Search

Search Results

• 1. [Image] Crater Lake market assessment

  	ill., maps; "Final report"--Cover; "January 1992."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Crater Lake market assessment Author: University of Oregon; Department of Planning, Public Policy, and Management; Community Planning Workshop Year: 1922, 2010 ill., maps; "Final report"--Cover; "January 1992." Title: Crater Lake market assessment Author: University of Oregon; Department of Planning, Public Policy, and Management; Community Planning Workshop Year: 1922, 2010 ill., maps; "Final report"--Cover; "January 1992." Close

• 2. [Image] Crater Lake National Park, Oregon: draft visitor services plan, environmental impact statement

  	"November 1997."; Includes bibliographical references (155-163) and index
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Crater Lake National Park, Oregon: draft visitor services plan, environmental impact statement Author: United States. National Park Service Year: 1997, 2008 "November 1997."; Includes bibliographical references (155-163) and index Title: Crater Lake National Park, Oregon: draft visitor services plan, environmental impact statement Author: United States. National Park Service Year: 1997, 2008 "November 1997."; Includes bibliographical references (155-163) and index Close

• 3. [Image] Environmental assessment draft visitor use and general development plans, parts III & IV of the general management plan, Crater Lake National Park

  	ill., maps; Includes bibliographical references (p. 183-185)
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Environmental assessment draft visitor use and general development plans, parts III & IV of the general management plan, Crater Lake National Park Author: United States. National Park Service. Denver Service Center Year: 1977, 2010 ill., maps; Includes bibliographical references (p. 183-185) Title: Environmental assessment draft visitor use and general development plans, parts III & IV of the general management plan, Crater Lake National Park Author: United States. National Park Service. Denver Service Center Year: 1977, 2010 ill., maps; Includes bibliographical references (p. 183-185) Close

• 4. [Image] Crater Lake National Park, Oregon: general management plan

  	ill., maps; Includes bibliographical references
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Crater Lake National Park, Oregon: general management plan Author: United States. National Park Service Year: 1977, 2009, 2010 ill., maps; Includes bibliographical references Title: Crater Lake National Park, Oregon: general management plan Author: United States. National Park Service Year: 1977, 2009, 2010 ill., maps; Includes bibliographical references Close

• 5. [Image] Annual project history: Klamath Project, Oregon-California, 1957

  	INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL General Description of the Project Location. The Klamath Project is in the Upper Klamath River Basin, east of the Cascade Range. It is located in Klamath County, Oregon, and ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Annual project history: Klamath Project, Oregon-California, 1957 Author: United States. Bureau of Reclamation Year: 1957, 2008, 2006 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL General Description of the Project Location. The Klamath Project is in the Upper Klamath River Basin, east of the Cascade Range. It is located in Klamath County, Oregon, and in Modoc and Siskiyou Counties of California. Project headquarters is located at the principal city of Klamath Falls, Oregon, which has a population of about 35>700, including suburbs. Smaller towns on the project in Oregon are Merrill, Malin, and Bonanza. The town of Tulelake, California, was established in 1931 near the center of the Tule Lake Division. Climate. The mean temperature for the wannest month is 630 F. The coldest month has mean temperature of 29? F. Summer nights are cool. The annual rainfall is about 13 inches, of which about 3?-inches fall during the growing season of 90 to 130 days. Topography, soils, and crops. The project area is about ^-,100 feet elevation above sea level. The surface topography is generally smooth and flat for the large areas of lake bottom, and gently sloping on the higher lands. Peat and muck soils are common in the recent lake bottoms. Soils vary from sandy loam to clay on other parts of the project. The principal crops grown are alfalfa, malting and feed barley, potatoes, clover seed, and irrigated pasture and other forage. Stock raising is an important enterprise. Industry and transportation. Farming and lumbering each provide the major portion of the economy of the Basin. Three major railroad lines, one major highway and many secondary highways, and two airlines serve the project area. Plan and purpose. The project serves 211,000 acres. The water supply is provided by two main water courses, Klamath River and Lost River and their tributaries. Besides storing, diverting, and distributing water for irrigation, project facilities have reclaimed by drainage large areas formerly inundated by Lower Klamath and Tule Lakes* Flood waters of Lost River, which terminates in Tule Lake, are diverted to the Klamath River through the Lost River Diversion Channel. This channel is also used to carry irrigation water in the opposite direction in the summertime. Another principal function of the project is water-level control for the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath Lake National Wildlife Refuges. Upper Klamath Lake on the Klamath River is the principal storage reservoir, having an active capacity of 52U,800 acre-feet. It is controlled by Link River Dam constructed, maintained, and operated INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL (Continued) General Description of the Project (Cont.) by The California Oregon Power Company under an agreement with the project whereby irrigation requirements and rights are protected. The Main, Lower Klamath, and Tule Lake Divisions are served from this source, Gerber Reservoir on Miller Creek and Clear Lake Reservoir on Lost River provide flood control for the Tule Lake Division and an irrigation supply for the Langell Valley Division. Their active storage capacities are 9*^300 acre-feet and 513*300 acre-feet, respectively. Federally-financed project works also include the diversion, distribution, and drainage systems for the Main and Tule Lake Divisions; the diversion dam and main canals for the Langell Valley Division; and drainage outlets for the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake Divisions. Title: Annual project history: Klamath Project, Oregon-California, 1957 Author: United States. Bureau of Reclamation Year: 1957, 2008, 2006 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL General Description of the Project Location. The Klamath Project is in the Upper Klamath River Basin, east of the Cascade Range. It is located in Klamath County, Oregon, and in Modoc and Siskiyou Counties of California. Project headquarters is located at the principal city of Klamath Falls, Oregon, which has a population of about 35>700, including suburbs. Smaller towns on the project in Oregon are Merrill, Malin, and Bonanza. The town of Tulelake, California, was established in 1931 near the center of the Tule Lake Division. Climate. The mean temperature for the wannest month is 630 F. The coldest month has mean temperature of 29? F. Summer nights are cool. The annual rainfall is about 13 inches, of which about 3?-inches fall during the growing season of 90 to 130 days. Topography, soils, and crops. The project area is about ^-,100 feet elevation above sea level. The surface topography is generally smooth and flat for the large areas of lake bottom, and gently sloping on the higher lands. Peat and muck soils are common in the recent lake bottoms. Soils vary from sandy loam to clay on other parts of the project. The principal crops grown are alfalfa, malting and feed barley, potatoes, clover seed, and irrigated pasture and other forage. Stock raising is an important enterprise. Industry and transportation. Farming and lumbering each provide the major portion of the economy of the Basin. Three major railroad lines, one major highway and many secondary highways, and two airlines serve the project area. Plan and purpose. The project serves 211,000 acres. The water supply is provided by two main water courses, Klamath River and Lost River and their tributaries. Besides storing, diverting, and distributing water for irrigation, project facilities have reclaimed by drainage large areas formerly inundated by Lower Klamath and Tule Lakes* Flood waters of Lost River, which terminates in Tule Lake, are diverted to the Klamath River through the Lost River Diversion Channel. This channel is also used to carry irrigation water in the opposite direction in the summertime. Another principal function of the project is water-level control for the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath Lake National Wildlife Refuges. Upper Klamath Lake on the Klamath River is the principal storage reservoir, having an active capacity of 52U,800 acre-feet. It is controlled by Link River Dam constructed, maintained, and operated INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL (Continued) General Description of the Project (Cont.) by The California Oregon Power Company under an agreement with the project whereby irrigation requirements and rights are protected. The Main, Lower Klamath, and Tule Lake Divisions are served from this source, Gerber Reservoir on Miller Creek and Clear Lake Reservoir on Lost River provide flood control for the Tule Lake Division and an irrigation supply for the Langell Valley Division. Their active storage capacities are 9*^300 acre-feet and 513*300 acre-feet, respectively. Federally-financed project works also include the diversion, distribution, and drainage systems for the Main and Tule Lake Divisions; the diversion dam and main canals for the Langell Valley Division; and drainage outlets for the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake Divisions. Close

• 6. [Image] Annual project history: Klamath Project, Oregon-California, 1958

  	INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL Genex*al Description of the Project Location. The Klamath Project is in the Upper Klamath River Basin, east of the Cascade Range. It is located in Klamath Comity, Oregon, ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Annual project history: Klamath Project, Oregon-California, 1958 Author: United States. Bureau of Reclamation Year: 1958, 2008, 2006 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL Genex*al Description of the Project Location. The Klamath Project is in the Upper Klamath River Basin, east of the Cascade Range. It is located in Klamath Comity, Oregon, and in Modoc and Siskiyou Counties of California. Project headquarters is located at the principal city of Klamath Falls, Oregon, which has a population of about 3&>^00, including suburbs. Smaller towns on the project in Oregon are Merrill, Malin, and Bonanza. The town of Tulelake, California, was established in 1931 near the center of the Tule Lake Division. Climate ? The mean temperature for the warmest month is 630 F. The coldest month has raez.n temperature of 29? F. Summer nights are cool. The annual rainfall is about 13 inches, of which about 3^ inches fall during the growing season of 90 to 130 days. Topography, soils, and crops. The project area is about U,100 feet elevation above sea level. The surface topography is generally smooth and flat for the large areas of lake bottom, and gently sloping on the higher lands? Peat and muck soils are common in the recent lake bottoms. Soils vary from sandy loam to clay on other parts of the project. The principal crops grown are alfalfa, malting and feed barley, potatoes, clover seed, and irrigated pasture and other forage. Stock raising is an important enterprise. Industry and transportation. Farming and lumbering each provide the major portion of the economy of the Basin. Three major railroad lines, one major highway and many secondary highways, and two airlines serve the project area. Plan and purpose. In 1958 the project provided irrigation service to 21^,500 acres. The water supply is provided by two main water courses, Klamath River and Lost River and their tributaries. Besides storing, diverting, and distributing water for irrigation, project facilities have reclaimed by drainage large areas formerly inundated by Lower Klamath and Tule Lakes. Flood waters of Lost River, which terminates In Tule Lake, are diverted to the Klamath River through the Lost River Diversion Channel. This channel is also used to carry irrigation water in the opposite direction in the summertime. Another principal function of the project is water-level control for the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath Lake National Wildlife Refuges. DTERODUCTIOH AND GBNKRAL (Continued) General Description of the Project (Cont.) Upper Klamath Lake on the Klamath River is the principal storage reservoir, having an active capacity of 52^,800 acre-feet. It is controlled by Link River Dam constructed, maintained, and operated by The California Oregon Power Company under an agreement with the project whereby irrigation requirements and rights are protected. The Main, Lower Klamath, and Tule Lake Divisions are served from this source. Gerber Reservoir on Miller Creel; and Clear Lake Reservoir on Lost River provide flood control for the Tule Lake Division and an irrigation supply for the Langell Valley Division. Their active storage capacities are 9*b3OO acre-feet and 513*300 acre-feet, respectively. Federally-financed project works also include the diversion, distribution, and drainage systems for the Main and Tule Lake Divisions; the diversion darn and main canals for the Langell Valley Division; and drainage outlets for the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake Divisions? Title: Annual project history: Klamath Project, Oregon-California, 1958 Author: United States. Bureau of Reclamation Year: 1958, 2008, 2006 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL Genex*al Description of the Project Location. The Klamath Project is in the Upper Klamath River Basin, east of the Cascade Range. It is located in Klamath Comity, Oregon, and in Modoc and Siskiyou Counties of California. Project headquarters is located at the principal city of Klamath Falls, Oregon, which has a population of about 3&>^00, including suburbs. Smaller towns on the project in Oregon are Merrill, Malin, and Bonanza. The town of Tulelake, California, was established in 1931 near the center of the Tule Lake Division. Climate ? The mean temperature for the warmest month is 630 F. The coldest month has raez.n temperature of 29? F. Summer nights are cool. The annual rainfall is about 13 inches, of which about 3^ inches fall during the growing season of 90 to 130 days. Topography, soils, and crops. The project area is about U,100 feet elevation above sea level. The surface topography is generally smooth and flat for the large areas of lake bottom, and gently sloping on the higher lands? Peat and muck soils are common in the recent lake bottoms. Soils vary from sandy loam to clay on other parts of the project. The principal crops grown are alfalfa, malting and feed barley, potatoes, clover seed, and irrigated pasture and other forage. Stock raising is an important enterprise. Industry and transportation. Farming and lumbering each provide the major portion of the economy of the Basin. Three major railroad lines, one major highway and many secondary highways, and two airlines serve the project area. Plan and purpose. In 1958 the project provided irrigation service to 21^,500 acres. The water supply is provided by two main water courses, Klamath River and Lost River and their tributaries. Besides storing, diverting, and distributing water for irrigation, project facilities have reclaimed by drainage large areas formerly inundated by Lower Klamath and Tule Lakes. Flood waters of Lost River, which terminates In Tule Lake, are diverted to the Klamath River through the Lost River Diversion Channel. This channel is also used to carry irrigation water in the opposite direction in the summertime. Another principal function of the project is water-level control for the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath Lake National Wildlife Refuges. DTERODUCTIOH AND GBNKRAL (Continued) General Description of the Project (Cont.) Upper Klamath Lake on the Klamath River is the principal storage reservoir, having an active capacity of 52^,800 acre-feet. It is controlled by Link River Dam constructed, maintained, and operated by The California Oregon Power Company under an agreement with the project whereby irrigation requirements and rights are protected. The Main, Lower Klamath, and Tule Lake Divisions are served from this source. Gerber Reservoir on Miller Creel; and Clear Lake Reservoir on Lost River provide flood control for the Tule Lake Division and an irrigation supply for the Langell Valley Division. Their active storage capacities are 9*b3OO acre-feet and 513*300 acre-feet, respectively. Federally-financed project works also include the diversion, distribution, and drainage systems for the Main and Tule Lake Divisions; the diversion darn and main canals for the Langell Valley Division; and drainage outlets for the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake Divisions? Close

• 7. [Image] Open File Data on the Cerro Prieto Geothermal Field

  	The Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) under the auspices of the U. S. Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) has embarked on a cooperative project with the Comisi6n Federal de Electricidad ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Open File Data on the Cerro Prieto Geothermal Field Author: Lippmann, M.J. Year: 1977 The Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) under the auspices of the U. S. Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) has embarked on a cooperative project with the Comisi6n Federal de Electricidad of Mexico (CFE) in a detailed study of the producing geothermal reservoir at Cerro Prieto, Baja California (Figure 1). Presently, 75 megawatts of electrical power are produced at Cerro Prieto; CFE plans to expand the capacity several fold over the next decade. The cooperative project incorporates studies of the geologic, hydrogeologic, geochemical and geophysical settings of the Cerro Prieto Field, as well as its reservoir engineering and subsidence characteristics Title: Open File Data on the Cerro Prieto Geothermal Field Author: Lippmann, M.J. Year: 1977 The Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) under the auspices of the U. S. Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) has embarked on a cooperative project with the Comisi6n Federal de Electricidad of Mexico (CFE) in a detailed study of the producing geothermal reservoir at Cerro Prieto, Baja California (Figure 1). Presently, 75 megawatts of electrical power are produced at Cerro Prieto; CFE plans to expand the capacity several fold over the next decade. The cooperative project incorporates studies of the geologic, hydrogeologic, geochemical and geophysical settings of the Cerro Prieto Field, as well as its reservoir engineering and subsidence characteristics Close

• 8. [Image] USDA's 2002 Ethanol Cost-of-Production Survey

  	In 2003, the U.S. Department of Agriculture surveyed 21 dry-mill ethanol plants to estimate their 2002 production costs, including both variable (feed stock and plant operation) and capital expenses. These ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: USDA's 2002 Ethanol Cost-of-Production Survey Author: Shapouri, H. Year: 2005 In 2003, the U.S. Department of Agriculture surveyed 21 dry-mill ethanol plants to estimate their 2002 production costs, including both variable (feed stock and plant operation) and capital expenses. These plants produced about 550 million gallons of ethanol in 2002. Net feedstock costs for the surveyed plants ranged from 39 to 68 cents per gallon in 2002. For cash operating expenses, the average energy expenditure was 17.29 cents per gallon. Labor costs ranged from 3 lo 11 cents per gallon, maintenance costs from 1 lo 7 cents, and administrative costs from 1 to 18 cents. For capital expenditures, new plant construction costs from $1.05 to $3.00 per gallon of ethanol. Average investment to expand existing ethanol production capacity was 50 cents per gallon; hence, expansion tends to cost less than new capacity. Comparison with a 1998 survey of ethanol producers showed that total operating costs in 2002 had changed very little from 1998. It also showed that the average cost of building new plants had dropped, possibly due to designs that emphasize economies of scale Title: USDA's 2002 Ethanol Cost-of-Production Survey Author: Shapouri, H. Year: 2005 In 2003, the U.S. Department of Agriculture surveyed 21 dry-mill ethanol plants to estimate their 2002 production costs, including both variable (feed stock and plant operation) and capital expenses. These plants produced about 550 million gallons of ethanol in 2002. Net feedstock costs for the surveyed plants ranged from 39 to 68 cents per gallon in 2002. For cash operating expenses, the average energy expenditure was 17.29 cents per gallon. Labor costs ranged from 3 lo 11 cents per gallon, maintenance costs from 1 lo 7 cents, and administrative costs from 1 to 18 cents. For capital expenditures, new plant construction costs from $1.05 to $3.00 per gallon of ethanol. Average investment to expand existing ethanol production capacity was 50 cents per gallon; hence, expansion tends to cost less than new capacity. Comparison with a 1998 survey of ethanol producers showed that total operating costs in 2002 had changed very little from 1998. It also showed that the average cost of building new plants had dropped, possibly due to designs that emphasize economies of scale Close

• 9. [Image] A Guide to Geothermal Energy and the Environment

  	Geothermal energy, defined as heat from the Earth, is a statute-recognized renewable resource. The first U.S. geothermal power plant, opened at The Geysers in California in 1960, continues to operate successfully. ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: A Guide to Geothermal Energy and the Environment Author: Kagel, A. Year: 2005 Geothermal energy, defined as heat from the Earth, is a statute-recognized renewable resource. The first U.S. geothermal power plant, opened at The Geysers in California in 1960, continues to operate successfully. The United States, as the world's largest producer of geothermal electricity, generates an average of 15 billion kilowatt hours of power per year, comparable to burning close to 25 million barrels of oil or 6 million short tons of coal per year Title: A Guide to Geothermal Energy and the Environment Author: Kagel, A. Year: 2005 Geothermal energy, defined as heat from the Earth, is a statute-recognized renewable resource. The first U.S. geothermal power plant, opened at The Geysers in California in 1960, continues to operate successfully. The United States, as the world's largest producer of geothermal electricity, generates an average of 15 billion kilowatt hours of power per year, comparable to burning close to 25 million barrels of oil or 6 million short tons of coal per year Close

• 10. [Image] New Geothermal Site Identification and Qualification. Consultant Report

  	This study identifies remaining undeveloped geothermal resources in California and western Nevada, and it estimates the Development costs of each. It has relied on public-domain information and such additional ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: New Geothermal Site Identification and Qualification. Consultant Report Author: Klein, C.W. Year: 2004 This study identifies remaining undeveloped geothermal resources in California and western Nevada, and it estimates the Development costs of each. It has relied on public-domain information and such additional data as geothermal developers have chosen to make available. Reserve estimation has been performed by volumetric analysis with a probabilistic approach to uncertain input parameters. Incremental geothermal reserves in the California/Nevada study area have a minimum value of 2,800 gross MW and a most-likely value of 4,300 gross MW. For the state of California alone, these values are 2,000 and 3,000 gross MW, respectively. These estimates may be conservative to the extent that they do not take into account resources about which little or no public-domain information is available. The average capital cost of incremental generation capacity is estimated to average $3,100/kW for the California/Nevada study area, and $2,950/kW for the state of California alone. These cost estimates include exploration, confirmation Drilling, Development Drilling, plant construction, and transmission-line costs. For the purposes of this study, a capital cost of $2,400/kW is considered competitive with other renewable resources. The amount of incremental geothermal capacity available at or below $2,400/kW is about 1,700 gross MW for the California/Nevada study area, and the same amount (within 50-MW rounding) for the state of California alone. The capital cost estimates are only approximate, because each developer would bring its own experience, bias, and opportunities to the Development process. Nonetheless, the overall costs per project estimated in this study are believed to be reasonable Title: New Geothermal Site Identification and Qualification. Consultant Report Author: Klein, C.W. Year: 2004 This study identifies remaining undeveloped geothermal resources in California and western Nevada, and it estimates the Development costs of each. It has relied on public-domain information and such additional data as geothermal developers have chosen to make available. Reserve estimation has been performed by volumetric analysis with a probabilistic approach to uncertain input parameters. Incremental geothermal reserves in the California/Nevada study area have a minimum value of 2,800 gross MW and a most-likely value of 4,300 gross MW. For the state of California alone, these values are 2,000 and 3,000 gross MW, respectively. These estimates may be conservative to the extent that they do not take into account resources about which little or no public-domain information is available. The average capital cost of incremental generation capacity is estimated to average $3,100/kW for the California/Nevada study area, and $2,950/kW for the state of California alone. These cost estimates include exploration, confirmation Drilling, Development Drilling, plant construction, and transmission-line costs. For the purposes of this study, a capital cost of $2,400/kW is considered competitive with other renewable resources. The amount of incremental geothermal capacity available at or below $2,400/kW is about 1,700 gross MW for the California/Nevada study area, and the same amount (within 50-MW rounding) for the state of California alone. The capital cost estimates are only approximate, because each developer would bring its own experience, bias, and opportunities to the Development process. Nonetheless, the overall costs per project estimated in this study are believed to be reasonable Close