DOCSLIB.ORG

3T23d-- RESOURCES FROM: /.!~Ir DEPARTMENT

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
3T23d-- RESOURCES FROM: /.!~Ir DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM u WATER TO: Water Resources Commission 3t23d-- RESOURCES FROM: /.!~ir DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: Agenda Item ~une5, 1992 Water Resources Commission meeting cuaand Nestucca Rivers scenic waterwav flows for Diack findings Background The Oregon Supreme Court decision, Diack vs. Ciry of Portland, requires that the Commission must find that recreation, fish and wildlife uses in the scenic waterway will not be impaired before issuing new water rights in areas above or tributary to a scenic waterway. A "Diack flow" fact sheet explaining the decision and how it is implemented is attachment 5. / Staff has completed the final in a series of eight reports on streamflows in state scenic waterways. The Commission has approved scenic waterway flows for the Grande Ronde, Wallowa, Minam, Owyhee, McKenzie, Little North Santiam, North Fork of the Middle Fork of the Willamette, Waldo Lake, Rogue, Illinois, Elk, Clackamas, bw Sandy, Deschutes, Metolius, John Day and Klamath Scenic Waterways. Flows supporting recreation, fish and wildlife uses on the North Umpqua and Nestucca Scenic Waterways are shown in Attachment 1. The Scenic Waterway flow assessment report is Attachment 2. The Commission directed staff to hold public meetings in areas affected by scenic waterway flow assessments. Accordingly, public workshops were held on April 8 in Tillamook and April 9 in Roseburg. Representatives from the "Friends of the Nestucca" and Tillamook County Soil and Water Conservation District attended the Tillamook workshop and representatives from the Steamboaters, the Western Oregon Livestock Association, the Oregon Farm Bureau, Douglas County, US Forest Service and Pacific Power and Light attended the workshop in Roseburg. In addition, interagency briefings were held in Tillamook on April 8, 1992 and Roseburg on April 9 to review the assessment process and discuss any issues and concerns. Representatives of the Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, McMinnville Water and Light, Tillamook and Douglas Counties, and OSU Extension attended the interagency meetings. Agency and public comments were used in revising the assessment. An analysis of public comments can be found in Attachment 3. Written comments comprise Attachment 4. 3850 IJclrtlnnd RJ NE Salcm, OR 97310 (503) 378-3739 FAX (50.1) 378-8130 Agenda Item D Oregon Water Resources Commission Meeting of June 5, 1992 Page 2 of 4 Discussion The scenic waterway flow assessment documents flow ranges &at support current scenic waterway uses and values. The Commission wuld use this information for making findings on pending and future water right applications in or upstream from scenic waterway reaches, these areas are known as "Diuck"areas. Currently the City of McMinnville is the only applicant with any permit pending in the Nestucca "Diack"area. There are eleven water use permits pending in the North Umpqua "Diuck"area from three private landowners and one federal agency. The flows for recreation, fish and wildlife in the scenic waterways vary by use and season. The major flow-dependent uses are recreation and fisheries. Flows supporting existing levels of recreation were identified through literature review and interviews with experts. Flows identified for fish life and aquatic habitat were taken from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife studies, instream water rights, or instream water right applications. The North Umpqua scenic waterway reach is also designated as a National Wild and Scenic River in the same area listed as the Lower North Umpqua Section of the assessment. Pursuant to the federal law, the Umpqua National Forest and the Roseburg District of the Bureau of Land Management are formulating management plans for the federally designated portion of the River. These agencies shared information from current and past planning efforts for the scenic 4 waterway flow assessment. Because of the scenic waterway flow assessment, Pacific Power and Light has included the Water Resources Department in their agency work group which is examining the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hydroelectric license on the North Umpqua which is due to expire in 1995. If new information becomes available through this process the Commission will be informed. The Upper North Umpqua River, Nestucca River and Walker Creek are not included in the National Wild and Scenic River system. However, resource information was shared by the federal agencies and used to write the assessment. Evaluation a) Scenic Waterway Flows: In general, for each scenic waterway section, the assessment identifies a range of flows which support current recreational uses and fish and wildlife habitat. Streamflow statistics, fish and recreation flows and recommended scenic waterway flows are displayed in Attachment 1. Agenda Item D Oregon Water Resources Commission Meeting of June 5, 1992 Page 3 of 4 Lower North Umpqua River: Recommended scenic waterway flows on the Lower North Umpqua River exceed the average flow in August and September. Flows for these months were determined from the current ODFW instream water right application. Upper North Umpqua River: No scenic waterway flows are recommended. No data are available on flow-dependent recreation or fish and wildlife needs. It is likely that there is not any significant flow-dependent recreation in this area. In order to make findings in this area a study by ODFW or others to determine fish and wildlife needs would be required. Nestucca River: Recommended scenic waterway flows exceed the average flow in August and September. Flows for these months were determined from the current ODFW instream water right application. Walker Creek: No scenic waterway flows are recommended. No data are available on flow- dependent recreation or fish and wildlife needs. It is likely that there is not any significant flow- dependent recreation in this area. In order to make findings in this area a study by ODFW or others to determine fish and wildlife needs would be required. b) Public Comment: Comments from the public on information gathered for the assessment were mixed. Many felt the flows were too high. Others contended that further development of municipal storage on the Nestucca would be detrimental. Some felt that the comment period on scenic waterway flows should be lengthened. Some felt the data were faulty and encouraged trespassing. Others felt that the out-of-stream uses should have a reservation. The US Forest Service suggests waiting until further studies connected with the Wild and Scenic River Management plan and the FERC relicensing effort are completed. Public comments are addressed in Attachment 3. Summation Staff has identified flows needed to support recreation, fish and wildlife in the North Umpqua and Nestucca Scenic Waterways. Approving use of identified flows will assist the Commission in making findings on pending applications and future water rights. Most of the pending water use applications in the Umpqua Basin are the Bureau of Land Management. The application by the McMinnville Water and Light is the only pending application in the Nestucca Basin. The proposed flows would allow these storage applications to be processed. Agenda Item D Oregon Water Resources Commission Meeting of June 5, 1992 Page 4 of 4 Staff recommends that the Commission approve the North Umpqua, Nestucca and Walker Creek scenic waterways flow assessment and the use of the recommended scenic waterway flows in Attachment 1 for making findings pursuant to the Scenic Waterway Act. Attachments: 1) Flow Tables for Scenic Waterways 2) Draft North Umpqua and Nestucca Rivers Scenic Waterway Assessment 3) Workshop Comment Analysis 4) Written Comments 5) "Diack flow" factsheet Bill Fujii 378-8455 ex 286 May 19, 1992 Attachment 1 Table 1 FLOW DATA FOR THE LOWER NORTH UMPQUA RIVER SCENIC WATERWAY Mean Monthlv Flow (cfs measured Above Copeland Creek (gage # 14316500) Minimum Maximum Avenge Flow for Recrution Flow Rclimi~ry Flow Flow Fishery Scenic Waterway Rows 1 March 1 873 1) May 1 1070 11 October 758 I November 805 I December 803 Attachment 1 d Table 2 FLOW DATA FOR THE LOWER NORTH UMPQUA RIVER SCENIC WATERWAY Mean Monthly Flow (cfs) measured Above Rock Creek (gage #14317500) Minimum Maximum Avenge Flow for Recrration Flow Preliminary Flow Flow Flow Fishery Scenic Waterway Flowa January 818 7200 3860 lo20 800 - 6700 3300 Febn~ry 1340 7160 3980 lo20 800 - 6700 3300 March 1400 7260 3710 lo20 800 - 6700 3400 April 1320 6060 3560 lo20 800 - 6700 2900 May 1180 4500 2980 lo20 800 - 6700 2200 Junc 833 4960 1870 lo20 800 - 6700 1800 July 696 1630 1120 lo20 800 - 6700 1020 Auguat 588 1 100 920 lo20 800 - 6700 1020 September 588 997 890 lo20 800 - 6700 1 020 Oclober 649 1590 1070 lo20 800 - 6700 1020 November 65 1 6210 2490 lo20 800 - 6700 1700 December 943 10300 3960 1 020 800 - 6700 3500 Recreation flows are calculated and rounded to the nearest 100 cfs. Attachment 1 Table 3 FLOW DATA FOR THE NESTUCCA SCENIC WATERWAY Mean Monthly Flow (cfs) measured at Beaver (gage #14303600) Minimum Maximum Average Flow for Recmlion Flow Preliminary Flow Flow Flow Filhery Scenic Watcnvay Flows January 273 4890 21 10 250 500 - 2500 lo00 Februnry 453 2980 1920 250 500 - 2500 lo00 March 634 2830 1600 250 500 - 2500 lo00 April 469 1640 1030 250 500 - 2500 lo00 May 285 1190 560 2501183 2501183 June 183 917 3 20 123 123 July % 542 170 123 123 L August 49 25 1 100 12.3 123 September 53 412 1SO 250 250 October 91 842 320 250 250 November 209 3980 1500 250 500 - 2500 loo0 December 257 4440 2630 250 500 - 2500 loo0 ATTACHMENT 2 DRAFT WESTERN OREGON SCENIC WATERWAYS FLOW ASSESSMENT LOWER NORTH UMPQUA RIVER UPPER NORTH UMPQUA RIVER NESTUCCA RIVER WALKER CREEK OREGON WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Table of Contents Introduction 1 Section I: Lower North Umpqua River 4 Section II: Upper North Umpqua River 16 Section 111: Nestucca River 18 Section IV: Walker Creek 24 Draft May 11, 1992 INTRODUCTION A) PURPOSE In 1988, the Oregon Supreme Court (Diack vs.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Geologic Map of the Cascade Head Area, Northwestern Oregon Coast Range (Neskowin, Nestucca Bay, Hebo, and Dolph 7.5 Minute Quadrangles)
    (a-0g) R ago (na. 96-53 14. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR , U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Alatzi2/6 (Of (c,c) - R qo rite 6/6-53y Geologic Map of the Cascade Head Area, Northwestern Oregon Coast Range (Neskowin, Nestucca Bay, Hebo, and Dolph 7.5 minute Quadrangles) by Parke D. Snavely, Jr.', Alan Niem 2 , Florence L. Wong', Norman S. MacLeod 3, and Tracy K. Calhoun 4 with major contributions by Diane L. Minasian' and Wendy Niem2 Open File Report 96-0534 1996 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American stratigraphic code. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. 1/ U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA 94025 2/ Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97403 3/ Consultant, Vancouver, WA 98664 4/ U.S. Forest Service, Corvallis, OR 97339 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 GEOLOGIC SKETCH 2 DESCRIPTION OF MAP UNITS SURFICIAL DEPOSITS 7 BEDROCK UNITS Sedimentary and Volcanic Rocks 8 Intrusive Rocks 14 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 15 REFERENCES CITED 15 MAP SHEETS Geologic Map of the Cascade Head Area, Northwestern Oregon Coast Range, scale 1:24,000, 2 sheets. Geologic Map of the Cascade Head Area, Northwest Oregon Coast Range (Neskowin, Nestucca Bay, Hebo, and Dolph 7.5 minute Quadrangles) by Parke D. Snavely, Jr., Alan Niem, Florence L. Wong, Norman S. MacLeod, and Tracy K. Calhoun with major contributions by Diane L. Minasian and Wendy Niem INTRODUCTION The geology of the Cascade Head (W.W.
    [Show full text]
  • Tillamook County Water Trail OREGON
    You have successfully arrived at the Nestucca/ Sand Lake Water Trail online guidebook. Please scroll down for your viewing pleasure. tillamook county water trail OREGON Nestucca and Sand Lake WATERSHEDS FLATWATER & WHITEWATER Produced by the Tillamook Estuaries Partnership WELCOME to the nestucca, Sand lake, & neskowin creek watersheds Tillamook County Water Trail - The Vision The Tillamook County Water Trail encourages the quiet exploration and discovery of the ecological, historical, social, and cultural features of Tillamook County from the uplands to the ocean. The Water Trail is a recreational and educational experience that promotes and celebrates the value of Tillamook County’s waterways with direct benefit to the economic, social, and environmental well-being of the County. The Water Trail enhances the identity of Tillamook County by establishing an alternative, low-impact way to enjoy and appreciate the wonders of all five Tillamook County estuaries and watersheds. A water trail is a path on a waterway connected through signs, maps, and access points providing a scenic and educational experience for non-motorized users. South Tillamook County boasts three impressive watersheds that together span 357 square miles and contain the unassuming hamlets of Beaver, Hebo, Cloverdale, Pacific City, and Neskowin, among others. History establishes these waterways as valued sites for sustenance, trade, and recreation. The waters of the Neskowin, Sand Lake and Nestucca estuaries flow through land dominated by dense forests, serene refuges, and tranquil parks. Bustling dairies dot the banks as you follow the path blazed by many a salmon making their way to and from the sea. Overhead you can spy migrating birds as they circle down to find the perfect spot to land.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Siletz Watershed Analysis
    Table of Contents Executive Summary.............................................................................................................1 Chapter 1 - Characterization..............................................................................................12 Chapter 2 - Issues and Key Questions ...............................................................................19 Chapter 3/4 - Reference and Current Conditions..............................................................29 Chapter 5/6 - Interpretation/ Findings and Recommendations........................................115 References .......................................................................................................................137 Appendices.......................................................................................................................140 Map Packet i List of Figures and Tables Figures Page 1) Vicinity Map for Upper Siletz Watershed......................................................................13 2) Streams at Risk of High Stream Temperatures..............................................................49 3) Large Woody Debris Recruitment Potential by Subwatershed.....................................52 4) Siletz River Peak Discharge...........................................................................................55 5) Regional Comparison of Unit Peak Flow with the Siletz River.....................................56 6) Transient Snow Zone and Rain-dominated Zone ..........................................................58
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific City Resident Interviews
    PACIFIC CITY/WOODS TRANSPORTATION PLAN 1998-1999 TriLand Design Group, Inc. PACIFIC CITY/WOODS TRANSPORTATION PLAN 1998-1999 Prepared For: Pacific City/Woods Community and Tillamook County Tillamook County, Oregon Prepared By: TriLand Design Group, Inc. 10260 S.W. Nimbus Avenue, M4 Tigard, Oregon 97223 This project was funded through the Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Program, a joint program of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). The TGM grant is funded with federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act and local government funds. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the State of Oregon. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................1 Project Description .....................................................................................................................................................1 Project Funding...........................................................................................................................................................1 Planning Objectives....................................................................................................................................................1 Planning Process.........................................................................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific City/Woods Transportation Plan 1998-1999
    PACIFIC CITY/WOODS TRANSPORTATION PLAN 1998-1999 TriLand Design Group, Inc. PACIFIC CITY/WOODS TRANSPORTATION PLAN 1998-1999 Prepared For: Pacific City/Woods Community and Tillamook County Tillamook County, Oregon Prepared By: TriLand Design Group, Inc. 10260 S.W. Nimbus Avenue, M4 Tigard, Oregon 97223 This project was funded through the Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Program, a joint program of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). The TGM grant is funded with federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act and local government funds. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the State of Oregon. Pacific City/Woods Transportation Plan 1998-1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................1 Project Description .....................................................................................................................................................1 Project Funding...........................................................................................................................................................1 Planning Objectives....................................................................................................................................................1 Planning Process.........................................................................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Coast Spring-Run Chinook Salmon Listing Petition
    Petition to List the Oregon Coast ESU of Spring-Run Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) under the Endangered Species Act Native Fish Society Center for Biological Diversity Umpqua Watersheds September 24, 2019 1 Table of Contents Executive Summary. 4 Notice of Petition. .6 Legal Background. .8 Definition of Evolutionary Significant Unit. .8 Listing ESU as Endangered DPS. 8 Best Available Science Supports Recognition of the Oregon Coast ESU of Spring-Run Chinook. 9 Ecology and Biology of Oregon Coast Spring Chinook. .13 Description. .13 Distribution. .13 Life Cycle and Physiology. .13 Habitat Requirements. .15 Migration and Spawning Habitat. .16 Juvenile Rearing Habitat. 17 Ocean Habitat. 18 Diet. 19 Associated Fish Species. 19 Natural Mortality. .19 Taxonomy. .19 Population Structure and Significance of Life History Variation. .19 Status. .22 Basin Summaries of Population Status and Threats . 23 Nehalem River . 23 Tillamook Bay Watersheds . 23 Nestucca River . .26 Salmon River . 27 Siletz River . 27 Alsea River . .30 Siuslaw River . 32 North Umpqua River . 32 South Umpqua River . .35 Coos River . 39 Coquille River . .39 Threats to the Species. 41 Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range. 41 New Information on Low Flow Depletion. 41 Dams. .44 Water Diversions. .46 Migration Barriers. .46 Logging. .46 Roads. 48 Gravel Mining. 48 2 Pollutants. 49 Channelization. 49 Other Habitat Degradation. .49 Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes. 49 Harvest in Ocean and Recreational Fisheries. .49 Disease or Predation. .51 Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms. .52 Treaty. 52 Federal. 52 State. 61 Other Anthropogenic or Natural Factors. .69 Artificial Propagation. .69 Ocean Conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Non-Motorized Boater Participation and Priorities
    Oregon Non-Motorized Boater Participation and Priorities Report in support of the 2015-2024 Oregon Trails Plan May 27, 2015 By Kreg Lindberg and Tyson Bertone-Riggs Contact: [email protected] Conducted by Oregon State University for the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Acknowledgments This project was funded by the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD, Oregon State Parks) and the Oregon State Marine Board (OSMB). OPRD and OSMB staff made significant contributions in the development of the questionnaire and provision of associated maps. We thank the project planning advisory committee (see footnote on page 6) for their input during questionnaire development. We also thank Mark Needham and Eric White of Oregon State University for their input during questionnaire development and reporting. Lastly, we thank all the non-motorized boaters who completed the questionnaire. 1 Table of contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1. Background ............................................................................................................................ 5 1.2. Data presentation .................................................................................................................. 5 1.3. Survey methodology .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Physical Environment Chapter 4 Biological Environment Chapter 5 Human Environment Appendices
    Physical Environment Chapter 3 Shawn Stephensen/USFWS Chapter 5 Chapter 4 Chapter 3 Chapter 2 Chapter 1 Human Biological Physical Management Introduction and Appendices Environment Environment Environment Direction Background Nestucca Bay National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3.1 Climate and Climate Change 3.1.1 General Climate Conditions The climate at Nestucca Bay National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge) is greatly influenced by the Pacific Ocean on the west and the Coast Range to the east. The Coast Range rises between 2,000 and 3,000 feet (610-914 meters) above sea level in the north and between 3,000 and 4,000 feet (914- 1,219 meters) in the southwestern portion of the state with occasional mountain peaks rising an additional 1,000 to 1,500 feet (305-457 meters). The coastal zone is characterized by wet winters, relatively dry summers, and mild temperatures throughout the year. Because of the moderating influence of the Pacific Ocean, extremely high or low temperatures are rare and the annual temperature range is lower here than in any other Oregon climate zone. Precipitation is heavier and more persistent during the winter but regular moisture occurs from rain and fog throughout the year (Western Regional Climate Center [WRCC] 2011a). The area’s heavy precipitation during winter results from moist air masses moving from the Pacific Ocean onto land. The lower elevations along the coast receive annual precipitation of 65 to 90 inches (165-229 centimeters), which can cause flood events if abundant rainfall is consistent for several days. Occasional strong winds (50-70 miles/hour) occur along the coast, usually in advance of winter storms.
    [Show full text]
  • NORTH Surfperch Albacore Columbia River to Nestucca Bay Sturgeon MARINE White Sturgeon These Fish Have Dark Blue Backs and Very Long Pectoral (Side) Fins
    bottoms. hook to catch these daytime feeders. daytime these catch to hook Take a friend fishing on this weekend in June in weekend this on fishing friend a Take tions restric and seasons for regulations current See ezon live around kelp beds and rocky headlands over hard hard over headlands rocky and beds kelp around live ezon Technique: These fish have small mouths, so try a #4 to #6 #6 to #4 a try so mouths, small have fish These Technique: Free Fishing Weekend Fishing Free - Cab inside). diagram (see rig fish-finder the Use Technique: ployed on wire or very heavy monofilament leaders. monofilament heavy very or wire on ployed to detect movement, but kelp and rock greenlings have five. have greenlings rock and kelp but movement, detect to - de flies shrimp or spoons jigs, herring, large by enticed e) Squar Black the eggs after the female deposits them. deposits female the after eggs the Most fishes have just one lateral line along each side side each along line lateral one just have fishes Most Fact: Fish gravel bottoms in water 150-500+ feet deep. Halibut are are Halibut deep. feet 150-500+ water in bottoms gravel (Red Flag with Flag (Red Flag) (Red Flag) (Red Fish fact: Like lingcod and greenling, the male cabezon guards cabezon male the greenling, and lingcod Like fact: Fish arning W Storm arning W Gale arning W Craft Small Technique: Boat anglers use heavy rods to fish on or near near or on fish to rods heavy use anglers Boat Technique: 2 feet (61 cm).
    [Show full text]
  • Or Stratigraphic Nomenclature CONTENTS Page
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY APPRAISAL OF WATERPOWER AND RESERVOIR SITES, NESTUCCA RIVER BASIN, OREGON By Kenneth J. St. Mary With a section on Geology of selected sites, By J. L. Renner and D. L. Gaskill Open-File Report 80-865 1980 This report has not been edited for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or stratigraphic nomenclature CONTENTS Page Conversion factors ......................... iii Introduction ............................ 1 General description of the Nestucca River Basin .......... 3 Basin hydrology and water supply .................. 6 Precipitation and evapotranspiration ............. 6 Runoff and floods ....................... 6 Water rights ......................... 8 Minimum flow requirements ................... 10 Developed sites .......................... 12 Development possibilities ..................... 16 Walker Flat .......................... 16 Walker Creek ......................... 18 Meadow Lake .......................... 18 Elk Creek ........................... 19 Alder Glen .......................... 19 Bald Mountain ......................... 23 Blaine ............................ 25 Bible Ranch .......................... 28 Moon Creek .......................... 28 East Creek .......................... 28 Bays Creek .......................... 29 East Beaver Creek ....................... 29 Beaver Creek ......................... 29 Three Rivers ......................... 29 Little Nestucca River ..................... 31 Geology of selected sites, by J.L.
    [Show full text]
  • OR GROW FINAL 3.18.13.Indd
    Hood River. Cover: Minam River. Letter from the President ivers are the great treasury of biological noted scientists and other experts reviewed the survey design, and diversity in the western United States. state-specifi c experts reviewed the results for each state. RAs evidence mounts that climate is The result is a state-by-state list of more than 250 of the West’s changing even faster than we feared, it outstanding streams, some protected, some still vulnerable. The becomes essential that we create sanctuaries Great Rivers of the West is a new type of inventory to serve the on our best, most natural rivers that will modern needs of river conservation—a list that Western Rivers harbor viable populations of at-risk species— Conservancy can use to strategically inform its work. not only charismatic species like salmon, but a broad range of aquatic and terrestrial This is one of 11 state chapters in the report. Also available are a species. summary of the entire report, as well as the full report text. That is what we do at Western Rivers Conservancy. We buy land With the right tools in hand, Western Rivers Conservancy is to create sanctuaries along the most outstanding rivers in the West seizing once-in-a-lifetime opportunities to acquire and protect – places where fi sh, wildlife and people can fl ourish. precious streamside lands on some of America’s fi nest rivers. With a talented team in place, combining more than 150 years This is a time when investment in conservation can yield huge of land acquisition experience and offi ces in Oregon, California, dividends for the future.
    [Show full text]