE in the service of WASHINGTON STATE Columbia River Treaty: Issues for the 21st Century Summary of the Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Symposium Held as Part of the 2016 Annual Meeting of the Washington State Academy of Sciences September 15, 2016, Museum of Flight, Seattle, WA February 2017 © 2017 Washington State Academy of Sciences Summary of the Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Symposium Columbia River Treaty: Issues for the 21st Century Columbia River Treaty: Issues for the 21st Century Summary of the Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Symposium held as part of the 2016 Annual Meeting of the Washington State Academy of Sciences September 15, 2016 Museum of Flight, Seattle, WA Proceedings Released February 2017 i Washington State Academy of Sciences Summary of the Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Symposium Columbia River Treaty: Issues for the 21st Century About the Washington State Academy of Sciences The Washington State Academy of Sciences (WSAS) is an organization of Washington state’s leading scientists and engineers dedicated to serving the state with scientific counsel. Formed as a working academy, not an honorary society, the academy is modeled on the National Research Council. Its mission is two-fold: to provide expert scientific and engineering analysis to inform public policymaking in Washington state; and to increase the role and visibility of science in the state. Governor Christine Gregoire authorized legislation establishing WSAS in 2005. Its 12-member Founding Board of Directors was recommended by the presidents of Washington State University and the University of Washington, and was duly appointed by the governor. In April 2007, WSAS was constituted by the Secretary of State as a private, independent 501(c)(3).
    [Show full text]
  • Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha)
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Okanagan population in Canada THREATENED 2006 COSEWIC COSEPAC COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF COMITÉ SUR LA SITUATION ENDANGERED WILDLIFE DES ESPÈCES EN PÉRIL IN CANADA AU CANADA COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC 2006. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Okanagan population) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 41 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Production note: COSEWIC acknowledges Brent Phillips, Howie Wright and the Okanagan Nation Alliance Fisheries Department for writing the status report on chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, Okanagan population. COSEWIC also gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for the preparation of this report. The COSEWIC report review was overseen by Mart Gross, and Paul Bentzen, co-chairs of the COSEWIC Marine Fish Specialist Subcommittee, with input from members of COSEWIC. That review may have resulted in changes and additions to the initial version of the report. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: (819) 997-4991 / (819) 953-3215 Fax: (819) 994-3684 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Évaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur le saumon chinook (oncorhynchus tshawytscha) population de l’Okanagan au Canada. Cover illustration: Chinook salmon — Photo provided by the Okanagan Nation Alliance.
    [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]
  • Columbia River Hatchery Reform System-Wide Report
    Columbia River Hatchery Reform System-Wide Report February 2009 Prepared by Hatchery Scientific Review Group Acknowledgements Performing this analysis and developing recommendations for over 351 salmonid populations in the Columbia River Basin would not have been possible without the knowledge, commitment and hard work of many individuals. The HSRG members extend special thanks to the contracting staff that supported them: Gary Affonso, Greg Blair, Jeff Boyce, Amy Corsini, Nancy Bond Hemming, Michael Kern, B.J. Mirk, Joan Nichol, Grant Novak, Denise Kelsey, Robyn Redekopp, Joel Rice, Shannon Riper, Jason Shappart, Jason Volk, Jim Waldo and especially Dan Warren. Many regional fishery biologists and managers contributed both their time and expertise in meetings, tours and report reviews, notably: Paul Abbot Richard Carmichael Rod French Todd Alsbury Mark Chilcote Amy Gaskill Bill Arnsburg Guy Chilton Mike Gauvin John Arterburn Bob Clubb John Gebhards Bill Bacon Michael Coffey Jim Gidley Greg Baesler Charlie Corrarino Bryce Glaser Ronald Ballard Patty Crandell Judy Gordon Duane Banks Tim Culberson Steve Grabowski Heather Bartlett Wolf Dammers Jenny Grace Shane Bickford Greg Davis David Graves Joe Blodgett Doug DeHart Tony Grover Steve Boe Greg Delwiche Susan Gutenberger Jeff Boechler Lytle Denny Ronald Hardy Bill Bosch Dan Diggs Rod Harrod Ken Bourne James Dixon Peter Hassemer Ed Bowles Speros Doulos Steve Hays Brett Boyd Tom Dresser Jeff Heindel Robert Bradley John Easterbrooks John Hitron Keith Braun Bruce Eddy Brad Houslet Kat Brigham
    [Show 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.
    [Show full text]
  • The Columbia River Treaty - Where Do We Go from Here
    Volume 26 Issue 2 U.S. - Canada Transboundary Resource Issues Spring 1986 The Columbia River Treaty - Where Do We Go from Here Neil A. Swainson Recommended Citation Neil A. Swainson, The Columbia River Treaty - Where Do We Go from Here, 26 Nat. Resources J. 243 (1986). Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nrj/vol26/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Natural Resources Journal by an authorized editor of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. NEIL A. SWAINSON* The Columbia River Treaty-Where Do We Go From Here? INTRODUCTION When John Krutilla wrote his classic study on the Columbia River Treaty nearly twenty years ago, he wisely devoted part of his introduction to reviewing a number of ways in which cooperative international river development can be justified.' Readers of this article are encouraged to read or re-read Dr. Krutilla. At the same time it will be helpful if we begin with a reminder that while we have learned a good deal about international river development over the last generation, the advisers to the governments of Canada and the United States forty years ago were well aware at that time of the fact that the case for or against the coop- erative development of shared watersheds is far from being a self-evident one. They were conscious of the relevance to it of the great range of values associated with such river development.2 To some extent they were also aware of the manner in which actions on international rivers, whether upstream or downstream, can produce sets of benefits and costs distributed in .extraordinarily asymmetric ways between upstream and downstream riparians.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia River Treaty
    An Overview: Columbia River Treaty WHAT IS THE COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY? KEY DATES: 2014 AND 2024 The Columbia River The Columbia River Treaty (CRT) is The years 2014 and 2024 are key dates an international agreement between for the CRT for two reasons: Basin is a transboundary Canada and the United States for the 1. The year 2024 is the earliest date watershed that crosses joint development, regulation and either Canada or the U.S. may one international and management of the Columbia River terminate the CRT, provided seven state boundaries. in order to coordinate flood control 10-year advance notice is given and optimize hydroelectric energy (2014); and production on both sides of the border. 2. The Assured Annual Flood The CRT has no official expiry date, Control provision of the CRT BC AB CANADA but has a minimum length of 60 years, expires automatically in 2024 U.S. which is met on September 16, 2024. It (unless renegotiated) and flood wa MT is possible that one or both countries control specified under the CRT may wish to renegotiate parts or all of changes to a Called Upon Flood Wy the CRT, or terminate it entirely. Control operation. id or Photo: Kinbasket Reservoir behind Mica Dam. William D. Layman, courtesy of Wenatchee Valley Museum & Cultural Center. Right: Map shows the Columbia RIver Basin in Canada and the U.S. in lighter green CA UT and the Columbia Basin Trust region in darker green. NV www.cbt.org/crt Why Was the CRT Signed? Key Provisions of the Columbia River Treaty THE CHALLENGE DAMS AND RESERVOIRS DOWNSTREAM POWER BENEFITS Canada and the U.S.
    [Show full text]