DOCSLIB.ORG

Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification Hells Canyon Complex (FERC Project Number 1971)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification Hells Canyon Complex (FERC Project Number 1971) Evaluation and Findings Report: Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification Hells Canyon Complex (FERC Project Number 1971) May 2019 Northwest Region 700 NE Multnomah St. Suite 600 Portland, OR 97232 Phone: 503-229-5696 800-452-4011 Fax: 503-229-5850 www.oregon.gov/DEQ DEQ is a leader in restoring, maintaining and enhancing the quality of Oregon’s air, land and water. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 401 Water Quality Certification Hells Canyon Complex (FERC Project Number 1971) This report prepared by: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 700 NE Multnomah St Suite 600 Portland, OR 97232 1-800-452-4011 www.oregon.gov/deq Contact: Marilyn Fonseca 503-229-6804 Documents can be provided upon request in an alternate format for individuals with disabilities or in a language other than English for people with limited English skills. To request a document in another format or language, call DEQ in Portland at 503-229-5696, or toll-free in Oregon at 1-800-452-4011, ext. 5696; or email [email protected]. State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ii 401 Water Quality Certification Hells Canyon Complex (FERC Project Number 1971) Table of Contents 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Requirements for Certification ............................................................................................................ 1 2.1 Applicable Federal and State Law ............................................................................................... 1 2.2 General Application of State Water Quality Standards ............................................................... 3 2.2.1 Designated Beneficial Uses ................................................................................................. 3 2.2.2 Narrative and Numeric Criteria ............................................................................................ 4 2.2.3 Anti-degradation Policy ....................................................................................................... 4 2.2.4 Total Maximum Daily Loads ............................................................................................... 4 3 Project Information and Summary of Project ...................................................................................... 4 3.1 Applicant Information .................................................................................................................. 4 3.1.1 Name and Address of Project Owner (Applicant) ............................................................... 4 3.1.2 Name and Address of Owner’s Official Representative ...................................................... 5 3.1.3 § 401 Application (Original Application and Supplements) ................................................ 5 3.2 Project Description and Operations ............................................................................................. 5 3.2.1 Waters of the State Potentially Impacted by Project ............................................................ 5 3.2.2 Adjacent Land Use and Ownership...................................................................................... 8 3.2.3 Hells Canyon Complex Project Facilities ............................................................................ 8 3.2.4 Current Operations ............................................................................................................... 9 3.2.5 Proposed Operations .......................................................................................................... 10 4 Beneficial Uses and Water Quality Status of the Snake River .......................................................... 10 4.1 Beneficial Uses in the Snake River ............................................................................................ 10 4.2 Native and Extirpated Fish Species ........................................................................................... 11 5 Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species in the Snake River ..................................................... 16 6 Water Quality Impairment in the Snake River .................................................................................. 17 6.1 Total Maximum Daily Load for the Snake River ...................................................................... 20 6.1.1 Nutrients, nuisance algae and dissolved oxygen: ............................................................... 20 6.1.2 Pesticides: .......................................................................................................................... 20 6.1.3 Temperature: ...................................................................................................................... 20 6.1.4 Total dissolved gas: ............................................................................................................ 21 7 Evaluation of Compliance with Water Quality Standards ................................................................ 22 7.1 Water Quality Parameters Not of Concern ................................................................................ 22 7.1.1 Bacteria: ............................................................................................................................. 23 7.1.2 Chlorophyll a: .................................................................................................................... 23 7.1.3 pH:...................................................................................................................................... 24 State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality iii 401 Water Quality Certification Hells Canyon Complex (FERC Project Number 1971) 7.1.4 Sediment: ........................................................................................................................... 24 7.1.5 Total dissolved solids: ........................................................................................................ 25 7.1.6 Turbidity: ........................................................................................................................... 25 7.1.7 Toxics – water column: ...................................................................................................... 25 7.2 Water Quality Parameters of Potential Concern ........................................................................ 30 7.2.1 Narrative Standards: Biocriteria and Statewide Narrative Criteria .................................... 32 7.2.2 Dissolved Oxygen: ............................................................................................................. 48 7.2.3 Temperature: ...................................................................................................................... 68 7.2.4 Oil and Grease:................................................................................................................... 91 7.2.5 Total Dissolved Gas: .......................................................................................................... 92 7.2.6 Harmful Algal Blooms: ...................................................................................................... 99 7.2.7 Mercury (Hg): .................................................................................................................. 102 7.2.8 Antidegradation:............................................................................................................... 107 8 Evaluation of Compliance with Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Federal Clean Water Act ........................................................................................................................................ 110 9 Evaluation of Other Appropriate Requirements of State Law ........................................................ 111 9.1 Department of Environmental Quality ..................................................................................... 112 9.2 Department of State Lands ....................................................................................................... 112 9.3 Department of Fish and Wildlife ............................................................................................. 112 9.4 Department of Water Resources .............................................................................................. 113 9.5 Department of Land Conservation and Development .............................................................. 114 10 Public Comment .............................................................................................................................. 119 10.1 General Topics ......................................................................................................................... 121 10.2 Fisheries ................................................................................................................................... 135 10.3 Biocriteria ................................................................................................................................ 137 10.4 Temperature ............................................................................................................................. 139 10.5 Snake River Stewardship Program .......................................................................................... 146 10.6 Brownlee Operational Component ..........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Idaho Power Company's Fall Chinook Salmon Hatchery
    IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S FALL CHINOOK SALMON HATCHERY PROGRAM Stuart Rosenberger, Paul Abbott, James Chandler 1221 W. Idaho St., Boise, Idaho Background The current Idaho Power Company (IPC) fall Chinook salmon program was established to provide mitigation for losses associated with the construction and operation of Brownlee, Oxbow, and Hells Canyon dams which together form the Hells Canyon Complex. IPC’s current mitigation goal is to produce 1 million fall Chinook salmon smolts annually (see Origination of Idaho Power Company’s Hatchery Mitigation Program section for more details). Oxbow Hatchery, funded by IPC and operated by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, is responsible for the incubation and rearing of up to 200,000 subyearling fall Chinook salmon. The hatchery is located on the Snake River downstream of Oxbow Dam near the IPC village known as Oxbow, Oregon (Figure 1). IPC also contracts with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) for the production of an additional 800,000 subyearling fall Chinook salmon that were originally reared at ODFW’s Umatilla Hatchery and are now reared at ODFWs’ Irrigon Hatchery, both of which are located near the town of Irrigon, Oregon. Fish reared at both Oxbow and Umatilla/Irrigon hatcheries are released into the Snake River directly below Hells Canyon Dam with the exception of brood years 2003 to 2005 in which some of the production was released at the Nez Perce Tribe’s Pittsburg Landing acclimation facility. Similar to other fall Chinook salmon programs in the Snake Basin, Oxbow and Umatilla/Irrigon hatcheries receive eyed eggs from Lyons Ferry Hatchery, as it is one of only two broodstock holding and spawning facilities for fall Chinook salmon in the Snake Basin.
    [Show full text]
  • Spring Chinook Salmon Dworshak National Fish Hatchery Clearwater River, Idaho
    Spring Chinook Salmon Dworshak National Fish Hatchery Clearwater River, Idaho Howard Burge Ray Jones U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Idaho Fishery Resource Office Ahsahka, Idaho Idaho Washington NF Clearwater River Clearwater Lower Hatchery Columbia Lower Little Goose Granite Monumental Dam Dam Dam Dworshak Dam Clearwater R Dworshak Lochsa R River Snake NFH River Lewiston Kooskia IDFG Ice Harbor NFH Satellites Dam Selway River Rapid R Hatchery Hells Canyon Dam Oxbow Dam SF Clearwater McNary Brownlee Dam Dam Oregon Salmon River Program Goals 9,135 adults above Lower Granite Dam Harvest of 36,500 in ocean, Columbia River, and Lower Snake River fisheries Original production goal of 1.4 mil smolts Current production goal of 1.05 mil smolts - changed in 1996 Management Objectives Provide sport & tribal fishing opportunities in the Lower Clearwater River Return adequate broodstock to meet production needs Minimize impacts to natural populations Assist other programs in the Clearwater basin M & E Objectives Evaluate the effectiveness of the program so that it can be managed adaptively Determine the total adult return to assess if the program is meeting its mitigation goals Document and communicate programs success at meeting its program and management goals Coordinate hatchery and R,M & E activities Lewiston Dam 1929-1972 Leavenworth NFH 1983 - 86 Little White NFH 1983 & 85 1989 - 2010 Dworshak NFH Kooskia NFH 1995 Rapid River SH 1987 & 88 Broodstock sources and years Dworshak Spring Chinook Broodstock 50:50 ratio of males to females Approximately 65% of returning adults are 2-ocean Average size of a 2-ocean adult is 29 inches Average pre-spawn mortality (1995-2010) 3.1% Chinook arrive ~ May - August Spawning ~ late Aug - early Sept Juvenile Performance Rearing ~ approx.
    [Show full text]
  • Hells Canyon Complex Total Dissolved Gas Study
    Hells Canyon Complex Total Dissolved Gas Study Ralph Myers Project Limnologist Sharon E. Parkinson Principal Engineer Technical Report Appendix E.2.2-4 March 2002 Revised July 2003 Hells Canyon Complex FERC No. 1971 Copyright © 2003 by Idaho Power Company Idaho Power Company Hells Canyon Complex Total Dissolved Gas Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i List of Tables...................................................................................................................................ii List of Figures .................................................................................................................................ii List of Appendices .........................................................................................................................iii Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2 2. Study Area.................................................................................................................................. 3 3. Plant Operations ......................................................................................................................... 4 4. Methods.....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Dams and Hydroelectricity in the Columbia
    COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: DAMS AND HYDROELECTRICITY The power of falling water can be converted to hydroelectricity A Powerful River Major mountain ranges and large volumes of river flows into the Pacific—make the Columbia precipitation are the foundation for the Columbia one of the most powerful rivers in North America. River Basin. The large volumes of annual runoff, The entire Columbia River on both sides of combined with changes in elevation—from the the border is one of the most hydroelectrically river’s headwaters at Canal Flats in BC’s Rocky developed river systems in the world, with more Mountain Trench, to Astoria, Oregon, where the than 470 dams on the main stem and tributaries. Two Countries: One River Changing Water Levels Most dams on the Columbia River system were built between Deciding how to release and store water in the Canadian the 1940s and 1980s. They are part of a coordinated water Columbia River system is a complex process. Decision-makers management system guided by the 1964 Columbia River Treaty must balance obligations under the CRT (flood control and (CRT) between Canada and the United States. The CRT: power generation) with regional and provincial concerns such as ecosystems, recreation and cultural values. 1. coordinates flood control 2. optimizes hydroelectricity generation on both sides of the STORING AND RELEASING WATER border. The ability to store water in reservoirs behind dams means water can be released when it’s needed for fisheries, flood control, hydroelectricity, irrigation, recreation and transportation. Managing the River Releasing water to meet these needs influences water levels throughout the year and explains why water levels The Columbia River system includes creeks, glaciers, lakes, change frequently.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hells Canyon Dam Controversy
    N 1956, AT THE TENDER AGE OF THIRTY-TWO, Frank Church made a bold bid for the United States Senate. After squeak- I ing out a victory in the hotly contested Idaho Democratic pri- mary, Church faced down incumbent Senator Herman Welker, re- ceiving nearly percent of the vote. One issue that loomed over the campaign was an emerging dis- pute over building dams in the Snake River’s Hells Canyon. While Church and other Democrats supported the construction of a high federal dam in the Idaho gorge, their Republican opponents favored developing the resource through private utility companies. Idaho EVOLUTION voters split on the issue, and so, seeking to avoid a divisive debate, Church downplayed his position during the general election “be- of an cause it was not a winning issue, politically.”1 Senator Frank Church Although Church won the election, he could not escape the is- sue. Indeed, his victory and subsequent assignment to the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs put him at the center of a growing controversy about damming Hells Canyon. Over the next eighteen years, Church wrestled with balancing Idaho’s demand for economic growth and his own pro-development beliefs with an emerging environmental movement’s demand for preservation of nature—in Idaho and across the nation. As he grappled with these competing interests, Church under- went a significant transformation. While Church often supported development early in his Senate career, he, like few others of his time, began to see the value of wild places and to believe that rivers offered more than power production opportunities and irrigation water.
    [Show full text]
  • Snake River Fall Chinook a Primer: 1900-1975
    Snake River Fall Chinook A Primer: 1900-1975 Mark Schuck – Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Acknowledgements and note to the reader. The majority of the structure of the presentation was developed by Dr. Billy Connor (USFWS) and through extensive history research by Jim Chandler (Idaho Power Company). Additional insights and historical perspective were provided by several persons from numerous agencies involved with fall Chinook management {Stuart Rosenberger, IPC - GIS Division, Jay Hesse (NPT), Pete Hassemer (IDFG), and several other biologist and researchers that indirectly provided data for slides}. It was my privilege to assemble that information into this presentation. While some of the content from slides in the original presentation provided to the ISRP and attendees on August 6, 2013 will be included in this narrative and slide references are provided in the text that follows, I suggest the best approach to reviewing the history is to read this in concert with the slide presentation, available on the LSRCP website at: http://www.fws.gov/lsnakecomplan/ The purposes of this overview are: • Provide a history of the near demise of Snake Fall Chinook • Review the actions that resulted in the need for, and authorization of, the LSRCP in 1975 • Put everyone on the same plane so that they better understand fall Chinook history • Provide context to better evaluate the success or failure of the LSRCP fall Chinook program, because: We can’t know where we are going if we don’t know where we’ve been. Introduction Chinook are a cultural icon of the Pacific Northwest. King, Tyee or Chinook, the terms convey the aura of big hard fighting fish of the most splendid flavor.
    [Show full text]
  • Snake River Flow Augmentation Impact Analysis Appendix
    SNAKE RIVER FLOW AUGMENTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS APPENDIX Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District’s Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region Boise, Idaho February 1999 Acronyms and Abbreviations (Includes some common acronyms and abbreviations that may not appear in this document) 1427i A scenario in this analysis that provides up to 1,427,000 acre-feet of flow augmentation with large drawdown of Reclamation reservoirs. 1427r A scenario in this analysis that provides up to 1,427,000 acre-feet of flow augmentation with reservoir elevations maintained near current levels. BA Biological assessment BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis (U.S. Department of Commerce) BETTER Box Exchange Transport Temperature Ecology Reservoir (a water quality model) BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BID Burley Irrigation District BIOP Biological opinion BLM Bureau of Land Management B.P. Before present BPA Bonneville Power Administration CES Conservation Extension Service cfs Cubic feet per second Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CRFMP Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program CRP Conservation Reserve Program CVPIA Central Valley Project Improvement Act CWA Clean Water Act DO Dissolved Oxygen Acronyms and Abbreviations (Includes some common acronyms and abbreviations that may not appear in this document) DREW Drawdown Regional Economic Workgroup DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane EIS Environmental Impact Statement EP Effective Precipitation EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ETAW Evapotranspiration of Applied Water FCRPS Federal Columbia River Power System FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FIRE Finance, investment, and real estate HCNRA Hells Canyon National Recreation Area HUC Hydrologic unit code I.C.
    [Show full text]
  • PASSAGE ·OF ADULT FALL-RUN CHINOOK SALMON (Oncorhynchus T�Hawytscha) THROUGH a LARGE IMPOUNDMENT
    \� PASSAGE ·OF ADULT FALL-RUN CHINOOK SALMON (Oncorhynchus t�hawytscha) THROUGH A LARGE IMPOUNDMENT by Parker s. Trefethen and Doyle F. Sutherland July 1964 FISH-PASSAGE RESEARCH PROGRAM· - Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Seattle, Washington INTRODUCTION One of the basic considerations in planning for--fish passage at high dams is the effect of a large, deep impoundment on the upstream migration of adult salmon. If anadromous fish can pass through a large impoundment and successfully spawn, they may be passed directly over the dam into the forebay to continue their natural migration. If passage in the reservoir is impaired, it may be necessary to transport the fish around the reservoir-­ an operation that may be complicated by the need for separating subpopulations in the event that several tributary streams are involved. The effect of a large impoundment on the passage of adult salmon was examined in Bro�nlee Reservoir on the Snake River (fig. 1). This 57�-mile-long impoundment, created in 1958, presented a potential barrier to chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) and steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri} on their upstream migration to spawning areas above the reservoir. Except during extreme drawdown and high river discharges, virtually no water currents ex.1st in the impoundment, and high temperatures & low oxygen concentrations are prevalent--especially during summer and fall - months. Since the filling of Brownlee Reservoir, the number of adult salmon returning to the area has declined. There may be many factors responsible for this decline, but at the outset of these studies it was recognized that adult fish might experience difficulty in migrating through the large impoundment to spawning areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Spawning Areas and Abundance of Chinook Salmon {Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha} in the Columbia River Basin--Past and Present By
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR u.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES Spawning Areas and Abundance of Chinook Salmon {Oncorhynchus tshawytscha} in The Columbia River Basin--Past and Present By LEONARD A. FULTON United States Fish and Wildlife Service Special Scientific Report- - Fisheries No. 571 Washington, D.C. October 1968 CONTENTS Page Introduction........................ Spring- and summer-run chinook salmon. .. 3 Spawning areas . .. 3 Abundance of spring- and summer- run chinook salmon. 4 Fall-run chinook salmon. 16 Spawning areas . 16 Abundance of fall- run chinook salmon 20 Summary and conclusions 22 Acknowledgments. 23 Literature cited .. 24 Maps .............. .See Map Appendix iii Spawning Areas and Abundance of Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in The Columbia River Basin--Past and Present By LEONARD A. FULTON, Fishery Biologist Bureau of Commercial Fisheries 'Biological Laboratory Seattle, Washington 98102 ABSTRACT Chinook salmon, the most abundant species of salmon in the Columbia Basin, formerly spawned in nearly a11 tributaries ofthe Columbia River and in many areas of the main river. Over the past 60 years, the construction of dams has inundated, impeded, or blocke.d acces!, to spawning areas. Despite these heavy losses, large areas of spawning grounds in the middle and lower portions of the drainage are sti11 available to chinook salmon. Stream im­ provements by State and Federal fishery agencies have rehabilitated some areas and have brought others into production for the first time. Important spawning areas are listed and charted in this report according to their past use (before 1965) and present use (1966). Estimates of recent spawning populations in major tributaries and in segments of the main stem are also given.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species Act 1972 1855 Treaties U.S. and Nez Perce
    Harvest Pacific Salmon Treaty (Pacific Salmon Hydro/Habitat Commission - PSC) Federal Columbia River Power System Magnuson Act (Pacific Fishery Biological Opinion Management Council – PFMC) • Dworshak Dam Endangered SpeciesSnake/Columbia Act 1972 summer spill U.S. vs. Oregon Management Agreement • Federal Energy Regulatory Commission • Idaho Power Complex Snake River Synergy is the interaction of elements that when combined produce a total effect that Fall Chinook is greater than the sum of the individual Salmon elements Hatchery Idaho Power Company/Hells Canyon Settlement Agreement Lower1855 Snake River Treaties Compensation U.S. Plan – Publicand Law Nez 94-587, Perce, 99-662, 103-316 NorthwestUmatilla,Yakama Power Act & Warm Springs U.S. vs. Oregon Management Agreement Columbia Basin Treaty Tribes Accords Snake River Falls SEA K 14% PFMC 34% CA NA DA 52% Pacific Salmon Treaty (Pacific Salmon Commission - PSC) Magnuson Act (Pacific Fishery Management Council – PFMC) U.S. vs. Oregon Management Agreement Columbia River Treaty Tribe Harvest Hydro/Habitat Federal Energy Regulatory Commission • Idaho Power Complex Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion & Litigation • Snake/Columbia summer spill Snake River • Juvenile Transportation • Predation Fall Chinook • Estuary Salmon Bonneville Dam 1938 BrownleeIce Harbor Dam 1961 1958 LowerTheOxbow DallesMonumental Dam Dam 1961 1957 Dam 1969 John Day Dam 1971 HellsLittle Canyon Goose DamDam 19671970 Lower Granite Dam 1975 McNary Dam 1954 Warner W. Gardner, Assistant Secretary of the
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Fisheries Losses in the Upper Snake River Basin in Idaho Attributable to Construction and Operation of Dams with Federal Hydropower Facilities
    ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIES LOSSES IN THE UPPER SNAKE RIVER BASIN IN IDAHO ATTRIBUTABLE TO CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF DAMS WITH FEDERAL HYDROPOWER FACILITIES Idaho Department of Fish and Game IDFG Report Number 07-52 August 2007 ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIES LOSSES IN THE UPPER SNAKE RIVER BASIN IN IDAHO ATTRIBUTABLE TO CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF DAMS WITH FEDERAL HYDROPOWER FACILITIES Prepared by: Idaho Department of Fish and Game 600 South Walnut Street P.O. Box 25 Boise, ID 83707 IDFG Report Number 07-52 August 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIES LOSSES IN THE UPPER SNAKE RIVER BASIN IN IDAHO ATTRIBUTABLE TO CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF DAMS WITH FEDERAL HYDROPOWER FACILITIES................................................................................ 1 ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2 BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS.......................................................... 2 Anderson Ranch Dam and Reservoir ........................................................................................ 2 Black Canyon Dam and Reservoir............................................................................................. 3 Deadwood Dam and Reservoir.................................................................................................. 4 Boise River Diversion
    [Show full text]
  • Snake River Fall Chinook Brood Origin
    Lyons Ferry Hatchery and Production of Snake River Fall Chinook: A Qualified Success Story. Mark Schuck Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Lower Snake River Fish and Wildlife Compensation Plan - 1976 • Fall Chinook – 18,300 adults/year • Tucannon Spring Chinook – 1,132 adults/year to the river • Summer Steelhead – 4,656 adults/year to project rivers • In-place and in-kind (genetic integrity) • Resident fish – fishing opportunity – 67,500 angler days LFH Fall Chinook Production Goals (18,300 adults) • 9.16 million subyearling smolts (101,880 lbs) – about 90 fpp (80 mm) – expected smolt-to-adult return (SAR) of 0.2% • Idaho Power Co. mitigation for Hells Canyon Complex – for 1.3 million eyed eggs – due after LFH reached 80% of capacity • Program to be built from Endemic Snake Chinook Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon Population and ESU Structure er iv R Missoula e wa ## s lear ter R WASHINGTON ou C al k C P r Snake River o Pullman o l # #Moscow F u m $LOWER GRANITE DAM N • One remaining b LOWER MONUMENTAL DAM Fall Chinook ia $ $ LITTLE GOOSE DAM er R R at rw i Tu ea r v c l e R a C iv e R n # L k a r e n k Lewiston o e s o h a lo e c Richland et River n r # n uch S C o Pasco S n L # $ o R T a population # ICE HARBOR DAM iv Fall Chinook ESU Kennewick er k e Walla Walla Walla Walla S R F R # de on C S MONTANA MCNARY DAM R l e e l $ e w n d a current fall ra r a G w y R R a ter R –Lyons Ferry Hatchery chinook spawning iv U e i r v m e at r il la# River Wa Pendleton llow historic fall a Sa R lm M i o genetics very similar to chinook spawning
    [Show full text]