DOCSLIB.ORG

United States Department of the Interior

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United States Department of the Interior United StatesDepartment of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CentralWashington Field Office 215 Melody Lane, Suite I l9 In ReplyRefer To: Wenatchee,Washington 98801 CWFO:13260-2006-P-0010 Phone:(509) 665-3508 FAX: (509)665-3509 HUC:1702001I August37,2006 MEMORANDUM To: Project Leader, LeavenworthNational Fish Hatchery Complex Leavenworth,Washington From: Supervisor,Central Washington Field Office Wenatchee,'Washington Subject: Biological Opinion for the LeavenworthNational Fish HatcheryOperation and Maintenance This correspondencetransmits the EcologicalServices (ES) Division of the U. S. Fish andWildlife Service's(Service) biological opinion (Opinion),which is basedupon our review of the LeavenworthNational Fish Hatchery Operationsand Maintenance Biological Assessment,for the LeavenworthNational Fish Hatchery(Project), located along Icicle Creek in Chelan County, Washington. The attachedOpinion and documentationof informal consultationdescribes the effects of the Project on the bull trout (Salvelinusconfluentius) and other listed speciesin accordancewith Section 7 of the EndangeredSpecies Act (Act) of 7973,as amended (16 U.S.C. l53l et seq.). In the last biological assessment(BA) datedJuly 10,2006,you requestedconcurrence with your determinationsof "no effect" from hatchery operationsand maintenance activitiesfor the following species:gray wolf (Canis lupus),Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis),gizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), Pacific fisher (Martespennanti), northern spottedowl (Srrrx occidentalis caurina), marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus),yellow-billed cuckoo(Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), Wenatchee Mountainschecker-mallow (Sidalcea oregana var. calva),Ute ladies' tresses(Spiranthes diluvialis), and showy stickseed(Hackeliavenusta) in accordancewith section1(a)(2) of the Act, You also requestedconcuffence with your determinationof "not likely to adverselyaffect" bald eagle(Haliaeetus I euco cephalus). Concurrencefor "no effect" determinationsis not required from ES, but we appreciate you notiffing us of your determinations. Basedon the information provided, ES agrees that no impacts will occur as a result of the proposedaction to marbled murrelet, 2 yellow-billed cuckoo,Wenatchee Mountains checker-mallow, Ute ladies' tresses,and showy stickseed(Hackelia venusta). \Me do not concur with your "no effect" determination for gray wolf, Canadalynx, gizzly bear,Pacific fisher,and northernspotted owl. EcologicalService's opinion is that the Project "may affect but is not likely to adversely affect" gray wolf, Canadalynx, gnzzly bear,northem spottedowl, andbald eagle. ES concludesthat project implementation"will not jeopardizethe continuedexistence" of the Pacifìcfisher. Since the fisher is proposedfor listing; your responsibilityto "conference"is complete. In the enclosedOpinion, ES has determinedthat the proposedProject, as described, is "likely to adverselyaffect" the bull trout; however, the level of anticipatedtake is not likely to resultin'Jeopardy" to the species.Critical habitatfor the bull trout doesnot occurwithin the actionarea; therefore, the Projectwill not destroyor adverselymodifz proposedcritical habitat for bull trout. ES acknowledgesand appreciatesthe patience and participation of the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery,Fisheries Resource Office, YakamaNation, andregional ofhce personnelin completing this consultation. Thank you all for providing technical information and coopèrationneeded to completethis consultation. If you havequestions about this Opinion or your responsibilitiesunder the Endangered SpeciesAct, pleasecontact David Morgan of the Central.WashingtonFish andWildlife Office in Wenatcheeat (509) 665-3508x24 or via e-mail at david [email protected]. Attachment Cc Sentby Email to: Brian Cates,Mid-Columbia FisheriesResource Off,rce, Leavenworth, WA JanaGrote, Fisheries Resources, Pacihc RegionalOffice, Portland,OR Mariel Combs,Office of the RegionalSolicitor, Portland, OR Dale Bambrick,National Marine FisheriesService, Ellensburg, WA CourtneyTaylor, U.S. Departmentof Justice,Washington, DC Kurt Beardslee,Washington Trout, Duvall, WA Biological Opinion For the Operation and Maintenanceof LeavenworthNational Fish llatchery through 2011 FWS ReferenceNumb er 7326A-2006-P-0010 U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service UpporColumbia Fish andWildlife Office, Spokane,Washington CONSULTATIONIIISTORY ........,..4 INFORMAL CONSULTATION ........5 BTOLOGICALOPTNION ......... .........7 B. CurrentStatus and Conservation Needs........... ..............15 H. Genetic A. WenatcheeRiver Core Area - Abundanceand Distribution................ ....................21 B. FactorsAffecting the Bull Trout's CurrentCondition in the Vy'enatcheeRiver Core Area.... .......28 C. Summaryof Bull Trout Statusin theWenatchee River CoreArea..... ..........,..........32 D. Bull TroutStatus in theAction Area ................................: .....,...........33 E. Bull TroutDistribution and Abundance in theAction Area............. .......,................36 F. Role of the Action Area in the Persistenceof the WenatcheeRiver CoreArea Populationof the Bull Trout....39 G. FactorsAffecting the Species'Environment in theAction Area............. ................40 H. Summaryof EnvironmentalBaseline .......50 D. Historic I. Release J. Bull TroutPrey Base in theHistoric Channel .................6l K. Hatchery/WildInteraction Effects on Bull TroutPrey Base............. .......................62 INCIDENTALTAKE STATEMENT........... ......................66 II. AnticipatedAmount or Extent of Take of Bull Trout........... .............66 IV. Reasonableand Prudent Measures ..........67 CONSERVATIONRECOMMENDATIONS,........... .........72 RE-INITIATION NOTICE ..............75 LITERATURECIT8D.............. ......,76 ATTACHMENTA.............. ..............86 Figures and Tables Figure 1: Map of LNFH andvicinity Figure 2: 2004leicle Creek hydrog¡aph upstreamfrom all diversions Figure 3: Map summarizing effects of the proposedaction on bull trout passage Table 1: Diversion rates from lower Icicle Creek in cfs ' TabIe2: Average monthly flows in Icicle Creek INTRODUCTION This documenttransmits the Fish andWildlife Service's(Service or USFWS) biological opinion (Opinion) basedon our review of the proposedoperations and maintenanceof the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery (LNFH or Project) located in Chelan County, Washington, and its effects on the threatenedbull trout (Salvelinusconfluenhts). This intra-serviceconsultation was conductedin accordancewith section7 of the EndangeredSpecies Act (ESA) of 1973,as amended(16 U.S.C. 1531et seq.). Your July 10, 2006,request for formal consultationand the fìnal biological assessment(BA; USFWS 2006a)were receivedthat day. This biological opinion is basedon informationprovided in: the BA and four draft BAs; numerouse-mails and meeting notes about the Projectcompiled since 2003; National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentspertaining to LNFH; published literature and unpublishedreports; the proposedand final rules for listing of the bull trout; the draft Bull Trout RecoveryPlan (especiallythe chapteron the upper Columbia River recovery unit); the proposed and final designationsof critical habitat for the bull trout; local watershedanalysis and field surveysprepared by the U.S. ForestService; State of Washingtonlimiting habitatfactors analysis;Upper Columbia SalmonRecovery Plan and associatedanalyses; watershed planning documents;and field visits to the project site. A completeadministrative record of this consultationis on file at the Service'sCentral Washington Field Offìce (CWFO) in Wenatchee, 'Washington. LeavenworthNFH Complexwas authorizedby the GrandCoulee Fish MaintenanceProject in 7937 andreauthorized by the Mitchell Act of 1938. The hatcheryis one of threemid-Columbia stations(Leavenworth, Entiat, and Winthrop NFHs) constructedby the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) as fish mitigation facilitiesfor the GrandCoulee Dam, ColumbiaBasin Project. Constructionbegan in 7939,and funding was providedthrough a transferof funds from the BOR to the Serviceuntil 1945. From 1945to 7993,the Servicehad funding,management, and operationresponsibilities for the complexof 3 hatcheries.Beginning in FiscalYear (FY) 1994 the BOR assumedfunding responsibilityfor the complexwhile the Servicecontinued to manage and operatethe three facilities. In FY 2004 the direct funding agreementbetween BOR and Servicefor O&M at the Complexwas approximately$3.9 million. Annual funding is projected to average$4.4 million per year for FY07-09 (BPA 2006). CONSULTATION HISTORY March 1999:The MosesLake Field Offrce issueda memorandumto the LNFH concurringthat operationsand maintenanceof the hatcherymay effect, but was not likely to adverselyaffect bull trout. April 2003: The Service'sEcological Service's program (ES), LNFH, andthe mid-Columbia FisheriesResource Office (MCFRO) met to discussnew or updatedconsultations for several activitiesthat would be neededat LNFH over the next few years,including Icicle Creek RestorationProject Phase II, andthe IntakeRehabilitation Project. ES advisedLNFH to initiate formal consultationon operationsand maintenance(O&M) at LNFH becauseadverse affects on bull trout were occurrine due to O&M at LNFH. June2005: LNFH advisedES that it would begin developinga BA for O&M at LNFH. November 2005: LNFH submitted a draft BA for O&M to ES; ES reviewed draft and requested additional information. January2006: LNFH submitted a seconddraft BA for O&M to ES; ES reviewed draft and requestedadditional information. March 2006 LNFH submittedthe
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Draft Plant Propagation Protocol
    Plant Propagation Protocol for Cistanthe tweedyi (Tweedy’s pussypaws) ESRM 412 – Native Plant Production Protocol URL: https://courses.washington.edu/esrm412/protocols/CITW2.pdf Figure 1: C. tweedyi at Blewett Pass, Chelan County, Washington. Photo by Stephen Munro. Figure 2: Reported occurrence of C. tweedyi in Washington State. Possible Okanogan County and extant British Columbian population(s) in E.C. Manning Provincial Park not captured here. Burke Museum [1]. Figure 3: USDA, 2018 [2]. TAXONOMY Plant Family Scientific Name Portulacaceae (Montiaceae is the new monophyletic family for this species) [3] Common Name Purslane family (Montia family) [3] Species Scientific Name Scientific Name Cistanthe tweedyi (A. Gray) Hershkovitz (not currently accepted) [3]. Varieties None Sub-species None Cultivar ‘Alba’, ‘Inshriach Strain’, ‘Rosea’[4], ‘Elliot’s Variety’ [5] Common Synonym(s) Calandrinia tweedyi A. Gray Lewisia aurantica A. Nels LETW Lewisia tweedyi (A. Gray) B.L. Rob. Lewisiopsis tweedyi (A.Gray) Govaerts (this most recently accepted designation placing the plant in a monotypic genus within family Montiaceae) [3] Oreobroma tweedyi Howell Common Name(s) Tweedy’s lewisia, Tweedy’s bitterroot, mountain rose Species Code (as per USDA Plants CITW2 database) GENERAL INFORMATION Geographical range See Figure 2 for Washington State occurrences. In the United States C. tweedyi is known from the Wenatchee Mountains of Washington State chiefly in Chelan County and also occurring in northern portions of Kittitas County. The recorded occurrences of the species range from South Navarre Peak in north, south to near the town of Liberty, west to Ladies Pass and east to Twenty-Five Mile Creek [6]. It reportedly grows in the Methow Valley of Okanogan County, Washington yet, current reports neglect to record any Okanogan populations [1].
    [Show full text]
  • Wenatchee National Forest
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Wenatchee National Forest Pacific Northwest Region Annual Report on Wenatchee Land and Resource Management Plan Implementation and Monitoring for Fiscal Year 2003 Wenatchee National Forest FY 2003 Monitoring Report - Land and Resource Management Plan 1 I. INTRODUCTTION Purpose of the Monitoring Report General Information II. SUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS III. INDIVIDUAL MONITORING ITEMS RECREATION Facilities Management – Trails and Developed Recreation Recreation Use WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS Wild, Scenic And Recreational Rivers SCENERY MANAGEMENT Scenic Resource Objectives Stand Character Goals WILDERNESS Recreation Impacts on Wilderness Resources Cultural Resources (Heritage Resources) Cultural and Historic Site Protection Cultural and Historic Site Rehabilitation COOPERATION OF FOREST PROGRAMS with INDIAN TRIBES American Indians and their Culture Coordination and Communication of Forest Programs with Indian Tribes WILDLIFE Management Indicator Species -Primary Cavity Excavators Land Birds Riparian Dependent Wildlife Species Deer, Elk and Mountain Goat Habitat Threatened and Endangered Species: Northern Spotted Owl Bald Eagle (Threatened) Peregrine Falcon Grizzly Bear Gray Wolf (Endangered) Canada Lynx (Threatened) Survey and Manage Species: Chelan Mountainsnail WATERSHEDS AND AQUATIC HABITATS Aquatic Management Indicator Species (MIS) Populations Riparian Watershed Standard Implementation Monitoring Watershed and Aquatic Habitats Monitoring TIMBER and RELATED SILVICULTURAL ACTIVITIES Timer Sale Program Reforestation Timber Harvest Unit Size, Shape and Distribution Insect and Disease ROADS Road Management and Maintenance FIRE Wildfire Occurrence MINERALS Mine Site Reclamation Mine Operating Plans GENERAL MONITORING of STANDARDS and GUIDELINES General Standards and Guidelines IV. FOREST PLAN UPDATE Forest Plan Amendments List of Preparers Wenatchee National Forest FY 2003 Monitoring Report - Land and Resource Management Plan 2 I.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Powers of the Cascade Range
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ALBERT B. FALL, Secretary UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, Director Water-Supply Paper 486 WATER POWERS OF THE CASCADE RANGE PART IV. WENATCHEE AND ENTIAT BAiMI&.rvey, "\ in. Cf\ Ci2k>J- *"^ L. PAEKEE A3TD LASLEY LEE I Prepared in cooperation with the WASHINGTOJS STATE BOARD OF GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Ernest Lister, Chairman Henry Landes, Geologist WASHINGTOH GOVBBNMBNT PBINTINJS OFFICE 1922 COPIE? ' .-.;:; i OF, THIS PUBLICATION MAT BE PBOCtJRED FE01C THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS ' 6OVEBNMENT PRINTING OF1JICB WASHINGTON, D. C. ' AT .80 CENTS PER,COPY n " '', : -. ' : 3, - .-. - , r-^ CONTENTS. Page. Introduction......i....................................................... 1 Abstract.................................................................. 3 Cooperation................................................ r,.... v.......... 4 Acknowledgments.............................. P ......................... 5 Natural features of Wenatcheeaad Entiat basins........................... 5 Topography................................... r ......................... 5 Wenatchee basin.........................I.........* *............... 5 Entiat basin............................................*........... 7 Drainage areas............................... i.......................... 7 Climate....................................i........................... 9 Control............................................................ 9 Precipitation.........^.................1......................... 9 Temperature...........................L........................
    [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]
  • Dry Forests of the Northeastern Cascades Fire and Fire Surrogate Project Site, Mission Creek, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest James K
    United States Department of Agriculture Dry Forests of the Forest Service Northeastern Cascades Pacific Northwest Research Station Fire and Fire Surrogate Research Paper PNW-RP-577 January 2009 Project Site, Mission Creek, Okanogan-Wenatchee D E E P R A U R T LT MENT OF AGRICU National Forest The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Compilers James K.
    [Show full text]
  • NPS Form 10 900 OMB No. 1024 0018
    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional certification comments, entries, and narrative items on continuation sheets if needed (NPS Form 10-900a). 1. Name of Property historic name Downtown Ellensburg Historic District other names/site number 2. Location street & number Roughly bounded by 2nd Avenue on the south, Ruby Street on the east, not for publication 6th Avenue on the north, & Water Street on the west. city or town Ellensburg vicinity state Washington code WA county Kittitas code 37 zip code 98926 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this nomination request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property _ meets _ does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant at the following level(s) of significance: national statewide X local Signature of certifying official/Title Date Washington State Historic Preservation Office State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government In my opinion, the property meets does not meet the National Register criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Flora Checklist a Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Washington State Hosted by the University of Washington Herbarium
    Washington Flora Checklist A checklist of the Vascular Plants of Washington State Hosted by the University of Washington Herbarium The Washington Flora Checklist aims to be a complete list of the native and naturalized vascular plants of Washington State, with current classifications, nomenclature and synonymy. The checklist currently contains 3,929 terminal taxa (species, subspecies, and varieties). Taxa included in the checklist: * Native taxa whether extant, extirpated, or extinct. * Exotic taxa that are naturalized, escaped from cultivation, or persisting wild. * Waifs (e.g., ballast plants, escaped crop plants) and other scarcely collected exotics. * Interspecific hybrids that are frequent or self-maintaining. * Some unnamed taxa in the process of being described. Family classifications follow APG IV for angiosperms, PPG I (J. Syst. Evol. 54:563?603. 2016.) for pteridophytes, and Christenhusz et al. (Phytotaxa 19:55?70. 2011.) for gymnosperms, with a few exceptions. Nomenclature and synonymy at the rank of genus and below follows the 2nd Edition of the Flora of the Pacific Northwest except where superceded by new information. Accepted names are indicated with blue font; synonyms with black font. Native species and infraspecies are marked with boldface font. Please note: This is a working checklist, continuously updated. Use it at your discretion. Created from the Washington Flora Checklist Database on September 17th, 2018 at 9:47pm PST. Available online at http://biology.burke.washington.edu/waflora/checklist.php Comments and questions should be addressed to the checklist administrators: David Giblin ([email protected]) Peter Zika ([email protected]) Suggested citation: Weinmann, F., P.F. Zika, D.E. Giblin, B.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Fishing Plan 2019 2
    Table of Contents I. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................4 II. Statement of Objectives ............................................................................................................5 III. Description of Fishing Program ................................................................................................6 A. Areas to be Opened to Fishing ................................................................................6 B. Species to be Taken, Fishing Period, Fishing Access .............................................6 C. Fishing Permit Requirements ..................................................................................7 D. Consultation and Coordination with the State ........................................................7 E. Law Enforcement ....................................................................................................7 F. Funding and Staffing Requirements .......................................................................7 IV. Conduct of the Fishing Program ...............................................................................................7 A. Fishing Permit Application, Selection, and/or Registration Procedures .................7 B. Hatchery Specific Regulations ................................................................................7 C. Relevant State Regulations .....................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • The Water Report INTEGRATED WATER PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
    August 15, 2017 The Water Report INTEGRATED WATER PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Water Project DIVERSE GROUPS SET ASIDE DIFFERENCES TO IMPROVE CONDITIONS IN THE ICICLE CREEK BASIN Integration by Mike Kaputa, Director, Chelan County Natural Resources Department (Wenatchee, WA) Introduction The Icicle Creek basin encompasses an area approximately 212 square miles northwest of the City of Leavenworth in central Washington State. This makes it the largest sub-watershed in Water Resource Inventory Area 45 (WRIA 45), contributing 20% of the Wenatchee River’s annual flow. The area has high High Value aesthetic, recreational, and environmental value because much of the land coverage resides on undeveloped Resource land in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness and the Wenatchee National Forest. The Icicle Creek basin brings life to the local economies by providing the primary water source to the City of Leavenworth, which is a nationally renowned tourist destination, and to the Icicle-Peshastin Irrigation District (IPID), which supplies water to the agricultural base along the Wenatchee River Valley from Leavenworth to the City of Wenatchee. The Icicle Creek basin also sustains life for aquatic resources — namely anadromous fish species such as Chinook, Coho, and Steelhead — which utilize instream flows for rearing and spawning habitat. These fish are an important cultural resource for the regional First Nations of the Colville Confederated Tribes and Yakama Nation. Because flows from Icicle Creek support a broad range of local and regional demands — from Range of Uses domestic water supply to agricultural irrigation to habitat for anadromous fish species — a diverse set of stakeholders is affected by the relative health of this watershed.
    [Show full text]