DOCSLIB.ORG

Grande Ronoe River Basin Fish Management Plan Draft

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Grande Ronoe River Basin Fish Management Plan Draft GRANDE RONOE RIVER BASIN FISH MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT ONE 1993 Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife Page 1 of 166 Grande Ronde Basin Fish Management Plan 1993 1 6/11/93 Lead writer: Joel A. Hurtado Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife / 2111 Adams Suite "B" \ La Grande OR. 97850 Co-writers: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation P.O. Box638 Pendleton, Oregon 97801 • ,1! ~r~. ~ -tl}, --~. ..-~ ' ··. · .. Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho · ,•!f.O. Box 365 .,,, Lapwai, Idaho 83540 Washington Department of Fisheries 115 General Administration Building ( Olympia, Washington 98504 Washington Department of Wildlife 600 Capitol Way North Olympia, Washington 98501-1091 ( 2 6/11/93 Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife Page 2 of 166 Grande Ronde Basin Fish Management Plan 1993 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION GENERAL CONSTRAINTS IMPLEMENTATION and REVIEW IITERSPECIFIC INTERACTIONS HABITAT Background and Status Basin Description Habitat Management Policies Objectives Actions SPRING CHINOOK SALMON Background and Status Origin Life History and Popu/<1fion Characteristics Angling and Harvest Management Concerns Management Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2 FALL CHINOOK SALMON Background and Status. Origin Life History and Population Characteristics Angling and Harvest Management Concerns Management Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2 COHO SALMON Background and Status Origin Life History and Population Characteristics Angling and Harvest Management Concerns Management Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife Page 3 of 166 Grande Ronde Basin Fish Management Plan 1993 3 6/11/93 CONTENTS (Continued) i Page \ SOCKEYE SALMON Background and Status Origin Life History and Population Characteristics Angling and Harvest Management Concerns Management Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2 SUMMER STEELHEAD Background and Status Origin Life History and Population Characteristics Angling and Harvest Management Concerns Management Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2 RESIDENT TROUT Background and Status Origin ( Distribution Rainbow/Redband Trout Life History and Population Characteristics Angling and Harvest Kokanee Life History and Population Characteristics Angling and Harvest Bull trout Life History and Population Characteristics. Angling and Harvest Brook trout Life History and Population Characteristics Angling and Harvest Lake trout Life History and Population Characteristics Angling and Harvest 4 6/11/93 Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife Page 4 of 166 Grande Ronde Basin Fish Management Plan 1993 CONTENTS(Continued) Page Golden trout Life History and Population Characteristics Angling and Harvest Cutthroat trout Life History and Population Characteristics Angling and Harvest Mountain whitefish Life History and Population Characteristics Angling and Harvest Management Concerns Management Alternatives Upper Grande Ronde River Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Lower Grande Ronde River Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Wallowa Lake Alternative 1 Alternative 2 High Lakes Alternative 1 Alternative 2 High Intensity Lakes Alternative 1 Alternative 2 WARMWA TER FISH SPECIES Background and Status Origin Life History and Population Characteristics Angling and Harvest Management Concerns Policies Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife Page 5 of 166 Grande Ronde Basin Fish Management Plan 1993 5 6111193 CONTENTS(Continued) Page OTHER FISH SPECIES Background and Status Origin Life History and Population Characteristics Angling and Harvest Policies ANGLING ACCESS Background and Status Policies ANGLING LAW ENFORCEMENT Background and Status Policies PRIORITIES REFERENCES APPENDIXA: TABLES APPENDIX B: SPECIES LIST ( APPENDIX C: TROUT STOCKING POLICY APPENDIX D: OAR'S ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ( 6 6/11/93 Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife Page 6 of 166 Grande Ronde Basin Fish Management Plan 1993 INTRODUCTION The Fish Management Plan for the Grande Ronde River basin was developed to guide management of fish and their habitat in the Grande Ronde River basin. This written plan identifies objectives that will be implemented by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) within the basin. This plan also ranks the important activities. With a good understanding of the stated direction within the ODFW, priorities can be better and more easily accessed when developing biennial budgets, making routine work assignments, and decision making in crisis situations. By stating objectives for managing fisheries, fish populations, and habitat, the public and ODFW will have a better understanding of the direction being taken with these activities in the Grande Ronde River basin. The plan can also be used to inform other agencies of our objectives so that fishery considerations can be included when planning other land-use activities. The Fish Management Policy of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife directs that fish management plans will be prepared for each basin or management unit. The Fish Management Plan for the Grande Ronde River Basin (hereafter referred to as the Grande Ronde River Basin Plan or the Plan) is just one part of the overall planning effort of the ODFW. Individual species plans contain statewide policies and guidelines, and provide general direction for writing basin plans. The Grande Ronde River Basin Plan incorporates appropriate portions of the above plans, and will be the primary document used to guide fishery management of the public resource in this basin. The Grande Ronde River Basin Plan was developed through an advisory process that included ODFW staff, tribal agencies, a committee of citizen advisors [Public Advisory Committee (PAC)] representing a diversity of interests in the basin, and a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) with members representing several agencies including land management and tribal representation. The Public Advisory Committee met frequently during development of the plan to offer guidance and input to the plan's content. Public Advisory Committee members are: Rod Childers Jim Coxen John Ecklund (alternate) Mac Huff Bud Jones Ed Miller Rally Paulson Bob Schnell Dave Schriner Reed Stewert Bob Weinburger The Technical Advisory Committee includes tl1e following representatives from Oregon and Washington state fishery agencies, other state natural resource agencies, Indian tribes, and federal agencies Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife Page 7 of 166 Grande Ronde Basin Fish Management Plan 19937 6/11/93 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Steve Williams Duane West Jeff Zakel Brad Smith Bill Knox Richard Carmichael Ken Witty Jim Phelps Willie Noll Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) Garrett Rudisill Oregon State Police (OSP) Bill Ables Oregon State Water Resource Division (OWRD) Kent Searles Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Debra Sturdevant Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF) Robert Bugert Glen Mendel ( Washington Department of Wildlife (WOW) Mark Schuck Nez Perce Tribe Don Bryson Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) Gary James Bureau of Land Management (SLM) Dorothy Mason Matt Kniesel U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Larry Rasmussen U S. Forest Service (USFS) John Anderson Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) Susan Broderick ( ' 8 6/11/93 Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife Page 8 of 166 Grande Ronde Basin Fish Management Plan 1993 This management plan for fish in the Grande Ronde River basin serves three purposes: 1. To record ongoing management; 2. To guide future directions that deviate from traditional or historical perspectives; and 3. To express public views of future fishery needs in the · Grande Ronde River basin. This plan is not the final definitive statement of fish management in the Grande Ronde River basin. The plan will be reviewed every two years by ODFW and members of the public to evaluate progress in achieving its objectives, to modify the plan if necessary, and to set priorities for carrying out the plan for the following two years. The scope of this plan is very broad. In addition to including species because of their potential for recreational and commercial fisheries, the plan also addresses lesser-known species that are a important part of the Grande Ronde River fauna, including some that may comprise the major food sources for the economically important species (Appendix B). Their well-being is important to the system as a whole, and they act as indicators of changes in the system. Mammals, birds, and amphibians, which interact with the rest of the system, are beyond the scope of this plan; however, their role in fisheries management will not be ignored. Portions of the habitat, steelhead, and salmon sections of the plan were originally prepared as part of the Integrated System Plan for Salmon and Steelhead Production on the Columbia River Basin (ODFW 1990, Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority 1990). Those sections have been rewritten to fit ODFWs format for Fish Management River Basin Plans and to comply with the ODFWs Natural Production and Wild Fish Management policies (OAR 635- 07-521 through 635-07-529). Organization The plan is divided into sections that discuss current management philosophy and direction, habitat, individual fish species, groups of species and angler access. Each section contains the following: 1. Background and status - historical and current information and an assessment of the current status of the species or topic. 2. Management Considerations - an explanation of alternative approaches with respect to the Wild Fish Management Policy. 3. Policies
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Stand Density Conditions for Umatilla National Forest: a Range of Variation Analysis
    WHITE PAPER F14-SO-WP-SILV-50 Stand Density Conditions for Umatilla National Forest: A Range of Variation Analysis David C. Powell; Forest Silviculturist Supervisor’s Office; Pendleton, OR Initial Version: FEBRUARY 20131 Most Recent Revision: JUNE 2013 INTRODUCTION Umatilla National Forest adopted a program-of-work (POW) process in February 2013 involving three criteria: 1. Values at risk, including human infrastructure (Johnson 2013). 2. Subwatersheds where existing stand density exceeds a range of variation for stand density. 3. Unique habitats such as old-growth forests, aspen clones, riparian habitat conserva- tion areas, and meadows (Archuleta 2013). This white paper describes a process used to assess stand density conditions for Umatilla National Forest. A Forest-wide, stand-density assessment was completed to meet project planning needs associated with criterion #2 of a POW process. This assessment uses an analytical technique called the range of variation (RV), de- fined as a range of conditions likely to have occurred in the Blue Mountains prior to Euro-American settlement in mid-1800s. A white paper (WP Silv-3) provides concepts, principles, and methods relating to range of variation (Powell 2019) – that white paper provides more information about RV. Briefly, a stand-density assessment involved 4 steps: (1) compiling a dataset charac- terizing stand density conditions for Umatilla NF, (2) stratifying density data by biophysi- cal environment, (3) completing an RV analysis by using subwatersheds as landscape units, and (4) summarizing results while also accounting for land-use restrictions. 1 White papers are internal reports; they receive only limited review. Viewpoints expressed in this paper are those of the author – they may not represent positions of USDA Forest Service.
    [Show full text]
  • Geographic Variations in Water Quality and Recreational Use Along the Upper Wallowa River and Selected Tributaries
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Theodore R. McDowellfor the degree ofDoctor of Philosophy in Geography presented on December 21, 1979 Title:Geographic Variations in Water Quality and Recreational Use Along the Upper Wallowa River and Selected Tributaries Abstract approved: Redacted for privacy Assistant Pro(sp)sornarl es Rosenfeld Physical, chemical and bacterial water quality parameters of the upper Wallowa River were sampled periodically between July 2, 1978 and June 9, 1979 at nine stream and lake sampling sites.Water upstream from Wallowa Lake was typified by low nutrient concentra- tions ( generally below detectable limits except for nitrates), low. specific conductivity (50-99 micromhos), and water temperatures below 15°C.Results of bacterial sampling were inconclusive, but sites and areas warranting further study were identified. An intensive study of spatial variations in bacterial water quality and recreational use was conducted at 15 stream and lake sampling sites on the East Fork of the Wallowa River between July 5 and September 3, 1979.Streamflow, precipitation, water temperatures, and fecal coliform bacteria counts were determined two or three times per week and during storm events.Levels and patterns of recreational use were also monitored during that period.Fecal coliform counts varied significantly (at the 0.001 p level) with geographic patterns of recreational use, but there was no significant relationship between levels of recreational use.Bacterial water quality also varied signi- ficantly (at the 0.001 p level) between
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 16. Mid-Columbia Recovery Unit—Grande Ronde River Critical Habitat Unit
    Bull Trout Final Critical Habitat Justification: Rationale for Why Habitat is Essential, and Documentation of Occupancy Chapter 16. Mid-Columbia Recovery Unit—Grande Ronde River Critical Habitat Unit 447 Bull Trout Final Critical Habitat Justification Chapter 16 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service September 2010 Chapter 16. Grande Ronde River Critical Habitat Unit The Grande Ronde River CHU is essential to the conservation of bull trout because is supports strong bull trout populations and provides high-quality habitat to potentially expand bull trout distribution and is considered to be essential for bull trout recovery in the Mid-Columbia RU. The eleven populations in this CHU are spread over a large geographical area with multiple age classes, containing both resident and fluvial fish. This bull trout stronghold also has a prey base; connectivity with the Snake River; general distribution of bull trout throughout the habitat; and varying habitat conditions. But in several of the populations, including the Wenaha River, Lostine River, Lookingglass Creek, and Little Minam River populations, excellent habitat conditions exist; many streams and rivers are designated as Wild and Scenic Rivers and/or located within or near Wilderness areas. Two wilderness areas are designated within the Grande Ronde River basin. The Eagle Cap Wilderness is located in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, encompasses 146,272 (ha) (361,446 ac), and includes most of the Minam, upper Wallowa and Lostine river drainages as well as Bear Creek and Hurricane Creek and a small portion of Catherine Creek. Federal Wild and Scenic River status is designated for the Lostine and Minam Rivers and Oregon State Scenic Waterway status is designated to the Minam and Wallowa Rivers.
    [Show full text]
  • Count of LLID and Sum of Miles Per State, RU, and Core Area for Current Presence
    Count of LLID and Sum of Miles Per State, RU, and Core Area For Current Presence STATE wa RecoveryUnit CORE_AREA NAME SumOfMILES Chilliwack River 0.424000 Columbia River 194.728000 Depot Creek 0.728000 Kettle River 0.001000 Palouse River 6.209000 Silesia Creek 0.374000 Skagit River 0.258000 Snake River 58.637000 Sumas River 1.449000 Yakima River 0.845000 Summary for 'CORE_AREA' = (10 detail records) SumMilesPerCoreArea 263.653000 CountLLIDPerCoreArea 10 SumMilesPerRUAndCoreArea 263.653000 CountLLIDPerRUAndCoreArea 10 Saturday, January 01, 2005 Page 1 of 46 STATE wa RecoveryUnit Clark Fork River Basin CORE_AREA Priest Lake NAME SumOfMILES Bench Creek 2.114000 Cache Creek 2.898000 Gold Creek 3.269000 Jackson Creek 3.140000 Kalispell Creek 15.541000 Muskegon Creek 1.838000 North Fork Granite Creek 6.642000 Sema Creek 4.365000 South Fork Granite Creek 12.461000 Tillicum Creek 0.742000 Summary for 'CORE_AREA' = Priest Lake (10 detail records) SumMilesPerCoreArea 53.010000 CountLLIDPerCoreArea 10 SumMilesPerRUAndCoreArea 53.010000 CountLLIDPerRUAndCoreArea 10 RecoveryUnit Clearwater River Basin CORE_AREA Lower and Middle Fork Clearwater River NAME SumOfMILES Bess Creek 1.770000 Snake River 0.077000 Summary for 'CORE_AREA' = Lower and Middle Fork Clearwater River (2 detail records) SumMilesPerCoreArea 1.847000 CountLLIDPerCoreArea 2 SumMilesPerRUAndCoreArea 1.847000 CountLLIDPerRUAndCoreArea 2 Saturday, January 01, 2005 Page 2 of 46 STATE wa RecoveryUnit Columbia River CORE_AREA NAME SumOfMILES Columbia River 98.250000 Summary for 'CORE_AREA'
    [Show full text]
  • Final Shoreline Master Program Southeast Washington Coalition Shoreline Master Program Update
    Planning Commission Review Draft: June 2016 BOCC Review: July 2016 Adopted: August 2016 Approved: February 28, 2017 Effective: March 9, 2017 March 2017 PREPARED FOR: ASOTIN, COLUMBIA, AND GARFIELD COUNTIES, THE CITY OF CLARKSTON, AND THE TOWN OF STARBUCK Final Shoreline Master Program Southeast Washington Coalition Shoreline Master Program Update Prepared by: Prepared with assistance from: Oneza & Associates Pineo Ecological Services, LLC 8033 W. Grandridge Boulevard, Suite A Kennewick, Washington 99336 This report was funded through a grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology March 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I: Shoreline Goals and Policies (RCW 90.58.100) ...................................................... 1 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 2 Relationship between the Growth Management Act and Shoreline Management Act ....................................................................................................................................... 1 3 Profile of the Shoreline Jurisdiction within the SE WA Region ................................ 2 3.1 Shoreline Jurisdiction Rivers ..................................................................... 2 3.2 Shorelines of Statewide Significance ........................................................ 3 4 Goals and Policies .......................................................................................................... 4 4.1 Economic Development Element ............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wallowa Falls Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-308
    Wallowa Falls Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-308) Final License Application – Volume II February 2015 _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Wallowa Falls Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-308 Before the United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Final License Application for Minor Water Power Project with Modification to Proposed Action Volume II of V Exhibit E – Environmental Report Prepared by: PacifiCorp Energy Hydro Resources 825 NE Multnomah, Suite 1500 Portland, OR 97232 February 2015 1 Wallowa Falls Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-308) Final License Application – Volume II February 2015 _______________________________________________________________________________________________ This page intentionally left blank. 2 Wallowa Falls Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-308) Final License Application – Volume II February 2015 _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Wallowa Falls Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-308) Final License Application for Minor Water Power Project with Modification to Proposed Action CONTENTS OF VOLUMES This final license application for the Wallowa Falls Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-308) consists of the following volumes: Volume I Initial Statement Exhibit A – Project Description Exhibit G – Project Maps Volume II Exhibit E – Environmental Report Volume III Exhibit E – Appendices Volume IV Exhibit F – General and Preliminary Design Drawings (CEII) Volume V Cultural Recources
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Bull Trout Redd Monitoring in the Wallowa Mountains
    2018 Bull Trout Redd Monitoring in the Wallowa Mountains Prepared by: Gretchen Sausen U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service La Grande Field Office April 8, 2019 2018 Bull Trout Redd Monitoring in the Wallowa Mountains Prepared by: Gretchen Sausen U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service La Grande Field Office April 8, 2019 ABSTRACT Bull trout were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1998 due to declining populations. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) recommends monitoring bull trout in subbasins where little is known about the populations, including the Grande Ronde and Imnaha subbasins. Spawning survey data is important for determining relative abundance and distribution trends in bull trout populations. This report summarizes the 2018 bull trout spawning data collected in the Wallowa Mountains of northeast Oregon and compares this with past years’ data. Bull trout spawning surveys have been conducted on similar index areas for selected Grande Ronde and Imnaha River streams from 1999 to 2018. These surveyed streams are located within the Wallowa River/Minam River, Lookingglass Creek/Wenaha River and Imnaha River bull trout core areas. In 2018, the Wenaha and Minam Rivers, and additional locations on Big Sheep Creek were added to the regular annual redd surveys. Surveys in 2018 were conducted by the Nez Perce Tribe (NPT), the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), the Service, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Anderson Perry, Inc., and fisheries consultants. Objectives of the survey included: (1) locate bull trout spawning areas; (2) determine redd characteristics; (3) determine bull trout timing of spawning; (4) collect spawning density data; (5) determine and compare the spatial distribution of redds along the Lostine River in 2006 through 2018; (6) document redd locations on the Wenaha, Upper Minam, Imnaha, Big Sheep, and Bear Creek in 2018; and (7) over time, use all of the data to assess local bull trout population trends and the long-term recovery of bull trout.
    [Show full text]
  • The Grande Ronde River Canyon a Few Miles Below the Mouth of the Waflowa River
    Figure 17. The Grande Ronde River Canyon a Few Miles Below the Mouth of the Waflowa River. Figure 18. A Gravel Riffle on the Lower Grande Roride River Approximately 14 Miles Above the Mouth (11-2-59). -58- Table 14.Mean Monthly Flows for the Lower Grande Ronde River Water!ear Location Oct Nov.at RondowaDec. andJan. Troy, Oregon,Feb. 1954-1957Mar. A Water Years. /J J A 1954 TroyRondowa 821543 1,059678 1,6511,035 1,5921,045 1,7542,837 1,7402,701 3,67].5,724 4,4585,568 4,5193,716 1,7982,409 988723 874613 1955 TroyRondowa 794557 845577 752504 794511 891559 1,286854 4,4623,176 6,8905,127 6,4975,556 2,6612,092 490700 705505 1956 Rondowa 657 1,112 2,737 2,501 1,421 4,034 7,390 8,964 5,852 2,6672,052 74].961 808616 1957 RondowaTroy 616910 1,540694 1,4024,189 3,494719 1,6872,085 4,1035,652 10,7805,168 11,7908,771 4,8197,543 1,450 615 51]. /InforznationTroy taken805 from USGS973 Water2,299 Supply1,044 Papers2,496 Nos. 1347,5,822 1397,7,812 1447, and11,510 1517.5,863 1,711 875 752 Table 15. Lower Grands Ronde River Moan Maximtun and Mean Minimum Daily Flows, in Cubic Foot Per Second, curing the Winter Months of the Period1953-54 through 1956-37. .21 Flow Year L2ction Sta:e Jan. Feb 1953 - 54 Rondowa High 2,070 1,850 2,190 3,270 74 728 j370 .]I1QQ Troy High 3,430 2,960 3,680 5,420 Low i.280 3Q 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Recreation Resources
    Wallowa Falls Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. P-308 Study Progress Report (Draft Technical Report) Recreation Resources 825 NE Multnomah, 1500LCT Portland, Oregon 97232 Prepared by: December 2012 For Public Review TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................... V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................ES-1 1.0 STUDY OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION .......................................................7 2.0 BACKGROUND DESCRIPTION ..........................................................................9 2.1 Study Area Definition ..................................................................................9 2.2 Nexus to Project ...........................................................................................9 2.3 Resource Management and Land Use Plans and Goals Related to Recreation ....................................................................................................9 2.3.1 State of Oregon (Oregon Parks and Recreation Department) ........10 2.3.2 Wallowa County ............................................................................12 2.3.3 U.S. Forest Service ........................................................................12 3.0 METHODS ............................................................................................................15 3.1 Recreation Supply Analysis .......................................................................15
    [Show full text]
  • Bull Trout Life History, Genetics, Habitat Needs, and Limiting Factors in Central and Northeast Oregon
    BULL TROUT LIFE HISTORY, GENETICS, HABITAT NEEDS, AND LIMITING FACTORS IN CENTRAL AND NORTHEAST OREGON 2000 ANNUAL REPORT Prepared by: Alan R. Hemmingsen Stephanie L. Gunckel Paul M. Sankovich Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Portland, OR and Philip J. Howell USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station La Grande, OR Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration Environment, Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 3621 Portland, OR 97208-3621 Project Number 199405400 Contract Number 94B134342 November 2001 Table of Contents Page I. Movement and life history of bull trout in the Walla Walla, John Day, and Grande Ronde basins……………………………………… 3 Mill Creek………………………………….………………………………... 4 John Day River………………....……………………….………..………… 9 Grande Ronde Basin…………………………….………………………… 12 II. Stream temperature monitoring………..…………………………………….. 17 III. Bull trout spawning surveys…………………………………………………… 22 IV. Acknowledgments………………...………...…………………………………. 31 V. References…………..…………………...………………………...……………. 32 2 I. Movement and life history of bull trout in the Walla Walla, John Day and Grande Ronde basins Introduction This section describes work accomplished in 2000 that continued to address two objectives of this project. These objectives are 1) determine the distribution of juvenile and adult bull trout Salvelinus confluentus and habitats associated with that distribution, and 2) determine fluvial and resident bull trout life history patterns. Completion of these objectives is intended through studies of bull trout in the Grande Ronde, Walla Walla, and John Day basins. These basins were selected because they provide a variety of habitats, from relatively degraded to pristine, and bull trout populations were thought to vary from relatively depressed to robust. In all three basins we continued to monitor the movements of bull trout with radio transmitters applied in 1998 (Hemmingsen, Bellerud, Gunckel and Howell 2001) and 1999 (Hemmingsen, Gunckel and Howell 2001).
    [Show full text]
  • Draft WRIA 35-Middle Snake Watershed Plan
    18725 WRIA 35 CVR.qxp 3/31/2006 2:01 PM Page 1 MIDDLE SNAKE WATERSHED PLAN PLANNING UNIT DRAFT April 2006 Prepared by: HDR, Inc. 2805 St. Andrews Loop, Suite A Pasco, Washington 99301 Draft April 2006 Middle Snake River Watershed Watershed Plan Executive Summary The purpose of watershed planning under the Washington Watershed Management Act (WMA) is to provide a method to help achieve a balance among competing water resource demands. Water demands for commercial, industrial, residential and agricultural activities (e.g. out of stream uses) have to be balanced with instream fish habitat needs. Demands such as irrigated agriculture provide a significant economic base for the WRIA. Critical habitat for fish species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) as well as a diversity of non-listed fish and wildlife are also dependent upon water resources. The Basin’s surface water resources also offer recreational opportunities and natural beauty for residents and visitors. Watershed Planning Process The development of a watershed plan is Phase III of voluntary watershed planning under the WMA. WMA identifies a group of “initiating governments” that are empowered to select a lead agency, apply for grant funding, determine the overall scope of planning, and convene a “Planning Unit.” The initiating governments include all counties within the WRIA, the government of the largest city or town (if applicable), the water supply utility obtaining the largest quantity of water from the WRIA, and Indian tribes with reservation lands within the management area. Funding is provided through the WMA for areas in Washington State that wish to undertake planning and specifies ground rules for use of the funding.
    [Show full text]
  • Wallowa Falls Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-308
    Wallowa Falls Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-308) Preliminary License Proposal October 2013 _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Wallowa Falls Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-308 Preliminary Licensing Proposal October 2013 1 Wallowa Falls Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-308) Preliminary License Proposal October 2013 _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Wallowa Falls Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-308 Preliminary Licensing Proposal Prepared by: PacifiCorp Energy Hydro Resources 825 NE Multnomah, Suite 1500 Portland, OR 97232 2 Wallowa Falls Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-308) Preliminary License Proposal October 2013 _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 11 1.1 Purpose of the Preliminary Licensing Proposal .......................................... 11 1.2 Process Plan and Schedule .................................................................... 13 1.3 Public Review and Comment .................................................................. 16 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ......................................... 17 2.1 No-action Alternative ............................................................................ 17 2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities ...................................................................... 17 2.1.2
    [Show full text]