Search
Search Results
-
1. [Image] Distribution and habitat use of bull trout following the removal of nonnative brook trout
ill.; Printout; Thesis (M.S.)--Oregon State University, 2006; Includes bibliographical references (leaves 55-61)Citation -
2. [Image] Trout Farming in Montana
Due to the abundant supply of clean fresh water, many areas of Montana are natural locations for trout farming. Many trout ponds are planted and maintained privately for the sole use of the owner; however, ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Trout Farming in Montana
- Author:
- Quarve, P.L.
- Year:
- 1973
Due to the abundant supply of clean fresh water, many areas of Montana are natural locations for trout farming. Many trout ponds are planted and maintained privately for the sole use of the owner; however, the opportunity exists for commercial trout farming in Montana. Some commercial trout farming is currently being done, but this is only a small fraction of what could be developed
-
ill., 1 map (sketched) ; Report title; "Drought conditions are continuing in 1994, at the writing of this report in March of 1994, Crater Lake National Park had received approximately 50% of the annual ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Bull trout restoration and brook trout eradication at Crater Lake National Park, Oregon
- Author:
- Buktenica, Mark.
- Year:
- 1994, 2008, 2009
ill., 1 map (sketched) ; Report title; "Drought conditions are continuing in 1994, at the writing of this report in March of 1994, Crater Lake National Park had received approximately 50% of the annual average accumulated precipatation to date." - P. 17.;
-
ill.,; Report title; "On October 7 and 8, 1991 an advisory panel\recovery team met at Crater Lake National Park to review the status of the park's only native fish population, and to develop recommendations ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- The Bull trout (salvelinus confluentus) population within Crater Lake National Park: summarized information relating to its conservation and perpetuation
- Author:
- Pister, Edwin P.
- Year:
- 1992, 2010
ill.,; Report title; "On October 7 and 8, 1991 an advisory panel\recovery team met at Crater Lake National Park to review the status of the park's only native fish population, and to develop recommendations for a recovery program to restore the Sun Creek Bull Trout population to historic range and abundance within Crater Lake National Park." - P. [ii].;
-
Ill., map; Typescript; Map of Crater Lake National Park and vicinity, issued by the U.S. Geological Survey, edition of 1946; Thesis (M.S.)--Oregon State College, 1948; Includes bibliographical references ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Trout studies and a stream survey of Crater Lake National Park, Oregon
- Author:
- Wallis, O. L.
- Year:
- 1948, 2008
Ill., map; Typescript; Map of Crater Lake National Park and vicinity, issued by the U.S. Geological Survey, edition of 1946; Thesis (M.S.)--Oregon State College, 1948; Includes bibliographical references (leaves 118-120)
-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE BULL TROUT RECOVERY PLAN Current Species Status The bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the coterminous United States was listed as threatened on November 1, 1999 (64 ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Bull Trout, Salvelinus Confluentus... Draft Recovery Plan, Chapter 1, Introduction...
- Author:
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
- Year:
- 2003, 2008, 2005
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE BULL TROUT RECOVERY PLAN Current Species Status The bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the coterminous United States was listed as threatened on November 1, 1999 (64 FR 58910). Earlier rulemakings had listed distinct population segments of bull trout as threatened in the Columbia River, Klamath River, and Jarbidge River basins (63 FR 31647, 63 FR 42757, 64 FR 17110). Bull trout distribution, abundance, and habitat quality have declined rangewide. Several local extirpations have been documented, beginning in the 1950fs. Bull trout continue to occur the Klamath River, Columbia River, Jarbidge River, St. Mary-Belly River, and Coastal-Puget Sound, in the states of Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements than most other salmonids. Habitat components that influence bull trout distribution and abundance include water temperature, cover, channel form and stability, substrate for spawning and rearing, and migratory corridors. Bull trout are found in colder streams and require colder water than most other salmonids for incubation, juvenile rearing, and spawning. Spawning and rearing areas are often associated with cold-water springs, groundwater infiltration, and/or the coldest streams in a watershed. Throughout their lives, bull trout require complex forms of cover, including large woody debris, undercut banks, boulders, and pools. Alterations in channel form and reductions in channel stability result in habitat degradation and reduced survival of bull trout eggs and juveniles. Channel alterations may reduce the abundance and quality of side channels, stream margins, and pools, which are areas bull trout frequently inhabit. For spawning and early rearing bull trout require loose, clean gravel relatively free of fine sediments. Because bull trout have a relatively long incubation and development period within spawning gravel (greater than 200 days), transport of bedload in unstable channels may kill young bull trout. Bull trout use migratory corridors to move from spawning and rearing habitats to foraging and overwintering habitats and back. Different habitats provide bull trout with diverse resources, and migratory corridors allow local populations to connect, which may increase the potential for gene flow and support or refounding of populations. Declines in bull trout distribution and abundance are the results of combined effects of the following: habitat degradation and fragmentation, the blockage of migratory corridors, poor water quality, angler harvest and poaching, entrainment (process by which aquatic organisms are pulled through a diversion structure or other device) into diversion channels and dams, and introduced iv normative species. Specific land and water management activities that continue to depress bull trout populations and degrade habitat include dams and other diversion structures, forest management practices, livestock grazing, agriculture, road construction and maintenance, mining, and urban and rural development. Some threats to bull trout are the continuing effects of past land management activities. Organization and Development of the Recovery Plan Because bull trout in the coterminous United States are widely distributed within a large area, the recovery plan is organized into multiple chapters. This introductory chapter (Chapter 1) describes our overall recovery strategy for the species, defines recovery, and identifies recovery actions applicable for all listed bull trout in the coterminous United States. Each successive chapter focuses on bull trout in specific geographic areas (recovery units), and describes conditions, defines recovery criteria, and identifies specific recovery actions for the recovery unit. Recovery Objectives The goal of this recovery plan is to describe the actions needed to achieve the recovery of bull trout, that is, to ensure the long-term persistence of self-sustaining, complex interacting groups (or multiple local populations that may have overlapping spawning and rearing areas) of bull trout distributed across the species' native range. Recovery of bull trout will require reducing threats to the long-term persistence of populations, maintaining multiple interconnected populations of bull trout across the diverse habitats of their native range, and preserving the diversity of bull trout life-history strategies (e.g., resident or migratory forms, emigration age, spawning frequency, local habitat adaptations). To recover bull trout, the following four objectives have been identified: ? Maintain current distribution of bull trout within core areas as described in recovery unit chapters and restore distribution where recommended in recovery unit chapters. ? Maintain stable or increasing trend in abundance of bull trout. ? Restore and maintain suitable habitat conditions for all bull trout life history stages and strategies. ? Conserve genetic diversity and provide opportunity for genetic exchange. ? These objectives apply to bull trout in all recovery units. Additional objectives may be necessary to achieve recovery in some recovery units and will be identified in the respective recovery unit chapters. Recovery Criteria Criteria are established to assess whether recovery objectives are being achieved. Criteria specific to each recovery unit are defined in each recovery unit chapter. Individual chapters may contain criteria for assessing the status of bull trout and alleviation of threats that are unique to one or several recovery units. However, every recovery unit chapter will contain criteria that address the following characteristics: ? The distribution of bull trout in identified and potential local populations in all core areas within the recovery unit. ? The estimated abundance of adult bull trout within core areas in the recovery unit, expressed as either a point estimate or a range of individuals. ? The presence of stable or increasing trends for adult bull trout abundance in the recovery unit. ? The restoration of passage at specific barriers identified as inhibiting recovery. We expect recovery of bull trout to be a dynamic process occurring over time. The recovery objectives are based on our current knowledge and may be refined as more information becomes available. Some local populations of bull trout, and possibly core area populations, may be extirpated even though recovery actions are being implemented. If reestablishment of recently extirpated populations is not feasible or practical, recovery criteria for a given recovery unit will be revised on a case-by-case basis. Meeting the four recovery criteria is not intended to be precluded where localized extirpations of bull trout are offset by sufficiently strong improvements in other areas of a recovery unit in meeting the four recovery objectives. The determination of whether a distinct population segment of bull trout is recovered will rely on an analysis of the overall status of the species, threats to the species, and the adequacy of existing regulatory and conservation mechanisms. For example, it may be possible for the Columbia River Distinct Population Segment, which has 22 recovery units, to be recovered prior to all recovery unit criteria being met in all recovery units. Success in accomplishing the recovery VI criteria will be reviewed and considered for the impacts both within a recovery unit and throughout a distinct population segment. Actions Needed Specific tasks falling within the following seven categories will be necessary to initiate recovery within all recovery units: ? Protect, restore, and maintain suitable habitat conditions for bull trout. ? Prevent and reduce negative effects of normative fishes and other normative taxa on bull trout. ? Establish fisheries management goals and objectives compatible with bull trout recovery and implement practices to achieve goals. ? Characterize, conserve, and monitor genetic diversity and gene flow among local populations of bull trout. ? Conduct research and monitoring to implement and evaluate bull trout recovery activities, consistent with an adaptive management approach using feedback from implemented, site-specific recovery tasks. ? Use all available conservation programs and regulations to protect and conserve bull trout and bull trout habitats. ? Assess the implementation of bull trout recovery by recovery units and revise recovery unit plans based on evaluations. Recovery Priority Number The recovery priority number for bull trout in the coterminous United States is 9C, on a scale of 1 to 18, indicating that (1) taxonomically, these populations are distinct population segments of a species, (2) the five populations are subject to a moderate degree of threat(s), (3) the recovery potential is high, and (4) the degree of potential conflict during recovery is high. vrr Estimated Cost of Recovery The total cost estimate of recovery for bull trout in the coterminous United States is presented in the individual recovery unit chapters. The costs presented in each chapter are attributed to bull trout conservation but other species will also benefit. Date of Recovery Expected time to achieve recovery varies among recovery units because of differences in bull trout status, factors affecting bull trout, implementation and effectiveness of recovery tasks, and responses to recovery tasks. Achieving bull trout recovery in all recovery units will be a complex process that will likely take 25 years or more. vin
-
ill.; Report title; "Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Falls, Oregon." - T.p.; Includes bibliographic references
Citation -
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Limited historical references indicate that bull trout Salvelinus confluentus in Oregon were once widely spread throughout at least 12 basins in the Klamath River and Columbia River ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Status of Oregon's bull trout : distribution, life history, limiting factors, management considerations, and status
- Author:
- Buchanan, David V; Hanson, Mary L; Hooton, Robert M
- Year:
- 1997, 2007, 2005
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Limited historical references indicate that bull trout Salvelinus confluentus in Oregon were once widely spread throughout at least 12 basins in the Klamath River and Columbia River systems. No bull trout have been observed in Oregon's coastal systems. A total of 69 bull trout populations in 12 basins are currently identified in Oregon. A comparison of the 1991 bull trout status (Ratliff and Ho well 1992) to the revised 1996 status found that 7 populations were newly discovered and 1 population showed a positive or upgraded status while 22 populations showed a negative or downgraded status. The general downgrading of 32% of Oregon's bull trout populations appears largely due to increased survey efforts and increased survey accuracy rather than reduced numbers or distribution. However, three populations in the upper Klamath Basin, two in the Walla Walla Basin, and one in the Willamette Basin showed decreases in estimated population abundance or distribution. Some Oregon river basins have bull trout populations at extreme risk of extinction. This statewide status review listed only 19% of the bull trout populations in Oregon with a ulow risk of extinction" or "of special concern." Therefore, 81% of Oregon's bull trout populations are considered to be at a "moderate risk of extinction," "high risk of extinction," or "probably extinct." Populations in the Hood, Klamath, and Powder basins, as well as the Odell Lake population in the Deschutes basin, which contain only a few remaining bull trout, are examples of populations having a "moderate" or "high risk" of extinction. Approximately 55% of current bull trout distribution occurs on lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service. A much smaller proportion occurs on Bureau of Land Management managed lands (2%). Only 16% of current bull trout distribution occurs within a protected area defined as Wilderness, Wild and Scenic River, or within a National Park. The Northwest Forest Plan, Inland Native Fish Strategy, and Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California have provided increased protection for bull trout habitat depending on their scope and geographic areas affected, and the extent to which they are being effectively implemented in watersheds containing bull trout. Recent reduction in timber production on National Forests (up to 50% in western Oregon National Forests and over 30% in eastern Oregon National Forests) should help improve riparian and stream habitat conditions for bull trout. The remaining bull trout distribution occurs on private, state, or tribal owned lands. A comparison of approximately 39 locations throughout the state with protective angling regulations on bull trout (in some areas more than one bull trout population is protected by one regulation) shows that all state managed areas were upgraded in a protective angling status or at least maintained in 1996 compared to 1989. Restrictive angling regulations prohibit angler harvest of all bull trout populations in Oregon except for one in the Deschutes Basin. Restrictive bull trout angling regulation changes (including the elimination of bull Vll trout harvest in all spawning areas) may be the major reasons why the Metolius River/Lake Billy Chinook and mainstem McKenzie River populations have shown significant increases in abundance. Statewide stocking of non-native brook trout, including the high lakes stocking program, has been discontinued in locations where managers believe brook trout could migrate downstream and potentially interact with native bull trout. Hatchery stocking of legal rainbow trout to promote recreational fisheries has been discontinued in most locations near bull trout populations to avoid incidental catch of bull trout. The spatial and temporal distributions of bull trout reported for each river basin in this status report should be used as an accurate baseline for fisheries managers. Current distribution and relative change of distribution should be useful indicators of population health and status. The GIS maps in this report provide a template to add new layers of data such as critical spawning and juvenile rearing areas, or as a method to compare distribution changes through time. Length frequency data are presented for most Oregon bull trout populations. This should provide estimates for the presence of multiple age classes and the percent of fluvial size life history component. Vlll
-
9. [Image] The trout and salmon of the Pacific coast
This article is an overview of the variety of trout and salmon that are found in Oregon and Washington states.Citation -
10. [Image] Upper Klamath Basin bull trout conservation strategy : part 1, a conceptual framework for recovery, final
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document presents the framework of a plan to reverse the decline of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) populations in the Klamath Basin. If successful, we expect bull trout ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Upper Klamath Basin bull trout conservation strategy : part 1, a conceptual framework for recovery, final
- Author:
- Light, Jeffrey
- Year:
- 1996, 2008, 2005
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document presents the framework of a plan to reverse the decline of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) populations in the Klamath Basin. If successful, we expect bull trout to recover to a level where they will have a reasonable chance of long-term viability. The work is the collective effort of fish biologists, foresters, other natural resource management professionals, and local landowners representing a diverse array of interests and organizations. Together, these individuals have worked for several years to gather information pertaining to the distribution and status of Klamath bull trout populations and threats to their persistence. The members of the Bull Trout Working Group share the common desire to restore bull trout populations while at the same time sustaining their respective land use interests in the Klamath Basin. This approach provides incentives to all the interested parties to seek agreement on solutions, encouraging cooperative work on an otherwise ambitious and daunting task. The following few pages summarize the plan. Each area is covered again in greater detail in the body of the document. The goals established by the Bull Trout Working Group for this recovery plan are to (1) Secure existing bull trout populations, and (2) Expand the populations to some of their former range and numbers. We pursue these goals with a three step approach of assessment, implementation, and evaluation. We begin with a review of the distribution and status of bull trout generally, then specifically within the Klamath Basin. Next we present available data and interpretations supporting our conclusions regarding the type, magnitude, and extent of physical and biological factors or concerns that may hamper bull trout persistence. Land and fish management activities that contribute to these problem situations are then identified. This is followed by a blueprint for stepwise development and implementation of practical solutions. Finally, a monitoring plan is proposed to measure the success of the recovery efforts. The Klamath Basin Bull trout populations represent a valuable biological resource. These populations exist at the southern edge of the species' distribution, and have distinctive genetic character. In the Upper Klamath River Basin, bull trout are presently found as resident forms in eight isolated headwater streams within six small drainages. (4Headwater streams' in this document refers to very small streams, rather than rivers which are the headwaters for larger rivers). These streams occur in three general locations: they are tributaries of the Sprague River, of the Sycan River and of Upper Klamath Lake. Together, the known populations occupy approximately 23 miles (37 km) of perennial streams. Formerly, bull trout may have occurred in the mainstems of these systems (Gilbert 1897. Dambacher et al. 1992, Roger Smith, ODFW, pers. coram. 1994). In addition to existing populations, other populations are known to have recently occupied nearby streams (Cherry and Coyote creeks, the Upper Sycan River). Estimated current population sizes in each drainage range between 133 and 1,293, indicating that populations are low enough to warrant concern. These population sizes are smaller than the minimum viable population sizes predicted by conservation biology theory. A substantial risk of extirpation via natural disturbance cycles and stochastic events exists for such small populations. Streams that are presently inhabited by bull trout are typically small and spring-fed with steep gradients. They originate in the higher elevations of mountains within the Upper Klamath Basin and flow through forests where land uses range from wilderness and national parkland to commercial forestry and grazing. Eventually, these tributaries or their mainstem receiving waters leave the forest and flow through broad sagebrush-covered valleys or marshes where they widen and flatten. Here livestock grazing and agriculture are the dominant land uses. An assessment of the current situation regarding Klamath Basin bull trout was performed using existing and new information on life history, distribution, habitat requirements by lifestage, environmental requirements, exotic species interactions, angling pressure, land use interactions, habitat fragmentation, population fragmentation and many other factors. Basin-specific information on each of these factors was collected and analyzed, complemented by a thorough review of the literature. Past, present and possible future distributions of bull trout were examined. Particular emphasis was placed on determining the nature and extent of biotic interactions, because this potential agent of bull trout decline has not been thoroughly addressed in other works. Analysis of the assembled information resulted in the identification of several specific natural and anthropogenic factors which are thought to limit the distribution and persistence of bull trout. Habitat quality and quantity are affected by land use to some degree in all currently inhabited bull trout streams except upper Sun Creek. Generally, habitat conditions vary from fair to good in existing bull trout streams. We identified several land uses that have reduced habitat quality. Principal among the abiotic factors of concern is fine sediment loading from (1) road erosion, (2) stream bank and adjacent ground disturbance by livestock, and (3) Bull Trout Document - Final - - 6 - 26-Jan-96 stream-adjacent hillslope erosion from logging. Second among the abiotic factors of concern is elevated temperature. Other concerns include diminished large woody debris (LWD) recruitment, declining bank integrity, low flows, changes in stream morphology, and blocked or hindered fish passage. The relative importance of each of these factors or concerns differs by watershed, or by location within a watershed. In most cases, information on specific issues and their locations is available with sufficient resolution to allow land managers to develop action plans to address them. Possible exceptions may include Deming Creek, where Watershed Analysis has not yet been performed. Based on the assessment results to date, the following strategy was developed to address limiting factors and concerns. Competitive and genetic interactions with non-native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) were found to be important biotic factors currently threatening the persistence of bull trout in the Klamath Basin. This conclusion was based on the almost pervasive presence of these exotic competitors and the significance of their negative interactions as determined from the literature and from local observations in headwater streams. Temperature may be a significant issue, especially for juvenile rearing, although the temperature tolerances of bull trout are not well understood. Habitat fragmentation and alteration appear to have been major issues in the past, resulting in population fragmentation, particularly at lower elevations and in larger streams where bull trout may have ranged historically. These final two factors appear less important than exotic competitors or temperature for bull trout in the current limited ranges in headwater streams, though they are important in mainstems and larger tributaries. They will need to be addressed if large scale restoration is undertaken. With the exceptions of temperature and fine sediment, brook trout have habitat requirements and environmental tolerances similar to bull trout, and they thrive in many Klamath Basin headwater streams while bull trout do not. Brown trout pose a competitive threat similar to that posed by brook trout, but the mechanisms of displacement and the areas where they occur differ. Even in environments unaltered by land management, such as Sun Creek within Crater Lake National Park, exotic trout are displacing bull trout. This conclusion is consistent with findings throughout the west, where competition with exotic species has clearly had a major effect on bull trout range, resulting in widespread declines in bull trout distribution. Changes in habitat may have altered competitive interactions between bull trout and other salmonids, both directly and indirectly. Since changes in environmental factors can exacerbate competition issues in sensitive populations, habitat condition remains a concern. Near-term, mid-term, and long-term strategy for Recovery of Bull Trout Populations Our approach to recovery of the Klamath basin's bull trout populations is a two-phase effort corresponding to near- and mid-term objectives, and an examination of possible long-term recovery objectives. It entails securing and maintaining existing populations followed by expansion into former headwater and downstream habitats, and ultimately the possibility of connecting tributaries with mainstem linkages. Assessment, research and monitoring needs associated with each phase were identified (see main body of text). Specific project details such as funding, work schedules, participant responsibilities, specific actions, implementation methods and costs are not presented but are to be developed collectively by the Bull Trout Working Group. Phase 1: Securing existing populations This phase of the recovery plan focuses on the six small drainages where bull trout populations are known to exist today. Here we wish to prevent further decline of individual populations as a step toward securing the viability of the Klamath Basin metapopulation(s).1 This is accomplished by addressing biotic and abiotic factors that threaten the persistence of these populations. The most immediate threat is the continued presence of non-native salmonids. Localized areas of habitat degradation or alteration from sediment inputs and shade removal are an additional serious concern. It may be feasible to isolate bull trout populations above barriers, followed by eradication of brook and brown trout within each isolated stream reach. This approach will be tested early in Phase 7, with particular attention to unforeseen consequences on the ecology of the test streams. Assuming it is viable, this approach will become the focus of Phases 1 & 2, in parallel with habitat enhancement efforts. Habitat enhancement is generally feasible, particularly in areas where roads or livestock are the issues. Where needed, such habitat enhancement efforts are expected to be completed as part of Phases 1&2. It will be necessary to understand the distribution of genetic variation among existing sub-populations of bull trout in order to embark on a well 1 For an understanding of metapopulation considerations, see the body of the text, in particular the section on 'Metapopulations and sub-populations' on page 60. Bull Trout Document - Final - - 7 - 26-Jan-96 directed range expansion program. Baseline data would be essential for genetic monitoring activities and for the development of stocks for establishing new sub-populations in subsequent phases. If successful, the actions taken in Phase 1 are expected to eliminate the direct threats to existing bull trout sub-populations posed by non-native salmonids. Parallel efforts to improve the in-stream physical environment to ensure habitat is suitable for bull trout are expected to eliminate proximate environmental threats to existing bull trout sub-populations. This effort will require that abiotic limiting factors and concerns be addressed via land management activities, most of which fall within the realm of forest land management. Timber harvest and regeneration, roads (construction, use, and maintenance), and livestock grazing programs are considered. Immediate actions may take the form of road erosion abatement, including road abandonment and revegetation. Some of these actions can be accomplished when a particular unit is harvested, while others may be pursued as independent restoration activities (e.g., livestock management plans, culvert replacements). Presently, no in-stream fish habitat improvement projects have been proposed, and none are foreseen for stream reaches affected by this phase of the recovery plan. Most of the concerns related to livestock are focused within the riparian zone. Some riparian locations are much more sensitive than others, for example the large meadow in Long Creek. Actions to address these concerns will vary by landowner and location, and may range from complete riparian exclosure to short-term grazing to continuous but moderate access. The preferred actions will depend on the success of these various strategies in bringing about the desired response of the channel and fish habitat, and can be expected to change as recovery of riparian areas progresses. Effectiveness monitoring will be invaluable for measuring the success of these efforts, and in adapting our management strategy during the implementation. No water diversion concerns have been identified for this phase of the plan, except for Deming Creek, where screening of irrigation ditches may be warranted. Some additional fish management actions may also be applicable in Phase 7, for example to continue to monitor compliance with existing no kill regulations in bull trout streams. Other pertinent fish management issues have been addressed already, for example the cessation of exotic trout stocking (brook, brown or non-native rainbow) in bull trout streams. Phase 2: Expanding the range of bull trout within headwater streams In Phase 2, bull trout populations are refounded in headwater streams which now support brook trout, e.g. Calahan and Cherry creeks, or possibly in creeks without fish, e.g. Sheep Creek on the North Fork Sprague. This serves to expand the number of sub-populations, increases the number of refugia, and increases the overall size of the Klamath metapopulation(s). This is a major step in the establishment of viable metapopulations; by increasing the number of sub-populations, the effect of the loss or decline of any particular sub-population is reduced, making the metapopulation(s) more resilient to natural disturbance, variations in breeding success, disease outbreaks and other stochastic factors. Phase 2 consists of two parts: Phase 2a, in which sub-populations are founded in streams which only recently lost bull trout (e.g. Cherry Creek, Coyote Creek and the upper Sycan River) and Phase 2b, in which sub-populations are founded in other suitable headwater habitat, as indicated by the presence of thriving brook trout sub-populations (e.g. Sevenmile Creek, Calahan Creek, Annie Creek, Camp Creek, Jackson Creek, Deep Creek and Corral Creek). Both parts of Phase 2 are accomplished in much the same way as Phase 7: Barriers are constructed to exclude brook trout and brown trout, then the exotic species are eradicated above the barriers. Bull trout populations are then founded with human-introduced bull trout, whether via transplantation from wild sources or from a hatchery. Care must be exercised to maintain adequate genetic diversity in the founded sub-populations as establishment of genetically healthy populations is a non-trivial task. An inherent risk in newly created sub-populations is the loss of genetic variation (founder effect), which if great enough can reduce the vigor of the population and its long-term viability. As in Phase 7, stresses from abiotic factors, such as excessive delivery of fine sediment, low flows, or warm water temperatures, need to be reduced in parallel with the removal of exotics. Streamside roads, road crossings, low flows in upper reaches, and livestock are situations of concern in many of the streams, and warm temperatures are in some. Also as in phase 7, monitoring for the presence of exotics, bull trout population parameters, and abiotic factors is an important follow-up activity to track and ensure long-term success. In addition, genetic monitoring of newly founded populations is indicated. Bull Trout Document - Final - -8- 26-Jan-96 A possible future direction after Phase 2 Once Phase 2 is complete, the Bull Trout Working Group will pause to assess the efforts completed and plan future efforts. If phases 1 and 2 are successful, there will be significant numbers of bull trout in various tributaries, but possibly little genetic exchange between them. Bull trout range may still be restricted to headwater streams. During the evaluation and reassessment of the recovery effort, the group will re-consider the long-term recovery objectives. Based on what we know now, two possible recovery objectives are likely to be considered. The first such possible objective is the establishment of natural movement corridors between adjacent headwater streams, thereby establishing complete and viable metapopulation(s) of bull trout within the Upper Klamath Basin. Connectivity between headwater streams would allow volitional movement of bull trout. Movement would allow dispersal, founding of new sub-populations, and interbreeding between sub-populations, within the local sub-basin. Establishing natural movement corridors between headwater streams may require that selected reaches of larger tributaries or even portions of mainstem rivers be restored to suitable habitat for bull trout. This would be an ambitious undertaking, which may be infeasible. It might require the elimination or exclusion of exotics, the removal of man-made barriers which prevent movement between streams, or alterations in current land use to reduce anthropogenically induced fine sediment loads, low flows, warm stream temperatures, or changes in channel morphology. The change in focus from headwater streams to larger tributaries represents an escalation in the scale and complexity of the restoration effort. Exclusion of exotics is much more difficult. Land use effects, whether from water diversions or livestock grazing are often more significant. The second possible objective of future efforts after Phase 2 is to attemp to re-establish fluvial populations of bull trout in selected mainstem rivers of the Upper Klamath Basin, in such a way as to connect the sub-populations of each metapopulation. Fluvial bull trout are far larger than stream resident bull trout, and have much higher fecundity as a result. This gives them a tremendous advantage in breeding, whether in founding new sub-populations, or augmenting existing sub-populations. By establishing a fluvial form of bull trout in the Upper Klamath Basin, overall viability of the metapopulation(s) should be greatly increased. Timeline for implementation A prototype Phase 1 implementation is likely to be completed within 2-5 years. Full implementation of Phase 1 may take many years, but the bulk of the work could be completed in 10-20 years. Further assessment work and some aspects of Phase 2 will be accomplished concurrent with Phase 1 efforts over the next several years, but may require 5-10 years before being well underway. Specific timelines for individual projects in phases 1 and 2 and the overall recovery effort will be developed by the Bull Trout Working Group. Summary and prognosis for bull trout populations in the Upper Klamath River Basin If our analysis is accurate, the Klamath Basin's native bull trout populations are imperiled, yet their future need not be bleak. They persist today as a handful of isolated sub-populations in small, headwater streams. If a fluvial life history form existed, as it may have at one time in the Wood River2, no longer occurs or is a very small (i.e., undetectable) component of the current Klamath River Basin population. Gene flow between these sub-populations has apparently ceased. Individual population sizes are small enough to be near or below minimum viable levels as defined by current theorists in conservation biology. Competition from introduced brook and brown trout is widespread, with severe long-term consequences. Habitat conditions vary from stream to stream, depending on the nature and extent of land uses around and downstream of the bull trout tributaries. Fine sediment inputs and elevated stream temperatures are the principal habitat issue. Water withdrawals, altered channels and flood plains, and other anthropogenic influences have contributed to loss of mainstem fluvial habitat, and may have ultimately resulted in habitat fragmentation, followed by isolation of the remaining populations. Together, these conditions do not bode well for the longevity of native bull trout populations. We believe concerted efforts to resolve the identified problems can achieve the goals of maintaining, and possibly restoring, Klamath bull trout populations. Further, we believe that without attention, one or more of the identified limiting factors will almost certainly spell an end to most or all of the sub-populations in the basin. 2 A 330 mm specimen was collected from Fort Creek, a tributary to the Wood River, in 1876. Cited in Cavendar 1978; Smithsonian Accession Number 16793. Bull Trout Document - Final - -9 - 26-Jan-96
-
KLAMATH RIVER RECOVERY UNIT CHAPTER OF THE BULL TROUT RECOVERY PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CURRENT SPECIES STATUS Klamath River bull trout were listed as a distinct population segment ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Bull Trout, Salvelinus Confluentus... Draft Recovery Plan, Chapter 2, Klamath River Recovery Unit...U.S. Department Of The Interior
- Year:
- 2008, 2005
KLAMATH RIVER RECOVERY UNIT CHAPTER OF THE BULL TROUT RECOVERY PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CURRENT SPECIES STATUS Klamath River bull trout were listed as a distinct population segment in 1998 (63 FR 31647) because they are physically isolated from other bull trout by the Pacific Ocean and several small mountain ranges in central Oregon. Recovery of bull trout in the Klamath River Recovery Unit, which includes three core areas and nine currently identified local populations, will require cooperation from Federal, State, and local agencies, and Tribal and private entities. Within the Klamath River Recovery Unit, abundance has been severely reduced and remaining populations are fragmented. HABITAT REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITING FACTORS Watershed disruption has played a major role in the decline of bull trout in the Klamath River basin. The effects of historical land use on fish habitat in the larger tributaries and mainstem rivers of the Klamath River basin have been profound. Channelization, water withdrawals, removal of streamside vegetation, and other disturbances have altered the aquatic environment by elevating water temperatures, reducing water quantity and quality, and increasing sedimentation. Changes in or disruptions to watershed processes that influence characteristics of stream channels have also influenced the dynamics and persistence of bull trout populations. Klamath River basin bull trout are threatened by habitat degradation, past and present land use management practices, agricultural water diversions, and competition or hybridization from normative brown and brook trout. As a result of past land and resource management practices, bull trout populations in the Klamath River Recovery Unit are small, disjunct, and face a high risk of extirpation. IV RECOVERY GOAL AND OBJECTIVES The goal of the bull trout recovery plan is to ensure the long-term persistence of self-sustaining, complex interacting groups of bull trout distributed across the species range, so that the species can be delisted. In order to recover bull trout in the Klamath River, the following objectives need to be met: ? Maintain current distribution of bull trout and restore distribution in previously occupied areas within the Klamath River Recovery Unit, as noted in Appendix A. ? Maintain stable or increasing trends in abundance of bull trout within the Klamath River. This objective includes the expression of all life history strategies including resident, fluvial, and adfluvial forms in the Upper Klamath Lake core area and resident and fluvial forms in the Sycan River and Upper Sprague River core areas. ? Restore and maintain suitable habitat conditions for all bull trout life history stages and strategies. In core areas and migration corridors, stable or upward trends in habitat quality are achieved through landscape-level adjustments in land management strategies designed to maintain and/or enhance structural and functional attributes of upslope, riparian, and fluvial systems. ? Conserve genetic diversity and provide opportunity for interchange of genetic material among appropriate core populations. RECOVERY CRITERIA Recovery criteria for the Klamath River Recovery Unit reflect the stated objectives and consideration of population and habitat characteristics within the recovery unit. Using four population and habitat elements, the Klamath River Recovery Unit Team categorized bull trout into three groups of relative risk: diminished, intermediate, and increased. Team members evaluated bull trout under current and potential recovered conditions based on the number of local populations, adult abundance, population trends and variability, and connectivity of the system. These elements were derived from the best scientific information available concerning bull trout population and habitat requirements. Evaluation of these elements under a recovered condition assumed that actions identified within this chapter had been implemented. 1. Distribution criteria will be met when current distribution of bull trout in the 12 local populations is maintained and distribution is expanded by establishing bull trout in areas identified as suitable for potential local populations. The number of existing local populations by core area are as follows: Upper Klamath Lake, 3; Sycan River, 2; and Upper Sprague River, 7. Achieving criterion 1 entails maintaining existing local populations and establishing additional potential local populations in all core areas in the recovery unit to maintain current and recovered distribution. To achieve criterion 1 and to ensure a core area population of no fewer than 100 adult bull trout, establishing at least 5 to 7 local populations in the Klamath Lake core area among 15 potential local populations (2 to 5 new local populations), at least 5 to 7 local populations in the Sycan River core area from among 15 potential local populations (3 to 5 new local populations), and at least 10 to 12 local populations in the Upper Sprague River core area from among 25 potential local populations (3 to 5 new local populations) is necessary. 2. Abundance criteria will be met when the estimated number of adult bull trout is at least 8,250 individuals distributed among the Upper Klamath Lake, Sycan River, and Upper Sprague River core areas, based on 10 years of monitoring data. 3. Trend criteria will be met when adult bull trout exhibit stable or increasing trends in abundance in the Upper Klamath Lake, Sycan River, and Upper Sprague River core areas, based on 2 generations (10 years) of monitoring data. VI 4. Connectivity criteria will be met when specific barriers to bull trout migration in the Klamath River Recovery Unit have been addressed. In the Klamath River Recovery Unit, this objective means addressing passage: 1) existing culverts that impede passage should be replaced, including those on Threemile Creek at U.S. Forest Service Road 110 crossing, Brownsworth Creek at U.S. Forest Service Road 34 crossing, and Brownsworth Creek both 0.75 mile and 1.25 miles above U.S. Forest Service Road 34; the culvert 0.25 mile below U.S. Forest Service Road 34 (to prevent repeated washout); the large-diameter culvert at the Boulder Creek road crossing; culverts in the upper Sycan River watershed that are identified in the Fremont National Forest inventory; and several in the North Fork Sprague River drainage, namely, on North Fork Sprague River (2), Boulder Creek (1), Dead Cow Creek (1), and Sheepy Creek (1); 2) fish passage structures should be installed at water diversions on bull trout streams, and barriers should be removed, including on Cherry, Sevenmile, Sun, and Threemile Creeks; 3) fish screens should be installed to prevent fish from entering diversion canals or pipes, including on Long, Deming, Threemile, Sun, Sevenmile, and Cherry Creeks; 4) manmade barriers and entrainment should be evaluated and remedied to promote migratory bull trout; priority watersheds include Threemile, Long, Deming, Sevenmile, Cherry, Sun, and Long Creeks. The Klamath River Recovery Unit team expects that the recovery process will be dynamic and will be refined as more information becomes available. Future adaptive management will play a major role in recovery implementation and refinement of recovery criteria. The recovery unit criteria listed above will be used to determine when the Klamath River Recovery Unit is fully contributing to recovery of the Klamath River population segment. vn ACTIONS NEEDED Recovery for bull trout will entail reducing threats to the long-term persistence of populations and their habitats, ensuring the security of multiple interacting groups of bull trout, and providing habitat and access to conditions that allow for the expression of various life history forms. The seven categories are listed in Chapter 1; tasks specific to this recovery unit are provided in this chapter. ESTIMATED COST OF RECOVERY Total cost of bull trout recovery in the Klamath River Recovery Unit is estimated at about $26 million spread over a 25-year recovery period. Successful recovery of bull trout in the recovery unit is contingent on removing threats from nonnative species, eliminating barriers to fish movement, and improving habitat conditions within the Klamath River basin. Total cost includes estimates of expenditures by local, Tribal, State, and Federal governments and by private business and individuals. Cost estimates are not provided for tasks which are normal agency responsibilities under existing authorities. The estimated costs are attributed to bull trout conservation, but other aquatic species will also benefit. ESTIMATED DATE OF RECOVERY Time required to achieve recovery depends on bull trout status, factors affecting bull trout, implementation and effectiveness of recovery tasks, and responses to recovery tasks. A tremendous amount of work will be required to restore impaired habitat, reconnect habitat, and eliminate threats from nonnative species. Three to five bull trout generations (15 to 25 years), or possibly longer, may be necessary before identified threats to the species can be significantly reduced and bull trout can be considered eligible for delisting. vin
-
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate critical habitat for the Klamath River and Columbia River populations of bull trout {Salvelinus confluentus) pursuant to the Endangered Species ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Federal Register - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Klamath River and Columbia River Populations of Bull Trout
- Year:
- 2004, 2008, 2005
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate critical habitat for the Klamath River and Columbia River populations of bull trout {Salvelinus confluentus) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). For the Klamath River and Columbia River populations of bull trout, the critical habitat designation includes approximately 1,748 miles (mi) (2,813 kilometers (km)) of streams and 61,235 acres (ac) (24,781 hectares (ha)) of lakes and marshes. We solicited data and comments from the public on all aspects of the proposed rule, including data on economic and other impacts of the designation
-
13. [Image] Managing bull trout : the role of electrofishing injury in streams of Crater Lake National Park
ill., map; Thesis (M.M.A.)--University of Washington, 1997; Vita; Includes bibliographical references (leaves [35]-38)Citation -
"December 1993."; "NPS D-155."; Other agencies: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; National Biological Survey, Cooperative Park Studies Unit, College of Forestry, Oregon State University; Includes ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Fishes and stream habitat in tributaries of the Klamath River in Crater Lake National Park, with special reference to the Sun Creek Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) population
- Author:
- Dambacher, Jeffrey M; Buktenica, Mark W; Larson, Gary L
- Year:
- 1993, 2007, 2005
"December 1993."; "NPS D-155."; Other agencies: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; National Biological Survey, Cooperative Park Studies Unit, College of Forestry, Oregon State University; Includes bibliographical references (p. 44)
-
Only portions of issues of The Water Report are available in the Klamath Waters Digital Library. Includes bibliographical references. See the full report at http://www.thewaterreport.com/
Citation Citation
- Title:
- The Water Report - Critical habitat, bull trout and politics
- Author:
- Envirotech Publications
- Year:
- 2005, 2008, 2006
Only portions of issues of The Water Report are available in the Klamath Waters Digital Library. Includes bibliographical references. See the full report at http://www.thewaterreport.com/
-
16. [Image] The Water Report - USFWS to conduct bull trout review ID, MT, OR, WA: groups criticize censored analysis
Only portions of issues of The Water Report are available in the Klamath Waters Digital Library. See the full report at http://www.thewaterreport.com/Citation Citation
- Title:
- The Water Report - USFWS to conduct bull trout review ID, MT, OR, WA: groups criticize censored analysis
- Author:
- Envirotech Publications
- Year:
- 2004, 2008, 2006
Only portions of issues of The Water Report are available in the Klamath Waters Digital Library. See the full report at http://www.thewaterreport.com/
-
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate critical habitat for the Klamath River, Columbia River, Jarbidge River, Coastal-Puget Sound, and Saint Mary-Belly River populations ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Federal Register - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Bull Trout; Final Rule
- Year:
- 2005, 2008
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate critical habitat for the Klamath River, Columbia River, Jarbidge River, Coastal-Puget Sound, and Saint Mary-Belly River populations of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the coterminous United States pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This final designation totals approximately 3,828 miles (mi) (6,161 kilometers (km) of streams, 143,218 acres (ac) (57,958 hectares (ha) of Jakes in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington, and 985 mi (1,585 km) of shoreline paralleling marine habitat in Washington. We solicited data and comments from the public on all aspects of the proposed rides, including data on economic and other impacts of the designations
-
18. [Image] The Water Report - Bull trout: critical habitat
Only portions of issues of The Water Report are available in the Klamath Waters Digital Library. See the full report at http://www.thewaterreport.com/Citation -
ill.; Report title; "Crater Lake National Park RMP Number: CRLA N-016.101." - P. 1.; Includes bibliographic references
Citation -
21. [Image] Fish planted in Crater Lake
-
Memorandum to Mr. Doerr dated July 2, 1937; Arthur D. Hasler served as a Ranger-Naturalist at Crater Lake National Park
Citation -
FINAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR THE BULL TROUT September 2004 FINAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR THE BULL TROUT Prepared for: Division of Economics U. ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Final economic analysis of critical habitat designation for the bull trout
- Author:
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
- Year:
- 2004, 2005
FINAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR THE BULL TROUT September 2004 FINAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR THE BULL TROUT Prepared for: Division of Economics U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 N. Fairfax Drive Arlington, VA 22203 Prepared by: Bioeconomics, Inc. 315 S. 4th E. Missoula, MT 59801 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES- 1 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1- 1 1.1 Description of Species and Habitat 1- 2 1.2 Proposed Critical Habitat 1- 5 1.3 Framework and Methodology 1- 6 1.3.1 Types of Economic Effects Considered 1- 6 1.3.2 Defining the Baseline 1- 9 1.3.3 Direct Compliance Costs 1- 10 1.3.4 Indirect Costs 1- 10 1.3.5 Benefits 1- 14 1.3.6 Analytic Time Frame 1- 15 1.3.7 General Analytic Steps 1- 15 1.4 Information Sources 1- 16 2 RELEVANT BASELINE INFORMATION 2- 1 2.1 Socioeconomic Profile of the Critical Habitat Areas 2- 1 2.1.1 Population 2- 1 2.1.2 Land Ownership and Major Uses 2- 2 2.1.3 Employment 2- 12 2.1.4 Economic and Demographic Characteristics of the 74 Counties Containing Bull Trout Critical Habitat 2- 15 2.1.5. Tribes of the Columbia and Klamath Basins 2- 18 2.2 Baseline Elements 2- 21 2.2.1 Recovery Plan 2- 21 2.2.2 Overlap with Other Listed Species 2- 22 2.2.3 Federal and State Statutes and Regulations 2- 25 2.2.4 Summary Discussion of Impacts of Baseline Regulations on Economic Analysis 2- 40 2.2.5 Discussion: Impacts of Existing Fisheries Policies on Timber and Grazing Activities 2- 43 3 FORECASTED ECONOMIC IMPACTS 3- 1 3.1 Categories of Economic Impacts 3- 1 3.1.1 Section 7 Consultations 3- 2 3.1.2 Technical Assistance 3- 4 3.1.3 Project Modifications 3- 5 3.1.4 Distributional and Regional Economic Effects 3- 5 3.2 Consultation History for Bull Trout Since Listing 3- 7 3.2.1 Action Agencies and Activities Involved in Past Bull Trout Consultations 3- 7 3.2.2 Formal Section 7 Consultations History on Bull Trout Since Listing . 3- 13 3.2.3 Informal Section 7 Consultations History on Bull Trout 3- 15 3.3 Project Modifications 3- 16 3.3.1 Modifications to FHWA Bridge Projects 3- 16 3.3.2 Modifications to Grazing Permits 3- 17 3.3.3 Modifications to Timber Harvest 3- 18 3.3.4 Modifications to Mining Operations 3- 20 3.3.5 Modifications to Agricultural Irrigation Projects 3- 21 3.3.6 Modifications to Dams and Hydroelectric Projects 3- 24 3.3.7 Modifications to Forest Management and Road Maintenance Projects 3- 29 3.3.8 Activities Unlikely to Involve Significant Modification 3- 29 3.4 Projected Future Section 7 Consultations Involving the Bull Trout 3- 29 3.4.1 Projected Future Formal Section 7 Consultations 3- 33 3.4.2 Projected Future Informal Section 7 Consultations 3- 36 ESTIMATING THE CO- EXTENSIVE COSTS OF THE DESIGNATION 4- 1 4.1 Summary of Estimated Impacts 4- 2 4.1.1 Annual Administrative Costs of Consultation 4- 2 4.1.2 Costs Associated with Development of HCPs Within Proposed Bull Trout Critical Habitat 4- 3 4.1.3 Annual Bull Trout Project Modification Costs 4- 4 4.1.4 Proposed Critical Habitat Units Expected to Generate the Greatest Economic Impacts 4- 5 4.2 Discussion of Impacts by Action Agency 4- 6 4.2.1 Army Corps of Engineers 4- 7 4.2.2 Bureau of Land Management 4- 9 4.2.3 Bonneville Power Administration 4- 10 4.2.4 Bureau of Reclamation 4- 25 4.2.5 Federal Highway Administration 4- 29 4.2.6 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 4- 31 4.2.7 U. S. Forest Service 4- 52 4.2.8 Other Action Agencies 4- 79 4.3 Potential Impacts on Small Entities 4- 79 4.3.1 Identifying Activities That May Involve Small Entities 4- 81 4.3.2 Costs Associated with Agriculture Water Diversions 4- 83 4.3.3 Hydroelectric Facility Re- licensing 4- 84 4.3.4 Mining 4- 87 4.4 Potential Impacts on the Energy Industry 4- 88 4.4.1 Evaluation of Whether the Designation will Result in a Reduction in Electricity Production in Excess of One Billion Kilowatt- Hours Per Year or in Excess of 500 Megawatts of Installed Capacity 4- 89 4.4.2 Evaluation of Whether the Designation will Result in an Increase in the Cost of Energy Production in Excess of One Percent 4- 91 APPENDIX A: Detailed Description of Critical Habitat Units A- l APPENDIX B: Ownership of Lands Adjacent to Proposed Critical Habitat Unit and Subunit B- l APPENDIX C: Overlap of Proposed Bull Trout Critical Habitat and Salmon and Steelhead Habitat C- l APPENDIX D: Listing of All Suggested Project Modifications Found in Formal Biological Opinions: By Activity Type D- l APPENDIX E: Length ( stream) and area ( lakes) of proposed designated bull trout critical habitat that is within U. S. Forest Service Land and Forest Service Wilderness Areas E- l APPENDIX F: Breakdown of Total Annual Estimated Costs by Proposed Critical Habitat Unit F- l EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. The purpose of this report is to identify and analyze the potential economic impacts associated with the designation of critical habitat for the Columbia River and Klamath River Distinct Population Segments ( DPSs) of bull trout ( Salvelinus confluentus), hereafter " bull trout." This report was prepared by Bioeconomics, Inc. of Missoula, Montana, for the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's ( the Service) Division of Economics. 2. Section 4( b)( 2) of the Endangered Species Act ( the Act) requires the Service to designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Service may exclude areas from critical habitat designation when the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of including the areas within critical habitat, provided the exclusion will not result in extinction of the species. KEY FINDINGS Total costs associated with both listing and critical habitat designation for the bull trout are forecast to be $ 200 million to $ 260 million over the next ten years. Total costs associated with both listing and critical habitat designation for the bull trout within the proposed Klamath Distinct Population Segment are forecast to be $ 5.3 million to $ 7.3 million over the next ten years. Total costs associated with both listing and critical habitat designation for the bull trout within the proposed Columbia Distinct Population Segment are forecast to be $ 195 million to $ 253 million over the next ten years. Federal agencies are expected to bear 70 to 75 percent of these costs; private entities will incur the remaining 25 to 30 percent. Project modification costs account for as much as 63 percent of forecast costs. Administrative cost represent the remaining 37 percent. U. S. Forest Service and Army Corps of Engineer- related activities account for approximately 70 percent of forecast project modification costs. Activities experiencing the greatest costs include timber harvesting, irrigation diversions, and dam and reservoir operations. Dam and reservoir- related consultations, including power facility re- licensing, account for 42 percent of forecast project modification costs ( excluding the cost associated with reduced irrigation diversions). Timber harvest, irrigation diversions, habitat conservation plans, and mining account for 29 percent, 12 percent, eight percent, and three percent of forecast costs, respectively. In terms of river miles, approximately 18 percent of the total forecast costs are associated with one percent of the proposed designation, 25 percent with five percent of the proposed designation, and 45 percent with ten percent of the proposed designation. When expressed in terms of the expected cost per river mile, the two most costly units are the Willamette River Basin ( Unit 4) and the Malheur River Basin ( Unit 13). ES- 1 Framework for the Analysis 3. The primary purpose of this analysis is to estimate the economic impact associated with the designation of critical habitat for the bull trout. This information is intended to assist the Secretary in making decisions about whether the benefits of excluding particular areas from the designation outweigh the benefits of including those areas in the designation. 1 This economic analysis considers the economic efficiency effects that may result from the designation, including habitat protections that may be co- extensive with the listing of the species. It also addresses distribution of impacts, including an assessment of the potential effects on small entities and the energy industry. This information can be used by decision- makers to assess whether the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector. 4. This analysis focuses on the direct and indirect costs of the rule. However, economic impacts to land use activities can exist in the absence of critical habitat. These impacts may result from, for example, local zoning laws, State and natural resource laws, and enforceable management plans and best management practices ( BMPs) applied by other State and Federal agencies. For example, as discussed in detail in this report, regional management plans, such as the Northwest Forest Plan, PACFISH and INFISH provide significant protection to bull trout and its habitat while imposing significant costs within the region. Economic impacts that result from these types of protections are not included in this assessment as they are considered to be part of the regulatory and policy " baseline." 5. The measurement of direct compliance costs focuses on the implementation of section 7 of the Act. This section requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The administrative costs of these consultations, along with the costs of project modifications resulting from these consultations, represent the direct compliance costs of designating critical habitat. Importantly, this analysis does not differentiate between consultations that result from the listing of the species ( i. e., the jeopardy standard) and consultations that result from the presence of critical habitat ( i. e., the adverse modification standard). 6. The analysis examines activities taking place both within and adjacent to the proposed designation. It estimates impacts based on activities that are " reasonably foreseeable," including, but not limited to, activities that are currently authorized, permitted, or funded, or for which proposed plans are currently available to the public. Accordingly, the analysis bases estimates on activities that are likely to occur within a ten- year time frame, beginning on the day that the current proposed rule became available to the public ( November 30, 2002). The ten- year time frame was chosen for the analysis because, as the time horizon for an economic analysis is expanded, the assumptions on which the projected number of projects and cost impacts associated with those projects becomes increasingly 1 16U. S. C. § 1533( b)( 2). ES- 2 speculative. An exception to the 10 year analysis time horizon used in this analysis is for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( FERC) licenses, which are renewed for up to 50 years. Accordingly, this analysis estimates the annualized costs of the expected impacts associated with section 7 bull trout consultations involving FERC re- licensing over a 50 year time horizon. 7. The analysis is based on a wide range of information sources. Numerous individuals were contacted from the Service, as well as from the U. S. Forest Service ( USFS), Federal Highway Administration ( FHWA), Bureau of Land Management ( BLM), Army Corps of Engineers ( ACOE), Bureau of Reclamation ( BOR), Bonneville Power Administration ( BPA), Natural Resources Conservation Service ( NRCS), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA) and other Federal agencies. The analysis of the hydroelectric facilities and other dam structures in the region also relied in information from the Northwest Power and Conservation Council ( NWPCC), the Pacific Northwest Utility Coordinating Council as well as information from utilities owning dams in bull trout proposed critical habitat ( e. g., Avista Corporation ( Avista), Eugene Water and Electric Board, Pacificorp and Portland General Electric ( PGE)). Native American Tribes ( e. g., Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes), State agencies ( e. g., State Departments of Environmental Quality ( DEQ) and State Departments of Transportation ( DOTs)) and industry organizations ( e. g., American Forest Resource Council, American Farm Bureau and Northwest Mining Association) were also contacted, as were numerous individuals in the private sector on topics ranging from irrigation to forestry to bull trout conservation. Census Bureau and other Department of Commerce data was relied on to characterize the regional economy. 8. The bull trout was listed as a threatened species in 1998.2 Since that time, numerous Action agencies have participated in well over 200 formal consultations and thousands of informal consultations involving bull trout. The past consultation record was used as a starting point from which to predict future consultation activity. Action agencies provided additional information on likely changes in future consultation activity following designation of critical habitat. In some cases these agencies saw little change in future consultation levels. For example, FHWA projects are planned for many years in advance and bridge or road- related bull trout consultations are generally quite certain and foreseeable. In some cases ( e. g., mining activity, irrigation diversions) it was determined that the historical consultation record understated the potential level of future consultation activity for the species and adjustments to future predicted consultation levels were made. For dam and reservoir operations, a wide spectrum of information from agency representatives, as well as the actual FERC re- licensing schedules for privately operated hydropower facilities were used to augment historical consultation rates and develop future annual cost estimates associated with bull trout consultations on dam, reservoir and power- related activities. 2 This economic analysis applies only to the Columbia River and Klamath River DPSs of bull trout and is not a rangewide analysis. The rangewide listing of the bull trout occurred in 1999 and critical habitat will be proposed for the remainder of the range at a later date. ES- 3 Exhibit ES. l provides a summary of the wide range of activities that may be impacted by bull trout- related consultations. Exhibit ES. l PROJECTED ACTIVITIES AFFECTED BY BULL TROUT Action Agency Army Corps of Engineers Bureau of Land Management Bonneville Power Administration Bureau of Reclamation Federal Highway Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission U. S. Forest Service Other agencies, including NPS, BIA, U. S. Department of Agriculture ( USDA), U. S. Geological Survey ( USGS), U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries Activities Consulted on Dam and reservoir operations, streambank stabilization, dredging, bridge replacement, stream restoration. Forest management, grazing, timber harvest, resource maintenance and road construction, weed management, streambank stabilization, flood control projects. Federal Columbia River Power System ( FCRPS)- dam operation, fisheries restoration and augmentation, agricultural practices and irrigation systems. Dam and reservoir operations, irrigation diversions. Highway bridge replacement. Dam re- licensing and removal. Timber harvest, grazing, mining, resource maintenance and road construction, weed management, streambank stabilization, recreation, special use permits, watershed restoration, road decommissioning, irrigation diversions, culvert replacement, and prescribed fuel reduction programs. Assorted activities, primarily fisheries and stream and wetland restoration. Results of the Analysis 9. The economic impacts associated with the designation of critical habitat for the bull trout are expected to range from $ 200 million to $ 260 million over the next ten years ($ 20 million to $ 26 million per year). Federal agencies are expected to bear approximately 70 to 75 percent of the total costs of this designation. A significant portion of the land adjacent to the proposed designation is Federally owned ( 58 percent), 36 percent is under private ownership and the remainder is comprised of Tribal, State or local interests. Of the Federal lands, the majority is managed by the USFS ( 85 percent) and the BLM ( 12 percent). The remaining 25 to 30 percent of costs are expected to be borne by private entities. Exhibit ES. 2 shows the location of USFS and BLM managed land within the proposed designation. ES- 4 Exhibit ES. 2 ES- 5 10. In some cases, the cost associated with consultation is not borne by the Action agency, but passed onto other parties. For example, while farmers and ranchers do not consult on the operation of Federal irrigation impoundments, irrigators could be impacted by potential reductions in water deliveries to maintain instream flow during dry years. While the unit location of USFS- related water diversions is uncertain, it is likely to occur in the Salmon River ( Unit 16), Clark Fork ( Unit 2), Southwest Idaho River and Clearwater River ( Unit 15) Basins, as these units contain the largest portion of USFS managed lands. 11. Consultations that may involve private entities include those related to timber harvest, grazing, mining and power facility re- licensing. Some of the costs associated with these consultations, however, are expected to be borne directly by or passed onto the Federal government ( e. g., increased logging and yarding costs passed onto the USFS through lower stumpage bids for timber). Most of the forecast project modification costs resulting from designation ( 42 percent) are dam and reservoir related ( excluding USFS water diversions). These costs result from consultations on ACOE and BOR dams and reservoirs, BPA consultations on the FCRPS, and FERC re- licensing consultations. Exhibit ES. 3 illustrates the location of major dams within the proposed critical habitat. The remaining project modification costs are associated with timber harvest ( 29 percent), USFS- related water diversions ( 12 percent), habitat conservation plans ( eight percent), and placer gold mining ( three percent). Grazing, forest management, road and bridge construction and maintenance and other activities each account for less than two percent of forecast project modification costs. Exhibit ES. 4 provides the distribution of total costs by activity. 12. Costs can be expressed in terms of unit or river mile; both of these metrics are useful in describing economic impacts. 3 On a cost per unit basis the largest portion of forecast costs are expected to occur in Unit 4, the Willamette River Basin ( 18 percent). These costs are attributable to fish passage and temperature control projects and annual operating and maintenance and fish study costs at ACOE's facilities in the Upper Willamette River System ( Dexter, Lookout Point, Hills Creek and Blue River Dams). The next most costly unit is Unit 16, the Salmon River Basin ( 12 percent). Because this is the largest unit in terms of river miles and proportion of USFS managed land, and because future USFS activities are expected to generate approximately 70 percent of the consultation activity, this unit bears the greatest number of future bull trout- related consultations. Therefore, the administrative costs account for a large portion of the costs in this unit. Together, these two units account for 30 percent ( approximately $ 8.2 million) of forecast costs. The next three most costly units, Hells Canyon complex ( Unit 12) and the Clark Fork River ( Unit 2) and Malheur River ( Unit 13) Basins, each account for eight percent ( a unit cost range of approximately $ 2.1 million to $ 2.3 million) of forecast costs. In total, these five units account for almost 55 percent of forecast costs ( approximately $ 14.8 million). 3 Twelve of the units also contain more than 500,000 lake acres of critical habitat. These units account for approximately 55 percent of the potential economic impacts associated with the proposed designation ($ 15.4 million). The Clark Fork River Basin ( Unit 2) contains almost 60 percent of the lake acres ( more than 300,000 acres) and accounts for eight percent of the cost ( approximately $ 3 million). Because all 25 units contain river miles, the costs are expressed in terms of dollars per river mile for comparison. ES- 6 ES- 7 ES- 8 13. Project modifications or other restrictions that engender cost and revenue impacts involving commercial enterprises can have a subsequent detrimental effect on other sectors of the local economy, especially when the affected industry is central to the local economy. Industries within a geographic area are interdependent in the sense that they purchase output from other industries and sectors, while also supplying inputs to other businesses. Therefore, direct economic effects on a particular enterprise can affect regional output and employment in multiple industries. The extent to which regional economic impacts are realized depends largely on whether a significant number of projects are stopped or fundamentally altered. For example, impacts to the timber or grazing industries depend on whether required project modifications substantially reduce output within economic sectors below that which would be seen in the absence of the trout consultation. 14. Examination of BOs involving timber harvest and grazing show only small and sporadic reductions in either grazing opportunity or available timber harvest. Therefore, this analysis assumes that regional economic impacts associated with these activities will be unpredictable ( in terms of geographic location and timing) and small in the context of the overall economy of the Columbia River Basin. In the case of agricultural water diversions on Forest Service lands, regional economic impacts are not modeled due to uncertainty about the magnitude and potential location of impacts. 15. Exhibit ES- 5 highlights the relative contributions of each unit to total forecast costs. Exhibit ES- 6 then presents the unit cost by river mile. Considering the cost per river mile, the Willamette River ( Unit 4) and Malheur River ( Unit 13) Basins are the most costly units. Together these two units account for 25 percent of the costs ( approximately $ 7.0 million, annualized) over two percent of the proposed miles of the designation ( 451 miles). Overall, 10 percent of the river miles ( 1,910 miles) in eight units account for approximately 45 percent of the total costs ( approximately $ 12.5 million, annualized). 4 4 In terms of cost per lake acre, the Willamette River Basin is the most expensive unit ( Unit 4), followed by the Northeast Washington River ( Unit 22) and Upper Columbia River ( Unit 21) Basins. These three units account for approximately 25 percent of the cost ($ 6.8 million) and five percent of the river miles ( 1,020 miles) in the proposed designation. ES- 9 tn m W GO 16. Consideration of the regulatory baseline is particularly pertinent in the context of estimating economic costs attributable to section 7 for bull trout. Specifically, existing regulations such as the Federal Power Act ( FPA) and Wilderness Act of 1964, fisheries management directives ( Northwest Forest Plan, INFISH and PACFISH) and the presence of other listed species ( especially anadromous fish) provide for the protection of areas that could contribute to the recovery of bull trout and improve riparian habitat and water quality throughout the proposed designation. Thus, the costs of this designation is limited by the extent to which existing regulations already impose requirements on land use and resource management within the proposed designation. In addition, the cost estimates developed in this report reflect various allocations made throughout the analysis for projects benefitting more than one listed species. Since these allocations are important to the analysis, Exhibit ES. 7 describes how forecasted costs were allocated among bull trout and other listed species. Exhibit ES. 7 ALLOCATION OF ESTIMATED FUTURE PROJECT MODIFICATION COSTS Agency / Project ACOE - Upper Willamette River Dams and Reservoirs BPA - Federal Columbia River Power System FERC - re- licensing hydroelectric facilities USFS activities Allocation NOAA Fisheries and the Service are currently consulting on salmon, steelhead and bull trout in this proposed area. No clear allocation of costs can be made between these species, as most of the projects modifications would be sought under both the NOAA and Service consultations. Therefore, one- third of estimated costs are allocated to each species. This is likely to overstate the cost of bull trout conservation rather than understate it, since the primary driving force behind these project modifications is the salmon. While there is extensive discussion of the relative magnitude of potential bull trout versus salmon mitigation actions, because of the relatively modest project modification costs ( up to $ 400,000 associated with fishery studies) there is no allocation of costs to salmon. The estimation of section 7 bull trout costs associated with FERC re- licensing includes allocation of mitigation costs for specific dams to salmon, as well as to other aquatic species. As a result, a little more than 40 percent of total fishery-related costs are allocated to bull trout, and five percent specifically to bull trout section 7 consultation. While certain costs in the sample of timber consultations were allocated to other listed species ( e. g. grizzlies and cutthroat trout), there is no allocation of costs to anadromous species. Summary of Costs 17. Exhibit ES. 8 provides a detailed summary of the co- extensive costs of designation of critical habitat for the bull trout. These costs are presented on an annualized basis. A map of the watersheds that encompass each unit is provided in Exhibit ES. 9 to assist the reader in understanding the location and distribution of estimated costs. A detailed discussion of the estimated administrative and project modification costs by critical habitat unit is presented in the unit- by- unit summary section following Exhibit ES. 8. ES- 12 Exhibit ES. 8 SUMMARY OF SECTION 7 COSTS FOR THE BULL TROUT ( Annualized) Unit Unit 1 - Klamath River Basin Unit 2 - Clark Fork River Basin Unit 3 - Kootenai River Basin Unit 4 - Willamette River Basin Unit 5 - Hood River Basin Unit 6 - Deschutes River Basin Unit 7 - Odell Lake Unit 8 - John Day River Basin Unit 9 - Umatilla- Walla Walla River Basins Unit 10 - Grande Ronde River Basin Unit 11 - Imaha/ Snake River Basins Unit 12 - Hells Canyon Complex Unit 13 - Malheur River Basin Unit 14 - Coeur d'Alene Lake Basin Unit 15 - Clearwater River Basin Unit 16 - Salmon River Basin Unit 17 - Southwest Idaho River Basins Unit 18 - Little Lost River Basin Unit 19 - Lower Columbia River Basin Unit 20 - Middle Columbia River Basin Unit 21 - Upper Columbia River Basin Unit 22 - Northwest Washington River Basins Unit 23 - Snake River Basin in Washington Unit 24 - Columbia River Basin Unit 25 - Snake River Basin Multiple unit or unknown a Estimated Range of Cost ($ l, 000fs) $ 529 to $ 733 $ 1,321 to $ 2,192 $ 328 to $ 402 $ 4,497 to $ 4,891 $ 328 to $ 413 $ 430 to $ 719 $ 51 to $ 56 $ 446 to $ 600 $ 98 to $ 211 $ 467 to $ 580 $ 559 to $ 605 $ 1,939 to $ 2,338 $ 2,006 to $ 2,095 $ 429 to $ 693 $ 995 to $ 1,676 $ 2,059 to $ 3,319 $ 1,004 to $ 1,867 $ 150 to $ 176 $ 385 to $ 494 $ 391 to $ 494 $ 196 to $ 505 $ 965 to $ 1,397 $ 230 to $ 287 $ 243 to $ 504 $ 135 $ 1,303 Notes: These estimates include all section 7 costs, including those co- extensive with the listing and designation of critical habitat for the bull trout. Costs are reported in 2003 dollars. A more detailed presentation of these costs is provided in Appendix F. a Miscellaneous costs ($ 213,000 annually) and the costs associated with development of habitat conservation Dlans ($ 1,090,000 annuallv) have not been allocated to the unit level due to uncertainty as to their location. ES- 13 Exhibit ES- 9 ES- 14 Unit- bv- Unit Summary 18. The following discussion presents a unit- by- unit synopsis of the co- extensive costs of designation of critical habitat for the bull trout. Details on how these cost estimates were developed is provided in Section 4 of this report. 19. From an aggregate perspective, forecast project modification costs are dominated by dam related activities, totaling about 42 percent of all estimated costs. Typical costs include fish passage, changes in operations, habitat protection or restoration, and fishery studies at 36 FERC- licensed hydroelectric facilities and at more than 30 major Federal hydropower, irrigation and flood projects. The second largest category of costs is associated with timber harvest on Federal lands, representing about 29 percent of all estimated costs. These costs include harvest reduction, fishery study and monitoring costs, costs related to roads and culverts, and changes to log yarding systems. The remaining costs are split among a large number of activities including the development of habitat conservation plans, mining, agriculture and irrigation diversions, grazing, bridge construction and maintenance, and general forest management. Accordingly, the primary factor driving the distribution of costs across units is the location of significant dam projects for power, irrigation, and flood control. This factor is highlighted in the following unit- by- unit discussion. The second most important factor is the occurrence of federally- owned acreage within a given unit, particularly the acreage of non- wilderness lands managed by the USFS. This factor drives both timber costs and administrative consultation costs. 20. A significant component of the total estimated cost of this designation are the administrative costs associated with conducting both formal and informal consultations on the species ( approximately 37 to 50 percent of total forecast bull trout- related costs). These costs accrue to the Service as well as to action agencies and the public. In some cases these administrative costs constitute a majority of the estimated costs for a unit, suggesting that there will be many activities consulted on but few resulting project modifications. 21. This discussion is presented on a unit by unit basis. A perspective on how the units compare, in both absolute terms and in terms of cost per river mile of proposed critical habitat, is provided in Exhibits ES- 6 and ES- 7. For purposes of this summary, proposed units with per mile costs ( after adjusting each unit's costs for its respective unoccupied habitat) forecast to be less than half of the proposed designation- wide average are described as having " relatively low costs." Units with per mile costs forecast to be between 50 percent and 200 percent ( i. e., twice) the designation- wide average costs are described as having " relatively moderate costs." Units with per- mile costs forecast to be greater than twice the designation- wide average costs are described as having " relatively high costs." Note that these descriptors are intended as a general guide, and refer to total cost only. Individual economic sectors and entities within a unit may bear disproportionate shares of these costs, as discussed in Section 4. 22. Unit 1: Klamath River Basin - The Klamath River Basin is located in south- central Oregon. Proposed critical habitat within this unit includes 475 km ( 295 mi) of streams and ES- 15 3,775 ha ( 9,327 ac) of lake habitat. The Klamath River Basin Unit is largely contained within Klamath County Oregon. The town of Klamath Falls is the largest community within the county. The Klamath River Basin Unit has a relatively high percentage of proposed critical habitat that is currently either unoccupied or of unknown occupancy ( 72 percent). Approximately 69 percent of the stream miles proposed for designation are within Federal land. 23. The Klamath River Basin Unit is a relatively moderate cost unit. Estimated total annual bull trout- related costs within this unit range between $ 529,000 and $ 733,000. These estimates include $ 425,000 per year in administrative costs. It is estimated that costs associated with consultations on timber harvest and agricultural irrigation withdrawals will constitute the large majority of potential future project modification costs in the unit ( estimated at between 73 percent and 87 percent of total annual project modification costs). These agricultural diversion- related costs are expected to result from reductions in available irrigation water. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 15,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 24. Unit 2: Clark Fork River Basin - The Clark Fork River Basin Unit is the largest unit within the proposed designation. This unit includes most of Western Montana and the Idaho panhandle. This Unit includes the Missoula and Bitterroot River Valleys in Western Montana, the Kalispell- Flathead Lake Region, and the Lake Pend Orielle Region of North Idaho. These areas contain many of the larger towns and communities within Western Montana and North Idaho. Approximately 54 percent of the proposed streams and 33 percent of proposed lakes in Clark Fork Unit are within Federal lands. There is no unoccupied habitat within the proposed Clark Fork Critical Habitat Unit. 25. Forecast total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 1.3 million and $ 2.2 million. These estimates include $ 800,000 per year in administrative costs. In addition, a number of agencies and activities will incur significant annual project modification costs associated with the bull trout in this unit. Specifically, • Timber harvest activity is expected to generate the largest share of future project modification costs in this unit ($ 270,000 to $ 680,000 per year). These costs include harvest reduction, fishery study and monitoring costs, costs related to road and culverts, and changes to log yarding systems. • Costs associated with forecast project modifications to irrigation diversions within this unit range from zero to $ 280,000. These costs represent potential costs to agricultural producers associated with reductions in available irrigation water. 26. Other significant forecast project modification costs within this unit are associated with mining ( up to $ 100,000 annually, principally involving watershed assessment costs), FERC hydro re- licensing ($ 50,000 to $ 91,000 annually), and FHWA bridge and road work ($ 45,000 per year, generally involving constraints on in- stream work periods). Forecast FERC- related costs are associated with several major hydroelectric facilities within the unit, ES- 16 including Kerr Dam on the Flathead River and Thompson Falls Dam on the Clark Fork. Additionally, bull trout- related modifications on operation of the FCRPS have resulted in changes in operations at Hungry Horse Dam ( a BOR facility on the S. Fork of the Flathead) and Albeni Falls ( an ACOE facility that controls the level of Lake Pend Orielle). Bull trout study costs specific to the Clark Fork Unit and associated with FCRPS consultation are expected to cost up to $ 97,000 annually. 27. Although the proposed Clark Fork River Basin Critical Habitat Unit has significant forecast total annual costs, these costs should be viewed in light of the large size of this proposed unit. In fact, the Clark Fork Unit is forecast to be one of the lowest cost units, when expressed per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. 28. Unit 3: Kootenai River Basin - A short stretch of the Kootenai River lies in the U. S., looping down out of British Columbia. The Kootenai Unit thus comprises only the northwestern corner of Montana, including Libby Dam, and the northeastern tip of the Idaho panhandle. This unit is contained within two counties, Boundary County, Idaho and Lincoln County, Montana. Within this proposed critical habitat unit, approximately 53 percent of the rivers and streams proposed for designation are on Federal land. There is no unoccupied bull trout habitat within this unit. 29. The Kootenai River Unit is a relatively low- cost unit, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Total forecast annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 328,000 and $ 402,000. Of this amount, the majority, approximately $ 290,000 annually, are forecast administrative costs. In addition, it is estimated that project modification costs within the Kootenai River Unit will total between $ 38,000 and $ 112,000 annually. Costs associated with timber harvest are expected to be the largest category of future project modification costs in this unit ($ 27,000 to $ 69,000 per year, including costs of harvest reduction, fishery study and monitoring costs, costs related to roads and culverts, and changes to log yarding systems). Costs resulting from modifications to agricultural irrigation diversions ( primarily reductions in irrigation withdrawals) could range from zero to $ 28,000. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 5,000 per year in project modification costs. Bull trout- related modifications to operations of the FCRPS have resulted in changes in operations at Libby Dam. 30. Unit 4: Willamette River Basin - The Willamette River Basin Unit includes 337 km ( 209 mi) of stream and 1,600 ha ( 3,954 ac) of lake habitat in the McKenzie River and Middle Fork Willamette River subbasins of Western Oregon. The unit is located primarily within Lane County, but also extends into Linn County. The unit contains Eugene, Oregon and surrounding areas. Approximately 46 percent of the proposed waters within this unit are on Federal land and about 23 percent of the waters in the unit are currently either unoccupied by the bull trout or of unknown occupancy. 31. Forecast total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 4.5 million and $ 4.9 million. Of this amount, approximately $ 125,000 are forecast ES- 17 administrative costs. Thus, most of the costs for this unit are associated with required project modifications. While project modification costs are forecast to be associated with timber harvest activities and agricultural diversions within this unit ( estimated between $ 22,000 and $ 55,000 annually), the vast majority of forecast costs are associated with dam and reservoir operations in the unit. 32. The ACOE is currently in consultation on 13 flood control facilities located in the Upper Willamette River system. Potential future costs of required modifications for bull trout will likely be driven by provisions for temperature control facilities at the Lookout Point, Hills Creek, and Blue River dams, and trap and haul passage at Lookout Point, Hills Creek, and possibly a fish ladder at Dexter Dam. It is estimated that these passage and temperature control modifications and operation at ACOE operated impoundments in the unit will cost between $ 4.3 and $ 4.5 million per year. It is further estimated that annual project modification costs associated with FERC re- licensing of hydroelectric facilities in the unit will cost between $ 70,000 and $ 144,000 annually. These costs are associated with several hydroelectric facilities operated by the City of Eugene: Trail Bridge and Carmen on the McKenzie River, and Blue River Dam. 33. The Willamette River Unit is the highest cost of the proposed units in terms of forecast cost per river mile of habitat proposed for designation ( greater than $ 20,000 per river mile, annually). These costs are associated with dam and reservoir modifications to ACOE projects. However, the ACOE is also consulting with NOAA Fisheries on the impacts of these facilities on chinook salmon and steelhead, these costs might occur even absent the bull trout. 34. Unit 5: Hood River Basin - The Hood River Unit lies entirely within Hood River County, Oregon and contains the communities of Hood River and The Dalles among a number of smaller towns. The Unit includes the mainstem Hood River and three major tributaries: the Clear Branch Hood River, West Fork Hood River, and East Fork Hood River. A relatively high 43 percent of the proposed habitat in the Hood River Unit is currently either unoccupied or of unknown occupancy. Overall, about 48 percent of the waters proposed for designation within this unit are located on Federal lands. 35. The Hood River Unit is a relatively moderate- cost unit, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 328,000 and $ 413,000. Of this amount, a substantial portion are forecast administrative costs ( approximately $ 282,000). The remainder of the forecast costs are associated with required project modifications. Costs associated with FERC re- licensing of hydroelectric facilities ($ 24,000 to $ 67,000) and timber harvest on USFS lands ($ 16,000 to $ 40,000 per year) are expected to be the most significant categories of future project modification costs in the unit. FERC licensed facilities include Powerdale on the Hood River. Agricultural irrigation diversions in the unit could experience up to $ 16,000 in annual project modification costs. Other activities are individually estimated to account for less than $ 5,000 per year in project modification costs. ES- 18 36. Unit 6: Deschutes River Basin - The Deschutes River Basin Unit in central Oregon contains two critical habitat subunits: the lower Deschutes and the upper Deschutes, separated by Big Falls, an impassible barrier on the Deschutes River. The Lower Deschutes critical habitat subunit is in Wasco, Sherman, Jefferson, Deschutes, and Crook Counties. The Upper Deschutes River critical habitat subunit is located in Deschutes, Crook, and Klamath counties. Approximately 801 km ( 498 mi) of stream habitat in the Deschutes River basin is proposed for critical habitat designation. Overall, a relatively high 37 percent of the proposed habitat within the Deschutes River Unit is unoccupied. The entire upper Deschutes River Critical Habitat subunit is currently unoccupied by the species. A relatively low portion ( 35 percent) of the waters proposed for designation within this unit are on Federal land. This unit also has a substantial amount of Tribal land ( 23 percent of proposed waters). 37. The Deschutes River Unit is a relatively low- cost unit, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. It is forecast that total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit will be between $ 431,000 and $ 719,000. A relatively small portion of this amount, approximately $ 102,000 annually, are forecast administrative costs. The vast majority of these costs are associated with required project modifications. Specifically, costs associated with operation of BOR irrigation impoundments ($ 159,000 annually, largely associated with fishery studies), FERC re- licensing of hydroelectric facilities, ($ 106,000 to $ 280,000) and timber harvest on USFS lands ($ 42,000 to $ 105,000 per year resulting from reduced harvest, fishery studies, road and culvert costs, and changes in yarding systems) are expected to be the most significant categories of future project modification costs in this unit. The BOR- related costs are for studies at Crane Prairie and Wickiup Reservoirs on the Upper Deschutes River. Since both of these reservoirs are in the currently unoccupied Upper Deschutes subunit, dam and reservoir modifications are not reasonably foreseeable. Projected FERC re- licensing costs are for bull trout studies and passage at the Pelton- Round Butte Project on the Deschutes River. Agricultural irrigation diversion project modification costs associated with potential reductions in irrigation water availability could range from zero to $ 43,000 annually. Other activities are individually estimated to account for less than $ 15,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 38. Unit 7: Odell Lake - The Odell Lake Unit in central Oregon lies entirely within the Deschutes National Forest in Deschutes and Klamath counties. This unit is the smallest of the proposed units within the designation. Total proposed critical habitat includes approximately 2,675 ha ( 6,611 ac) of lake habitat and 18.1 km ( 11.3 mi) of streams. There is no unoccupied habitat within this unit. 39. Total annual costs associated with the bull trout within the unit are forecast to be between $ 51,000 and $ 56,000. Of this amount, almost all ( approximately $ 50,000 annually) will be associated with the administrative costs of the consultation process. It is estimated that project modification costs within the Odell Lake Unit will total less than $ 5,000 annually. These project modification costs are forecast to be largely associated with USFS activities. ES- 19 40. Unit 8: John Day River Basin - The John Day River Basin Unit in eastern Oregon includes the North Fork, the Middle Fork, and mainstem portions of the John Day River and their tributary streams in Wheeler, Grant, and Umatilla counties. A total of 1,080 km ( 671 mi) of stream habitat is proposed for designation as critical habitat. Overall, 19 percent of the proposed areas within the John Day River Unit are currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 54 percent of the waters proposed for designation within the John Day Unit are located on Federal land. 41. The John Day River Unit is a relatively low cost unit, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are forecast to be between $ 446,000 and $ 600,000. Of this amount, a large portion, approximately $ 278,000 annually, will be made up of administrative costs. The remainder of the forecast costs are associated with required project modifications. Specifically, project modifications associated with timber harvest on USFS lands ($ 57,000 to $ 143,000 per year from reductions in harvest, fisheries studies, road and culvert costs, and changes in yarding systems) and placer mining on USFS lands ( up to $ 88,000 per year associated with requirements for and limitations on allowed stream crossing activity) are expected to generate the greatest share of project modification costs in this unit. Costs associated with agricultural irrigation diversion reductions could range from zero to $ 58,000 annually. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 10,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. The John Day River Basin is one of two units identified in this study as a setting where bull trout related project modifications could have a significant impact on a small placer mining business, the other is the Hells Canyon Complex ( Unit 12). 42. Unit 9: Umatilla- Walla Walla River Basins - The Umatilla and Walla Walla Rivers Unit is located in northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. The unit includes 636 km ( 395 mi) of streams extending across portions of Umatilla, Union, and Wallowa counties in Oregon, and Walla Walla and Columbia counties in Washington. Overall, 17 percent of the proposed critical habitat within this unit is currently unoccupied by the species. A relatively low portion ( 32 percent) of the waters proposed for designation within the Umatilla- Walla Walla Unit are located on Federal land. 43. The Umatilla- Walla Walla River Unit is among the lowest cost units, in terms of consultation- related cost per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. It is estimated that total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit will be between $ 98,000 and $ 211,000. Of this amount, approximately $ 59,000 annually will be associated with the administrative costs of the consultation process and the remainder with required project modifications. Specifically, fisheries studies associated with FCRPS consultations could cost up to $ 43,000 annually. Project modification associated with timber harvest on USFS lands is expected to be another significant category of future costs in this unit ($ 26,000 to $ 65,000 per year). Agricultural irrigation diversions could experience up to $ 26,000 in annual project modification costs within this unit. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 10,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. In addition to the consultation and project modification costs, the Walla Walla Drainage is in ES- 20 the final stages of developing a basin- wide habitat conservation plan to protect bull trout, among other species. The plan has cost approximately $ 4 million to develop, and it is expected an additional $ 1 million will be spent to complete the plan during the next year or two. 44. Unit 10: Grande Ronde River Basin - The Grande Ronde Unit extends across Union, Wallowa, and Umatilla counties in northeastern Oregon, and Asotin, Columbia, and Garfield counties in southeastern Washington. This unit includes the Grande Ronde River from its headwaters to the confluence with the Snake River and a number of its tributaries, the largest being the Wallowa River. Approximately 1,030 km ( 640 mi) of stream habitat in the Grande Ronde River basin is proposed for critical habitat designation. Overall, seven percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Grand Ronde River Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 52 percent of the waters proposed for designation within this unit are located on Federal land. 45. The Grand Ronde River Unit is a low- cost unit, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit will be between $ 467,000 and $ 580,000. Of this amount, the vast majority, approximately $ 417,000 annually, are forecast to be administrative costs. The remainder of the forecast costs are associated with required project modifications. Specifically, fisheries studies within the unit associated with FCRPS consultations could cost up to $ 19,000 annually. Timber harvest on USFS lands is expected to be another significant source of future project modification costs in this unit ($ 34,000 to $ 87,000 per year resulting from reduced harvest, fisheries studies, and road and culvert costs, and changes in yarding systems). Agricultural irrigation diversion costs could be up to $ 35,000. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 10,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 46. Unit 11: Imnaha/ Snake River Basins - The Imnaha/ Snake Unit extends across Wallowa, Baker, and Union counties in northeastern Oregon and Adams and Idaho counties in western Idaho. The unit contains approximately 306 km ( 190 mi) of proposed critical habitat. All of the proposed habitat within the Imnaha- Snake River Unit is currently occupied by the species. Approximately 51 percent of the waters proposed for designation within this unit are located on Federal land. 47. The Imnaha/ Snake River Unit is a moderate- cost unit, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 559,000 and $ 605,000. Of this amount, the large majority are made up of administrative costs ( approximately $ 544,000, annually). The remainder of the forecast costs are associated with required project modifications. Specifically, fishery studies within the unit associated with FCRPS consultations could cost up to $ 18,000 annually. Timber harvest activities on USFS lands are expected to be another significant category of future project modification costs ($ 10,000 to $ 26,000 per year). Agricultural irrigation diversion related project modification costs could range from zero ES- 21 to $ 11,000. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 5,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 48. Unit 12: Hells Canyon Complex - The Hells Canyon Complex Unit encompasses basins in Idaho and Oregon draining into the Snake River and its associated reservoirs, from Hells Canyon Dam upstream to the confluence of the Weiser River. The Hells Canyon Complex unit includes a total of approximately 1,000 km ( 621 mi) of streams proposed as critical habitat. A relatively high portion ( about 48 percent) of the proposed critical habitat within the Hells Canyon Complex Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 47 percent of the waters proposed for designation within this unit are located on Federal land. 49. The Hells Canyon Complex Unit is a relatively moderate- cost unit, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. It is forecast that total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit will be between $ 1.9 million and $ 2.3 million. Of this amount, a majority are expected to be made up of administrative costs ( approximately $ 1.4 million, annually). In addition, significant categories of forecast project modification costs within this unit are associated with timber harvest on USFS lands ($ 92,000 to $ 233,000 per year resulting from reduced harvest, fishery studies, road and culvert costs, and changes in yarding systems), placer mining on USFS land ($ 69,000 associated with requirements for and limitations on allowed stream crossing activity), FERC hydroelectric re- licensing ($ 111,000 to $ 259,000), and BOR reservoir activities ($ 192,000 annually, primarily for study related costs). The BOR reservoirs in the unit include Phillips Reservoir and Thief Valley Reservoir; projected costs are for bull trout related studies. Major FERC- licensed hydroelectric facilities in the unit include Hells Canyon, Brownlee and Oxbow. Agricultural irrigation diversions could experience up to $ 95,000 in annual project modification costs within this unit. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than 20,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. The Hells Canyon complex is one of two units identified in this study as a setting where bull trout related project modifications could have a significant impact on a small placer mining business, the other is the John Day River Basin ( Unit 8). 50. Unit 13: Malheur River Basin - The Malheur Unit is in the Malheur River Basin in eastern Oregon, in Grant, Baker, Harney, and Malheur counties. A total of 389 km ( 241 mi) of streams and two reservoirs are proposed for critical habitat. About 25 percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Malheur River Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 63 percent of the waters proposed for designation within the Malheur River Unit are located on Federal land. 51. The Malheur River Unit is the second highest cost unit, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 2.0 million and $ 2.1 million. Project modification costs make up a small portion of these costs, between $ 179,000 and $ 268,000 annually. The rest of the forecast costs are associated with administrative requirements. Major categories of forecast project modification costs within this unit are associated with ES- 22 timber harvest on USFS lands ($ 33,000 to $ 83,000 per year) and BOR reservoir activities ($ 133,000 annually). The BOR costs are for research as well as trap and haul fish passage that is ongoing at Beulah Reservoir on the Malheur River, and estimated research costs at Warm Springs Reservoir, which is currently unoccupied by bull trout. Possible reductions in agricultural irrigation diversions could cost from zero to $ 34,000 annually . Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 5,000 per year in project modification costs. 52. Unit 14: Coeur d'Alene Lake Basin - The Coeur d'Alene Lake Basin Unit in Idaho is broken into two subunits. The Coeur d'Alene Lake subunit lies within Kootenai, Shoshone, Benewah and Bonner counties. The St. Joe River subunit includes streams in Shoshone, Benewah, and Latah counties, Idaho. Thirty stream reaches or tributaries ( 677 km ( 421 mi)) and lakes comprising 12,727 ha ( 31,450 ac) of surface area are proposed as critical habitat within this unit. Of this, a relatively high portion ( 46 percent) is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 58 percent of the waters proposed for designation within this Unit are located on Federal land. 53. The Coeur d'Alene Lake Unit is relatively low cost unit, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 429,000 and $ 693,000. A large share of this amount, approximately $ 287,000 annually, is forecast to be made up of administrative costs. In addition, major categories of forecast project modification costs within the unit are associated with timber harvest on USFS lands ($ 97,000 to $ 245,000 per year resulting from reduced harvest, fishery studies, road and culvert costs, and changes in yarding systems), and FHWA bridge and road work ($ 23,000 associated with limitations on in- stream work periods). Modifications to agricultural irrigation diversions could result in costs from zero to $ 100,000. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 10,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 54. Unit 15: Clearwater River Basin - The Clearwater River Unit includes 3,063 km ( 1,904 mi) of streams and 6,722 ha ( 16,611 ac) of lakes proposed as critical habitat for bull trout in north- central Idaho. This large unit extends from the Snake River confluence at Lewiston on the west to headwaters in the Bitterroot Mountains along the Idaho/ Montana border on the east. About 13 percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Clearwater River Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 78 percent of the waters proposed for designation within the Unit are located on Federal land. 55. Total forecast costs associated with consultation on bull trout within this unit are between $ 1.0 million and $ 1.7 million annually. Of this amount, approximately $ 572,000 is associated with administrative costs. In addition, major categories of forecast project modification costs within this unit are associated with timber harvest on USFS lands ($ 252,000 to $ 635,000 per year resulting from reduced harvest, fishery studies, road and culvert costs and changes in yarding systems), recreational suction mining on USFS land ($ 115,000 associated with reduced availability of stream access due to seasonal closures), highway bridge and road work ($ 25,000), and USFS management activities ($ 35,000 ES- 23 annually). Agricultural irrigation diversion project modification costs could range from zero up to $ 259,000 annually. These costs may result from reductions in irrigation deliveries. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 15,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 56. Although the proposed Clearwater River Basin Critical Habitat Unit is forecast to experience significant costs associated with the bull trout, these costs should be viewed in light of the large size of the proposed unit. In fact, the Clearwater Unit is one of the lowest cost of the proposed units, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. 57. Unit 16: Salmon River Basin - The Salmon River basin is a geographically large unit that extends across central Idaho from the Snake River to the Montana border. The critical habitat unit includes 7,688 km ( 4,777 mi) of streams extending across portions of Adams, Blaine, Custer, Idaho, Lemhi, Nez Perce, and Valley counties in Idaho. About six percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Salmon River Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 86 percent of the waters proposed for designation within the Unit are located on Federal land. 58. Forecast total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 2.1 million and $ 3.3 million. Of this amount, approximately $ 1.3 million is associated with administrative costs, with the rest made up of project modification costs. Major categories of forecast project modification costs are associated with timber harvest on USFS lands ($ 465,000 to $ 1.2 million per year resulting from reduced harvest, fishery studies, road and culvert costs and changes in yarding systems), highway bridge and road work ($ 57,000), and USFS general forest management activities ($ 65,000 annually). The cost of modifications to agricultural irrigation water deliveries could range from zero up to $ 479,000 annually. Costs associated with mining activities at Hecla Mining Company's Grouse Creek and Thompson Creek mines are estimated at $ 132,000 annually. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 25,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 59. Although the proposed Salmon River Basin Critical Habitat Unit has significant forecast costs associated with the bull trout, these costs should be viewed in light of the large size of the proposed unit. In fact, the Salmon River Unit is also one of the lowest cost of the proposed units, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. 60. Unit 17: Southwest Idaho River Basins - The Southwest Idaho Unit includes a total of approximately 2,792 km ( 1,735 mi) of streams in the Boise, Payette, and Weiser River basins. A number of southern Idaho counties are wholly or partially within this unit, including Ada, Adams, Boise, Camas, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, Payette, Valley, and Washington counties. The counties within the southern Idaho unit include both a significant portion of productive agricultural land as well as the largest population center in the state ( the Boise Valley). About 24 percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Southwest ES- 24 Idaho Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 78 percent of the proposed streams and 66 percent of proposed lakes and reservoirs within the Southwest Idaho River Basins Unit are located on Federal land. 61. The Southwest Idaho River Basins Unit is a relatively low- cost unit, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 1.0 million and $ 1.9 million. Total administrative costs are forecast to be a relatively small portion of this total ($ 328,000 annually). The remainder of the forecast costs are expected to result from forecast project modifications. Specifically, project modification costs within this unit are forecast to be associated with timber harvest on USFS lands ($ 309,000 to $ 781,000 per year resulting from reduced harvest, fishery studies, road and culvert costs and changes in yarding systems) and BOR reservoir activities ($ 263,000 annually). Major BOR reservoirs in this unit include Anderson Ranch and Arrowrock Reservoirs on the Boise River, Cascade Reservoir on the North Fork Payette, and Deadwood Reservoir on the Payette River. Forecast project modification costs include bull trout life- cycle studies and monitoring at all the reservoirs, and trap and haul passage around the Boise River reservoirs. Costs associated with FERC relicensing at the Lucky Peak facility on the Boise River, and power facilities at the Cascade impoundment, are expected to cost between $ 31,000 and $ 58,000 annually. Modifications to agricultural irrigation diversions could range from zero to $ 318,000 annually. These costs could potentially be associated with reductions in irrigation water withdrawals. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 30,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 62. Unit 18: Little Lost River Basin - The Little Lost River Unit is within Butte, Custer, and Lemhi counties in east- central Idaho. Approximately 184.6 km ( 115.4 mi) of stream habitat in the Little Lost River Basin is proposed for critical habitat designation. About eight percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Little Lost River Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 76 percent of the proposed streams within the Little Lost River Basin Unit are located on Federal land. 63. The Little Lost River Unit is forecast to be a relatively inexpensive unit compared to others in the designation, and is a moderate- cost unit in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. It is estimated that total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit will be between $ 150,000 and $ 176,000. Of this amount, a large share, approximately $ 136,000 annually, is forecast to be comprised of administrative costs, with the remainder made up of project modification costs. The largest category of project modification costs within this unit is forecast to be associated with timber harvest on USFS lands ($ 10,000 to $ 24,000 per year). Project modifications to agricultural irrigation diversions could result in costs from zero to $ 10,000 annually. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 5,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 64. Unit 19: Lower Columbia River Basin - The Lower Columbia Unit consists of portions of the Lewis, White Salmon, and Klickitat Rivers, and associated tributaries in ES- 25 southwestern and south- central Washington. The unit extends across Clark, Cowlitz, Klickitat, Skamania, and Yakima counties. Approximately 340 km ( 210 mi) of streams and three reservoirs covering 5,054 ha ( 12,488 ac) are proposed for critical habitat designation. About 20 percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Lower Columbia River Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. A low portion ( 18 percent) of the proposed streams and 29 percent of the proposed lakes and reservoirs within the Lower Columbia River Basin Unit are located on Federal land. 65. When forecast total costs for this unit are viewed in light of its size, the Lower Columbia River Basins Unit is a moderate- cost unit, in terms of forecast cost per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. It is estimated that total annual costs associated with the bull trout within the unit will be between $ 385,000 to $ 494,000. Total administrative costs associated with the consultation process are estimated to be a relatively large fraction of these costs ($ 304,000 annually). In addition, project modification costs are forecast to be associated with FERC hydroelectric facility re- licensing activities ($ 67,000 to $ 153,000 annually). These FERC re- licensing costs are for the significant hydroelectric developments on the Lewis River, including Yale, Merwin, Swift No. 1, and Swift No. 2. These costs are projected to include study costs, trap and haul passage, and habitat acquisition. Swift No, 2 is one of two hydroelectric projects identified in this study where bull trout- related project modifications could have a significant impact on a small business; the other is Box Canyon in the Northeast Washington River Basin ( Unit 22). Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 10,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 66. Unit 20: Middle Columbia River Basin - The Middle Columbia River unit encompasses the entire Yakima River basin located in south central Washington, draining approximately 15,900 square km ( 6,155 square mi). The basin occupies most of Yakima and Kittitas counties, about half of Benton County, and a small portion of Klickitat County. Approximately 846 km ( 529 mi) of stream habitat and 6,066 ha ( 14,986 ac) of lake and reservoir surface area are proposed as critical habitat within this unit. About 13 percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Middle Columbia River Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 44 percent of the waters proposed for designation within the Middle Columbia River Basin Unit are located on Federal land. 67. The Middle Columbia River Unit is a relatively low- cost unit in terms of cost per stream mile. Forecast costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 391,000 and $ 494,000 annually. Of this amount, a very small portion, approximately $ 50,000 annually, will be associated with the administrative costs of the consultation process, while the remainder will be associated with project modifications. While there are projected to be project modification costs associated with timber harvest activities ( through consultation with the USFS; estimated to be between $ 36,000 and $ 91,000 annually), the majority of forecast costs for this unit are associated with dam and reservoir operations. The BOR operates a system of five dams in this basin ( Cle Elum Lake, Kachess Lake, Keechelus Lake, Tieton Dam, and Bumping Lake) which provide power and irrigation for this agriculturally important region. It is estimated that project modification costs ( periodic trap- ES- 26 and- haul passage to allow genetic interchange between isolated bull trout populations) at the BOR operated impoundments in the unit will cost approximately $ 290,000 per year. Other activities are individually estimated to account for a small portion of forecast annual project modification costs. 68. TheMiddle Columbia River Unit is a relatively low- cost unit in terms of cost per stream mile. 69. Unit 21: Upper Columbia River Basin - The Upper Columbia River Basin includes three subunits in central and northern Washington: the Wenatchee River subunit in Chelan County; the Entiat River subunit in Chelan County; and the Methow River subunit in Okanogan County. A total of 909.7 km ( 565.4 mi) of streams and 1,010 ha ( 2,497 ac) of lake surface area are proposed for critical habitat. About nine percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Upper Columbia River Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 58 percent of the proposed streams and 41 percent of the proposed lakes and reservoirs within the Upper Columbia River Basin Unit are located on Federal land. 70. The Upper Columbia River Basins Unit is a low- cost unit, in terms of forecast cost per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 196,000 to $ 505,000 annually. Total administrative costs associated with the consultation process are estimated to be $ 122,000, with the remainder of the forecast costs made up of project modification requirements. Major categories of forecast project modification costs within this unit are associated with FCRPS fisheries studies ( zero to $ 155,000 per year), and USFS timber harvest activities ($ 57,000 to $ 144,000 annually resulting from reduced harvest, fishery studies, road and culvert costs and changes in yarding systems). The FCRPS fisheries studies are for bull trout radio telemetry, snorkel and general monitoring study costs in the Entiat, Methow, and Wenatchee Rivers. In addition, modifications to agricultural irrigation diversions could result in costs from zero to $ 59,000 annually. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 10,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 71. Unit 22: Northeast Washington River Basins - The Northeast Washington unit includes bull trout above Chief Joseph Dam on the Columbia River. A total of 373.1 km ( 231.9 mi) of streams and 1,166 ha ( 2,880 ac) of lake surface area are proposed as critical habitat within this unit. A high proportion ( 54 percent) of the proposed critical habitat within the Northeast Washington River Basins Unit is currently unoccupied by the species, and approximately 58 percent of the proposed streams and reservoirs within this unit are located on Federal land. 72. The Northeast Washington River Basins Unit is forecast to be a relatively high- cost unit, in terms of forecast cost per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 965,000 to $ 1.4 million annually. Total annual administrative costs are estimated to be a large share of these costs ($ 676,000), with the remainder associated with project modifications. A major category of ES- 27 annual project modification costs within this unit involves FERC hydroelectric facility re-licensing activities ( up to $ 540,000 annually). The estimated FERC re- licensing costs are related to two major hydroelectric facilities on the Pend Orielle River: Box Canyon and Boundary. The Box Canyon re- licensing terms are currently in continuing settlement negotiations, and likely costs specific to this facility are not currently available. However, a recent FERC environmental impact statement ( EIS) estimates that the present value of bull trout related project modifications ( including habitat acquisition) could total upwards of $ 60 million for this relatively small ( 60 MW) facility. Box Canyon is one of two hydroelectric projects identified in this study where bull trout- related project modifications could have a significant impact on a small business; the other is Swift No. 2 in the Lower Columbia River Basin ( Unit 19). Modifications to agricultural irrigation diversions could impose costs from zero to $ 46,000 annually. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 10,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 73. Unit 23: Snake River Basin in Washington - The Snake River Washington Unit includes two critical habitat subunits located in southeast Washington: the Tucannon River subunit located in Columbia and Garfield counties, and the Asotin Creek subunit within Garfield and Asotin counties. A total of 326 km ( 203 mi) of stream reaches are proposed as critical habitat within this unit. About 23 percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Snake River Basin in Washington Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 52 percent of the proposed streams within the Snake River Basin Unit are located on Federal land. 74. The Snake River Basin Unit is a relatively low- cost unit, in terms of forecast cost per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast costs associated with the bull trout within the unit will be between $ 230,000 to $ 287,000. Total annual administrative costs associated with the bull trout are estimated to be a large portion of this total ($ 201,000). The major category of project modification costs within this unit is forecast to be associated with USFS timber harvest activities ($ 21,000 to $ 53,000 annually). Agricultural irrigation diversions could see up to $ 22,000 in annual project modification costs within this unit. Other activities are estimated to each account for less than $ 5,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 75. Unit 24: Columbia River - This unit is located in the states of Oregon and Washington and includes Clatsop, Columbia, Multnomah, Hood River, Wasco, Sherman, Gilliam, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Pacific, Wahkiakum, Cowlitz, Clark, Skamania, Klickitat, Benton, Walla Walla, Franklin, Yakima, Grant, Kittitas, Chelan, Douglas, and Okanogan counties in Washington. All of this stretch of the Columbia River is currently considered occupied by the bull trout. A relatively low share of the land adjacent to the river in this unit is made up of Federally managed lands ( approximately 39 percent). 76. The Columbia River Unit is a relatively low- cost unit, in terms of forecast cost per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast total costs associated with the bull trout within this unit will be between $ 243,000 to $ 504,000 annually. Total annual ES- 28 administrative costs associated with this unit are relatively low ($ 50,000). The major category of annual project modification costs within the unit are forecast to be associated FERC hydroelectric facility re- licensing activities ( up to $ 362,000 annually). Major FERC-licensed hydroelectric projects on the mainstem Columbia River include Priest Rapids, Rocky Reach, and Wells. These very large facilities are operated by PUD's. Other activities are individually forecast to account for less than $ 15,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 77. Unit 25: Snake River - The lower Snake River is located in Washington ( Franklin, Walla Walla, Columbia, Whitman, and Asotin counties) from its mouth to the confluence with the Clearwater River at the cities of Clarkston, Washington and Lewiston, Idaho. The Snake River forms the border between Washington and Idaho from Clarkston/ Lewiston upstream to the Oregon border. The Snake River forms the boundary between Idaho and Oregon from that point upstream to the limit of this critical habitat unit. This portion of the Snake River is within Nez Perce, Idaho, Adams, and Washington counties in Idaho, and Wallowa, Baker, and Malheur counties in Oregon. About 20 percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Snake River Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 50 percent of the habitat proposed for designation within the Snake River Unit is located on Federal land. 78. The Snake River Unit is a relatively low- cost unit, in terms of forecast cost per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are approximately $ 135,000. Administrative costs associated with the consultation process are estimated to be nearly all of that amount, or $ 125,000 annually. Small Business Effects 79. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) ( as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA) of 1996), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( i. e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). The following summarizes the potential effects of critical habitat designation on small entities: Reductions in contractual USFS water deliveries could significantly impact five ranching/ farming operations annually. However, the location of the reduction in water deliveries within the critical habitat designation is uncertain. Small hydroelectric producers in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana could be affected by project modification costs at the time of facility re- licensing. Specifically, the resulting project modifications could have a significant economic impact on the financial operations of Cowlitz County public utility district ( PUD) ( Unit 19 - Lower Columbia River) and Pend Orielle County PUD ( Unit 22 - Northeast Washington River). ES- 29 • Section 7- related costs associated with instream work is expected to affect approximately 15 placer mines annually in the John Day River Basin ( Unit 8) and Hells Canyon Complex ( Unit 12). While the financial characteristics of these mining operations are unknown, this analysis assumes the economic effect will be significant for those operations that are impacted. Energy Industry Impacts 80. Pursuant to Executive Order No. 13211, Federal agencies are required to submit a summary of the potential effects of regulatory actions on the supply, distribution and use of energy. Two criteria are relevant to this analysis: 1) reductions in electricity production in excess of 1 billion kilowatt- hours per year or in excess of 500 megawatts ( MWs) of installed capacity and 2) increases in the cost of energy production in excess of one percent. The constraints placed on energy production within the region from compliance with bull trout section 7 consultations will not result in significant decreases in production or increases in energy costs within the region. Changes From Draft Economic Analysis 81. Information supplied though public comments to the Draft Economic Analysis along with additional information from Action agency and Service personnel on issues raised through public comment led to several changes to the analysis. This Final Economic Analysis contains the following significant changes from the draft report. 1) Additional information on Habitat Conservation Plans ( HCPs) currently under development within the proposed designation has been incorporated. Additional costs on the order of one million dollars annually have been added to the estimated costs reported. 2) The BOR supplied extensive comments on current and potential costs associated with consultation on its impoundments. Costs associated with potential project modifications to Yakima Drainage dams ( as well as for other BOR impoundments within the proposed designation) have been reduced in response to the new BOR information. 3) Information from Hecla Mining Company identified additional consultation- related costs for the Hecla Grouse Creek and Thompson Creek mines. These costs have been included in the section 4 discussion of USFS mining activity. 4) Information from USFS personnel from the Wallowa/ Whitman National Forest identified impacts associated with limitations on in- stream work windows for placer mining operations as baseline State of Oregon regulations that are independent of bull trout section 7 consultation. Estimated impacts to Oregon placer mining have been adjusted accordingly. ES- 30 5) Additionally, corrections to minor errors within the report, not impacting final cost estimates, have been made in response to public comments. Caveats to Economic Analysis 82. Exhibit ES. 10 presents the key assumptions of this economic analysis, as well as the potential direction and relative scale of bias introduced by the assumptions. 83. These caveats below describe factors that introduce uncertainty into the results of this analysis. ES. 10 CAVEATS TO THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Key Assumption Projected USFS timber harvest activity is based on recent regional history and ignores the declining long- term trend of the industry. USFS water diversion reductions occur annually and representative water costs reflect the high- end of water lease rates in Washington. Cost of USFS water diversion reductions and timber harvest project modifications are distributed across the units in proportion to USFS non- wilderness acreage. While this may have no effect on the total cost estimate, it may have an effect on the unit cost estimate. Total costs of providing technical assistance is expected to be small relative to other economic impacts; therefore, this analysis does not quantify the instances and costs of technical assistance efforts. Project modifications incorporating measures suggested by the Service and voluntarily agreed to by the applicant during the informal consultation process in order to minimize impact to the bull trout and/ or its habitat are not quantified in this analysis. Amortization of fishery- related capital investments are based on the life of the project rather than a shorter revenue recovery period. Changes in hydroelectric power revenues attributable to reductions in operational flexibility at Libby and Hungry Horse dams is not quantified Most of the project modification costs will either be borne directly by or passed onto the Federal government. The FPA, the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, and fisheries management directives ( Northwest Forest Plan, INFISH and PACFISH) provide baseline protection. Project modification costs allocated between bull trout and other listed species. Limited consultation with the NRCS is anticipated and based on a the record of past formal and informal consultation activity on the bull trout Effect on Cost Estimate + + +/- - - - - +/- +/- +/- - -: This assumption may result in an underestimate of real costs. + : This assumption may result in an overestimate of real costs. +/-: This assumption has an unknown effect on estimates. ES- 31 Estimated Cost of the Final Designation 84. The analysis contained in this report is consistent with the designation as described in the proposed rule; 5 however, the Service is expected to exclude some proposed areas of habitat to arrive at a final designation. The purpose of this section is to detail the expected changes to the proposed designation and show the implication of these changes on estimated consultation and project modification costs. 85. Exhibit ES. ll compares the spatial extent of the proposed and expected final designations for bull trout critical habitat for both river and stream miles and lake and reservoir acres. Overall, 1,925 miles of rivers and streams and approximately 55,000 acres of lakes and reservoirs are expected to be excluded from critical habitat in the final designation. The greatest reductions in critical habitat stream miles are expected to occur in the Deschutes River Unit ( 60.5 percent reduction), Hood River Unit ( 33.2 percent), Southwest Idaho River Basins Unit ( 32.8 percent), and the Hells Canyon Complex Unit ( 21.3 percent). Most of the reductions in lake and reservoir critical habitat acres are expected to occur in the Deschutes River, Southwest Idaho River Basins and Malheur River Units, all with more than a 70 percent reduction in designated lake and reservoir critical habitat compared to the original proposed designation. ExhibitES. il SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN BULL TROUT CRITICAL HABITAT FROM PROPOSED TO FINAL DESIGNATION Unit Unit 1 - Klamath River Basin Unit 2 - Clark Fork River Basin Unit 3 - Kootenai River Basin Unit 4 - Willamette River Basin Unit 5 - Hood River Basin Unit 6 - Deschutes River Basin Unit 7 - Odell Lake Unit 8 - John Day River Basin Unit 9 - Umatilla- Walla Walla River Basins Unit 10 - Grande Ronde River Basin Unit 11 - Imaha/ Snake River Basins Unit 12 - Hells Canyon Complex Unit 13 - Malheur River Basin Unit 14 - Coeur d'Alene Lake Basin Proposed Designation Stream Miles 296 3,372 368 200 103 439 15 639 396 644 191 599 233 403 Lake and Reservoir Acres 33,939 304,226 30,094 8,899 91 23,314 6,439 0 0 0 0 0 5,926 27,296 Final Designation Stream Miles 280 3,368 368 200 69 173 13 563 348 625 191 471 214 403 Lake and Reservoir Acres 33,939 304,225 30,094 8,899 91 3,407 6,439 0 0 0 0 0 1,769 27,296 5 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Klamath River and Columbia River Distinct Population Segments of Bull Trout, November 29, 2002 ( 67 FR 71235- 71284). ES- 32 Exhibit ES. ll SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN BULL TROUT CRITICAL HABITAT FROM PROPOSED TO FINAL DESIGNATION Unit Unit 15 - Clearwater River Basin Unit 16 - Salmon River Basin Unit 17 - Southwest Idaho River Basins Unit 18 - Little Lost River Basin Unit 19 - Lower Columbia River Basin Unit 20 - Middle Columbia River Basin Unit 21 - Upper Columbia River Basin Unit 22 - Northwest Washington River Basins Unit 23 - Snake River Basin in Washington Unit 24 - Columbia River Basin Unit 25 - Snake River Basin Total Proposed Designation Stream Miles 1,904 4,296 1,657 113 171 523 591 232 204 537 343 18,468 Lake and Reservoir Acres 16,610 3,683 41,307 0 12,078 14,987 2,553 1,279 0 0 0 532.724 Final Designation Stream Miles 1,655 3,835 1,114 110 145 519 578 232 189 537 343 16,543 Lake and Reservoir Acres 16,610 3,487 10,651 0 12,000 15,548 2,553 1,279 0 0 0 478,188 86. As noted, the costs reported in the body of this report are consistent with the proposed designation. Expected changes to the proposed designation and the impact of these exclusions on costs are summarized in Exhibit ES. 12, where estimates of annual section 7- related consultation costs for both the proposed and expected final bull trout critical habitat designations are shown. The expected changes to the final designation impacts estimated costs in two ways. 87. First, where future consultation and project modification costs were estimated for dams and reservoirs located within stream reaches that are expected to be excluded from the final critical habitat designation, the costs associated with these anticipated consultations are removed. Three critical habitat units have dams and reservoirs located on waters expected to be excluded in the final designation. The previously quantified costs associated with consultations on Lucky Peak and Cascade Dams and Reservoirs, and Warm Springs, Crane Prairie, and Wickiup Reservoirs have therefore been removed from the forecast total costs associated with the final critical habitat designation. Costs associated with consultations on Lucky Peak and Cascade Dams and Reservoirs have been removed from estimates for the Southwest Idaho River Basins Units, costs associated with consultation on Warm Springs Reservoir have been removed from estimates for the Malheur River Unit, and costs associated with consultations on Crane Prairie and Wickiup Reservoirs have been removed from estimates for the Deschutes River Unit. 88. Second, because the Service is expected to exclude areas of unknown occupancy from the final designation, the spatial extent of unoccupied habitat in each critical habitat ES- 33 unit is adjusted to reflect the expected final designation ( see Appendix F, Exhibit F. 11), and the forecast costs of the expected final designation reflect these changes. 89. Exhibit ES. 12 presents a summary of the annualized forecast total costs, by unit, likely to be associated with the final critical habitat designation over the next ten years. Overall, the removal of waters from the proposed to the expected final bull trout designation is expected to lower forecast section 7- related consultation and project modification costs by approximately $ 18 to $ 24 million over the next ten years ( nine percent). In six units where no changes in the proposed designation were made, there is no change in forecast costs. As a percentage of unit costs, the greatest reduction in forecast costs resulting from the exclusions is expected to occur in the Deschutes River Basin Unit, where forecast costs of the expected final designation are 43 to 55 percent of the costs originally forecast for the proposed designation. 90. The economic impacts associated with the final designation, discounted to present value using a rate of seven percent, are forecast to range from approximately $ 180 to $ 245 million over the next ten years, or $ 18.0 to $ 24.5 million annually. Total costs associated with the final designation for the Klamath Distinct Population Segment of bull trout are forecast to range from approximately $ 5 million to $ 7 million over the next ten years ($ 0.5 to 0.7 million annually), while costs associated with the final designation for the Columbia Distinct Population Segment of bull trout are forecast to range from approximately $ 175 million $ 235 million ($ 17.5 to $ 23.5 million annually). 91. These costs will be incurred primarily by Federal agencies responsible for section 7 consultations ( approximately 65 percent of forecast costs) and the Service ( approximately five to ten percent of forecast costs); private entities will incur the remaining 25 to 30 percent. Project modification costs account for as much as 50 to 60 percent of forecast costs, and administrative costs the remaining 40 to 50 percent. Dam and reservoir- related consultations, including power facility re- licensing, account for approximately 42 percent of forecast project modification costs ( excluding the cost associated with reduced irrigation diversions). Timber harvest, irrigation diversions, habitat conservation plans, and mining account for 20 percent, 12 percent, nine percent, and three percent of forecast project modification costs, respectively. 92. The main text of the report discusses impacts to small businesses expected under the rulemaking as proposed. Impacts to small businesses are primarily related to potential reductions in USFS water deliveries to farmers/ ranchers, project modifications triggered during hydroelectric facility re- licensing, and costs associated with activity restrictions for placer mining. Under the final designation, the reduction in small business impacts would parallel the extent to which these activities occur in habitat removed from the final designation and losses related to these activities reduced. ES- 34 Exhibit ES. 12 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION SECTION 7 COSTS FOR THE BULL TROUT ( Annualized $ l, 000fs) Unit Unit 1 - Klamath River Basin Unit 2 - Clark Fork River Basin Unit 3 - Kootenai River Basin Unit 4 - Willamette River Basin Unit 5 - Hood River Basin Unit 6 - Deschutes River Basin Unit 7 - Odell Lake Unit 8 - John Day River Basin Unit 9 - Umatilla- Walla Walla River Basins Unit 10 - Grande Ronde River Basin Unit 11 - Imaha/ Snake River Basins Unit 12 - Hells Canyon Complex Unit 13 - Malheur River Basin Unit 14 - Coeur d'Alene Lake Basin Unit 15 - Clearwater River Basin Unit 16 - Salmon River Basin Unit 17 - Southwest Idaho River Basins Unit 18 - Little Lost River Basin Unit 19 - Lower Columbia River Basin Unit 20 - Middle Columbia River Basin Unit 21 - Upper Columbia River Basin Unit 22 - Northwest Washington River Basins Unit 23 - Snake River Basin in Washington Unit 24 - Columbia River Basin Estimated Range of Cost Proposed Critical Habitat Designation Low Estimate $ 529 1,321 328 4,497 328 430 51 446 98 467 559 1,939 2,006 429 995 2,059 1,004 150 385 391 196 965 230 243 High Estimate $ 733 2,192 402 4,891 413 719 56 600 211 580 605 2,338 2,095 693 1,676 3,319 1,867 176 494 494 505 1,397 287 504 Estimated Range of Cost Final Critical Habitat Designation Low Estimate $ 507 1,321 328 3,463 248 195 51 411 81 444 559 1,443 1,792 279 881 1,942 698 144 308 376 178 663 177 243 High Estimate $ 703 2,192 402 3,766 312 401 56 553 175 551 605 1,740 1,874 450 1,483 3,130 1,348 169 396 475 460 959 221 504 ES- 35 Exhibit ES. 12 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION SECTION 7 COSTS FOR THE BULL TROUT ( Annualized $ l, 000fs) Unit Unit 25 - Snake River Basin Multiple unit or unknown a Estimated Range of Cost Proposed Critical Habitat Designation Low Estimate 135 1,303 High Estimate 135 1,303 Estimated Range of Cost Final Critical Habitat Designation Low Estimate 135 1,303 High Estimate 135 1,303 Notes: These estimates include all section 7 costs, including those co- extensive with the listing and designation of critical habitat for the bull trout. Costs are reported in 2003 dollars. a Miscellaneous costs ($ 213,000 annually) and the costs associated with development of HCP's ($ 1,090,000 annually) have not been allocated to the unit level due to uncertainty as to their location. ES- 36 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND SECTION 1 93. In November 2002, the Service proposed to designate critical habitat for the Columbia River and Klamath River DPSs of bull trout ( Salvelinus confluentus), hereafter " bull trout." 6 The purpose of this report is to identify and analyze potential economic impacts associated with the proposed critical habitat designation. This report was prepared by Bioeconomics, Inc. of Missoula, Montana. 94. Section 4( b)( 2) of the Act requires the Service to designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Service may exclude areas from critical habitat designation when the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of including the areas within critical habitat, provided the exclusion will not result in extinction of the species. 95. Under the listing of a species, section 7( a)( 2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service in order to ensure that activities they fund, authorize, permit, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. The Service defines jeopardy as any action that would appreciably reduce the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the species. For designated critical habitat, section 7( a)( 2) also requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service to ensure that activities they fund, authorize, permit, or carry out do not result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Adverse modification of critical habitat is currently construed as any direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for conservation of a listed species. 6 On January 26,2001, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Inc. and Friends of the Wild Swan, Inc. filed a lawsuit in the U. S. District Court of Oregon challenging the Service's failure to designate critical habitat for bull trout. The Service entered into a settlement agreement on January 14, 2002, which stipulated that the Service would make critical habitat determinations for five populations of bull trout ( Civil Case No: CV 01- 127- JO). The Service has proposed critical habitat for the Columbia River and Klamath River populations, which are the subject of this analysis. 1- 1 1.1 Description of Species and Habitat7 96. Bull trout { Salvelinus confluentus, family Salmonidae) is a char native to waters of western North America. The historic range of bull trout includes major river basins in the Pacific Northwest from about 41° north to 60° north latitude, extending south to the McCloud River in northern California and the Jarbidge River in Nevada, and north to the headwaters of the Yukon River in Northwest Territories, Canada. To the west, bull trout range includes Puget Sound, various coastal rivers of British Columbia, Canada, and southeast Alaska. Bull trout occur in portions of the Columbia River and Snake River basins, extending east to headwater streams in Montana and Idaho, and into Canada. Bull trout also occur in the Klamath River basin of south- central Oregon. East of the Continental Divide in Canada, the bull trout's range includes the headwaters of the Saskatchewan River in Alberta, and the MacKenzie River system in Alberta and British Columbia. 97. Bull trout were first described as Salmo spectabilis by Girard in 1856 from a specimen collected on the lower Columbia River near The Dalles, Oregon, and subsequently described under a number of names such as Salmo confluentus and Salvelinus malma. Bull trout and Dolly Varden ( Salvelinus malma) were previously considered a single species. However, in 1980, the American Fisheries Society formally recognized bull trout and Dolly Varden as separate species. Two of the most useful characteristics in separating the two species are the shape and size of the head. The head of bull trout is more broad and flat on top, unlike Dolly Varden. Bull trout have an elongated body and large mouth, with the maxilla ( jaw) extending beyond the eye and with well- developed teeth on both jaws and head of the vomer ( a bone in teleost fishes that form the front part of the roof of the mouth and often bears teeth). Bull trout have 11 dorsal fin rays, nine anal fin rays, and the caudal fin is slightly forked. Although they are often olive green to brown with paler sides, color is variable with locality and habitat. 98. Bull trout exhibit both resident and migratory life history strategies. Resident bull trout complete their entire life cycle in the tributary streams where they spawn and rear. Migratory bull trout spawn in tributary streams where juvenile fish rear from one to four years before migrating to either a larger river or lake, where they spend their adult life, returning to the tributary stream only to spawn. These migratory forms occur in areas where conditions allow for movement from upper watershed spawning streams to larger downstream waters that contain greater foraging opportunities. Bull trout that migrate to a downstream river are referred to as " fluvial" fish, while the term " adfluvial" is used to describe fish that migrate to a lake or reservoir. Resident and migratory forms may spawn in the same areas and either form can produce resident or migratory offspring. 7 Information on the bull trout and its habitat is taken from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Klamath River and Columbia River Distinct Population Segments of Bull Trout, November 29, 2002 ( 67 FR 71235- 71284). 1- 2 99. The Klamath River population segment consists of bull trout in the Upper Klamath Lake, Sprague River, and Sycan River watersheds in Oregon. Historical records suggest that bull trout were once widely distributed and exhibited diverse life- history traits in the Klamath River basin. Currently, bull trout in this basin are non- migratory fish that are confined to headwater streams. The local populations that remain reside in an estimated 21 percent of the historic range of bull trout in the Klamath River basin, and they are isolated from one another. 100. The Columbia River population segment includes bull trout residing in portions of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana. The Bull Trout Draft Recovery Plan ( Draft Recovery Plan) ( Service 2002) identifies 22 recovery units within the Columbia River basin: the Willamette River ( upper tributaries including the McKenzie River), Lower Columbia River ( principally the Lewis, White Salmon, and Klickitat Rivers), Hood River, Deschutes River, Odell Lake, John Day River, Umatilla and Walla Walla Rivers, Middle Columbia River ( principally the Yakima River), Snake River ( including Asotin Creek and Tucannon River), Grande Ronde River, Clearwater River, Salmon River, Little Lost River, Imnaha River, Hells Canyon ( including Powder River), Malheur River, Southwest Idaho, Upper Columbia River ( principally the Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow Rivers), Northeast Washington, Clark Fork River, Kootenai River, and Coeur d'Alene Lake. Bull trout are estimated to have once occupied about 60 percent of the Columbia River basin; they presently occur in approximately 45 percent of their historic range. Although still somewhat widely distributed in the Columbia River basin, bull trout occur in low numbers in many areas and populations are considered depressed or declining across much of their range. 101. Many factors have contributed to the decline of bull trout in the Columbia and Klamath River basins. However, several appear to be particularly significant: ( 1) fragmentation and isolation of local populations due to dams and water diversions that have eliminated habitat, altered water flow and temperature regimes, and impeded migratory movements; ( 2) degradation of spawning and rearing habitat in upper watershed areas, particularly alterations in sedimentation rates and water temperature resulting from past forest and rangeland management practices and intensive development of roads; and ( 3) the introduction and spread of non- native species, particularly brook trout ( Salvelinusfontinalis) and lake trout ( Salvelinus namaycush), which compete with bull trout for limited resources and, in the case of brook trout, hybridize with bull trout. 102. Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements than most other salmonids. Habitat components that influence bull trout distribution and abundance include water temperature, cover, channel form and stability, spawning and rearing substrate conditions, and migratory corridors. 103. Bull trout are found primarily in cold streams; water temperatures above 15° Celsius ( C) ( 59° Fahrenheit ( F)) are believed to limit bull trout distribution. Adult bull trout have been observed in large rivers throughout the Columbia River basin in water temperatures up to 20° C ( 68° F); however, there are documented steady and substantial declines in 1- 3 abundance in stream reaches where water temperature ranged from 15° to 20° C ( 59° to 68° F). In large rivers, bull trout are often observed " dipping" into the lower reaches of tributary streams, and it is suspected that cooler waters in these tributary mouths may provide important thermal refugia, allowing them to forage, migrate, and overwinter in waters that would otherwise be, at least seasonally, too warm. 104. Preferred spawning habitat consists of low- gradient stream reaches with loose, clean gravel, and water temperatures that range from 4° to 10° C ( 39° to 51° F). Such areas are often associated with cold- water springs or groundwater up- welling. Because bull trout eggs incubate about seven months in the gravel, they are especially vulnerable to fine sediments and water quality degradation. Increases in fine sediment appear to reduce egg survival and emergence. Juveniles are likely similarly affected, as they also live on or within the stream bed cobble. 105. Throughout their lives, bull trout require complex forms of cover, including large woody debris, undercut banks, boulders, and pools. Bull trout are opportunistic feeders, with food habits that are primarily a function of size and life- history strategy. Resident and juvenile migratory bull trout prey on terrestrial and aquatic insects, macro- zooplankton, and small fish. Adult migratory bull trout feed almost exclusively on other fish. 106. The ability to migrate is important to the persistence of bull trout. Maintaining the full complement of bull trout life history forms appears to be important for long- term population persistence in a dynamic and unpredictable environment. Migratory bull trout become much larger than resident fish in the more productive waters of larger streams and lakes, leading to increased reproductive potential. Migration also results in increased dispersion of the population which facilitates gene flow among local populations when individuals from different local populations interbreed, stray, or return to non- natal streams. Local populations that are extirpated by catastrophic events may also become re- established by bull trout migrants. 107. Introduced brook trout threaten bull trout through hybridization, competition, and possibly predation. Hybridization between brook trout and bull trout has been reported in Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. In addition, brook trout mature at an earlier age and have a higher reproductive rate than bull trout. This difference appears to favor brook trout over bull trout when they occur together, often leading to the decline or extirpation of bull trout. Brook trout also appear to adapt better to degraded habitat than bull trout and are more tolerant of high water temperatures. Non- native lake trout also negatively affect bull trout. In a study of 34 lakes in Montana, Alberta, and British Columbia, lake trout appeared to limit foraging opportunities and reduce the distribution and abundance of migratory bull trout in mountain lakes. 108. The Service determined the primary constituent elements of bull trout habitat from studies of their habitat requirements, life history characteristics, and population biology, as outlined above. These primary constituent elements are: 1- 4 Permanent water and associated substrate having low levels of contaminants such that normal reproduction, growth and survival are not inhibited; Water temperatures ranging from 2° to 15° C ( 37° to 59° F). Adequate thermal refugia may be necessary for persistence of bull trout if water temperatures commonly exceed this range. Specific temperatures within this range will vary depending on bull trout life history stage and form, geography, elevation, diurnal and seasonal variation, shade, such as that provided by riparian habitat, and local groundwater influence; • Complex stream channels with features such as woody debris, side channels, pools, and undercut banks to provide a variety of depths, velocities, and instream structures; • Substrates of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young- of- the- year and juvenile survival. A minimal amount of fines less than 0.63 cm ( 0.25 in) in diameter and minimal substrate embeddedness are characteristic of these conditions; • A natural hydrograph, including high, low, peak, and base flows within historic ranges or, if regulated, a hydrograph that demonstrates the ability to support bull trout populations; • Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity to contribute to water quality and quantity; • Migratory corridors with minimal physical, biological or chemical barriers between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and foraging habitats, including intermittent or seasonal barriers induced by high water temperatures or low flows; • An abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish; and • Few or no predatory, interbreeding, or competitive non- native species present. An area need not include all of these elements to qualify for designation as critical habitat. 1.2 Proposed Critical Habitat 109. The areas proposed for designation as critical habitat for the bull trout provide one or more of the primary constituent elements described above. All of the proposed areas require special management considerations to ensure their contribution to the conservation of the bull trout. The critical habitat area consists of 18,469 river miles and 532,721 acres of lake and reservoir habitat within 25 units. While the lateral extent of proposed riverine 1- 5 critical habitat is the width of the stream channel defined by its bankfull elevation, the designation of critical habitat is expected to impact inland activity. How far inland the designation's effects extend is a more or less a site specific issue. For example, with regards to land- based activities such as timber sales or grazing practices, it is a matter of site specific physical processes such as sediment transport, the local topography, and the size of the drainage basin. Descriptions of each critical habitat unit are provided in Appendix A. 1.3 Framework and Methodology 110. The primary purpose of this analysis is to estimate the economic impact associated with the designation of critical habitat for bull trout. 8 This information is intended to assist the Secretary in making decisions about whether the benefits of excluding particular areas from the designation outweigh the benefits of including those areas in the designation. 9 In addition, this information allows the Service to address the requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13211, the RFA, as amended by the SBREFA. 10 111. This chapter provides the framework for this analysis. First, it defines the economic effects considered in the analysis. Second, it establishes the baseline against which these effects are measured. Third, it describes the measurement of direct compliance costs, which include costs associated with, and generated as a result of, section 7 consultations. Fourth, it identifies potential indirect economic effects of the rule resulting from ( 1) compliance with other parts of the Act potentially triggered by critical habitat, ( 2) compliance with other laws, and ( 3) time delays and regulatory uncertainty. Fifth, it discusses the need for an economic assessment of the benefits of critical habitat designation. Finally, the section concludes by discussing the time frame for the analysis and the general steps followed in the analysis. 1.3.1 Types of Economic Effects Considered 112. This economic analysis considers both the economic efficiency and distributional effects. For the purpose of this analysis, economic efficiency effects generally reflect the " opportunity costs" associated with the commitment of resources required to comply with the Act. For example, if the activities that can take place on a parcel of private land are limited as a result of a designation, and thus the market value of the land reduced, this reduction in value represents one measure of opportunity cost or change in economic efficiency. Similarly, the costs incurred by a Federal Action agency to consult with the Service under section 7 represent economic opportunity costs. 8 This analysis considers the effects of the regulatory action as proposed in the Federal Register on November 29, 2002 ( 67 FR 71236). M6U. S. C. § 1533( b)( 2). 10 Executive Order 12866, " Regulatory Planning and Review," September 30, 1993; Executive Order 13211, " Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use," May 18, 2001; 5 U. S. C. § § 601 etseq; and Pub Law No. 104- 121. 1- 6 113. This analysis also addresses how the impacts are distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional economic impacts and the potential effects on small entities and the energy industry. This information can be used by decision- makers to assess whether the effects might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector. 114. For example, while the designation may have a relatively small impact when measured in terms of changes in economic efficiency, individuals employed in a particular sector of the economy in the geographic area of the designation may experience relatively greater effects. The difference between economic efficiency effects and distributional effects, as well as their application in this analysis, are discussed in greater detail below. Efficiency Effects 115. At the guidance of the OMB and in compliance with Executive Order 12866 " Regulatory Planning and Review," Federal agencies measure changes in economic efficiency in order to understand how society, as a whole, will be affected by a regulatory action. 11 In the context of this regulatory action, these efficiency effects represent the opportunity cost of resources used or benefits foregone by society as a result of critical habitat designation and other co- extensive regulations. 12 Economists generally characterize opportunity costs in terms of changes in producer and consumer surpluses in affected markets. 13 116. In some instances, compliance costs may provide a reasonable approximation for the efficiency effects associated with a regulatory action. For example, a landowner or manager may need to enter into a consultation with the Service to ensure that a particular activity will not adversely modify critical habitat. The effort required for the consultation represents an economic opportunity cost, because the landowner or manager's time and effort would have been spent in an alternative activity had the parcel not been included in the designation. When compliance activity is not expected to significantly affect markets — that is, not result in a shift in the quantity of a good or service provided at a given price, or in the quantity of a good or service demanded given a change in price ~ the measurement of compliance costs can provide a reasonable estimate of the change in economic efficiency. 11 Executive Order 12866, " Regulatory Planning and Review," September 30,1993; U. S. Office of Management and Budget, " Circular A- 4," September 17, 2003. 12 The term " co- extensive" is discussed in greater detail in Section 1.3.3. 13 For additional information on the definition of " surplus" and an explanation of consumer and producer surplus in the context of regulatory analysis, see Gramlich, Edward M, A Guide to Benefit- Cost Analysis ( 2nd Ed.), Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc., 1990; and U. S. EPA, Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, EPA 240- R- 00- 003, September 2000, available at http:// yosemite. epa. gov/ ee/ epa/ eed. nsf/ webpages/ Guidelines. html. 1- 7 117. Where a designation is expected to significantly impact a market, it may be necessary to estimate changes in producer and consumer surpluses. For example, a designation that precludes the development of large areas of land may shift the price and quantity of housing supplied in a region. In this case, changes in economic efficiency can be measured by considering changes in producer and consumer surplus in the real estate market. 118. This analysis begins by measuring reasonably foreseeable compliance costs. As noted above, in some cases, compliance costs can provide a reasonable estimate of changes in economic efficiency. However, if the designation is expected to significantly impact markets, the analysis will consider potential changes in consumer and/ or producer surplus in affected markets. Distributional and Regional Economic Effects 119. Measurements of changes in economic efficiency focus on the net impact of the regulation, without consideration for how certain economic sectors or groups of people are affected. Thus, a discussion of efficiency effects alone may miss important distributional considerations concerning groups that may be disproportionately affected. OMB encourages Federal agencies to consider distributional effects separately from efficiency effects. 14 This analysis considers the potential for several types of distributional effects, including impacts on small entities; impacts on energy supply distribution and use; and regional economic impacts. It is important to note that these are fundamentally different measures of economic impact than efficiency effects, and thus cannot be added to or compared with estimates of changes in economic efficiency. Impacts on Small Entities and Energy Supply, Distribution and Use 120. This analysis considers how small entities, including small businesses, organizations, and governments, as defined by the RFA, might be affected by critical habitat designation and other co- extensive regulatory actions. 15 In addition, in response to Executive Order 13211 " Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use," this analysis considers the impacts of critical habitat on the energy industry and its customers. 16 14 U. S. Office of Management and Budget, " Circular A- 4," September 17, 2003. 155U. S. C. § 60\ etseq. 16 Executive Order 13211, " Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use," May 18, 2001. 1- 8 Regional Economic Effects 121. Regional economic impact analysis provides an assessment of the potential localized effects of critical habitat designation and other co- extensive regulations. Specifically, regional economic impact analysis produces a quantitative estimate of the potential magnitude of the initial change in the regional economy resulting from a regulatory action. Regional economic impacts are commonly measured using regional input/ output models. These models rely on multipliers that mathematically represent the relationship between a change in one sector of the economy ( e. g., hydroelectric power generation) and the effect of that change on economic output, income, or employment in other local industries ( e. g., manufacturers relying on the electricity generated). These economic data provide a quantitative estimate of the magnitude of shifts of jobs and revenues in the local economy. 122. The use of regional input/ output models can overstate the long- term impacts of a regulatory change. Most importantly, these models provide a static view of the economy of a region. That is, they measure the initial impact of a regulatory change on an economy but do not consider long- term adjustments that the economy will make in response to this change. For example, these models provide estimates of the number of jobs lost as a result of a regulatory change, but do not consider re- employment of these individuals over time. In addition, the flow of goods and services across the regional boundaries defined in the model may change as a result of the designation, compensating for a potential decrease in economic activity within the region. 123. Despite these and other limitations, in certain circumstances regional economic impact analysis may provide useful information about the scale and scope of localized impacts. It is important to remember that measures of regional economic effects generally reflect shifts in resource use rather than efficiency losses. These types of distributional effects, therefore, should be reported separately from efficiency effects ( i. e., not summed). In addition, measures of regional economic impact cannot be compared with estimates of efficiency effects. 1.3.2 Defining the Baseline 124. The purpose of this analysis is to measure the economic impact of compliance with the protections derived from the designation of critical habitat, including habitat protections that may be " co- extensive" with the listing of the species ( the term " co- extensive" is described in greater detail in the following section). Economic impacts to land use activities may exist in the absence of co- extensive protections. These impacts may result from, for example: • Local zoning laws; • State and natural resource laws; and 1- 9 • Enforceable management plans and BMPs applied by other State and Federal agencies. 125. Economic impacts that result from these types of protections are not included in this assessment; they are considered to be part of the " baseline." Existing laws, regulations, and policies are described in greater detail in Section 2.3 of this analysis. 1.3.3 Direct Compliance Costs 126. The measurement of direct compliance costs focuses on the implementation of section 7 of the Act. This section requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The administrative costs of these consultations, along with the costs of project modifications resulting from these consultations, represent the direct compliance costs of designating critical habitat. 127. This analysis does not differentiate between consultations that result from the listing of the species ( i. e., the jeopardy standard) and consultations that result from the presence of critical habitat ( i. e., the adverse modification standard). Consultations resulting from the listing of the species, or project modifications meant specifically to protect the species as opposed to its habitat, may occur even in the absence of critical habitat. However, in 2001, the U. S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals instructed the Service to conduct a full analysis of all of the economic impacts of critical habitat designation, regardless of whether those impacts are attributable co- extensively to other causes. 17 Given the similarity in regulatory definitions between the terms " jeopardy" and " adverse modification," in practice it can be difficult to pre- determine the standard that drives a section 7 consultation. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that this economic analysis complies with the instructions of the 10th Circuit as well as to ensure that no costs of the proposed designation are omitted, the potential effects associated with all section 7 impacts in or near proposed critical habitat are fully considered. In doing so, the analysis ensures that any critical habitat impacts that are co- extensive with the listing of the species are not overlooked. 1.3.4 Indirect Costs 128. A designation may
-
Fish liberations are in Crater Lake and the following streams of Crater Lake National Park: Annie, Bybee, Copeland, Castle, National, Sun, Redblanket, Munson, Lost, Bear, Sand and Crater Creeks.
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Fish liberations in Crater Lake, Crater Lake National Park
- Author:
- United States. National Park Service
- Year:
- 1940, 2010
Fish liberations are in Crater Lake and the following streams of Crater Lake National Park: Annie, Bybee, Copeland, Castle, National, Sun, Redblanket, Munson, Lost, Bear, Sand and Crater Creeks.
-
Public Review Draft 4- 27- 05 Conservation Plan Miller Lake Lamprey, Lampetra ( Entosphenus) minima April, 2005 Executive summary - The Miller Lake Lamprey was believed extinct after a chemical treatment in ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Conservation plan, Miller Lake lamprey, Lampetra (Entosphenus) minima : April, 2005
- Author:
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
- Year:
- 2005
Public Review Draft 4- 27- 05 Conservation Plan Miller Lake Lamprey, Lampetra ( Entosphenus) minima April, 2005 Executive summary - The Miller Lake Lamprey was believed extinct after a chemical treatment in 1958, targeting lamprey and tui chub, extirpated both from Miller Lake. The lamprey population was later recognized to be a distinct species, Lampetra minima ( Bond and Kan 1973). It was the smallest lamprey species in the world ( maturing at less than 4 in), and at that time was known only from Miller Lake, where it was extinct In 1992, a small lamprey caught in the Upper Williamson River was identified as a Miller Lake Lamprey, and subsequent investigations have identified six local populations of this lamprey in two small subdrainages of the Upper Klamath Basin. Management strategies to preserve this species include: conserving appropriate habitat conditions and availability within the natural range of the Miller Lake Lamprey, addressing potential impacts from stocking streams with hatchery fish, reducing entrainment, and establishing connectivity within and between local populations. A man- made barrier built in 1959 still exists on Miller Creek. Originally created to prevent the re- establishment of lamprey in Miller Lake after the chemical treatment, the barrier currently prevents natural dispersal of the Miller Creek population and re- colonization of both extensive habitat in upper Miller Creek and Miller Lake itself. Removal of the barrier, which is in disrepair but continues to exclude lamprey, is feasible and will eliminate the only man- made feature obstructing natural connectivity within the Miller Lake drainage, the species' type locality. This conservation plan is intended to provide guidance for management actions and conservation of the Miller Lake Lamprey. Introduction lhe Miller Lake Lamprey, Lampetra { Entosphenus) minima, is the worlds smallest predatory lamprey, reaching a size of only 3- 6", and is endemic to the Klamath Basin ( Bond and Kan 1973, Gill et al. 2003, Lorion et al. 2000). It is also one of the few species to have " recovered" from extinction. Miller Lake was chemically treated with toxaphene by the Oregon Game Commission on September 16,1958 to eliminate Tui Chub ( Siphateles bicolor) and a population of unidentified lamprey ( Gerlach 1958, Gerlach and Borovicka 1964). The lamprey in Miller Lake was later discovered to have been a unique species, apparently restricted in range to the Miller Lake drainage ( a small, disjunct tributary to the Upper Williamson River), and was scientifically described by Bond and Kan ( 1973) fifteen years subsequent to its presumed extirpation. Public Review Draft 4- 27- 05 Although there appear to be no immediate threats to the Miller Lake Lamprey ( Kostow 2002), the species is of considerable conservation concern due to: 1) its relatively limited range in two small sub drainages of the Klamath Basin, 2) its continued absence in the ecologically unique setting of Miller Lake ( type locality) and 3) its evolutionary distinctiveness as the smallest known predatory lamprey in the world, maturing at less than four inches. Life History Distribution - The Miller Lake Lamprey is currently known from only two small sub- drainages of the Upper Klamath Basin, the upper Williamson River and the upper Sycan River above Sycan Marsh ( Lorion et al. 2000). The upper Williamson River contains four known populations ( Miller Creek, Jack Creek, Klamath Marsh, and mainstem Williamson River above the marsh). Miller Creek, which drains Miller Lake, is within the upper Williamson Watershed, but it goes sub- surface in the pumice soils and does not reach the Klamath Marsh or Williamson River. Miller Lake has presumably been isolated from the rest of the drainage since the eruption of Mt. Mazama ( Crater Lake) over 6,000 years ago. Jack Creek, a small northern tributary to the upper Williamson River, is also generally disjunct from the mainstem Williamson River due to low, intermittent surface flows in its lower reaches. The Upper Sycan drainage ( a northern tributary of the Sprague River) contains two principal populations, Long Creek drainage and the upper Sycan River drainage above Sycan Marsh. Lamprey have been documented in Coyote Creek and Shake Creek above Sycan Marsh by Nature Conservancy. Lamprey in Shake Creek have not been identified to species. Geographic Variability - In general, individuals from the modern Williamson and Sycan sub-drainages are morphologically similar ( Lorion et al. 2000). However, there are indications of geographic differences between populations. The Sycan populations exhibit significantly higher variability in the number of bicuspid posterial teeth, and the Miller Creek population generally tend to be darker on their ventral surface. Specimens from the original Miller Lake population ( pre- 1958) had, on average, fewer anterial teeth. They also tended to have larger eyes and oral disks relative to total length when compared to modern populations; however, this appears to be due to their slightly smaller size. The available genetic information also indicates that there are geographic differences in the mitochondrial genome ( mtDNA) between Sycan ( Sprague) and Williamson lamprey populations, with one haplotype found only in the Upper Sycan and another limited to lamprey populations in the Sprague River drainage ( Lorion et al. 2000). Continued genetic work on the Klamath lamprey fauna, examining additional genes, indicates that the population of lamprey in Miller Creek may be genetically different than both the other upper Williamson and Sycan populations ( Docker pers. com. 2004). Habitat - Miller Lake Lampreys currently occupy relatively cool, clear streams ( Gunckel and Reid 2004, Kan and Bond 1981, Lorion et al. 2000, Reid pers. com. 2004). Adults are generally associated with structural cover, including loose rocks and woody debris. In lower Miller Creek, where rocky habitat is limited, adult lampreys were consistently found in woody debris jams and even under seat boards from an old outhouse that had fallen into the creek ( Reid pers. obs. 1998). Ammocoetes ( a larval stage lasting about 5 years) live in the substrate and are generally Public Review Draft 4- 27- 05 associated with depositional environments. In streams, ammocoetes are frequently found in silty backwater areas, low energy stream edges, and in pool eddies where leaf litter and other organics ( including adult lamprey carcasses) tend to accumulate. At night ammocoetes may move into the water column to disperse downstream or into more favorable habitat. In Miller Lake ammocoetes were found in organic detritus all along the shoreline but rarely in the extremely cold tributaries flowing into the lake ( Kan and Bond 1981). Recent extensive collections of Pacific Lamprey ammocoetes along the coast indicate that ammocoetes do not occupy otherwise apparently suitable sediments if the upper layer is poorly oxygenated ( Reid and Goodman pers. obs. 2004). Reproduction - Miller Lake Lampreys spawn in shallow redds in clean gravels and sand, which are moved out of the redd by lamprey sucking onto small rocks and actively moving them out of the way ( Markle pers. com. 2004, Reid pers. com. 2004). In streams, redds are generally made in shallow water, often at the tail of a pool or run, and are roughly 10 cm in diameter and a few centimeters deep. In Miller Lake, lampreys were observed spawning in water as deep as 20 feet ( Cochrun 1951b, Kan and Bond 1981). Males attach to the female's head and wrap around her body, aligning genitals and allowing fertilization of the eggs as they emerge. Eggs are heavier than water and are mixed into the bottom of the redd by spawning actions. Kan and Bond ( 1981) found that female lampreys from Miller Lake contained an average of about 600 eggs. Time to hatching is not known, but is probably on the order of a few weeks. Larvae ( ammocoetes) emerge at about 8 mm and move into fine sediments. Adults die after spawning. Feeding - Miller Lake Lampreys feed on fish only as adults. Ammocoetes have no eyes or teeth and are purely filter feeders, burrowing in the sediment and feeding on suspended microorganisms and algae. The ammocoete phase lasts about five years, during which time the ammocoetes grow to around 150 mm. After transformation, adults enter a predatory phase before spawning that generally lasts for less than a year ( from transformation in the summer/ fall to spawning in summer of the following year). Adults feed primarily on flesh that is gouged and rasped out of a small wound (<= 11 mm) under the sucking disk ( Cochran 1994, Kan and Bond 1981). Adults apparently show little selectivity for prey. The adult lampreys in Miller Lake historically fed on both tui chubs and available salmonids ( rainbow, brook and juvenile brown trout) in Miller Lake ( Kan and Bond 1981). They also scavenged dead tui chubs and trout, as well as cannibalizing other lampreys. In Miller Creek, most recent observations found occasional lamprey wounds on brook trout, which were the most abundant species in the creek, but it is probable that lampreys also feed on both rainbows and young brown trout in the creek ( S. Reid pers. obs. 1998). In Jack Creek lampreys feed on speckled dace, the only other fish present in the stream, and in the Upper Sycan they feed on both trout and dace. Unlike other predatory lampreys, but similar to non- feeding brook lampreys, adult Miller Lake Lampreys loose body length and mass between the time they transform and actual spawning, indicating that energetic needs and gonadal development are not compensated for by the amount of food they consume ( Hubbs 1971, Kan and Bond 1981, Lorion et al. 2000). Lamprey / Trout Interaction - Although there have been no direct studies of the ecological interaction between lampreys and trout in the Klamath Basin, it is notable that healthy trout and lamprey populations coexist throughout the basin. Lampreys certainly prey on trout, and both adult lampreys and ammocoetes may represent a significant food resource to piscivorous adult Public Review Draft 4- 27- 05 trout. Native redband trout co- exist with much larger predatory lampreys (" Klamath Lake Lamprey", Lampetra { Entosphenus) sp., and Klamath River Lamprey, L. ( E.) similis) in Upper Klamath Lake. A large percentage of the trophy redband trout in Upper Klamath Lake, as well as both redband and brown trout in the Wood and Williamson Rivers, exhibit recent or healed lamprey scars. In smaller streams where Miller Lake Lampreys ( length 3- 6 in) co- exist with native and introduced trout ( redband, bull, brook and brown trout), there appears to be little impact to adult trout, and local fishermen are rarely even aware of the presence of the lamprey ( S. Reid, pers. comm. 2004, R. Smith, pers. comm. 2004). Surveys by USFWS and USFS in 1998- 1999 found that very few of the trout in Miller Creek, the Williamson or upper Sycan Rivers had scars, and during extensive snorkeling surveys, only a few trout were actually observed with lampreys attached ( S. Reid USFWS pers. com., 2004). Historical reports from Miller Lake prior to the extirpation of lampreys indicate that tui chubs were the principal prey, and dead tui chubs were often reported ( Cochrun 1951a, b, Gerlach 1958, Kan 1975, Kan and Bond 1981). Some cannibalism on other lampreys, as well as scavenging of dead fish carcasses, was also observed ( Kan and Bond 1981). Specific mortality of adult trout was not reported, although large trout were noted to have collections of scars and some mortality of fingerlings was observed. Recent observations of occasional fingerling trout mortality and much more frequent lethal predation on speckled dace (< 10 cm TL) in the Sycan River and Jack Creek, as well as the observation of apparently healthy adult trout with healed wounds, suggests that lethal predation on trout is generally limited to fingerlings ( Markle pers. com. 2004, Reid pers. com. 2004, Smith pers. com. 2004). It is not believed that predation on Miller Lake lamprey by piscivorous adult trout has been a threat to the sustainability of lamprey populations. These populations have co- evolved with native trout and appear to be productive enough to withstand some level of predation. The Jack Creek population is an exception. Jack Creek is believed to only support populations of Miller Lake lamprey and speckled dace. Since this lamprey population evolved absent predation from trout, there is a concern that an introduction of piscivorous adult trout could upset the ecological balance in Jack Creek and present a threat to both the lamprey and dace populations. For this reason, stocking of hatchery fish is prohibited by rule in Jack Creek or other streams containing Miller Lake lamprey. Miller Lake Fisheries - Miller Lake currently supports a recreational trout fishery of entirely introduced species. Miller Lake's one notable native species, the Miller Lake Lamprey, was thought extinct when the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Commission approved the current Klamath Basin Fish Management Plan ( ODFW 1997). Today, Miller Lake provides a popular " catchable" and fingerling rainbow trout program, a trophy brown trout fishery, and an under- utilized kokanee population of small- sized individuals ( Smith pers. com. 2004). Due to the role of Miller Lake as a recreational fishery and concerns over the potential impact of lampreys on introduced trout populations in the lake, the history and status of Miller Lake fisheries are summarized below by species. Rainbow trout fingerlings ( 2- 4 inches) were planted in Miller Lake until 1948, when stocking was discontinued due to poor returns. At that time, the poor rainbow fishery was believed to have been due to lamprey predation and competition with resident tui chubs ( Cochrun 1950, Public Review Draft 4- 27- 05 1951a). However, based on the reported poor performance of stocked fingerling rainbows post-treatment ( see below), without either lampreys or tui chubs, it appears that local habitat conditions, and not trophic competition with tui chub or parasitism by lamprey, were driving the poor rainbow population dynamics. Recent observations by ODFW biologists have indicated that while the rainbow trout in Miller Lake are surviving, growing and being harvested by anglers, survival and growth have been, at best, marginal ( Smith pers. com. 2004). Trapnet samples in Miller Lake have been very inefficient at capturing older age class rainbow trout so the average size of sampled trout is not representative of the fish that are available for angler harvest. While trapnet sets typically made in the fall are not particularly good indicators of the rainbow population in Miller Lake, Trapnet sampling of rainbow trout documented an average length of approximately 8 inches in 1988 and approximately 4 inches in 1997. The release of catchable- sized rainbow trout into Miller Lake was initiated in 2001 to supplement the ongoing fingerling stocking program. Brown trout were first introduced into Miller Lake in 1981 and have been stocked annually since. Although small numbers may have been present prior to treatment. Survival and growth of brown trout has been excellent ( Smith pers. com. 2004). Brown trout averaged approximately 17 inches in length in 1998 and approximately 16 inches in 2001. Larger fish captured in trap net sets exceed 10 pounds. Miller Lake was identified by sport- fishing author Denny Rickards as one of the top ten brown trout producing lakes in the western United States. Lampreys themselves, as well as their impaired prey, might in turn serve as additional prey for the large, highly piscivorous brown trout. Stocks of kokanee were introduced to Miller Lake from several states between 1964 and 1971 ( all post- treatment). Kokanee have been very successful reproducing and stocking has not been necessary since 1971. The average size of maturing adults have remained relatively small. Miller Lake is an oligotrophic lake with very low productivity ( Johnson et al. 1985). The length of maturing female kokanee ranged between 7.5- 10 inches between 1965 tol972, and the average size of kokanee females in 2001 was approximately 8 inches. Based on the relatively small length of maturing kokanee females, it appears that environmental conditions or interspecific competition with other trout are driving the kokanee population dynamics. Brook trout were stocked in Miller Lake from the 1930' s until 1948. Brook trout were present in Miller Creek and apparently survived in tributaries during the 1958 treatment, since seven brook trout ( 6- 14 in) were gill- netted from the lake in 1964, prior to introduction of 85,000 kokanee and 150,000 rainbow fingerlings. No brook trout are currently stocked into the lake or tributaries of the lake. A healthy self- sustaining population of brook trout is currently present in Miller Creek, below the lamprey barrier, where they have apparently coexisted with lampreys since both recovered from the 1958 treatment. Tui chubs were present in Miller Lake prior to the 1958 treatment. It is not known whether tui chub were a native or introduced population. However, based on the elevation and atypical tui chub habitat in the lake, it is believed to have been an un- authorized introduction, most probably as a baitfish. Trophic competition between tui chub and rainbow trout has been consistently demonstrated in several Oregon lakes, including Diamond Lake in Douglas County. Tui chub or " roach" problems in Miller Lake were identified by Ken Cochrun ( Fisheries Agent, Oregon State Public Review Draft 4- 27- 05 game Comm.) in his 1950 and 1951 annual reports ( Cochrun 1950, 1951a). However, Mr. Cochrun felt that the " large population" of tui chub would be relatively easy to control compared to the lamprey and hence the need for the radical chemical treatment with toxaphene, which would eliminate both species, rather than rotenone, which would have limited effect on the lamprey ammocoetes in the substrate. In the 1950' s, as is still the case, considerable amount of time was expended by fishery districts controlling tui chub (" roach"), as noted in Mr. Cochrun's annual reports. Tui chubs were never restocked after the treatment and are no longer present in the Miller Lake drainage. One of the goals of this conservation plan for the Miller Lake Lamprey is to re- establish a lamprey population in Miller Lake itself. Historical reports from Miller Lake prior to the extirpation of lampreys nowhere mention specific mortality of adult trout, even when lamprey were abundant, although large trout were noted to have collections of scars ( see above - Lamprey/ Trout Interaction). Based on historical accounts and recent observations from the Upper Sycan drainages, mortality when observed has been on small fish (< 10cm TL). Observations from Miller Lake in the past and recent observations of trophy redband trout fisheries in Upper Klamath Lake indicate that little to no effect is experienced by the fish based on the occurrence of healed lamprey scars. Self- sustaining populations of brown and brook trout ( unstocked) currently coexist with lampreys in Miller Creek below the lamprey barrier. Were lamprey to become reestablished in Miller Lake, they would probably feed primarily on juvenile kokanee, which are abundant in the lake. Although lamprey predation on adult trout may result in some stress and condition loss, the principal effect on adult kokanee and trout fisheries in Miller Lake is likely to be aesthetic, with small round wounds (< l/ 2 in), or scars, on the side of fish. Future Recreational Fish Management The recreational trout and kokanee salmon fisheries in Miller Lake are an extremely valuable fish resource to local community and anglers. All efforts will be made by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to continue to offer angling recreation at current harvestable levels. In the unlikely event that the re- establishment of the Miller Lake lamprey adversely impacts the trout and kokanee population abundance, then additional fish stocking or other compatible management actions will be initiated as necessary to meet recreational fishery management objectives. Conservation Plan Note: Underlined, bold text in italics represents those portions of the conservation plan that are proposed to be adopted into Oregon Administrative Rule by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission. Purpose This conservation plan is intended to provide guidance for management actions and conservation of the Miller Lake lamprey, Lampetra ( Entosphenus) minima. This is the first step in securing populations that currently exist in the Klamath Basin and in Public Review Draft 4- 27- 05 determining their status, abundance, distribution, and life history needs. As new information on the lamprey becomes available it is expected that this document will be modified and updated to reflect the current state of our knowledge. Species Management Unit and Population Description The Miller Lake Lamprey species management unit is comprised of six documented populations and one uncertain population. They are: • Mainstem Upper Williamson River above Klamath Marsh • Miller Creek • Jack Creek • Sycan River above Sycan Marsh • Long Creek • Coyote Creek • Shake Creek ( lamprey present have not been identified to species) Desired Status The desired status of the Miller Lake lamprey is for the species to be distributed widely throughout its historic range, with populations robust enough to withstand stochastic environmental events, and with both the populations and their habitat secure from anthropogenic threats. Current Status The Miller Lake Lamprey is endemic to the Klamath Basin and was recently re- described ( Lorion et al 2000). It is currently known from two sub- drainages. The Williamson River sub- drainage includes populations in Miller Creek, Jack Creek, Klamath Marsh and the mainstem upper Williamson River. In the Sycan sub- drainage the lamprey exists in Long Creek and in the upper Sycan River above the Sycan Marsh. Information regarding the abundance and population structure of Miller Lake lamprey in these systems is not available, and only anecdotal information is available for the life history or habitat requirements of the species. For detailed information on the current information available for the species see Life History section. No immediate threats to the Miller Lake Lamprey are known to currently exist, except for the barrier to connectivity between Miller Creek and Miller Lake. Public Review Draft 4- 27- 05 Management Strategies The short- and long- term management strategies for the Miller Lake Lamprey species management unit are: Short- term Strategy a) Re- establish connectivity to Miller Lake. Long- term Strategies b) Ensure appropriate habitat conditions and availability within the natural range of Miller Lake lamprey. c) Reduce entrainment or the potential for entrainment of adult and larval lampreys into water diversions. d) Reduce stranding or the potential for stranding of larval lampreys in dewatered segments of streams below water diversions. e) Maintain unobstructed opportunities, within and among populations for genetic exchange, natural dispersal or migration activities, and re- colonization of unoccupied portions of historical habitat. f) No hatchery fish shall be stocked in streams that support Miller Lake lamprey. Management strategies are those general conditions relevant to the conservation of the species that are considered essential to ensure its long- term survival within its natural range. Although there are many aspects of a species life- history and management that may play a role in the species' biology, the management strategies include those aspects that are currently considered to be both essential for its long- term survival and that are potentially at risk. Conservation Actions Conservation actions are those specific activities or projects that have been identified as appropriate for the realization of the above conservation goals. General - Due to the general lack of information about the life- history, habitat requirements, and distribution of the Miller Lake Lamprey, any studies which increase our understanding of the species will contribute to future conservation planning and should be supported. Habitat - At this time, the general habitat requirements of the Miller Lake Lamprey populations in the upper Williamson and upper Sycan drainages appear to be similar to those of the native trout populations, and habitat restoration or enhancement projects that benefit the trout populations should be beneficial to the lamprey as well. However, there may be specific differences between these species that should be considered in future projects as our understanding of the lamprey's life- history increases. Public Review Draft 4- 27- 05 Entrainment - At this time there has been no evaluation of potential entrainment risks to the Miller Lake Lamprey. Unscreened or improperly screened irrigation diversions currently exist on the upper Sycan and upper Williamson River systems. Private irrigator participation into the screening program should continue to be encouraged and supported. Stranding - At this time there has been no evaluation of potential stranding risks to the Miller Lake Lamprey. Current water diversions reduce the stream flow in segments of the streams directly below the diversion point. Minimum stream flows or gradual ramping strategies should be encouraged where practicable. Connectivity - The Miller Lake Lamprey is not known to carry out extensive spawning migrations. However, due the tendency for ammocoetes to drift downstream during the multi- year larval stage, it is essential that local populations have free upstream passage opportunities during the period when adults are residing in the stream. The swimming characteristics and passage capabilities of trout ( for whom many fish ladders are designed) and lamprey are very different. Lamprey- friendly ladders or passage corridors should be encouraged in the design phase of new projects, and occupied lamprey streams should be evaluated for the presence of older fish ladders, as well as other artificial barriers. Re- establishment of the Miller Lake population - Miller Lake itself, the type locality for the species, remains the only known historical habitat from which the Miller Lake Lamprey is known to have been extirpated. It also represents both an ecologically unique habitat and a crucial component in the evolutionary legacy of the species. Following the extirpation of lampreys from Miller Lake in 1958, a lamprey barrier was constructed in Miller Creek to prevent recolonization of the lake from Miller Creek. The barrier remains in place today. Removal of this barrier should have a high priority in order to meet the conservation goals for the Miller Lake Lamprey and is discussed in more detail below. The barrier was constructed by the State of Oregon Game Commission in 1959 at the upstream extent of a short, high- gradient cascade in Miller Creek approximately 54 mile downstream from the outlet of Miller Lake and forest road 9772. It consists of a low stonework dam ( about 2 ft high) constructed of mortared native rocks, with a metal plate and lip bolted on top. The configuration is very effective as a man- made barrier to fish passage. However, the current condition of the concrete and rock structure is substantially deteriorated. A recent examination by ODFW, USFWS and USFS personnel indicates that the structure would be relatively easy to remove using hand tools without adverse instream impacts ( evaluated by R. Smith et al., September 2003). Recent baseline surveys ( August 2004) of lamprey ammocoetes in the Miller drainage indicate that they are apparently limited to less than two miles of low- gradient stream in lower Miller Creek ( Gunckel and Reid 2004). Allowing lampreys to re- establish a population above the cascade in Miller Creek and Miller Lake will aid in creating an additional buffer against stochastic events that could otherwise eradicate this geographically limited population. Additional surveys should be scheduled on a five- 10 Public Review Draft 4- 27- 05 year basis to evaluate status of the population and the success of re- colonization efforts. Removal of the barrier should allow natural expansion of the population and recolonization of the lake from the Miller Creek population, which survived the original extirpation. Information Gaps 1) Life history - very little quantitative information is available on the life history and habitat requirements of either ammocoetes or adults with which to guide management decisions. 2) Distribution - current understanding of distribution is based on surveys in the 1990' s that primarily focused on the Williamson and Sprague River drainages. Other potential areas in the Klamath Basin outside these drainages have not been properly surveyed. 3) No specific population or fine- scale distributional surveys have been undertaken for any populations outside of the Miller Lake drainage. 4) Preliminary morphological and genetic information suggests that there are regional differences between the various populations of Miller Lake Lamprey in the Klamath Basin. However, the available information is not yet sufficient for making management decisions relative to population independence or uniqueness. Strategies to Address Gaps 1) A Miller Lake Lamprey Technical Management Team has been formed to promote investigation, management and conservation of the Miller Lake Lamprey. This team currently consists of biologists from ODFW ( Roger Smith and Stephanie Gunckel), Oregon State University ( Douglas Markle), the Western Lamprey Project ( Stewart Reid), and the Great Lakes Inst. Environmental Research ( Margaret Docker - lamprey genetics). 2) ODFW will, where appropriate, incorporate lampreys into their fish survey protocols in the Klamath Basin and will seek to collaborate with other researchers carrying out lamprey surveys in the Basin. 3) ODFW and the Miller Lake Lamprey Technical Management Team will promote the investigation of morphological and genetic information informative to resolving regional differences between the various populations of Miller Lake Lamprey. 11 Public Review Draft 4- 27- 05 Research, Monitoring and Evaluation Research Promote scientific studies of the Miller Lake Lamprey to aid in the conservation of the Monitoring Where appropriate, incorporate lampreys into fish survey protocols in the Klamath Basin and seek to collaborate with other researchers carrying out lamprey surveys in the Basin. Evaluation Periodically evaluate the status of Miller Lake lamprey and the success of the conservation plan management strategies. Research - Due to the paucity of available quantitative information on the distribution, life history, habitat requirements of either ammocoetes or adults, ODFW will promote scientific studies of the Miller Lake Lamprey to aid in the conservation of the species. Monitoring - ODFW, in collaboration with USFWS, has documented baseline distribution of the fish in Miller Creek with the lamprey barrier in place ( Gunckel and Reid 2004). Monitoring of the population will continue to evaluate upstream movement, distribution, abundance, and re- colonization of the lake through the cooperative effort of ODFW and the Miller Lake Lamprey Technical Management Team. The ODFW and the Technical Management Team, will meet and discuss progress after the barrier has been removed, and the lampreys have had unobstructed passage to Miller Lake for five years. Adaptive Management a) A Miller Lake Lamprey Technical Management Team shall be formed. b) The Miller Lake Lamprey Technical Management Team shall meet periodically to review the success of the management actions identified in the Miller Lake Lamprey Conservation Plan and identify modifications to management actions that are needed to achieve the desired status for Miller Lake lamprey. No immediate threats to the Miller Lake Lamprey are known to currently exist, except for the barrier in Miller Creek. The Miller Lake Lamprey Technical Management Team ( see under Strategies to Address Gaps) has been formed to promote investigation, management and conservation of the Miller Lake Lamprey. The team will meet periodically to evaluate current status and management strategies in light of new information. 12 Public Review Draft 4- 27- 05 Current management action is proposed for removal of the Miller Creek Barrier. The lamprey population in Miller Creek will continue to be monitored by ODFW following the 2004 baseline surveys. After five years the Miller Lake Lamprey Technical Management Team will evaluate the status of the Miller Creek population and the success of natural re- colonization of Miller Lake. If sufficient progress has not been made, then discussions regarding active re- introduction of lampreys to the lake will be initiated. Trigger for Plan Modification Substantial negative changes in the distribution or abundance of the Miller Lake lamprey, or the recognition of new threats to the species, shall prompt a review of the species management unit's status and all Miller Lake Lamprey Conservation Plan management strategies by the Miller Lake Lamprey Technical Management Team. Appropriate modifications to the Miller Lake Lamprey Conservation Plan intended to better achieve the desired status identified in the Plan shall be proposed by the Miller Lake Lamprey Technical Management Team. Reporting a) The Miller Lake Lamprey Technical Management Team shall periodically report on the status of Miller Lake lamprey and the effectiveness of the management strategies identified in the Miller lake Lamprey Conservation Plan. b) Annual Miller Lake Lamprey data collected and any reports on the status of Miller Lake Lamprey or evaluations of the Miller Lake Lamprey Conservation Plan shall be made available to the public. The staff of the ODFW's Klamath Watershed District and Native Fish Research Project will periodically report monitoring and research results through native fish conservation strategy stock status reviews. 13 Public Review Draft 4- 27- 05 Citations Bond, C. E. and T. T. Kan. 1973. Lampetra ( Entosphenus) minima n. sp., a dwarfed parasitic lamprey from Oregon. Copeia 1973: 568- 574. Cochran, P. A. and R. E. Jenkins. 1994. Small fishes as hosts for parasitic lampreys. Copeia 1994: 499- 504. Cochrun, K. 1950. Annual Report - Fishery Division, Central Region, Klamath District: Miller Lake. Oregon State Game Commision. Cochrun, K. 1951a. Annual Report - Fishery Division, Central Region, Klamath District: Miller Lake. Oregon State Game Commision. Cochrun, K. 1951b. Letter to Dr. HJ. Rayner, Chief of Fisheries Operations, Oregon State Game Commission. 4 November 1951. Gerlach, A. 1958. Rehabilitation of Miller Lake, 1958. Report to files - Fishery Division, Central Region, Klamath District. Oregon State Game Commision. Gerlach, A. 1959. Annual Report - Fishery Division, Central Region, Klamath District: Miller Lake. Oregon State Game Commision. Gerlach, A. and R. Borovicka. 1964. State- wide fishery rehabilitation: Miller Lake and tributaries segment ( Completion Report F- 20- D- 11). Oregon State Game Commission. Gill, H. S., C. B. Renaud, F. Chapleau, R. L. Mayden and I. C. Potter. 2003. Phylogeny of living parasitic lampreys ( Petromyzontiformes) based on morphological data. Copeia 2003: 687- 703. Gunckel S. and S. Reid. 2004. Baseline survey of Miller Lake Lamprey ( Entosphenus minimus) ammocoete distribution in the Miller Lake subdrainage. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife. Hubbs, C. L. 1971. Lampetra ( Entosphenus) lethophaga, new species, the nonparasitic derivative of the Pacific lamprey. Trans. San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 16: 125- 164. Johnson, D. M., R. R. Peterson, D. R. Lycan, J. W. Sweet, M. E. Neuhaus and A. L. Schaedel. 1985. Miller Lake In Atlas of Oregon Lakes. Oregon State Univ. Press. Corvallis, Oregon. Kan, T. T. 1975. Systematics, variation, distribution, and biology of lampreys of the genus Lampetra in Oregon. Doctoral Dissertation, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, Oregon. Kan, T. T. and C. E. Bond. 1981. Notes on the biology of the Miller Lake lamprey Lampetra { Entosphenus) minima. Northwest Sci. 55: 70- 74. 14 Public Review Draft 4- 27- 05 Kostow, K. 2002. Oregon lampreys: natural history, status and analysis of management issues. Info. Rept. 2002- 01, Fish Division, Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife. Lorion, CM., D. F. Markle, S. B. Reid and M. F. Docker. 2000. Redescription of the presumed-extinct Miller Lake Lamprey, Lampetra minima. Copeia 2000: 1019- 1028. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife. 1997. Klamath River Basin, Oregon - Fish Management Plan, August 22, 1997. Personal Communications Docker, Margaret F. - Great Lakes Inst. Environmental Research, Univ. Windsor; 401 Sunset Ave, Windsor, ON N9B 3P4 Goodman, Damon - Fisheries Biology, Humboldt State Univ.; 1 Harpst Street, Arcata, CA 95521- 8299 Markle, Doug F. - Dept. Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State Univ.; 104 Nash Hall, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331- 3803 Reid, Stewart B. - U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Division; 6610 Washburn Way, Klamath Falls, OR 97603; Current address - Western Fishes, 2045 East Main, Ashland OR 97520 Smith, Roger C. - District Fish Biologist, Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife; 1850 Miller Island Road West, Klamath Falls, OR 97603 15
-
26. [Image] Ecology of kokanee salmon and rainbow trout in Crater Lake, a deep ultraoligotrophic caldera lake (Oregon)
ill.; Thesis (M.S.)-Oregon State University, 1988; Includes bibliographical references (leaves 74-80)Citation Citation
- Title:
- Ecology of kokanee salmon and rainbow trout in Crater Lake, a deep ultraoligotrophic caldera lake (Oregon)
- Author:
- Buktenica, M. W., (Mark W.)
- Year:
- 1988, 2009
ill.; Thesis (M.S.)-Oregon State University, 1988; Includes bibliographical references (leaves 74-80)
-
27. [Image] Fish liberations in Crater Lake
"No fish have been planted in the lake since 1941. (1967)"; Stocking dates include 1910, 1914, 1922-1941Citation -
1 map:col.; Wallis provides a color key for Rogue, Klamath, Umqua, and Lake drainage; Relief shown by contours, spot heights and shading; Datum is mean sea level; Contour interval 50 feet; "N4242-W12155/25;" ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Oregon, Crater Lake National Park and vicinity: 25 minute series
- Author:
- Geological Survey (U.S.)
- Year:
- 1946, 2008, 2009
1 map:col.; Wallis provides a color key for Rogue, Klamath, Umqua, and Lake drainage; Relief shown by contours, spot heights and shading; Datum is mean sea level; Contour interval 50 feet; "N4242-W12155/25;" Includes bibliographic references (leaves 118- 120)
-
-
30. [Image] A study in fish ecology in Crater Lake, Oregon
-
31. [Image] Breeding data upon Crater Lake fish
-
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the opening of a public comment period on the proposed and final designation of critical habitat for the Klamath River and Columbia River populations ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Federal Register - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Opening of the Comment Period for the Proposed and Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the Klamath River and Columbia River Populations of Bull Trout
- Author:
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Department of the Interior (Washington, D.C.)
- Year:
- 2005, 2008
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the opening of a public comment period on the proposed and final designation of critical habitat for the Klamath River and Columbia River populations of bull trout [Salvelinus confluentus). Due to court action, we have determined that it would be appropriate to reevaluate the exclusions made in the final critical habitat rule. We are opening this comment period to allow all interested parties to comment simultaneously on the November 29, 2002, proposed rule (67 FR 71235) and the October 6, 2004, final rule (69 FR 59996). Copies of the proposed and final rules, as well as the economic analysis for the critical habitat designation, are available on the Internet at http://pacific.fws.gov/ bull trout or from the Portland Regional Office at the address and contact numbers below
-
-
34. [Image] Fact and fancy about Crater Lake fish
-
"April 1998"--P. [4] of cover; Includes bibliographical references (p. 57-66)
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Recovery plan for the native fishes of the Warner Basin and Alkali Subbasin : Warner sucker (threatened) Catostomus warnerensis, Hutton tui chub (threatened) Gila bicolor ssp. Foskett speckled dace (threatened) Rhinichthys osculus ssp
- Author:
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Oregon State Office
- Year:
- 1998, 2004
"April 1998"--P. [4] of cover; Includes bibliographical references (p. 57-66)
-
-
-
38. [Image] Memorandum on fishing, 1941
-
39. [Image] Memorandum on fishing [August 1948]
Date of memorandum: August 4, 1948; Includes: "Creel Census Report for July, 1948."; "Donald S. Farner, Ranger-Naturalist."Citation -
Date of memorandum: July 27, 1940; "Donald S. Farner, Ranger-Naturalist."
Citation -
41. [Image] Memorandum on fishing, 1950
Date of memorandum: September 15, 1950; "R.S. Robinson, Ranger-Naturalist."; Includes: "Creel Census Report for July and August, 1950."Citation -
42. [Image] Memorandum on fishing for the season of 1952
-
43. [Image] Memorandum on fishing
-
44. [Image] Fish study - 1958
-
45. [Image] Fish study - 1957
-
-
-
-
-
50. [Image] Memorandum on fishing
-
Date of memorandum: September 3, 1941; "Donald S. Farner, Ranger-Naturalist."; Includes the following sections: Memorandum on Fishing, 1941; Creel Census; Recommendations for Fish and Limnological studies ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Memorandum to park naturalist Ruhle : summary of project work for 1941
- Author:
- Farner, Donald S.
- Year:
- 1941, 2008, 2009
Date of memorandum: September 3, 1941; "Donald S. Farner, Ranger-Naturalist."; Includes the following sections: Memorandum on Fishing, 1941; Creel Census; Recommendations for Fish and Limnological studies in Crater Lake; and Net for Collecting Fish for Scientific Investigations.
-
52. [Image] Memorandum on fishing for the season of 1948
-
53. [Image] Fishing report 1954 season
-
ill.; Draft report title; Alternate title was scratched through on this draft copy
Citation -
55. [Image] The Water Report - Tribes sue PacifiCorp
Only portions of issues of The Water Report are available in the Klamath Waters Digital Library. See the full report at http://www.thewaterreport.com/Citation -
ill.; "Harold Weaver (1903?-1983) was an American forester best known for his work on prescribed burning." - Forest History Society website;
Citation Citation
- Title:
- The pine beetle situation-Klamath Indian Reservation Emergency Conservation Work report
- Author:
- Weaver, Harold; 1903?-1983
- Year:
- 1934, 2010
ill.; "Harold Weaver (1903?-1983) was an American forester best known for his work on prescribed burning." - Forest History Society website;
-
Memorandum to Superintendent Leavitt dated May 16, 1938 also mentions, Fish and Fishing in Crater Lake, (Mr. Madsen's letter of May 9, 1938); "John E Doerr, Jr., Park-Naturalist."
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Memorandum: John E. Doerr writing to Crater Lake National Park Superintendent, 1938
- Author:
- Doerr, John E., Jr.
- Year:
- 1938, 2010
Memorandum to Superintendent Leavitt dated May 16, 1938 also mentions, Fish and Fishing in Crater Lake, (Mr. Madsen's letter of May 9, 1938); "John E Doerr, Jr., Park-Naturalist."
-
A state-of-the-art assessment of research, demonstration, and commercial projects that involve the use of power plant condenser cooling water for agricultural and aquacultural purposes was conducted. Information ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- State of the Art Waste Heat Utilization for Agriculture and Aquaculture
- Author:
- Hubert, W.A.
A state-of-the-art assessment of research, demonstration, and commercial projects that involve the use of power plant condenser cooling water for agricultural and aquacultural purposes was conducted. Information was obtained from published literature, site visits, and communications with knowledgeable individuals. Thermal effluent uses were discussed for controlled environment greenhouses, biological recycling of nutrients from livestock manures, soil heating and irrigation, environmental control for livestock housing, grain drying, food processing, as well as the culture of numerous aquatic organisms. A large number of research and feasibility studies have been conducted, but few commercial enterprises are utilizing thermal effluent. Interfacing problems, environmental and legal restrictions, along with insufficient technology, have not allowed widespread commercial application. Specific research needs were discussed
-
59. [Image] Programmatic environmental assessment for Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office Projects, 2000-2010
Programmatic Environmental Assessment Summary This Environmental Assessment (EA) provides compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for restoration actions undertaken by the US Fish ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Programmatic environmental assessment for Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office Projects, 2000-2010
- Author:
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office.
- Year:
- 2000, 2005, 2004
Programmatic Environmental Assessment Summary This Environmental Assessment (EA) provides compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for restoration actions undertaken by the US Fish & Wildlife Service's Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office (ERO) in Klamath Falls, Oregon. These restoration activities are needed due to the large-scale loss of wetland and riparian habitat and degraded water quality. The purpose of these restoration efforts is the improvement of conditions of the watershed with specific regard to habitat and water quality, resulting in, among other benefits, improved conditions for the endangered fish species (bull trout and Lost River and shortnose sucker) populations of the basin. The geographic scope of this EA is defined as the upper Klamath River basin, including the entire watershed from Irongate Dam upstream to the headwaters. This EA is intended to provide NEPA compliance for restoration projects conducted between the years 2000 and 2010. The ERO was established in 1993 to sponsor and assist with a variety of restoration activities in the Klamath Basin. The ERO funds and provides technical assistance to restoration projects involving private landholders, concerned groups, and other state, federal, and tribal agencies. Four alternatives are presented in this EA. The proposed alternative (Alternative 1) consists of a comprehensive program of ecosystem restoration, promoting projects in both riparian areas and in upland habitats. This would continue the current program in effect since 1994. NEPA compliance would primarily be carried out via a single, programmatic document saving time and funds. The Fish & Wildlife Service proposes to fund and administer the following projects types: Riparian Projects: (fencing for livestock management; native plant establishment & diversification; non-native plant removal/control; erosion control; contour re-establishment; impoundment removal; wildlife habitat improvements) Wetland Projects: (fencing; wetland restoration and enhancement; wildlife habitat improvements) Upland or Road Projects: (road abandonment, decommissioning, & obliteration; road drainage improvements and storm proofing, re-establishment of historic contours; silvicultural treatments; native plant establishment/diversification; non-native plant removal/control; fencing; landslide treatments; culvert/stream crossing upgrades; erosion control; wildlife habitat improvements). In-stream Projects: (habitat complexity and diversity improvements; hydrologic regime improvements; coarse woody debris supplementation; natural or artificial barrier removal, modification &/or creation; fish screens installation). Alternative 2 would concentrate restoration efforts only on riparian, instream, and wetland areas. Road projects would be conducted only within the riparian corridor, as defined. NEPA compliance would also be conducted programmatically. Alternative 3 would cease all restoration activities conducted and funded by the ERO in the Klamath Basin. This alternative would serve as a benchmark against which the effects of the restoration alternatives discussed above can be compared. Alternative 4, the "No Action" alternative, would continue current management policies with regard to NEPA compliance, providing compliance on a project by project basis requiring independent analysis for each project. The affected environment of the region is described in detail. The environment has been changed significantly since the 1890's due to logging, agriculture and urban development. An extensive system of dams, canals, and drainage structures has resulted in the conversion of approximately 80% of pre-settlement wetlands to agricultural uses. Riparian corridors have been similarly impacted, and upland forests regions have been affected by logging, road construction and other factors. These changes have contributed to problems with the water quality in the region, contributing to the listing of several fish species as threatened or endangered; loss of habitat has affected a large number of other species as well. The environmental effects of each alternative is analyzed. Some short term negative impacts could occur as a result of the projects authorized by both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, but these would be strongly offset by the expected beneficial results to water quality and habitat conditions. Alternative 1 would be expected to have a greater overall effect on the environment than Alternative 2, since many of the underlying factors with which restoration efforts are concerned originate in upland conditions (i.e. sedimentation and hydrologic functionality). Alternative 3 would result in conditions remaining much as they are currently, although other programs and organizations are making efforts at restoration activities. The environmental impacts of individual projects anticipated under Alternative 4 would be generally the same as for similar projects under Alternative 1. The primary difference between the two alternatives would be the higher efficiency and improved cumulative analysis resulting from a programmatic approach as proposed in Alternative 1. Public participation in the NEPA process has been, and will continue to be, solicited and welcomed. Compliance with state and federal laws and regulations such as the Clean Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and the Endangered Species Act, as well as guidelines for contaminant surveys, will be carried out as detailed. While these projects are expected to play an important role in the restoration of the region, none of these alternatives are expected to have a significant impact when compared with the loss of wetland, riparian and upland habitats over the past century, impacts which do occur would be of a cumulatively beneficial nature. Other restoration efforts are being carried out in the area by other governmental and private groups, and it is expected that these combined efforts will achieve important beneficial results for the ecosystem.
-
The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds Biennial Report 2005-2007. This is the sixth report on the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. The report provides an update on the accomplishments and continuing ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds biennial report, 2005-2007
- Author:
- Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board
- Year:
- 2006, 2007
The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds Biennial Report 2005-2007. This is the sixth report on the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. The report provides an update on the accomplishments and continuing efforts of people throughout Oregon to improve and protect clean water and recover and maintain healthy populations offish and wildlife in our watersheds. The Oregon Plan is unique because it engages communities in the restoration and long-term stewardship of their watersheds. This extraordinary effort encourages local partnerships and voluntary actions to improve the conditions of our watersheds. Over the years, these actions have made Oregon a national leader in local cooperative conservation. This report collects project and condition data, voluntary private lands restoration information, and agency program accomplishments under the Oregon Plan. Consistent with the past two reports, this document continues to provide specific data on each of the state's fifteen reporting basins. A new element to this report is the inclusion of stories about the people, partnerships, and on-the-ground projects that are benefiting watersheds and communities across the state. Thanks to the many Oregon Plan partners who contributed to this report. Thomas M. Byler Executive Director Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board
-
61. [Image] Crater Lake limnological studies: final report
ill., maps; July 1993."; "Cooperative Park Studies Unit, College of Forestry, Oregon State University."; Includes bibliographical references.; This title is a culmination of the first 10-years of the Crater ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Crater Lake limnological studies: final report
- Author:
- Gary L. Larson; McIntire, David C.; Jacobs, Ruth W;
- Year:
- 1993, 2009
ill., maps; July 1993."; "Cooperative Park Studies Unit, College of Forestry, Oregon State University."; Includes bibliographical references.; This title is a culmination of the first 10-years of the Crater Lake limnological studies and a long-term monitoring proposal to investigate new hypotheses.
-
Recreational use and economic impact of the Salt Caves segment of the Klamath River have been consistently understated. Various citizens and the local press have suggested about 2,000 people use this ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Economic assessment of the Klamath as a wild and scenic river
- Author:
- Ward, John G.
- Year:
- 1987, 2004
Recreational use and economic impact of the Salt Caves segment of the Klamath River have been consistently understated. Various citizens and the local press have suggested about 2,000 people use this segment each year for rafting and an equal number for fishing. Representatives of Resource Management Inc. and various public officials and citizens have estimated annual revenues from the Salt Caves segment of the Klamath River at "less than $4 00,000" to "$500,000 per year". In the interest of building a broader discussion base, the following preliminary economic assessment of the Klamath River canyon has been developed. Background data and estimates are developed for rafting, fishing, and hunting. It is hoped this analysis will help support a more relevant Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy consequences statement in the Klamath County Comprehensive Plan. Results of the economic assessment for 1986 are summarized below. River use is nearly double the reported levels, and the economic impact of the Salt Caves segment of the Klamath River is over $2.5 million annually. The river now supports 98 jobs through direct, indirect and induced effects, half of them in Oregon. Another 3 00 jobs are partially supported when Oregon and California rafting firms use the river.
-
"February 1994." ; "Much of this document was taken directly from, or based on, the Bureau of Land Management's earlier studies of the Klamath River: the Final eligibility and suitability report for the ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Klamath wild and scenic river eligibility report and environmental assessment : Klamath River, Oregon : draft
- Author:
- United States. National Park Service. Pacific Northwest Region
- Year:
- 1994, 2004
"February 1994." ; "Much of this document was taken directly from, or based on, the Bureau of Land Management's earlier studies of the Klamath River: the Final eligibility and suitability report for the Upper Klamath wild and scenic river study and the Draft Klamath Falls area resource management plan and environmental impact statement. This assessment also borrowed heavily from the Final environmental impact statement for the Salt Caves hydroelectric project prepared by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission."-p.i ; "State of Oregon application, Section 2(a)(ii) National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act."
-
The Department of the Interior, Klamath River Basin Work Plans and Reports
Citation -
65. [Image] The Oregon plan for salmon and watersheds
KCAMATH FALLS. QREEON THE OREGON PLAN FOR SALMON AND WATERSHEDS The purpose of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds ( the " Oregon Plan") as stated in the Plan and reaffirmed in this Executive Order ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- The Oregon plan for salmon and watersheds
- Author:
- Oregon. Office of the Governor
- Year:
- 1999, 2005, 2004
KCAMATH FALLS. QREEON THE OREGON PLAN FOR SALMON AND WATERSHEDS The purpose of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds ( the " Oregon Plan") as stated in the Plan and reaffirmed in this Executive Order is to restore Oregon's wild salmon and trout populations and fisheries to sustainable and productive levels that will provide substantial environmental, cultural, and economic benefits and to improve water quality. The Oregon Plan is a long- term, ongoing effort that began as a focused set of actions by state, local, tribal and private organizations and individuals in October of 1995. The Oregon Plan first addressed coho salmon on the Oregon Coast, was then broadened to include steelhead trout on the coast and in the Lower Columbia River, and is now expanding to all at- risk wild salmonids throughout the state. The Oregon Plan addresses all factors for decline of these species, including watershed conditions arid fisheries, to the extent those factors can be affected by the state. The Oregon Plan was endorsed and funded by the Oregon Legislature in 1997 through Oregon Senate Bill 924 ( 1 997 Or. Laws, ch. 7) and House Bill 3700 ( 1 997 Or. Laws, ch.' 8). The Oregon Plan is described in two principal documents: " The Oregon Plan," dated March 1997, and " The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, Supplement I - steelhbad," dated January 1998. As used in this Executive Order, + the Oregon Plan also incorporates the Healthy Streams Partnership ( Oregon Senate Bill 101 0, 1 993- Or. Laws, ch. 263). The Oregon Plan is a cooperative effort of state, local, federal, tribal and private organizations and individuals. Although the Oregon Plan contains a strong foundation of protective regulations -- continuing existing regulatory programs and speeding the implementation of others - an essential principle of the Plan is the need to move beyond prohibitions and to encourage efforts to improve conditions for salmon through non- regulatory means. Many of the most significant contributions to the Oregon Plan are private and quasi- governmental efforts to protect and . restore salmon on working landscapes, including efforts by watershed councils. Salmon and trout restoration requires action and sacrifice across the entire economic and geographic spectrum of Oregon. The commercial and sport fishing industries in Oregon have been heavily affected by complete or partial closures of fisheries. The forest industry operates under the Oregon Forest Practices Act, and has contributed substantially to salmon recovery through habitat restoration projects on private lands and by funding a large pan of the state recovery efforts. The agriculture and mining industries are also taking actions that will protect and restore salmon and trout habitat and improve water quality ( including financial support of restoration efforts by the mining industry). Urban areas are developing water conservation programs, spending funds for wastewater treatment improvements to reduce point source pollution, reducing non- point source pollution and reducing activities that degrade riparian areas. All citizens of Oregon share responsibility for declining populations of wild salmon and trout, and it is important that there be both a broad commitment to reversing these historic trends and a sense that the burdens of restoration are being shared by all of society. It is also important that there be independent scientific oversight of the Oregon Plan. This oversight is being provided by the Independent Mutidisciplinary Science Team ( IMST), established under Oregon Senate Bill 924 ( 1 997 Or. Laws, ch. 7). ~ d'ditional legislative oversight for the Oregon Plan is being provided by the Joint Legislative Committee on . Salmon and Stream Enhancement ( the " Joint Committee!'). Under the federal Endangered Species Act ( ESA) the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service . . ( F& WS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS) are responsible for identifying species that are threatened or endangered, and for developing programs to conserve and recover lhose species. F& WS and NMFS have now listed salmonids under the ESA on the entire Oregon Coast, the lower Columbia River ( including most of the Portland metropolitan area). the la math River basin, and in the upper Columbia and Snake River basins. More listings are expected within the next year. To date, the F& WS and NMFS generally have not had the resources to develop and implement effective recovery plans for fisheries. In addition, in many areas a large proportion of the habitat that list'ed'salmonids depend on is located on private lands, where the regulatory tools under the ESA are relatively ' ill- defined and indirect. Finally, federal agencies alone, even if they take an active regulatory approach. to recovery, will not restore listed salmonids. The federal ESA may work to prohibit certain actions, but there is simply too much habitat on private lands for restoration to succeed without pro- active involvement and incentives for individuals, groups, and local governments to take affirmative actions to restore habitat on working landscapes. In April, 1997 the State of Oregon and NMFS entered into a Memorandum of Agreement ( MOA) under which the State agreed to continue existing measures under the March 1997 Oregon Plan and to take certain additional actions to protect and restbre coho salmon on the Oregon Coast. On May 6, 1997, NMFS determined that the Oregon Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit ( ESU) of coho salmon did not warrant listing as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA. On June 2, 1998, the US. District Court for Oregon ordered NMFS to reconsider its decision without taking into account any parts of the Oregon Plan or MOA that are not " current enforceable measures." The U. S. District Court for Oregon also held that the MOA was speculative, due to the fact that it provided for termination by either party on thirty days notice, and that therefore the MOA could not be considered by NMFS ' in its listing decision. Under court order, NMFS reconsidered its decision without taking into account the application in the future of the harvest and hatchery measures contained in the Oregon Plan, or the habitat improvement programs being undertaken under the Oregon Plan, or the commitments made by the State of Oregon in the MOA for improvement of applicable habitat measures. Accordingly, NMFS listed Oregon Coast .. . coho as threatened undefthe ESA on or about October 2, 1998. - The MOA provided for the State of Oregon to take actions necessary to ensfie that - Oregon Coast coho did not warrant listing as a threatened or endangered species under the federal ESA. Now that Oregon Coast coho are listed as a threatened species as a- result of the U. S. District Court's order, the central purpose of the MOA has been eliminated. Due to the uncertainties created by the District Court's decision and the increasing extent of salmonids listed or proposed for listing under the federal ESA, it is important that the status of the State of Oregon's substantive commitments under the MOA and the purpose of the Oregon Plan be clarified. Through this Executive Order, the State of Oregon reaffirms its intent to play the leading role in protecting and restoring Oregon Coast coho and other salmonids. through the implementation of the Oregon Plan. This Executive Order provides the framework and direction for state agencies to implement ( to the extent of their authorities) the Oregon Plan in a timely and effective manner. This Executive Order also provides a framework for extending the state's efforts beyond a focus on Oregon Coast coho, to watersheds and fisheries statewide. Consistent with the principle of adaptive management, this Order applies the experience gained to date in implementing the Oregon Plan to provide additional detailed direction to state agencies. Finally, this Executive Order establishes a public involvement process to prioritize continuing efforts under the Oregon Plan. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED: ( 1) Overall Direction ( a) Agencies of the State of Oregon will, consistent with their authorities, fully implement the state agency efforts described in the Oregon Plan and in this Executive Order. ( b) The overall objective for state agencies under the Oregon Plan and this Executive Order is to protect and restore salmonids and to improve water quality. ( c) The Governor will, in cooperation with the Joint Committee, IMST, affected state agencies, watershed councils, and other affected local entities and persons develop and implement, a process to set biological and habitat goals and objectives to protect and restore salmonids on a basin or regional basis as soon as practicable. Once these goals and objectives are established, they will be used by state agencies . . . to evaluate their regulatory and non- regulatory programs and measures relating to the protection and re'storation of salmonids. Through this on- going evaluation, state agencies will determine any changes to their programs or measures that may be necessary to meet the biological and habitat goals and objectives. In the interim, the following objectives in subsections ( d) and ( e) shall apply to agencies' implem'entation of the OregGn Plan and this Executive Order. . . ( d) Actions that state agencies take, fund and/ or authorize that are primarily for a purpose other than restoration of salmonids or the habitat they depend upon will, considering the anticipated duration and geographic scope of the actions: ( A) to the maximum extent practicable minimize and mitigate adverse effects of the actions on salmoni. ds or the habitat they depend on; and ( 8) not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of salmonids in the wild. ( e) State agencies will take, fund and/ or authorize actions that are primarily for the purpose of restoring salmonids or the habitat they depend upon, including actions implementing the Oregon Plan, with the goal of producing a conservation benefit that ( if taken together with comparable and related actions by all persons and entities within the range of the species) is likely to result in sustainable population levels of salmonids in the foreseeable future, and in population levels of salmonids that provide substantial environmental, cultural and economic benefits to Oregonians in the long term. ( f) With the broadening of the Oregon Plan,' prioritizing all agency actions according to coho core areas is no longer appropriate. Each state agency participating in the Oregon Plan, in consultation with ODFW and other partners involved in the implementation of the Plan and through a public involvement process, will modify their existing work programs in the Oregon Plan to prioritize agency measures to protect and restore salmonids in a timely and effective manner. The work programs will continue to identify key specific outcomes, refine and improve designations of priority areas, and establish completion dates. These modifications will be submitted to the , Governor, the Joint Committee, and to the appropriate boards and commissions as soon as possible, but in no event later than June 1, 1999. Progress reports on action plans will be submitted to the Governor, the Joint Committee, and to the appropriate boards and commissions on an annual basis. In prioritizing their efforts,' state agencies shall consider how to maximize conservation -, benefits for salmonids and the habitat they depend on within limited resources and - . whether their- actions are likely to increase populations of salmonids in the foreseeable future. I p ( g) State agencies will work cooperatively with landowners, local entities and other persons taking actions to protect or restore salmonids. ( h) As the Oregon Plan grows in geographic scope and . in intensity of activity,' there is a growing need to streamline and prioritize state agency activity at the . regional level. One proposal has been to organize state natural resource agency field operations along hydrologic units. Therefore, state agencies will consider this proposal and, through the collective efforts of state agency directors, develop an organization plan that focuses state agency field effort on the activities and areas of highest priority under the Oregon Plan. ( i) State. agencies will continue to encourage and work with agencies of the U. S. government to implement the federal measures described in the Oregon Plan.. In addition, the state agencies will work with the federal government to develop additional means of protecting and restoring salmonids. Where appropriate, state agencies will request that federal agencies obtain incidental take permits under Section 7 of the federal ESA for state actions that ace funded or authorized by a , federal agency. ( j) State agencies will help support efforts to evaluate watershed conditions, and to develop'specific strategic plans to provide for flood management, water quality improvement, and salmonid restoration in basins around the state, including the Willamette basin through the Willamette Restoration Initiative. ( k) The IMST will continue to provide oversight to ensure the use of the best scientific information available as the basis for implementation of and for adaptive changes to the Oregon Plan. State agencies will ensure that the IMST receives data and other information reasonably required for its functions in a timely manner. The Governor's Natural Resources Office ( GNRO) has requested that the IMST's initial priority be review of the freshwater habitat needs of coho and the relationship between population levels, escapement levels, and habitat characteristics. The GNRO also will continue to request that the IMST annually review monitoring results and identify where the Oregon Plan warrants change for scientific or technical reasons and make recommend& ions to the appropriate agency on those adjustments that appear necessary. Agencies will report their responses to any recommendations by . . the IMST to the Governor and to the Joint Committee. Any other changes identified by the IMST as necessary to achieve properly functioning riparian and aquatic habitat conditions required to, protect and restore salmonids will be forwarded to the appropriate governmental entity for its consideration of the adoption of new, changed, or supplemental measures as rapidly as possible while providing for public involvement: Each state agency, by June 1, 1999, will ratify a monitoring team charter through an interagency memorandum. A draft of the charter is contained in the 1998 Oregon Plan Annual Report. ( I) Monitoring is a key element of the Oregon Plan. Each state agency will actively support the monitoring strategy described in the Oregon Plan. Each affected agency will participate on the monitoring team to coordinate activities and integrate analyses. Each agency will implement . an appropriate monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of their programs and measures in meeting the objectives set forth in the Oregon Planon an annual basis. In addition, agencies with regulatory programs that are included in the Oregon Plan will determine levels of compliance with regulatory standards and identify and act on opportunities to improve compliance levels: ( m) If information gathered regarding the effectiveness of measures in the Oregon Plan shows that existing strategies within state control are not achie, ving expected improvements and objectives, the agency( ies1 responsible for those measures will seek appropriate changes in their regulations, policies, programs, r-measures and other areas of the Oregon Plan, as required to protect and restore coho and other sal'monids. Such modification or supplementation will be done as rapidly as possible, consistent with public involvement. ( n) Agencies are using geographically- referenced data in their efforts under the Oregon Plan, and will be using Geographic Information Systems ( GIs) in the analysis of these , data. In doing so, the State GIs Plan, developed by the Oregon Geographic lnformation Council ( OGIC) ( see Executive Order 96- 40) will be followed, with specific adherence to the Plan guidance on data documentation, coordination and data sharing. The agency with primary responsibility for gathering and updating the specific data will be responsible for meeting the requirements of the Plan, and to ensure coordination- with OGIC, the State Service Center for GIs and other' cooperating agencies. In addition, state agencies will cooperate with the Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board ( GWEB), Soil and. Water Conservation Districts ( SWCDs), local waters$ ed councils, landowners and others in making these essential data available. ( 0) Geographically- based strategies to assess and achieve habitat needs and adequate escapement levels will be used, and the state agencies will continue with the development of standardized watershed assessment protocols, including a -- cumulative effects assessment. State agencies will also continue with the development of habitat restoration guides to evaluate and direct habitat restoration efforts. ( 2) Continuation and Expansion of Existing Efforts. Without limiting the generality of section ( l)( a) of this Executive Order, the following subsections of this Executive Order describe some of the many efforts in the Oregon Plan where the initial phase of work has been completed, and where efforts will be continued. ( a) The Oregon Fish & Wildlife Commission ( OFWC), the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife ( ODFW), and the Pacific Fishery Management Council ( PFMC) are managing ocean and terminal fisheries according to the measures set forth in the Oregon Plan ( ODFW I- A. l and Ill- A. l). These measures set a maximum mortality rate ( resulting from other fisheries) for any of four disaggregated stocks of coho of fifteen percent ( 1 5%) under poor ocean conditions. In 1997, the mortality rate. from harvest is estimated to have been between nine and eleven percent ( 9- 1 1 %). ODFW and OFWC will continue these measures in state waters, and will actively support continued implementation of the ocean harvest measures by the PFMC ( Amendment 13 to the Council's salmon management plan) until and unless a different management regime agreeable to NMFS is adopted. ( b) The OFWC and ODFW will ensure that the fish hatchery measures set forth in the Oregon Plan are continued by the OFWC and ODFW. ODFW is marking all hatchery coho on the Oregon Coast. This marking will allow increased certainty in estimating hatchery stray rates beginning in 1999. Available data on hatchery stray rates for coho and steelhead are being provided to NMFS on an annual basis. The number of hatchery coho released is estimated to have been 1.7 million in 1998 - substantially below the level called for in the Oregon Plan. This number will be reduced to 1.2 million in 1999. In addition, ODFW has, and will continue to provide. annual reports regarding: ( i) the number of juvenile hatchery coho that are released by brood year, locations and dates of release, life stage, and broodstock origin; ( ii) the number of adult coho taken for broodstock for each hatchery, the location and date of collection, and the origin ( hatchery or natural); ( iii) the number of hatchery coho . . estimated to have spawned in natural habitat by basin; ( iv) the estimated percentage of hatchery coho% the total natural spawning population; and ( v) the mortality of naturally- spawning coho resulting from each fishery. NMFS may provide comments about hatchery prograk affecting coho to ODFW, with any concerns to be resolved between NMFS and ODFW. - - ( c) ln addition to recent modifications to hatchery practices and programs, a new vision is needed for how Oregon will utilize hatcheries in the best and most effective manner. Therefore, the ODFW and the OFWC shall engage in a process to create a strategic plan for fish hatcheries in Oregon over the next decade ( including state and federally- funded hatcheries, private hatcheries, and the STEP program). The essential elements of this process are as follows: ( i) Impartial analysis - conduct an impartial analysis of the scientific bases, and the social and economic effects of Oregon hatchery programs utilizing existing analyses and review where feasible, but conducting new analyses if necessary; ( ii) Review the Wild Fish Management Policy ( WFMP) - because the future plan for hatcheries in Oregon is dependent on implementation of the WFMP, ODFW shall conduct a science and stakeholder review to determine if this significant policy should be revised and shall make any revision by July 2000; ( iii) Frame alternative strategies -- convene a group of stockholders to . frame alternative strategies, including outcomes and descriptions, of how hatcheries will be used in Oregon over the next decade ( these strategies will address the use of hatcheries for wild fish population recovery including supplementation, research and monitoring, public education, and sport and commercial fishing opportunities); ( iv) Public review and selection of a strategy -- the OFWC shall, after public review and ' ;-'-!&%; f$'. i comment, adopt a strategic plan to guide development of future hatchery programs, incorporating the strategy developed and adopted in accordance with subpart ( iii) of this paragraph. ( d) Criteria and guidelines directing the design of projects that may affect fish passage have been established in a Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) between the Oregon Department of Transportation ( ODOT), ODFW, the Oregon Department of Forestry ( ODF), the Oregon Department of Agriculture ( ODA), the Division of State Lands ( DSL) and the Federal Highway Administration. These guidelines apply to the design, construction and consultations of projects affecting fish passage. Under the MOU, projects requiring regulatory approvals that follow these criteria and guidelines are expedited. Oregon agencies will continue to provide technical assistance to ensure that the criteria and guidelines are applied appropriately in restoration projects, as well as any other projects that may affect fish passage through road crossings and similar structures. ODFW will work with state agencies, local governments, and watershed councils to ensure that Oregon's standards for fish passage set forth in Exhibit A to the MOU are understood and are implemented. - ( e) Fish presence, stream habitat, road and culvert surveys have been conducted for roads within ODOT jurisdiction and county roads in coastal basins, the Lower Columbia basin, the Willamette basin, and the Grande Ronbe/ lmnaha basins. Among the results of these surveys is the finding that culvert barriers to fish passage affect a substantial quantity of salmonid habitat. For example, surveys of county and state highways in western Oregon found over 1,200 culverts that are barriers to passage. As a result, ODOT is placing additional priority on restoring fish access. For 1998, ODOT repaired or replaced 35 culverts restoring access to 101 miles of salmonid habitat. For 1999, the Oregon Transportation Commission will be asked to fund approximately $ 4.0 million for culvert modification. ODOT and the Commission will continue to examine means to speed restoration of fish passage and to coordinate priorities with ODFW. ( f) Draft watershed assessment protocols have been developed and are being field tested. Beginning in 1999, SWCDs, watershed councils and others will be able to use the protocols as the basis for action plans to identify and prioritize opportunities to protect and restore salmonids. Watershed action plans have already been completed in a number of basins including the Rogue, Coos, Coquille and Grande Ronde. State agencies will work to support these watershed assessments and plans to the maximum extent practicable. Where watershed action plans have been developed under the protocols, GWEB will ensure that projects funded through the Watershed Improvement Grant Fund are consistent with watershed action plans, and other state agencies will work with SWCDs and watershed councils to ensure that activities they authorize, fund or undertake are consistent with watershed action plans to the maximum extent practicable. ( g) The State of Oregon has developed interim aquatic habitat restoration and enhancement guidelines for 1998. State agencies involved with restoration activities ( ODFW, ODF, DSL, ODA, DEQ, and GWEB) will continue to develop and refine the interim guidelines for final publication in April 1999. The guidelines will be applied in restoration activities funded or authorized by state agencies. The purpose of ' the guidelines will be to define aquatic restoration and to identify and encourage aquatic habitat restoration techniques to restore salmonids. . . ( h) ODA and O ~ hFave each entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Oregon Department'of Environmental Quality relating to the development of . Total Maximum Daily Loads ( TMDLs) and Water Quality Management Area Plans ( WQMAPs). O Dw~ ill adopt. a nd implement WQMAPs ( through the Healthy Streams Partnership) and ODF , will review the adequacy of forest practices rules to meet water quality standards. ODF and ODA will evaluate the effectiveness of these measures in achieving water quality standards on a regular basis and implement any changes required to meet the standards. ( i) Agencies are implementing a coordinated monitoring program, as described in the Oregon Plan. This program includes technical support and standardized protocols for watershed councils, stream habitat surveys, forest practice effectiveness monitoring, water withdrawal monitoring, ambient water quality monitoring, and biotic index studies, as well as fish presence surveys and salmonid abundance and survival monitoring in selected subbasins. State agencies are also' working to coordinate monitoring efforts by state, federal, and local entities, including watershed councils. State agencies will work actively to ensure that the monitoring measures' in the Oregon Plan are continued. - .. ( j) GWEB has put into place new processes for identifying and coordinating the delivery of financial and technical assistance to individuals, agencies, watershed councils and soil and water conservation districts as they implement watershed ' restoration projects to improve water quality and restore aquatic resources. Over $ 25 ' million has been distributed for watershed restoration projects in the last ten years. During the present ( 1 997- 99 biennium) GWEB has awarded over $ 1 2 million dollars in f- state and federal funds for technical'assistance and watershed restoration activities to implement the Oregon Plan. GWEB and state agencies will continue to seek financial resources to be allocated by GWEB for watershed restoration activities at the local and. statewide levels. ( k) State agencies will continue to encourage, support and work to provide incentives for local, tribal, and private . efforts to implement the Oregon Plan. In addition, state agencies will continue to provide financial assistance to local entities for projects to protect and restore salmonids to the extent consistent with their budgetary and legal authorities, and consistent with their work programs in the Oregon Plan. To the. maximum extent practicable, state agencies will also provide technical assistance and planning tools to provide local conservation groups to assist in and target watershed restoration efforts. These efforts ( during 1996 and 1997) are reported in " The Oregon. Plan for Salmon and Watersheds: Watershed Restoration Inventory, 1998." ~ u s c afe w of the important efforts that have been completed include: ( A) Eighty- two watershed councils have joined with forty- five Soil and Water Conservation Districts as well as private and public landowners to implement on- the- ground projects' to protect and restore salmonids. During 1996 and 1997, a reported $ 27.4 million was spent on 1,234 watershed restoration projects on non-federal lands. Both the amount spent and the number of projects represent significant increases ( of over 300 percent) over prior years. In 1996- 97, watershed councils, SWCDs and other organizations and individuals completed: ( i) 138 stream fencing projects, involving at least 301 miles of streambank; ( ii) 196 riparian area planting projects, involving at least 11 1 miles of streams; and ( iii) 458 instream habitat improvement projects. . . . ( B) Private and state forest landowners are implementing key efforts under the Oregon Plan, including the road risk and remediation program ( ODF- 1 and 2). Under this effort in 1996 and 1997, close to 4,000 miles of roads'have been surveyed to identify risks that the roads may pose to salmonid habitat. As the risks are identified, they are then prioritized for remediation following an established. protocol. Already, 52 miles of forest roads have been closed, 843 miles of road repair and reconstruction projects to - protect salmonid habitat have been completed, and an additional 14 miles of roads have been decommissioned or relocated.. In addition, 530 culverts have been replaced, upgraded or installed for fish passage purposes, improving access to a reported 146 stream miles. ( C) Organizations working in Tillamook County have developed the I ." J aw#~ t Tillamook County Performance Partnership. The Partnership is implementing the \*. Tillamook Bay National Estuary Program by addressing water quality, fisheries, floodplain management and economic development in the county. Among the actions that the Partnership has already accomplished are: ( i) the closure of seven miles of degraded forest roads and the rehabilitation of 469 miles of roads to meet current standards, at a cost of $ 1 8 million; ( ii) the fencing of 53 miles of streambank, and the construction of three cattle bridges and 100 alternative cattle watering sites, at a cost of $ 214,000; and ( iii) the completion of 24 instream restoration projects and 34 barbs protecting 4,200 feet of streambank, at a cost of $ 1.3 million dollars. ( D) The Confederated Tribes of the Grande Ronde Community of Oregon have completed a forest management plan that establishes standards for the protection of aquatic resources that are comparable to those found in the Aquatic Conservation Strategy ' of the Northwest Forest Plan. . % ( E) A combination of funding from the Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation and the National Fish and Wildlife Heritage Foundation ( private, non- profit organizations) is provi, ding support for seven biologists to design restoration projects. These projects are prioritized based on stream surveys, and are carried out with the voluntary participation and support of landowners. A ten- year monitoring plan has been funded- and implemented to determine project effectiveness: ( F) The Oregon Cattlemen's Association has implemented its WESt Program that is designed to help landowners better understand their watersheds and stream functions through assessments and monitoring. h he WESt Program brings landowners together along stream reaches, and offers a series of workshops, conducted on a site specific basis, free of charge. The workshops include riparian ecology, setting goals and objectives, Proper Functioning Condition ( PFC), data. collection and monitoring. Over 25 workshops have been held, with attendance ranging from 5 to 30 landowners per workshop. The WESt Program is sponsored by the Oregon Cattlemen's Association, DEQ, Oregon State University, and GWEB. ( G) Within the Tillamook State Forest road network 1,902 culverts have been replaced or added to'improve road drainage and to disconnect storm water runoff from roads reducing stream sediment impacts. Additionally, some of these culverts also improved fish passage at stream crossings. In this process, ODF has also replaced six culverts with bridges improving fish passage to approximately four miles of stream. The Tillamook State Foresl in conjunction with many partners, such F-as the Association of Northwest Steelheaders, G W EB, Simpson Timber Company, Tillamook County, the FishAmerica Foundation, Hardrock Construction Company, the Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation, the F& WS, the Oregon Youth Conservation Corps, Columbia Helicopters and Terra Helicopters, has also recently completed instream placement of over 400 rootwads, trees and boulders at a cost of $ 300,000 for habitat enhancement. ( 3) Key Agency Efforts. Continuation and completion of the following state agency efforts is critical to the success of the Oregon Plan. State agencies will make continuation or completion ( as appropriate) of the following efforts a high priority. ( a) The State of Oregon and the US. Department of Agriculture have entered into a Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program ( CREP). This cost- share program, one of the first of its kind, . will be used to reduce the impacts of agricultural practices through water quality. add habitat improvement. The objectives of the CREP are to: ( i) provide incentives'for farmers and ranchers to establish riparian buffers; ( ii) protect - . and restore at least 4,000 miles of stream habitat by providing up to 95,000 acres of riparian buffeis; ( i4) restore up to 5,000 acres of wetlands that will benefit salmonids; and ( iv) provide a mechanism for farmers and ranchers to comply with Oregon's ,- Senate Bill 101 0 ( 1 993 Or. Laws, ch. 263). ( b) ODF will work with non- industrial forest landowners to'administer the Stewardship Incentive Program and the Forest Resources Trust programs to protect and restore riparian and wetland areas that benefit salmonids. ( c) The Oregon Board of Forestry will determine, with the assistance of an advisory committee, to what extent changes to forest practices are needed to meet state water quality standards and to protect and restore salmonids. A substantial body of information regarding the effectiveness of current practices is being . developed. This information includes: ( i) the IMST report regarding . the role of forest practices and forest habitat in protecting and restoring salmonids; and ( ii) a series of - monitoring projects that include the Storms of 1996 study, a riparian areas study, a stream temperature study, and a road drainage study. Using this information, as well as other available scientific information including scientific information from NMFS, the advisory committee will make recommendations to the Board at both site and watershed scales on threats to salmonid habitat relating to sediment, water temperature, freshwater habitat needs, roads and fish passage. Based on the advisory committee's recommendations and other scientific information, the Board will make every effort to make its determinations by June 1999. The Board may . . determine that the most effective means of achieving any necessary changes to . - d;.~ .;* i;. z . I:@;.. %- .~ + k forest practices is through regulatory changes, statutory changes or through other programs . including programs to create incentives for forest landowners. In the event that the Board determines that legislative changes. are necessary to carry out its determinations, the Board will transmit any recommendations for such changes to the . Governor and to the Joint Committee at the earliest possible date. ( d) Consistent with administrative rule, and statutory and constitutional mandates for the management of state forests, ODF State Forest management plans will include an aquatic conservation strategy that has a high likelihood of protecting and restoring properly functioning aquatic habitat for salmonids on state forest lands. ( e) ODF will present to NMFS a Habitat Conservation Plan ( HCP) under Section 10 of the federal ESA that includes the Clatsop and Tillamook State Forests. ODF has already completed scierkific review and has public review underway for this draft HCP. The scientific and public review comments will be considered by ODF in . . completing the draft HCP. The draft HCP will be presented to NMFS by June 1999. An HCP for the ~ jliotSt tate Forest was approved by the US. Fish & Wildlife Service in 1995. In October af 1997, ODF and DSL forwarded the Elliott State Forest HCP to NMFS with the request that it be reviewed to determine whether it has a high likelihood of protecting and restoring properly functioning aquatic habitat conditions on state forest lands necessary to protect and restore salmonids. Based on discussions surrounding the NMFS review, ODF and DSL will determine what revisions, if any, are required to the Elliott HCP and/ or Forest Management Plan to ensure a high likelihood of protecting and restoring properly functioning aquatic habitat for salmonids. ( f) Before the OFWC adopts and implements fishery regulations that may result in taking of coho, ODFW will provide NMFS with'all available scientific information and analyses pertinent to the proposed regulation where the harvest measures are not under the jurisdiction of the PFMC, including results of the Oregon Plan monitoring and evaluation program. This information, together with the proposed regulation and supporting analysis, will be provided at least two weeks prior to the OFWC's action, to give NMFS time to review and comment on the proposed regulations. ( g) ODFW will evaluate the effects of predation on salmonids, and . will . work with . affected federal agencies to determine whether changes to programs and law relating to predation are warranted in order to protect and restore salmonids. P ( h) Under Oregon Senate Bill 101 0 ( 1 993 Or. Laws, ch. 2631, ODA will adopt Agricultural Water Qualify Management Area Plans ( AWQMAPs) for Tier I and Tier ll watersheds by the end of 2002. The AWQMAPs will be designed and implemented to meet load allocations for agriculture needed to achieve state water quality . . standards. In addition, ODA will work with ODFW, DEQ, GWEB, SWCDs, federal . agencies and watershed councils to determine to what extent additional measures related to achieving properly functioning riparian and aquatic habitat on agricultural lands are needed to protect and restore salmonids, giving attention first to priority areas identified in. the Oregon Plan. In the event ODA is unable to reach a consensus regarding such measures, ODA will ask the IMST to review areas of substantive ' scientific disagreement and to'make recommendations to ODA regarding how they should be resolved. In the event that legislative changes are needed to implement such measures, ODA will transmit any recommendations for such changes to. the Governor and to the Joint Committee at the earliest possible date. In addition, any measures identified as rieeded by ODA will be implemented at the earliest practicable time. * . ( i) ODFW will expedite its applications for instream water rights and OWRD will process such applications promptly where flow deficits are identified as adversely affecting salmonids, and where such rights. are not already in place. The Oregon - water Resources Department ( OWRD) and the Oregon Water Resources Commission ( OWRC) will- also seek to facilitate flow restoration targeted to streams identified by OWRD and ODFW as posing the most critical low- flow barriers to salmonids. In addition, where necessary, OWRD will continue to work with the Oregon State Police to provide enforcement of water use. Where illegal water uses are identified, OWRD will ensure outcomes consistent with maintenance and restoration of flows. ( j) The Oregon Environmental Quality commission ( EQC). and DEQ will evaluate and will make every effort to utilize their authorities to continue to provide additional protection to . priority areas ( as determined under section 1 ( f) of this Executive Order), including in- stream flow protection under state law, and antidegradation policy under . the federal Clean Water Act ( including Outstanding Resource Waters designations . and high quality waters designations). . ( k) DSL has proposed to adopt changes to its Essential Salmonid Habitat rules that will provide additional protection for spawning and rearing areas of anadromous salmonids. In addition, ODFW and DSL will consult with the OWRC to determine where it is necessary to administratively close priority areas ( including ' work under General Authorizations) to fill and removal activities in order to protect salmonids. . . DSL, ODFW, ODF and ODA also will work together to identify means of regulating the . uy- w :.-:: st. removal of organic material ( such as large woody debris) from streams where such removal would adversely affect salmonids and would not be contrary to other agency mandates. ( I) DSL will seek the advice of the IMST regarding whether gravel removal affects gravel and/ or sediment budgets in a manner that adversely affects salmonids. ( m) The Department of Land Conservation and ~ e v e l o p r n e n t ' ( ~ ~ acn~ d ) th, e Land Conservation- and Development Commission ( LCDC) will evaluate and, to the extent feasible, speed implementation of existing Goal 5 requirements for riparian corridors. ( n) DLCD, DEQ, ODF, ODA, ODFW, and DSL and their respective boards and commissions will evaluate and implement programs to protect and restore riparian vegetation for the purposes of achieving statewide water quality standards and . . protecting and restoring a aquatic habitat for salmonids. ' ( 0) DLCD, with, the assistance of DSL and ODFW, and in consultation with coastal cities and counties, shall review the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal i 6 as they pertain to estuarine resources important to the restoration of salmonids, and shall, report its findings to LCDC for its consideration. ( p) The Oregon State Police will work to facilitate the existing cooperative relationship with the NMFS Office of ~ a Ewnfo rcement, as well as tomaintain cooperation with other enforcement entities, in order to enhance law enforcement, public awareness and voluntary compliance related to harvest, habitat and other issues addressed in the Oregon Plan. ( q) The Oregon Parks and Recreation Department will continue to work to p. rovide information and education to the public on salmon and steelhead needs through park programs and interpretive aids. ( r) The Oregon Marine Board will work to ensure fish friendly boating and to develop boating facilities that protect salmonids. ( s) State natural resource agencies will continue, to the extent feasible, to support watershed councils by providing technical assistance to develop watershed assessments, restoration plans and to develop watershed priorities to benefit 7- salmonids. In addition, state natural resource agencies will work'on a larger . .:.... watershed scale to develop basin- wide restoration priorities. ( 4) Future Modifications; Public Involvement for the Oregon Plan Generally. The GNRO will solicit public co'mments and input from participants in the Oregon Plan regarding whether there are refinements or changes to the Plan and/ or the organizational framework for implementing the Plan that are necessary or desirable based on the experience gained over the past three years, or resulting from the widespread listings and proposed listings of salmon and trout under the federal ESA. Based on this public involvement, the GNRO will provide a report and recommendations to the Governor and the Joint Committee regarding whether modifications are necessary to the Oregon Plan in order to protect and restore coho and other salmonids. ( 5) Definitions. For purioses'of this Executive Order: . . ( aj The " Oregon Plan" means the Oregon Coastal Salmon Recovery lnitiative, dated March 1991, and the Steelhead. Supplement, dated January 1998. " Oregon Plan," as used in this Order, is intended to be consistent with the definition of the' Oregon Coastal Salmon Recovery lnitiative in Oregon Senate Bill 924 ( 1997 Or. Laws, .- cti. 7), and to include the Healthy Streams Partnership ( 1 993 Or. Laws, ch. 263). -. - ( b) " Protect" has the meaning given in section ( l)( d) of this Executive Order. ( c) " Restore" has the meaning'given in section ( l)( e) of this Executive Order. Restore necessarily includes actions to manage salmonids to provide for adequate escapement levels, and actions to increase the quantity and improve the quality of properly functioning habitat upon which salmonids depend. ( d) " Coho" means native wild coho salmon found in rivers and lakes along the Oregon Coast. ( el " Salmonids" means native wild salmon, char and trout in the State of Oregon. ( 6) Effective Date; Relation to Federal ESA. This Executive Order will take effect on the date that it is filed with the Secretary of State. The State of Oregon will continue to work with NMFS to determine the appropriate relationship between the Oregon Plan and NMFS's efforts under the federal ESA. Done at Salem, Oregon, this $ day of & ~ 4 y , 1999. ha26 . ~ it& er, M. D. Suz adnd .~. ow& end DEPUTY SECR~ ARYOF - STATE
-
Lease, Hilary M., Histopathological Changes in Gills of Lost River Suckers (Deltistes luxatus) Exposed to Elevated Ammonia and Elevated pH, M.S., Department of Zoology and Physiology, December, 2000. ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Histopathological changes in gills of Lost River suckers (Deltistes luxatus) exposed to elevated ammonia and elevated pH
- Author:
- Lease, Hilary Marian
- Year:
- 2000, 2008, 2005
Lease, Hilary M., Histopathological Changes in Gills of Lost River Suckers (Deltistes luxatus) Exposed to Elevated Ammonia and Elevated pH, M.S., Department of Zoology and Physiology, December, 2000. The Lost River sucker {Deltistes luxatus) is a federally listed, endangered fish species endemic to Upper Klamath Lake?a large, shallow hypereutrophic lake in southern Oregon. Sucker population declines in the lake over the past few decades are thought to be partly attributable to extreme water quality conditions, including elevated ammonia concentrations and elevated pH, that occur during summer cyanobacterial blooms. I analyzed structural changes in gills of larval Lost River suckers after they were exposed to elevated pH and elevated ammonia concentrations in chronic toxicity tests conducted in the laboratory. Histopathological changes in sucker lamellae were observed at ammonia concentrations that did not significantly decrease survival, growth, whole-body ion content, or swimming performance. Structural changes that I evaluated included O2 diffusion distance, lamellar thickness, hyperplasic and hypertrophic mucous cells, and infiltration of white blood cells into the lymphatic space. The increases in diffusion distance and lamellar thickness were statistically significant (P < 0.05). These gill changes are indicative of potentially compromised respiratory and ionoregulatory capacity. Because in this species gill structural changes appear to be a more sensitive indicator of stress in eutrophic water quality conditions than are the more traditional sublethal indices, gill histopathology might be useful for monitoring the health of Lost River suckers in Upper Klamath Lake.
-
-
68. [Image] Resolving the Klamath
-
The Department of the Interior, Klamath River Basin, Work Plans and Reports
Citation -
Distributed to depository libraries in microfiche; Shipping list no.: 96-0055-P; "September 1995"--P. [18]; "RF116690"--P. [18]
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Wildlife of the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges, California-Oregon
- Author:
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
- Year:
- 1995, 2007, 2006
Distributed to depository libraries in microfiche; Shipping list no.: 96-0055-P; "September 1995"--P. [18]; "RF116690"--P. [18]
-
71. [Image] Surveying forest streams for fish use
Oregon Department of Forestry Forest Practices Section 2600 State Street Salem, OR 97310 Dl Fish 8 Wildlife Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Division P. O. Box 59 Portland, OR ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Surveying forest streams for fish use
- Author:
- Oregon. Forest Practices Section; Oregon. Habitat Conservation Division
- Year:
- 1995, 2005, 2004
Oregon Department of Forestry Forest Practices Section 2600 State Street Salem, OR 97310 Dl Fish 8 Wildlife Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Division P. O. Box 59 Portland, OR 97207 Introduction Identifying Oregon streams that contain fish is an important part in carrying out the new Water Protection Rules. These rules aim to protect areas of benefi-cial uses, such as fish. First, however, the beneficial uses present in each forest stream must be correctly identified. At present, a large number of fish- bearing streams are not identified on stream classification maps. To correct this problem, the Oregon Department of Forestry ( ODF) and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ( ODFW) must complete comprehensive surveys to identify fish use on all non- federal forest streams in Oregon. This effort will require at least 3 to 5 years and a significant financial investment. Because many streams are not accurately classified, the new rules also tempo-rarily protect streams that are likely to contain fish. Under the rules, for example, if Stream A flows into a body of water known to contain fish, it is assumed that fish also are using Stream A, up to the point that a natural barrier blocks their way farther upstream ( see OAR 629- 57- 2100: ll( b) B). Once the survey efforts are complete, this interim rule will not be needed. Coordinated efforts by public agencies, landowners, and others to complete fish- presence surveys will assure that important fisheries resources are pro-tected in the most cost- effective way. Landowners or any interested party may collect stream- classification information so that the overall survey can be completed as quickly as possible. Many private forest landowners, in cooperation with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, are now completing inventories of stream habitat conditions on their lands. In the future, these cooperative efforts may also include fish-presence surveys. This publication tells how to complete fish- presence surveys on forested streams. The guidelines cover: How to plan either " operation- specific" or " maximum upstream fish distribution" surveys The proper way to conduct surveys The proper time of year to conduct surveys Minimum efforts required in completing the surveys The legal requirements for completing the surveys How to provide information to Oregon Department of Forestry to update the stream classification maps The stream reclassification process Operation- specif ic surveys Maximum upstream distribution surveys Planning the survey There are two major types of survey: operation- specific surveys, and surveys to find the maximum upstream distribution of fish. Each type requires different planning and is conducted using different approaches. Operation- specific surveys are those to classify a stream only in the particular area of an operation. This kind of survey may not include efforts to determine the maximum upstream extent of fish use. An operation- specific survey takes minimal planning and coordination. However, it may be very inefficient in the long run because future activities in other areas of the stream may require additional surveys. An operation- specilk survey is very simple to complete. It starts at the down-stream end of the operation area and moves upstream either to the end of the operation area or to the end of fish distribution, whichever comes first. If the purpose of the survey is to prove no fish use, the surveyor must be sure to make at least the minimum effort required to find fish ( see the section on " Survey Effort" on page 10). This kind of survey is done on an entire stream reach or on multiple stream reaches rather than on a restricted portion of a stream. Often, all streams within a basin or reach are completely surveyed. In some cases, the surveys encompass entire ownerships or watersheds. The specific locations of planned operations are usually not the main factor in setting up this kind of survey but can help decide which areas to survey first. Surveys to find the maximum upstream extent of fish use may be the most efficient and cost- effective. Surveyors often cover a group of streams in one area at a time; therefore, travel time is minimized because, often, a group of streams can be easily reached by one common forest road. When travel time is less, the time spent actually completing surveys is greater. This kind of survey may require slightly more planning and coordination to assure efficiency and to minimize duplication of effort by adjacent landowners or by other public agencies, but overall this approach is more cost- effective than the operation-specific surveys. Surveying for the maximum upstream distribution of fish may take more plan-ning than an operation- specific survey, but it is still relatively simple. First, look at ODF Stream Classification Maps for the survey area to see the current extent of fish- use streams. Also note which streams are not classified at all. Next, decide where to start the survey. It may help your planning if you know the relationship between watershed basin area and fish use for your area. Contact the local ODFW office to find out whether these relationships have been established for streams in your area. The information predicts where fish use is " likely to end" and so will help you decide where to start your surveys. At this point, you also may want to consider operations that are planned for certain areas and decide to survey those areas first. After choosing a starting area, look at current road maps to find potential starting points for the survey ( see Figure 1). Look for access points ( such as road crossings) near the upper reaches of the stream. When possible, a survey should start near the highest accessible point in the watershed. If road access to the stream is limited, you may want to start the survey near the point at which the stream's classification size changes from " medium" to " small"; often this point is near the end of fish use ( see Figure 2, page 4). At the starting point, first sample upstream. If you find fish, continue the survey upstream until fish use ends. Be sure to continue sampling above the point at which fish use ends ( see " Survey Effort," page 10). If you make all the required efforts but do not find fish, then survey downstream from the original starting point until you find fish. When surveying downstream, it is important to walk on the streambank until you are ready to sample so that the water stays clear. Begin fish survey above road crossing Fish use extends at least this far Figure I . Selecting survey starting points in an area with a road crossing. Additional survey work may be required if the maximum distribution of fish seems to be affected by a road culvert. If the stream above the culvert has no fish, sample the pool immediately below the culvert. If you find fish in this pool or downstream near the culvert, the culvert is a possible barrier to fish passage. Describe the culvert and the stream on the survey form ( page 19). If you do not find fish in the pool below the culvert, continue the survey down-stream until you do see fish. Begin fish survey here \ \\ \ / I Fish use extends at least this far - - k I Figure 2. Selecting survey starting points, based on the stream- size classification, in an area without a road crossing. Surveys to find the maximum upstream distribution of fish may require sampling across several land ownerships. Be certain to get permission from other landowners before beginning the survey. Contacts with other landowners are also important to prevent a duplication of effort, because many landowners and agencies may be conducting fish- presence surveys. When figuring how many surveyors and how much time you'll need to com-plete surveys in your area, you may want to consider the Department of Forestry's experience. We found that sampling a township ( 36 square miles) required approximately 24 person- days in the Coast region, but an area the same size in the Blue Mountains required only 4 person- days. Survey methods The accuracy and reliability of survey results depend greatly on the methods used to conduct the survey. Methods range from simply looking in the stream ( visual observation) to more intensive and effective sampling with a backpack electroshocker. The method you choose depends on the availability of sam-pling equipment, the size of the stream, the flow and clarity of the water, and other factors. It is important to select a sampling method that is best for the type of survey and for the waters being sampled. If the sample method is not appropriate, the results of the survey will not be very useful. For example, just looking at a stream may tell you there are fish in it at that point, but it is not an acceptable way to find the maximum upstream extent of fish use. Surveys to show that fish are not present require more sampling and specialized equipment in order to provide reliable results. Whenever the survey uses methods other than an electroshocker, it's important to thoroughly explain on the survey report form the reasons for using the other methods. This is the simplest method; it involves only walking the stream to look for fish. It is best to wear polarized sunglasses to reduce glare from the water and to survey only when water conditions allow good visibility. It's also best to walk upstream so that you can " sneak up" on fish in pools. Fish often are near the upstream ends of pools waiting for food to drift toward them. Small fish, such as fry, often are in shallow water along the margin of the stream. Be very alert because fish usually will dart into cover when they detect any movement, especially in small headwater streams. It helps to toss bread crumbs, insects, small twigs, or bemes into the stream to entice the fish to leave cover. The visual method is best suited to small streams where pools aren't deep enough to prevent your seeing the fish. This method is also the least damaging to the fish because actual collection is not required. However, the value of survey results can be reduced by many factors such as cloudy water, surface glare on the water, overcast days ( reduced light), fish behavior, and even the surveyor's poor eyesight. For these reasons, this method is not effective for determining the maximum upstream limit of fish distribution, although it can be used to prove fish are in a certain reach of the stream. Snorkeling is a special method of visual observation that can work well in some situations. Snorkeling allows you to see underwater through a diving mask and breathing snorkel. This method can be used in larger waters where electroshockers are less successful, and it has been used to locate fry where other methods failed. Night snorkel surveys are particularly useful for observ-ing bull trout fry. Visual observation Hook and line Backpack electroshocker The hook- and- line method uses a rod and reel and relies on the feeding be-havior of the fish. In small streams, drop a baited hook into the deepest pools, where larger fish often are. Bait can include worms, single eggs, cheese, dry flies, or stream insects such as caddis larvae. Sample pools that have a lot of cover because those tend to support greater numbers of fish. As with the visual observation method, approach the pool cautiously to avoid alerting the fish. To minimize the risk of injuring or killing the fish, always use barbless hooks. The hook- and- line method can be used when conditions are not good for visual sampling; for example, when water is not clear, flow is high, or the day is overcast. This method may be the most effective for sampling some larger or deeper waters where visual and electroshocker methods can be ineffective. These waters include deep beaver ponds and large, steep streams where downstream barriers ( such as falls and very steep sections) keep fish out of the small tributaries. This method has limitations, though, depending on fish behavior and the life stage of the fish that are present. Fish may be reluctant to bite on cold days, or when the water is murky with sediment, or if the fish detect the surveyor's presence. Also, hook- and- line sampling is not effective if only fry are in the stream. This method also depends on the angling skills of the surveyor. As with the visual observation method, hook- and- line sampling may not be the best way to determine the maximum upstream distribution of fish in small streams, but often it can be used to find fish in larger waters. The most effective way to determine the upstream extent of fish is with a backpack electroshocker. Electroshocker sampling requires additional training and experience, though, to be effective and safe. A backpack electroshocker introduces an electric field into the stream that temporarily immobilizes fish. Stunned fish can be observed as they float in the water, or they can be captured in a small hand net for closer observation if necessary. As with other methods, it is best to work in an upstream direction, wear polarized glasses, and to approach the sampling site carefully to avoid alerting the fish. One person nets fish while another person operates the electroshocker. The netter should walk behind or beside the shocker to avoid alerting the fish. The electroshocker can be very effective for sampling in small streams even where brush or instream cover prevents most other sampling methods. In fact, an electroshocker is often most effective in areas with instream cover because fish usually concentrate in these locations. This method works in streams of various sizes but is less effective in larger streams and in deep pools, espe-cially large beaver ponds. Use electroshockers carefully to minimize killing fish. When properly adjusted and used, the electroshocker should stun the fish without killing them. The fish may escape if the current is set too low, but usually the surveyor will still see the fish and so be able to document fish presence. To sample effectively and minimize fish kill, set the electroshocker on the lowest practical voltage output and low- frequency currents ( low pulse rates). Before sampling, use a voltame-ter to test the electroshocker in a stream. If the voltameter is not available, it is a good idea to test the electroshocker in a stream that you know has fish before working in streams whose fish use you do not know. The test will tell you whether the equipment is working and the effects of using different settings. The surveyors' safety must be considered carefully before using this method. Electroshockers can injure or kill humans if not properly used. Surveyors should not use this method without proper training, including CPR training. Surveyors should work in crews of at least two. All surveyors should wear rubber waders and rubber gloves during stream shocking and never use dipnets with metallic handles; the nets should have wood or fiberglass handles. All members of an electroshocking crew should understand the proper operation procedures and potential dangers of this equipment. The effectiveness of electroshocker sampling depends on water conditions and on the skills of the electroshocker operator and the netter. The electroshocker method may not be so useful in high flows or in turbulent or murky water because the surveyors may not see immobilized fish. Another drawback to this method is that the electroshockers may not be widely available and can be expensive. However, with proper training and experience and under suitable survey conditions, this method is the best for accurately determining the maximum upstream extent of fish use. There may be situations where reliable results can be had by using methods not discussed here. For example, headwater beaver ponds may be effectively Other methods sampled by fishing for at least 48 hours with minnow traps baited with salmon eggs or commercial trout bait. Or, seine nets may be effective in beaver ponds or larger waters. If you are thinking about using these or other sampling methods, discuss it first with the departments of Fish and Wildlife and of Forestry. They will decide whether the proposed methods are appropriate and, if so, set the required minimum level of sample effort for the alternate method. A backpack electroshocker is the best way to get reliable information about the upstream extent of fish use or to prove a stream is m e N ( no fish use). Sur- Survey methods: vey data that document the presence of fish through other methods, such as a summary visual observation or hook- and- line, will always be used to classify streams as Type F as far up as the point of observation, even though the exact upstream extent of fish use may not be known. In some cases, methods other than an electroshocker may give reliable information about the maximum upstream distribution of fish. Examples include deep beaver ponds and large, steep streams in which barriers keep fish out of small upstream tributaries. In those cases, reliable results may be better obtained with hook- and- line sampling or with other methods. Whenever the survey is conducted by methods other than an electroshocker, the reasons for choosing the other method must be thor-oughly explained on the survey form. Timing the surveys Survey accuracy depends a lot on the time of year the survey is done and on stream conditions at that time. Since the purpose of the survey is to accurately document the presence or absence of fish, it is critical to do the survey when fish are expected to be using the upper reaches of a stream. This generally is near spawning times or soon after fry emerge, when stream flows are relatively high. A survey done during a low- flow period may not indicate the actual maximum upstream extent of fish use or accurately prove no fish use the stream. Fish may use the upper reaches of a stream for a limited time only, so fish- use surveys must be timed carefully. Surveys done at other than recommended times may not give a complete description of fish use. For example, if fish are found at other than the recommended survey times, the surveyed part of the stream can be classified as fish- bearing, but the maximum upstream extent of fish use may not be known. If fish are not found, that will not necessarily prove that the stream reach does not support fish use. Only if the survey is made at a time when fish are most likely to be there can the absence of fish be a reliable sign that no fish use that portion of the stream. Other factors can affect the reliability of the survey even if it is made at the proper time. Abnormal flows due to drought or extreme runoff could affect the distribution of fish or the sampling efficiency of the surveyor. So, it is best not only to do the sampling within the recommended time period but also when conditions are appropriate. In some cases, survey timing may not have much effect on the reliability of survey results. This could occur when factors other than seasonal flow patterns control the upstream extent of fish distribution. For example, streams that get most of their water from springs may not have seasonal flow variations, including summer flows low enough to control the upstream distribution of fish. Or, conditions other than low flow could be controlling distribution. For example, large, steep streams that have natural barriers such as falls and steep, impassable sections. In such cases, surveys taken outside the recommended time periods may yield reliable data. However, it is important to describe these conditions thoroughly on the survey forms to justify not following the recom-mended timing. See Table 1 for the recommended sampling periods for different regions of the state for normal water- flow years. Periods differ due to variations in stream flow patterns, fish species, and life- history traits of the species in the different areas. Contact the local ODFW office before sampling to find out the best time to survey the stream you are planning to sample. Table 1. General recommended time periods to sample streams, by geographic region, during nomull water- flow years. Please contact your local ODFW ofice before sampling in order to get specific timing recommendations for the stream you will be sampling. REGION of Recommended Georeaion Stream Survey Period WESTERNO REGON All Coast South Coast West Cascades Interior Siskiyou March 1 through May 3 1 EASTERONR EGON All except spring- fed April 1 East Cascades through June 30 Blue Mountains Spring- fed streams* Entire year * Spring- fed streams are streams that get most of their water Born groundwater sources and that have very minor seasonal variations in flow. Stream surveys must be done within certain time periods ( Table 1) if the purpose is to prove the stream does not contain fish or to document the maximum upstream extent of fish use. mming recommendations are based on normal water- flow years and may vary in some years. Contact the local ODFW office before sampling to get specific timing recommendations for the streams to be surveyed. Information gathered at other times of the year may be used to document fish presence but may not be reliable enough to establish upstream fish- use limits or to classify the stream as II) lpe N ( no fish use). Whenever the recommended survey timing is not used, it is important to explain the reasons on the survey form so that the data can be evaluated for reliability. ~ - ~ Survey timing: a summary Survey effort: a summary Survey effort The level of effort used to complete the survey also can affect the reliability of the survey results. If the level of effort or the amount of stream sampled is too little, it may be wrong to conclude that fish are not present. The following guidelines describe the minimum level of survey effort required to assure that the data are reliable. If the purpose of the survey is to show that no fish use the stream, the survey will be considered reliable only if it includes at least 50 yards of stream length md a minimum of six pools, each at least 1 foot deep, immediately upstream of the point at which the non- fish- bearing section begins. ( In some cases, the survey will have to cover much more than 50 yards of stream in order to also include the required six pools.) In addition, the survey must include sampling any beaver dam ponds in the upstream non- fish section. Surveyors are encouraged to exceed the minimum level of effort in order to be even more sure that fish are absent from a stream reach and that the maximum upstream extent of fish use has been found. A survey intended to show the absence of fish must sample at least 50 yards of stream distance and a minimum of six pools, each at least 1 foot deep, imme-diately upstream of the point at which fish use is believed to end. In addition, any beaver ponds upstream must be sampled as part of the survey. The require-ments for the methods used and the timing of the survey also must be met in order to document the absence of fish. Legal requirements In Oregon, the Department of Fish and Wildlife regulates the collection of fish for personal or scientific use. Generally, collection methods prohibited by the general angling regulations, such as electroshockers, traps, or nets, and collec-tions at times of the year when angling is closed will require a Scientific Collection Permit from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Scientific Collection Permits can be issued to agencies, companies, or indi-viduals. Request an application from the Fish Division of the Oregon Depart-ment of Fish and Wildlife, P. O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207; telephone ( 503) 229- 5410, extension 323. Submit the application at least 1 month before you plan to do the survey in order to be sure the permit can be issued in time. The application requests information about the collection method to be used, when and where collection will be made, and a summary of the proposed project. By law, surveyers must keep records of their collection activities and submit them to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Surveys using the visual observation method ( including snorkeling) do not require any licenses or permits because fish are not physically collected. Sampling with the hook- and- line method during open fishing seasons requires only a valid angling license. However, Oregon resident landowners and their immediate families do not need angling licenses to fish on land they own and live on. In either case, the general ahgling regulations for the stream must be followed during hook- and- line sampling unless a Scientific Collection Permit is obtained. Additional restrictions on survey efforts may apply if the stream contains species that the state or federal government lists as sensitive, threatened, or endangered species. Please contact your local ODFW office to find out whether any of these species are likely to be in streams you plan to sample. Reporting survey results Give survey data to the local ODF district office so that district Stream Classi-fication Maps can be updated. On page 19 is a blank survey report form. It asks for information about the location of the stream; the methods, timing, and effort of the survey; the physical character of the stream; observations of fish and wildlife; and the presence of natural or human- created barriers to fish passage. complete one form for each stream reach where fish were ob-served or fish use was found to end. See Figure 3 ( page 12) for descriptions of some fish species common to $ mall, forested streams; these may help to identify fish seen during surveys. Detailed instructions for completing the survey form are on pages 14 through 18. Attach to the Fish Presence Survey Form a copy of the ODF Stream ClassM-cation Map for the surveyed area or, if that is not available, a copy of the 7.5 minute USGS topographic map for the area. Note the following information on the map. ( Examples of completed survey report forms and maps are on pages 21 through 30.) The area of the stream that was actually surveyed ( including the areas without fish) as part of the survey effort. Highlight in yellow the entire stream reach surveyed ( see examples on pages 25,28, and 30). The upper limit of fish use. Note this on the map by drawing a line across the stream and writing the letter F at that point. The name of the surveyor. The date the stream was surveyed. GENUS ONCORHYNCUS - PACIFIC SALMON IOENTIFICATION FEATURES OF JUVENILES Faint parr marks. extend little. if am: below latanl line. Lures SOCKEYE w GENUS ONCORHYNCUS- TROUT IDENTIFICATIOEI FUTURES OF JUVENILES pols in dorsal Teeth on of tongue Maxillary extend past rear margin on throat W - Of eye CUTTHROAT 5 - I 0 parr marks on ridge ahead of dorsal tongue astend & st rear mark on throat Y; V margin of eye STEELHEAD- RAINBOW Few or no spots i n tail Figure 3. Identification characteristics of some juvenile salmon and trout species that may be observed in forested streams. 3. Permission to enter private forest lands should be obtained from all land-owners before the surveys are conducted. 4. Fish- presence surveys should then be made according to the guidelines given in this publication. 5. The required survey information, recorded on the Fish Presence Survey Form and maps, should be given to the local ODF district office. 6. The ODF office will give copies of the completed survey forms and maps to the local office of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 7. The Department of Forestry will review the information, usually in consul-tation with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, to determine whether the survey results are reliable. 8. Based on its assessment of data reliability, the Department of Forestry will make appropriate changes to the ODF Stream Classification Maps. 9. All affected landowners will be notified of the proposed stream classifica-tion changes, according to the notification rules ( OAR 629- 57- 2110( 2)). Instructions for completing the survey report form The following information should be reported on the Fish Presence Survey Form. These instructions are in the order that the information appears on the form. Complete one form for each stream reach or branch where fish were observed or fish use was found to end. This may require assigning codes to unnamed tributaries ( for example, " trib. a," " trib. b") so that survey data can be cross- referenced to the survey maps. Please refer to examples on pages 21 through 29. Surveyor Narne( s): The name of the person or persons responsible for con-ducting the survey and reporting the results. AgencyfCompany: The name of the agency or company that employs the surveyor ( if applicable). Landowner: The name of the landowner of the reach surveyed. Mailing Address and Phone: The address and phone number for the person responsible for the survey. Stream: The name of the stream as reported on the USGS or ODF Stream Classification Map for the area. If the stream is unnamed, report the stream as " unnamed" and list the tributary that it flows into (" Tributary to..."). Tributary to: The name of the main stream ( as reported on the USGS or ODF map) that the surveyed stream flows into. This is especially important if the surveyed stream is unnamed. Quad Map: The name of the USGS 7.5 minute topographic map that includes the reach of the stream surveyed. If the surveyed reach covers more than one quad map, report first the name of the map that shows the identified end- point of fish use and then give the other maps' names. Location: A legal description ( township, range, and section to at least the quarter section) of the location where fish use ends. Date Surveyed: The month, day, and year the fish survey was conducted. Survey Method: Check the box for the survey method used. If more than one method was used, check all that apply and note the most often used method in the comments section or in the form's margin. Survey Amount Above End of Fish Use: The length of stream reach that was surveyed immediately upstream of the identified end of fish use. Estimate ( in feet) the length surveyed, and give the number of pools sampled for fish in that section. A survey to prove the absence of fish must sample at least 50 yards of stream and at least six pools immediately upstream of the end of fish use. In addition, any upstream beaver ponds must also be sampled. Flow Level: The flow conditions at the time of the survey. Use the following categories of flow. Low: Ranges from a series of isolated pools to flowing across less than 75 percent of the average bankfull width. Moderate: Surface water is flowing across 75 to 90 percent of the average bankfull width. High: Surface water flowing across more than 90 percent of the average bankfull width. It is not recommended thatfih presence surveys be conducted at high jlows. Weather: The weather during most of the fish survey ( rainy, overcast, partly cloudy, sunny, snowy, etc.). Water Clarity: The water visibility during the survey. Use the following categories of water visibility. Clear: Visibility is good in pools, deep pools, and riffles. Moderate: Visibility is good only in riffles and shallow pools. Turbid: Visibility is poor in both riffles and pools. It is not recommended that fih presence surveys be conducted when water is turbid. Water Temperature ( optional): The temperature of the stream ( in degrees Farenheit) at the time of the survey. Fish observations Report the species and approximate size ranges of fish observed in the sur-veyed reach. Use Figure 3 ( page 12) as a guide to identifying some game fish species commonly found in small, forested streams. Use the following codes and instructions to complete this section. Species: Use the following names or codes to report fish observed during the survey. If you observe a species not listed here, such as Pacific lamprey, use its common name. Name Species Code Coho salmon Co Cutthroat trout Ct Rainbow troutfsteelhead Rb/ St Bull trout BUT Brook trout BT Unknown salmonid UnS Sizes: Report the size range of fish, in inches, by species. For example, the size range of coho observed could be reported as " 1- 4 inches." If you see several sizes of one species ( for example, some cutthroat trout in the " 1- to 2- inch range and others in the " 6- to 8- inch" range), list them separately. Aquatic wildlife The types of aquatic wildlife that may be observed include tailed frogs ( includ-ing juvenile " tadpoles"), Pacific giant salamanders, and Olympic salamanders. Species: Give the common name of the species, if known. If you don't know the species name, at least report observations by a general name such as " salamanders." Number: The number of aquatic wildlife in each species or group observed. Physical stream data Report the physical characteristics of the stream in the vicinity of the end- point of fish use. Report information separately for ( 1) the section immediately at and downstream of the end of fish use, and ( 2) the area upstream of the maximum extent of fish use. Following are specific instructions for collecting this information. Bankfull Channel Width: By eye, estimate the average width ( in feet) of the bankfull channel for the 100- foot sections above and below the end- point of fish use. The bankfull channel is the area that is scoured by water during average high flows. The edge of the bankfull channel can be identified by looking for changes in vegetation, in soils and litter characteristics, or in the shape of the bank. The bank often will abruptly change slope at the bankfull boundary. Vegetation at the boundary often changes from annual vegetation ( such as grasses) to more permanent vegetation such as trees and shrubs. Estimate the width across the channel between the edges of the bankfull level. Current Wetted Width: Visually estimate the average width ( in feet) of the channel that contains flow ( is wetted) at the time of the survey. Report the estimated averages for the 100- foot sections above and below the end of fish use. Channel Gradient: Measure the average stream gradient with a clinometer for the 100- foot sections above and below the end of fish use. me a piece of flagging at eye level on a branch or shrub, walk up or down the stream bank, and then use the clinometer to sight on the flagging while you are standing on the channel bottom. Read and report the percent gradient. ODF Stream Class Size: The stream size (" small," " medium," or " large") from the ODF Stream Classification Maps for the reaches immediately above and downstream of the end of fish use. Natural barriers This information is very important for understanding relationships between the presence of fish and the physical characteristics of the stream. Understanding these relationships can help determine where fish- presence surveys should be concentrated and help predict where fish are likely to occur if survey informa-tion is not yet available. Generally, natural barriers are permanent structures such as falls or vertical drops more than 8 to 10 feet high for salmon or steel-head or 4 feet high for trout. Log jams, drops over logs, beaver dams, or other organic structures generally are only temporary barriers to fish passage, but report them as well. If fish use ends at a natural barrier, such as a waterfall, bedrock chute or cascades, describe the conditions at the site. Include a description of: ( 1) the type of barrier, ( 2) the approximate height ( in feet), ( 3) the percentage of slope, ( 4) the length ( in feet) of the bedrock chute or cascades, and ( 5) any other conditions that may be limiting fish passage. If the potential barrier is a bedrock chute, note whether the bedrock contains pools or rough features ( such as rocks, boulders, or other breaks in the flow), or whether the water flows in an even, shallow pattern over the bedrock. Please note on the survey map the locations of any natural barriers encountered. If you encounter a natural barrier, also be sure to sample above this point because fish often are found above natural barriers. Road- crossing barriers This information also is very important for understanding relationships be-tween the presence of fish and the physical characteristics of the stream. Road-crossing barriers can alter the relationships. If fish use ends at a road- crossing barrier, such as a culvert, describe the conditions at the site. Describe the type of barrier and its measurements at the time of the survey such as ( 1) the diameter of the culvert, in inches, ( 2) the depth ( in inches) of water in the culvert, ( 3) the height ( in feet) of the jump ( drop) below the culvert or structure, ( 4) the depth ( in inches or feet) of the plunge pool below the culvert outfall, ( 5) the gradient or slope of the culvert, given as a percentage as read off a clinometer, ( 6) the length ( in feet) of the culvert, and ( 7) any other factors that could affect fish passage. Please note on the survey map the locations of any road- crossing barriers, even if they are not at the end- point of fish use. As with natural barriers, be sure also to sample above the site because fish often are found above road- crossing barriers. Other comments Any other comments or notations that you think may be pertinent to the fish survey. It helps to describe any notable habitat characteristics, for example " lots of instream wood," " very few pools in the reach," " heavy silt load in the stream." Use the reverse side of the form if necessary. FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Surveyor Name( s): Agency: Land Owner: Mailing Address: Phone: Date Surveyed: Stream: Tributary to: Quad Map: Location: T R Sec. Survey Method ( d): 0 Electroshocker 0 h & g 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) Number of Pools Flow Level ( d): 0 Low 17 Moderate High Weather: Water Temperature: Water Clarity ( d): Clear 17 Moderate 17 Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE PHYSICAL STREAM DATA If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Surveyor Name( s): . be Sorveq , 3 Troo+, FI s h G n r u l l , I*? , S.; L. Agency: N/ C I Land Owner: k! 4~ 4f, l T; M ~ C C Mailing address:?.^. sox ~ g~,\ L L I M UF~ A \ ID~ R) jC? suo Phone: BSB- 5555 ate surveyed: A p ( ; i 2 8, ! ?? s I Stream: Un hawed , " Tr I b R!' Tributary to: lr3 F . 21 o k so- ~ r a& QuadMap: D\ A &\ dy Location: T 305 R 5 " L Sec. 30, sw/ sto Survey Method ( d): d~ lectroshocker Angling 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) I 86 ' Number of Pools Flow Level ( d): CI Low cd~ oderate High Weather: S owv Water Temperature: 7 O F I Water Clarity ( V): dclear Moderate I7 Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE Species I Snes 1 Spedes 1 Quant'ity 1 PHYSICAL STREAM DATA If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. bk If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. prf+ Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): f- 15 L wsz ewd 30 $& abov e f *; rd John50~ m ain\ ifi< ~ r o s s i n OH ~ f r e a ~ 7.% ~ 5t redw g d ~ e n f & ry s t u p abde + he a d 4' & sh use - p & f i a n 10%. 2 1 OREGON FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Fish & Wildlife Stream: ~) nr? euce, d " Tr t b, O " Tributary to: w F & n~ oq CC. Quad Map: old &\ A% Location: T 382 R 5E Sec.' 30, si/ Sw I Survey Method ( 4): ~ lectroshocker 0 Angling 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) 2 5' 0 Number of Pools 20 Flow Level ( d): 0 Low d ~ o d e r a t e High Weather: Lw+ Water Temperature: 6 0 F I Water Clarity ( d): dclear Cl Moderate Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE Species 1 Snes I! , Species Quantity If fish use ends at a natural bamer, desc ' be the conditions that prevent u stre m fish assage. Fid - 4s 4+ 2 S ' ~ r t i Lm* r? d\. A dJ @ cater also % 15& 5 ( ho& a. r. rp Q5 W F - buffis @ ere fouu\ d . opstr + ye If fish use ehs) at a roa d. crossmng, descnbe conhlons that may prevent upstream fish passage. Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): w tfw+ were fbU 4 above % z 6 + of (~ la+ erf~ ll above fu 25fcof I sowe years. 22 fail s& i ro fish t@ f& probab/ y vp FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP stream: V A ~ ~ ~ + SC~" T & ~ ributaryto: u. F. 3ehbtja14 Creek Quad Map: old - b a t d ~ Location: T 3 S 5 R 5 E Sec. Survey Method ( d): d~ lectroshocker 0 Anghng 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) a 2 5 Number of Pools 2 Flow Level ( d): 0 Low & oderate 0 High Weather: SvMwv Water Temperature: I Water Clarity ( d): d l e a r 0 Moderate 0 Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE - ... . .: : :....: ' ' . . . . . . A , , , .: . . . . , . . , .&& : ! Species ... . ..$ pedes Quantity PHYSICAL STREAM DATA If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. M/ A If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Stream: West h r k Aobrson Cr eeG Tributary to: Johnrow Cre~ k Quad Map: ( ~ ( 4Ith .\ Ay Location: T 385 R 5 E Sec. 2?,, 5E/ sLJ I Survey Method ( d): dlectroshocker 0 Angling Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) 3 00 Number of Pools t% Flow Level ( V): 0 Low d ~ o d e r ae t High Weather: j , y~ I Water Temperature: 60" F= Water Clarity ( d): & ear Moderate Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQ- U ATIC WILDLIFE t Spedes Quantity 1 I PHYSICAL STREAM DATA + IH n D CtsL 5h-* If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. N I A If fish use ends t a roqj crossiy, describ~ concl~~ tohnats may prevent upstr am fish passa e. ~ hrvctr ert a no? pQ59 ~ c - r b LOWOJQ 4 u. 4 9 ) drop at * rut-/&. b l d a r p fn qr p aI . 7, slop is 6 70 , and w ( onp 7 % fu~ lv er+ 1s ~ chul~ ledb e replace4 t bi s Svmncr. Other comments ( use reverse s~ de~ fn ecessa ): Lower ~ t r c a - q r d r r & a & e + LC cd en. Sf- rm* bb; M Ieok 30a4, but + k shaln. dry up ;* SOW years. FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Mailing Address: ?. c, 3 2 , AJLO ~ L4- T o R 70 00 Phone: b40 - oool Date Surveyed: / Ha v 2 / cj? T I stream: ~ nnclcr- ed , " 7- r; b k " Tributary to: Lobs k c Creek Quad Map: BULL Lrceu Rtdqc Location: T 35 R 2W S ~ C . ~ ~ N € + 4 Survey Method ( d): ~ lectroshocker Angling 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) 300 Number of Pools I 57 Flow Level ( d): 0 Low rd~ oderate High Weather: 7k + lVL * wy Water Temperature: 6 O T-Water Clarity ( d): && ear Moderate Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLlFE I , , , ' Species Sies Spedes Quantity If fish use ends, at a natural ba ' er, describe t e conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. The. LZ m c b r u f - ~ V~ L ry 54- p X e u e + he ed$+ t.* use. ~ k rlrcnu, RIIIVC ~ L I : : pain+ I S ~ 4 1 ~ g ~ r L ~ d eo5ve r bai( Lle r S, b+ + his ri- gf obnhi~ n o+ Q b r r r t c r. ' 7 If fish use ends at a road crossing, descn e conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. U P Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): N r 4.0r L r ~ s; Wj J bCqPn 5 u ru . + r + he L) wediunn - sws\ l size chaqc, F, sh U ~ CC ~ wJh c r t a d c c y t r ; b ~ + G~ d . ovt WLQ) ew- ker s LLII+. 26 FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Surveyor Name( s): 30 e Cadd i i , Bob hJvrnP1\ Agency: o ba~ ~ a'ndbwner: Lobsfec C r , ~ , , b c c Mailing Address: 7 D. ' 30K 2 , ~ J L pLet~ t , D R DO Phone: 8 YD- o 00 1 Date Surveyed: m4 I/ 2, i? 7- C I f Stream: / ) ~ ~ ~ ~ ek bS "" ~ c Tributaryto: L o b s t e r Lraek Quad Map: B V ' ~ Cr eek ??, d. ie Location: T 73 R 2 0 Sec. 3Y, ~ I. o AA. J G Survey Method ( d): d~ lectroshocker Angling 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) 2 5 0 Number of Pools / D Flow Level ( d): 0 Low d ~ o d e r a t e 0 High Weather: 94, & SU W\ I Water Temperature: 5- 7 " ?= Water Clarity ( d) : Wc1ea. r CI Moderate 0 Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE PHYSICAL STREAM DATA Species Sics Spedes If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. Quantity If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. I I Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): ~ h5ctre um WLS " r y ~ Lw iL tL ~ decy f- goo( r. @. la f is/., observe4 , Ty pr N ~ f . r e u ~ z . FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Surveyor Name( s): \ ce < . 3ab Tr cut Agency: u/ k2 Mailing ~ ddress: Z3R Rne St , b k n h( e dr ! OR ? d o 0 Phone: ZB?- 3333 Date Surveyed: stream: ~*- aweA Tributary to: c r & QuadMap: G l e w b ~ ~ e k Location: T \ 4 5 R 6 @ Sec. zS,, ~ 3t .+ S-Survey Method ( d): d~ lectroshocker Angling Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) Number of Pools Q Flow Level ( d): 0 Low & oderate High Weather: C( ea c Water Temperature: 5?* F Water Clarity ( d): lW2ear 0 Moderate Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE Species Sizes Spedes Quantity PHYSICAL STREAM DATA If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. U P If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage.
-
72. [Image] Lower Klamath River instream flow study : scoping evaluation for the Yurok Indian Reservation
ABSTRACT The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lower Columbia River Fishery Resource Office was funded by Bureau of Indian Affairs to conduct an instream flow assessment for the lower Klamath River within ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Lower Klamath River instream flow study : scoping evaluation for the Yurok Indian Reservation
- Author:
- Anglin, Donald R
- Year:
- 1994, 2007, 2006
ABSTRACT The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lower Columbia River Fishery Resource Office was funded by Bureau of Indian Affairs to conduct an instream flow assessment for the lower Klamath River within the Yurok Indian Reservation in northern California using the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM). Specific study tasks consisted of developing an explicit statement of purpose, definition of the study area and target species, assembly and evaluation of hydrologic, water quality, and physical data as well as biological and fish habitat information. A reconnaissance survey of the proposed study area was also conducted. The purpose for conducting the proposed flow study was the Yurok Tribe's desire to protect the Klamath basin water supply for the production of anadromous fish. The ultimate goal was to protect, restore, and enhance the anadromous fishery resources on the Reservation and in the basin as a whole. The study area was defined as the lower Klamath River and tributaries from the confluence with the Trinity River downstream to the area of tidal influence. Although the mainstem Klamath only was proposed for flow studies, the tributaries were included in the study area as a result of their hydrologic and biological relevance. Target species were identified as chinook salmon {Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho salmon (0. kisutch), steelhead trout (0. mykiss) , green sturgeon {Acipenser medirostris) , eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) , and Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) . Assembly and evaluation of relevant information was accomplished from results of a public scoping meeting and the review of a large volume of both published and file reports as well as numerous personal communications. Hydrology of the lower Klamath River is affected by U.S. Bureau of Reclamation projects in both the upper Klamath and upper Trinity subbasins. Several hydroelectric projects in the upper Klamath subbasin affect flow patterns, and agricultural activities in the upper Klamath subbasin and tributaries and the Central Valley Project in the upper Trinity subbasin have reduced water yield from the basin. Water quality concerns were identified as elevated water temperatures and nutrient levels resulting from land use activities throughout the basin. Hydrologic and water quality impacts are partially mitigated in the lower Klamath by tributary inflow throughout the basin. The physical environment in the basin has been altered by land use practices and several major flood events. Alterations include loss of riparian vegetation and stream channel stability, loss of soil moisture storage capacity and infiltration potential, debris slides and logjams resulting in migration barriers, reduced supply of large woody debris for recruitment into the stream channel, and sedimentation of spawning and rearing habitat. Fish habitat in most lower Klamath tributaries has been surveyed and deficiencies as well as good quality habitat have been described. Significant production potential exists in most tributaries, however much restoration work needs to be completed to realize the potential. Habitat characteristics for the mainstem Klamath have not been described. Life history and production data are presented for target species and a brief review of sources for suitability criteria is presented. Harvest management and escapement for naturally spawning fall chinook salmon were reviewed from 1978 through 1993. Escapement has varied over the years but a general downward trend in naturally spawning fall chinook can be observed, particularly in recent years. Escapement goals for the Klamath basin varied from 115,000 in 1978 to an "emergency" floor of 27,000 in 1992. Actual escapement of naturally spawning adult fall chinook varied from a high of 113,000 in 1986 to a low of 11,600 in 1991. Escapement in 1978 totalled 58,500 and preliminary estimates of escapement in 1993 were 21,000 naturally spawning adults. Factors affecting production and subsequent stock size and escapement included variable ocean survival, degraded freshwater habitat conditions, the recent six-year drought, releases of large numbers of hatchery juveniles, and harvest management methodologies that have failed to adequately match harvest to predicted stock size. Differential harvest rates for Klamath and Trinity subbasin fall chinook have also complicated attempts to structure the harvest. Field reconnaisance surveys were conducted in spring and summer 1993 for the proposed mainstem Klamath study area. Two distinct river segments were identified based on macrohabitat characteristics. Microhabitat was classified within each river segment and mapped on USGS quadrangle maps. Cross section identification was postponed pending the decision to move forward with the flow study. Following the scoping tasks described above, conclusions and recommendations were developed. No information was reviewed that indicated the need for an instream flow study in the lower Klamath River. The two basic problems affecting anadromous fish production are degraded freshwater habitat and chronic underescapement. Coordination and planning for instream flow studies on a basin-wide scale was recommended. Biological data gaps were identified which need to be addressed before an instream flow study can be completed for the lower Klamath. Suitability criteria for habitat analysis also need to be identified. Habitat restoration and protection and proper management of anadromous fishery resources were identified as the highest priorities to begin restoration of anadromous stocks. Specific recommendations for habitat restoration included watershed and riparian zone restoration, barrier removal, instream habitat inventory, restoration, and monitoring, estuary studies, and description of streamflow characteristics for lower Klamath tributaries. Recommended fishery resource studies included collection of basic life history data, monitoring for adult escapement and juvenile production, description of estuary usage, effects of hatchery programs on both adult and juvenile wild fish, evaluation of the accelerated stocking program, and refinement of harvest management methodologies to achieve appropriate escapement of naturally spawning stocks into all subbasins.
-
73. [Image] Progress report for investigations on Blue Creek, fiscal year 1992, Blue Creek, California
PROGRESS REPORT FOR INVESTIGATIONS ON BLUE CREEK FT 1992 ABSTRACT The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Coastal California Fishery Resource Office in Arcata, California, was funded to investigate chinook ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Progress report for investigations on Blue Creek, fiscal year 1992, Blue Creek, California
- Author:
- Chan, Jeffrey R. ; Longenbaugh, Matthew H.
- Year:
- 1994, 2005
PROGRESS REPORT FOR INVESTIGATIONS ON BLUE CREEK FT 1992 ABSTRACT The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Coastal California Fishery Resource Office in Arcata, California, was funded to investigate chinook salmon roncorhvnchus tshawvtschav spavming use, juvenile salmonid emigration, and characterize stream habitats in Blue Creek, a tributary to' the Klamath River; California. Investigations began in October 1988, with this reporting period covering October 1991 through September 1992. Adult chinook spawner escapement was addressed by surveys of redds, live fish and carcasses, and by radioteleiretry. Spawner numbers were v?ry low, with only 22 redds observed in fall 1991/winter 1992. The peak count of adult Chinook was 97 fish in early November. Radiotelemetry of migrating spawners (n?8) was used to locate remote spawning areas. Emigrating juvenile Chinook salmon, steelhead trout 10. mvkissV/ coho salmon (fi. kisutchl. and coastal cutthroat trout (g. clarltiV were trapped at river kilometer (rkm) 3.35 with a rotary screw trap (screw trap). The trapping period extended from April to July for a total of 75 trapping nights. Screw trap catches totaled 10,688 chinook, 1,388 steelhead, 99 coho and 10 cutthroat. Peak Chinook emigration occurred during the week of May 17, which is consistent with the past 3 years of monitoring. A juvenile weir was operated 58 nights, and caught a total of 9,166 chinook, 1,196 steelhead, 127 coho and 1 cutthroat. The index of abundance for emigrating chinook during the 1992 juvenile trapping period was 49,590. Sixty-five percent of the juvenile chinook caught during the trapping season were marked with coded wire tags (n-12,687) and released back into Blue Creek at rkm 3.3. Mean water temperatures varied from 6.3 to 18.6 XI and stream flows ranged from 43 to 2178 eft (1.3 to 61.7 m3/?) during the Fiscal Year (FY) 1992 study season.
-
74. [Image] Upper Klamath Basin : opportunities for conserving and sustaining natural resources on private lands
1 i California Oregon Cover Photo: Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge at sunset Tupper Ansel Blake/ USFWS Map Detail Area: Upper Klamath River Basin ii T he Klamath River Basin presents numerous ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Upper Klamath Basin : opportunities for conserving and sustaining natural resources on private lands
- Author:
- United States. Natural Resources Conservation Service
- Year:
- 2004, 2005
1 i California Oregon Cover Photo: Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge at sunset Tupper Ansel Blake/ USFWS Map Detail Area: Upper Klamath River Basin ii T he Klamath River Basin presents numerous challenges as well as opportunities for its many water users. For years, farmers and ranchers in the basin have recognized the vital role they play in the health of their watershed. Working with conservation districts, the Natural Resources Conservation Service ( NRCS) and others, land managers continue to proactively find ways to enhance natural resources in the basin, benefiting wildlife and the environment. However, as it has across the western United States, drought hit home in the Klamath for those who depend on every drop of water to sustain their livelihood, culture and community. In the spring of 2001, the combination of drought and the impact of the Endangered Species Act triggered a shutdown of irrigation water during the growing season, drying up water resources to more than 2,000 farms and ranches. NRCS, in cooperation with local conservation districts, provided a quick infusion of technical assistance and $ 2 million in cost- share funding for cover crops through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program. As cover crops took hold, the seeds of a long- term solution took root in the NRCS/ conservation district partnership. The ability of the local office to receive funding, engage community members and other partners, plan resource improvements, implement actions, and monitor success proved to be an invaluable asset for the community. Helping private landowners develop and apply practical, common- sense solutions to complex resource issues will be the challenge of the conservation partnership well into the future. USDA, in concert with the locally led conservation districts, will continue to play a critical role by delivering technical and financial assistance to Klamath Basin farmers and ranchers. The Rapid Subbasin Assessments that follow are the first step in that process. The assessments are designed to help local decision- makers determine where investments in conservation will best benefit wildlife habitat, agriculture and other land uses in a compatible manner. It is our goal to provide a comprehensive overview of resource challenges and opportunities in the basin, and help decision- makers to prioritize their investments in areas that will best sustain multiple use of natural resources in the basin now and in the future. Sincerely, Robert J. Graham Charles W. Bell, State Conservationist State Conservationist Oregon NRCS California NRCS iii iv Table of Contents Map of the Upper Klamath Basin ................................ i Letter from OR and CA State Conservationists .......... ii Overview of the Upper Klamath Basin ........................ 1 Background ................................................................................... 1 Upper Klamath Basin Description ............................................ 2 The Role of Agriculture in the Basin ........................................ 3 Rapid Subbasin Assessments ...................................................... 4 Private Lands Conservation Accomplishments ...................... 6 Summary of Conservation Opportunities ............................... 7 Water Conservation ...................................................................... 8 Improving Water Quality ........................................................... 10 Increasing Water Storage/ Yield ............................................... 11 Enhancing Fish and Wildlife Habitat ...................................... 12 Overview of Conservation Effectiveness .............................. 13 Comparative Benefit: Water Demand ..................................... 15 Comparative Benefit: Water Quality ....................................... 15 Comparative Benefit: Water Storage/ Yield ............................ 16 Comparative Benefit: Habitat/ Fish Survival .......................... 16 Sprague River Subbasin .............................................. 18 Resource Concerns & Conservation Accomplishments ...... 19 Conservation Opportunities ..................................................... 20 Williamson River Subbasin ......................................... 22 Resource Concerns & Conservation Accomplishments ...... 23 Priority Conservation Opportunities ....................................... 24 Upper Klamath Lake Subbasin .................................. 26 Resource Concerns & Conservation Accomplishments ...... 27 Priority Conservation Opportunities ....................................... 28 Upper Lost River Subbasin ......................................... 30 Resource Concerns & Conservation Accomplishments ...... 31 Priority Conservation Opportunities ....................................... 32 Middle Lost River Subbasin ....................................... 34 Resource Concerns & Conservation Accomplishments ...... 35 Priority Conservation Opportunities ....................................... 36 Tulelake Subbasin ...................................................... 38 Resource Concerns & Conservation Accomplishments ...... 39 Priority Conservation Opportunities ....................................... 40 Butte Valley Subbasin ................................................. 42 Resource Concerns & Conservation Accomplishments ...... 43 Priority Conservation Opportunities ....................................... 44 Upper Klamath River East Subbasin .......................... 46 Resource Concerns & Conservation Accomplishments ...... 47 Priority Conservation Opportunities ....................................... 48 1 Overview of the Upper Klamath Basin Upper Klamath Basin Quick Facts • The Upper Klamath Basin includes the Klamath, Williamson, Sprague, Lost, and Wood rivers, among others • Several state and federal wildlife refuges are a part of the Upper Klamath Basin • Migratory birds like the American White Pelican and the Red- necked Grebe use croplands in the Klamath Basin as a stop on the Pacific Flyway • Deer and elk graze on wheat and barley fields and pheasants use both crop and rangelands for their nesting and feeding grounds Background In a landscape formed by seemingly endless cycles of drought and flood, it’s no wonder that for hundreds of years, competition for water has dominated the landscape of the West. Stretching across southern Oregon and northern California, the Klamath Basin has become synonymous with the water challenges that western water users face. As one example, agricultural commodities that need irrigation water to thrive – providing Americans with the cheapest domestic food supply in the world, face competition from the critical water needs of sucker fish, salmon and other threatened and endangered species. While that competition is understandable, more and more, conservation leaders in all industries have come to recognize that these water needs aren’t necessarily at odds with one another, and can in fact be compatible. While an example of the challenges today’s agricultural producers and conservationists face, the Klamath Basin has emerged as an example of how diverse interests can work together successfully. 2 Overview of the Upper Klamath Basin Upper Klamath Basin Description The Upper Klamath Basin is an area of high desert, wetlands, and the Klamath River. The river extends 250 miles from its headwaters at Upper Klamath Lake in south central Oregon to the west coast of northern California. The Upper Klamath Basin includes the US Bureau of Reclamation’s ( USBR) Klamath Project Area and the drainage area above Irongate Dam on the Klamath River. The basin’s lakes, marshes, and wetlands host an abundance of plant and animal species and include national wildlife refuges, parks, and forests. Agricultural production began around the turn of the 20th century, and with the creation of the Klamath Irrigation District in 1905, water diversions for irrigation began in earnest. A portion of these irrigated lands are in the USBR’s irrigation project. The ‘ project area,’ as it is commonly called, includes 188,000 of the 502,000 acres of private irrigated land in the basin. This includes lands leased from the various wildlife refuges that are supplied with water by the USBR. Privately irrigated acreages can vary from year to year, depending on USBR contracts and annual cropping cycles. In comparison, the majority of the private irrigated land - about 314,000 acres - in the basin is located outside the project area. Upper Klamath Basin Quick Facts: • Over 2.2 million acres are privately owned in the Upper Klamath Basin • 188,000 of the irrigated acres are in the US Bureau of Reclamation’s Irrigation Project • Approximately 502,000 acres of privately owned lands are irrigated • 314,000 acres of irrigated lands are outside the Project area 3 Overview of the Upper Klamath Basin The Role of Agriculture in the Basin Agricultural lands play a key role in a healthy ecosystem. Located on the Pacific Flyway, migratory birds like the American White Pelican and the Red- Necked Grebe use croplands in the Klamath Basin as an important feeding and resting stop. Deer graze on wheat and barley fields, and pheasants use both crop and rangelands for their nesting and feeding grounds. Progressive conservation leaders recognize that farming and fish and wildlife habitat are not mutually exclusive. Well- maintained farmland creates fish and wildlife habitat, contributing to a healthy watershed. They also recognize that opportunities will always exist to improve the condition of natural resources in the basin. To address those opportunities, conservation leaders in Oregon’s Klamath Falls Soil and Water Conservation District and California’s Lava Beds/ Butte Valley Resource Conservation District have proactively identified four key priorities tied to natural resource conservation. The districts asked experts at the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service to help them develop a plan to determine what could be done on- farm to conserve water, increase water storage, improve water quality, and enhance fish and wildlife habitat. While so much of the attention to date in the Klamath Basin has been focused on water demand, these conservation leaders recognize demand is only one piece of the puzzle. Comprehensive solutions must also address water quality, storage and wildlife habitat. Conservation District Priorities 1) Conserve Water 2) Increase Water Storage 3) Improve Water Quality 4) Enhance Fish & Wildlife Habitat 4 Rapid Subbasin Assessments Conserving natural resources is the ultimate goal throughout the basin, and its success hinges on long- term solutions. At the request of local conservation districts, NRCS undertook an 18- month study of resource concerns, challenges and opportunities throughout the Upper Klamath Basin. The study was not intended to provide a detailed, quantitative analysis of the impacts of conservation work, but rather, to provide an initial estimate of where conservation investments would best address the districts’ four priority resource concerns. Beginning in the spring of 2002, NRCS planners collected information to enable the conservation districts, agencies, organizations, farmers, ranchers and others to make informed decisions in a timely manner about conservation and resource management in the basin. These Rapid Subbasin Assessments are intended to help leaders set priorities and determine the best actions to achieve their goals. As a part of the rapid subbasin assessment process, eight subbasins were delineated ( see map at left). A watershed planning team traveled through each subbasin, inventorying agricultural areas, identifying conservation opportunities and current levels of resource management, and estimating the impacts of these opportunities on the Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin 5 Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin conservation districts’ priority resource concerns. They focused their recommendations on areas that would provide the best benefit to the wide array of stakeholders in the Upper Klamath Basin. They also identified a number of socio- economic factors that must be taken into consideration when helping producers adapt to new management styles and conservation activities. Through NRCS, conservation districts and other federal, state and local entities, private land managers are working to identify ways they can more efficiently use – and share – the water they need. In the face of increasingly complex and politically polarized circumstances, a clear purpose and direction has arisen. The commitment of the local conservation partnership to identify the impacts of water shortages and to find solutions that will improve natural resource conservation will be key to the long- term viability of both endangered species and industries in the Upper Klamath Basin. The information that follows provides a summary of the conservation challenges and opportunities that NRCS staff found in their assessment. Recommendations for where financial and other resources can best be invested to improve natural resources, while sustaining the economy of the Upper Klamath Basin, are also identified. 6 Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin Private Lands Conservation Accomplishments One component necessary to understanding future conservation opportunities in the basin is to recognize the current conservation work of private land managers. An indicator of these efforts is the work that has been undertaken in partnership with NRCS and the local conservation districts. In federal fiscal years 2002 and 2003, Upper Klamath Basin farmers and ranchers improved resource conditions on 18,877 acres of privately owned agricultural lands, with assistance from NRCS and the conservation districts. During this time, private land managers have worked with the conservation districts in the basin to: • improve the condition of 11,800 acres of grazing lands • conserve water and improve water quality on 13,656 acres • restore and establish 4,138 acres of wetlands and riparian areas • improve 281 acres of forest stands • establish resource management systems on 1,351 acres of cropland These conservation efforts were accomplished with a combination of private, state and federal funding. 7 Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin Summary of Conservation Opportunities In addition to recognizing current conservation activities, the assessments define what can be accomplished with a strong conservation partnership in the Upper Klamath Basin. All too often, the debate about multi- use of water in the basin has focused on ways to reduce water demand. However, the basin’s many water users - including fish and wildlife - benefit just as much from improvements to water quality, water storage and wildlife habitat. Taken together, the recommendations that follow seek to utilize a comprehensive approach to all four resource priorities - with the goal of contributing to a sustainable, multi- use water system. While quantification of the results of conservation work in these four areas is difficult, there is no question that a comprehensive approach to natural resource improvement in the Upper Klamath Basin will result in accumulative long- term benefits for endangered fish species, wildlife habitat, agriculture, urban and other water uses. Agriculture cannot undertake these efforts alone. Private landowners and the general public both benefit from natural resources conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin. Because of this, public and private sources of funding from in and outside the region are necessary. Solutions of this magnitude also come with other social, political, and cultural costs. Upper Klamath Basin Quick Facts: • 1,400 farm families live in the Upper Klamath Basin • The Upper Klamath Basin is home to sucker fish, bull trout and redband trout 8 Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin For example, all stakeholders in the Upper Klamath Basin need to identify and address social, economic, and cultural resource- based values they have historically enjoyed. Politically, there must be resolution and agreement on water rights, endangered species, and water quality. Water Conservation Because few water use measurements have been taken in the past, it is difficult to quantify where specific water efficiencies can be gained. Throughout the Upper Klamath Basin, water that leaves one irrigated field generally re- enters streams or enters the groundwater, providing the opportunity for it to be utilized again later. Because of this, water delivery systems both in and outside the USBR project area are generally efficient. As a result, the most significant benefit of reducing water demand on individual farms is an improvement in water quality and reduction in water temperatures, rather than an increase in available water. 9 Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin Conservation measures that reduce water demand on private agricultural lands can be accomplished in a variety of ways. New technologies for managing when and where water is applied on crop and pasture lands will help to ensure that water is only applied when it is of the best benefit to the plant. Water conservation opportunities include improving irrigation water-use efficiency, retaining and conserving drainage water, and making use of new technologies that more accurately forecast the impacts of drought and floods. The subbasin assessments indicate an opportunity to conserve water and improve water quality on 130,000 acres of irrigated lands within the USBR project. Outside the project area there is an opportunity for water conservation on approximately 220,000 irrigated acres. If all potential conservation practices are implemented on all irrigated lands, on- farm water use efficiency could increase by up to 25 percent in the Upper Klamath Basin. A potential two to five percent increase in water yield could be achieved by increasing management in upland range and forestland areas. In all cases, these are preliminary estimates and require validation. This estimate does not account for evaporation, transpiration, seepage or other loses that may occur at the sites receiving conserved water nor does it evaluate irrigation delivery or conveyance efficiencies. Tupper Ansel Blake/ USFWS 10 Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin This level of water conservation cannot be reached without a concerted federal/ state/ private partnership that works together to apply water conservation practices in targeted areas throughout the Upper Klamath Basin. Improving Water Quality Water quality has a direct impact on many fish and wildlife species. Within the Upper Klamath Basin, most rivers and lakes do not meet federally mandated Clean Water Act standards for temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, or other pollutants. Water quality is affected by water temperature, low in- stream flows and the condition of adjacent land riparian areas, among other items. Private landowners are just one of many groups who have an opportunity to improve water quality throughout the basin. Water quality improvement opportunities on private agricultural lands in the basin range from improving the management of livestock near streams and rivers to utilizing new technologies that track pest and weed cycles to ensure that pesticides are only applied when they will be most effective. Water conservation practices that reduce tailwater runoff from irrigated fields can provide extensive improvements in water quality. 11 Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin Increasing Water Storage/ Yield In recent years, drought has been a large contributing factor to reduced water levels in the Upper Klamath Basin. One solution to address low water flows would be to store water for times of water shortage. There are at least two challenges to this solution: finding a place to store water and finding water to store. To evaluate this option, potential storage values were calculated for 41 years of record from 1961 to 2002. This analysis reinforced the observation that, as has been seen in recent years, drought years normally occur in a multi- year cycle. Because of this, in the years where extra water is most needed, it is often not available from previous years to store. One promising, small- scale, water storage solution may lie in subsurface irrigation water storage in suitable locations, such as the Tulelake Subbasin. In this scenario, there exists a potential to store water in the soil profile and reduce irrigation water demand during the irrigation season. Another option for subsurface storage of water includes the restoration of streams and their surrounding wetlands and riparian areas. This can increase the “ sponge” effect allowing for the slow release of water through the long, dry summer months. Tupper Ansel Blake/ USFWS 12 Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin Enhancing Fish and Wildlife Habitat The Upper Klamath Basin is home to a wide variety of aquatic and terrestrial species of wildlife and fish. Much of the water used in the Klamath wildlife refuges and associated marshes, ponds, streams and wetlands originates in the Upper Klamath Lake Subbasin. The Klamath Basin wildlife refuges provide a stopover for 85 percent of the ducks, geese, and other birds that migrate through the Pacific Flyway from Alaska to South America. Streams in the Upper Klamath Basin provide spawning and rearing habitat to threatened and endangered suckers and bull trout, as well as redband trout, which is listed as a species of concern by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Several streams are highly valued “ catch and release” sport fisheries. There is high landowner and public interest in restoring and maintaining riparian habitat along these streams. Many of the conservation opportunities outlined under water conservation and water quality provide direct benefits to fish and wildlife as well. In addition, creating and restoring wetland areas, planting trees and developing wildlife habitat along the edges of crop fields all contribute to enhancing wildlife habitat in the basin. Tupper Ansel Blake/ USFWS 13 Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin Overview of Conservation Effectiveness In order for the Upper Klamath Basin to successfully move forward with solutions, agriculturists, environmentalists, Tribes, government agencies, organizations, and others need to develop unified leadership to arrive at a common vision for the future. In addition, stakeholders and others must commit to a long- term investment of public and private funding as well as other resources. Based on the Upper Klamath Basin Rapid Subbasin Assessments, the Oregon and California NRCS planning staff rated the potential benefit of recommended conservation practices and resource management systems based on the conservation districts’ four resource priorities. Many state and federal agencies have invested in conservation work throughout the basin. While the recommendations in this document focus on private land and agriculture, the assessments can also be applied to help prioritize conservation practices on other land uses basin- wide. Overall, based on the planning team’s analysis, conservation activities in the Sprague River Subbasin would produce the greatest benefit, and conservation practices in the Upper Klamath River East Subbasin would yield the least Tupper Ansel Blake/ USFWS overall benefit based on the conservation district’s priorities. 14 Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin While recognizing that any science- based conservation focus in the Upper Klamath Basin would be beneficial, the charts on pages 18- 19 specifically focus on work that can be accomplished on private lands. They provide a breakdown of recommended conservation practices on each of the conservation districts’ priorities by subbasin. For example, the water demand chart shows that investing in conservation practices in the Sprague River Subbasin has the greatest potential for reducing agriculture’s water demand by implementing improved irrigation practices. The Sprague also provides the best opportunity to address water quality and wildlife habitat. Investment in conservation activities in the Tulelake and the Upper Klamath Lake subbasins offers the greatest potential to address water storage/ yield. Investing in Conservation: Enabling farmers, ranchers and other private land managers to successfully address the four resource priorities will require: • The adoption of conservation on 350,000 acres of private farmland, range, and forests, • Financial resources estimated at $ 200 million for installation and another $ 27 million annually to operate, and • Twenty or more years to complete with the current financial and technical resources available. Tupper Ansel Blake/ USFWS 15 Water Demand Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices by Subbasin Upper Klamath River East Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Williamson Upper Klamath Lake Upper Lost River Butte Valley Middle Lost River Tulelake Sprague Sprague Upper Klamath Lake Williamson Butte Valley Tulelake Middle Lost River Upper Lost River Upper Klamath River East Water Quality Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices by Subbasin Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Comparative Benefit: Water Demand The chart at left provides an overview of the comparative benefit by subbasin of various conservation practices that reduce water demand. Based on research completed by NRCS planning staff, the greatest potential to reduce water demand exists by implementing irrigation and riparian/ wetland conservation practices in the Sprague Subbasin. This is followed by implementing agronomic and irrigation conservation practices in Tulelake. There is no measurable water demand benefit achieved by implementing conservation practices in the Upper Klamath River East Subbasin. Comparative Benefit: Water Quality The chart at left provides an overview of the comparative benefit by subbasin of various conservation practices that improve water quality. Based on research completed by NRCS planning staff, the greatest potential to improve water quality occurs when riparian/ wetland, grazing and irrigation conservation practices are implemented in the Sprague Subbasin. In comparison, no measurable water quality benefits are achieved by implementing conservation practices in Butte Valley or the Upper Klamath River East subbasins. Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin 16 Wildlife Habitat Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices by Subbasin Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Williamson Sprague Butte Valley Tulelake Middle Lost River Upper Lost River Upper Klamath Lake Upper Klamath River East Upper Klamath River East Williamson Sprague Upper Klamath Lake Tulelake Middle Lost River Upper Lost River Butte Valley Water Storage Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices by Subbasin Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Comparative Benefit: Water Storage/ Yield The chart at right provides an overview of the comparative benefit by subbasin of various conservation practices that enhance water storage and yield. Based on research completed by NRCS planning staff, the greatest potential to enhance water storage and yield occurs by implementing riparian/ wetland, forest and range conservation practices in the Upper Klamath Lake Subbasin. In comparison, the Tulelake Subbasin gains water yield through agronomic practices like subsurface drains to allow for winter irrigation. Overall, implementing forest and range practices in most subbasins will result in greater water yield within the soil profile and water table. Comparative Benefit: Habitat/ Fish Survival The chart at right provides an overview of the comparative benefit by subbasin of various conservation practices that improve wildlife habitat and fish survival. Based on research completed by NRCS planning staff, the greatest potential to improve habitat is in the Sprague Subbasin, using wetland/ riparian, forest, range and irrigation practices. In comparison, no measurable habitat benefits are achieved by implementing additional conservation practices in the Middle Lost River, Tulelake, Butte Valley or Upper Klamath River subbasins. Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin 17 Tim McCabe/ NRCS 18 The Sprague River Subbasin is located 25 miles northeast of Klamath Falls and covers approximately 1.02 million acres. Forested mountain ridges enclose the Sprague River Valley, which includes large marshes, meadows and irrigated pasture. Juniper and sagebrush steppes dominate rangeland. Irrigated Pasture is the predominant land use in the Sprague River Valley. Approximately 65 percent of the water used for irrigation is diverted from streams, and 35 percent is pumped from wells. Flooding is the most common form of irrigation. Most diversions do not have fish screens and lack devices to measure water deliveries. Overall irrigation application efficiencies are low. Private forest and rangelands in the Sprague River subbasin are generally used for livestock grazing. Most forest stands are significantly overstocked with trees, and rangeland has been heavily encroached by Western Juniper. Pasture condition is generally poor to fair. The riparian areas within pastures have little to no riparian vegetation and high, eroding banks. Wildlife habitat in most of the upper reaches of the Sprague River and its major tributaries appears to be fairly stable, indicating good watershed condition. However, there are considerable habitat improvements that can be made in the lower portion of the basin. Sprague River Subbasin Water & Wetlands: 2,949 Range: 137,869 Irrigated Pasture/ Grass Hay: 81,650 Forest/ Mixed: 240,050 Sprague River Subbasin Agricultural Land Use/ Cover 19 Resource Concerns Water quality is the major resource concern in the Sprague River Subbasin, directly impacting fish and wildlife habitat throughout the Upper Klamath Basin. Lost River and shortnose suckers, interior redband and bull trout are key fish species present in the subbasin. All species are listed as Endangered Species Act threatened, candidate, or species of concern. The Sprague River has been identified as an important stream for both spawning and rearing habitat for suckers. Loss of riparian habitat, fish entrapment and fish migration impediments have also been identified as resource concerns in the Sprague River Subbasin. Conservation Accomplishments In the Sprague River Subbasin during the last two years, significant conservation progress has been made. With assistance from NRCS and local conservation districts, land managers have improved the condition of 2,153 acres of grazing land, improved irrigation water management on 903 acres of irrigated land, and have restored 1,644 acres of riparian and wetlands areas. Fencing and riparian area restoration has been initiated or installed by private land managers with assistance from NRCS, US Fish & Wildlife Service and others on approximately 50 miles of stream and several thousand additional riparian and wetland acres. Sprague River Subbasin Land Ownership Private Lands 448,200 Public Lands 573,100 Total Land Area: 1,021,300 Irrigated Acres USBR Project: 0 Non- USBR: 61,600 Total: 61,600 20 Conservation Opportunities Water Quality & Wildlife Habitat: Riparian restoration can be accomplished by converting pastures to permanent riparian wildlife lands or establishing riparian vegetation. Riparian pasture units should be managed as a part of an overall grazing plan with cross- fencing and off- stream water for livestock. Forest stands should be managed to ensure optimum health of both the trees and grazed understory. Thinning overstocked trees and controlling juniper on rangelands are both effective management opportunities. Water Demand: Irrigation water management, including measuring water use and scheduling irrigation will help managers to maintain base river flows through late summer and early fall. Efficiencies can also be gained by leveling land, lining or piping irrigation ditches and incorporating tailwater recovery systems. Conversion from flood to sprinkler irrigation is also beneficial. Sprague River Subbasin Sprague River Subbasin Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices Water Demand Wildlife Habitat Water Storage Water Quality Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Conservation Investment Projected Conservation Acres to be Treated* Irrigated Land ............ 34,500 Range & Forestland 164,400 Wildlife Habitat ........... 2,400 Estimated Installation Cost Irrigated Land .......................$ 10,948,000 Range & Forestland .......................$ 31,305,000 Wildlife Habitat .........................$ 4,779,000 Estimated Annual Operation, Maintenance & Management Cost Irrigated Land .........................$ 1,768,000 Range & Forestland .........................$ 1,665,000 Wildlife Habitat ............................$ 133,000 * Based on conservation need and projected participation rates. 21 Tim McCabe/ NRCS 22 Covering about 928,000 acres, the Williamson River Subbasin is the principal tributary for Upper Klamath Lake. Combined, the Williamson and Sprague River subbasins make up 79 percent of the lake’s total drainage area. The Winema National Forest and Klamath Falls National Wildlife Refuge account for most of the public land in the subbasin. Irrigated pasture is the dominant private agricultural land use. Pasture is almost entirely flood irrigated. Ninety percent is diverted from streams, while groundwater supplies ten percent. Most diversions do not have fish screens and lack devices to measure water deliveries. Although overall irrigation application efficiency is low, additional water in the water table helps to subirrigate pastures. In addition, the proximity of these pastures to rivers and streams allows most excess diverted water to return to the system for reuse. Private forest and rangelands make up most of the private land in the basin. Approximately 80 percent of forestlands are used for grazing. Private forestland is in poor to fair condition; over half of the stands are significantly overstocked with trees. Wildlife habitat has faced considerable degradation in the past. Of the 48 miles of stream that are degraded in the subbasin, restoration efforts have been initiated on approximately 23 miles. Williamson River Subbasin Water & Wetlands: 19,700 Range: 2,600 Irrigated Pasture/ Grass Hay: 81,650 Forest/ Mixed: 225,300 Williamson River Subbasin Agricultural Land Use/ Cover Irrigated Alfalfa: 1,100 23 Water quality relating to elevated stream temperatures is a major resource concern in the Williamson River Subbasin, directly impacting fish and wildlife habitat throughout the Upper Klamath Basin. In 1988, when the Lost River and Shortnose suckers were listed as endangered, the Williamson and Sprague River runs were estimated to have declined by as much as 95 percent during the previous twenty- year period. Important sucker habitat has diminished by nearly 50 percent in the lower reaches and near the mouth of the Williamson River. This has reduced the amount of larval sucker spawning and rearing habitat. Conservation Accomplishments Significant conservation progress has been made in this subbasin. Land managers have improved 500 acres of grazing lands, 1,000 acres of irrigated lands, 235 acres of forestlands and have restored 112 acres of riparian and wetland areas. Heightened landowner awareness of resource concerns and increasing agency, organization, and individual efforts will help this trend to continue. Of the 48 miles of stream that are degraded in the subbasin, private land managers are working with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and others to restore 23 miles. The Nature Conservancy is restoring approximately 3,200 acres of wetlands, and plans to restore another 3,411 acres at the mouth of the Williamson River. Williamson River Subbasin Resource Concerns Land Ownership Private Lands 309,400 Public Lands 618,800 Total Land Area: 928,200 Irrigated Acres USBR Project: 0 Non- USBR: 65,100 Total: 65,100 24 Williamson River Subbasin Williamson River Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices Water Demand Wildlife Habitat Water Storage Water Quality Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Wildlife Habitat & Water Quality: Riparian area and wetland habitat restoration and management provide the best opportunity to improve water quality in the Williamson River Subbasin. This can be accomplished by converting lands from irrigated agriculture to wildlife habitat or creating riparian pasture systems. Wetland and riparian areas still utilize water. However, this work may reduce total water demand depending on how lands are managed. Water Demand: Thinning forest stands and managing grazing areas by adding cross fences and off- stream water for livestock can yield more water to meet downstream needs. This will also result in enhanced wildlife habitat and improved water quality in area streams. In addition, forest stand improvements reduce the potential for catastrophic fire. Priority Conservation Opportunities Conservation Investment Projected Conservation Acres to be Treated* Irrigated Land ............ 52,300 Range & Forestland ... 71,200 Wildlife Habitat .............. 200 Estimated Installation Cost Irrigated Land .......................$ 12,863,000 Range & Forestland .......................$ 17,290,000 Wildlife Habitat ............................$ 338,000 Estimated Annual Operation, Maintenance & Management Cost Irrigated Land .........................$ 2,663,000 Range & Forestland ............................$ 669,000 Wildlife Habitat ..............................$ 11,000 * Based on conservation need and projected participation rates. 25 Tupper Ansel Blake/ USFWS 26 The Upper Klamath Lake Subbasin covers 465,300 acres from Crater Lake to the outlet of Upper Klamath Lake into the Link River. Historically, some 43,000 acres of wetlands surrounded Agency and Upper Klamath Lake. Today, 17,000 acres have been preserved as part of the Upper Klamath Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Another 11,000 acres have been acquired for restoration. Irrigated agriculture is primarily pasture. Livestock are generally stocker cattle, who graze between April and November. Pasture condition is generally fair. Most livestock obtain water from streams and ditches. Irrigation water is diverted from streams or pumped from the lake. Most diversions do not have fish screens or devices to measure water. Although overall irrigation application efficiency is low, the additional water raises the water table and subirrigated pastures. Some acreages of hay and cereal crops are grown, and irrigation efficiencies are higher than for pasture. However, most require maintenance and re- leveling. Forestlands are primarily pine and mixed fir and hemlock. Most private lands in the subbasin are forest or rangelands, with approximately 80 percent used for grazing. More than half of the forest stands are significantly overstocked with trees. Wildlife habitat varies in condition. Of 70 total miles, 21 miles of streamside riparian areas are in good condition and another 12 miles are being restored. Upper Klamath Lake Subbasin Water & Wetlands: 76,568 Range: 2,404 Irrigated Pasture/ Grass Hay: 48,856 Forest/ Mixed: 100,311 Upper Klamath Lake Subbasin Agricultural Land Use/ Cover Irrigated Crop/ Alfalfa: 3,396 27 Resource Concerns Water quality in the Upper Klamath Lake is a major resource concern, affecting subbasin fish survival, with phosphorus loading as the greatest factor. The loss of wetland vegetation around the lake has also been linked to lower survival rates for endangered suckers. The lower reaches of the Wood River and Sevenmile Creek provide some rearing habitat for larval and juvenile suckers. The Wood River, Sevenmile Creek and their tributaries support populations of bull and interior redband trout. A highly valued “ catch and release” sport fishery occurs on the Wood River and several of its tributaries. There is significant interest in enhancing riparian habitat along these streams to protect and promote these fisheries. Conservation Accomplishments In the Upper Klamath Lake Subbasin during the last two years, some conservation progress has been made. With assistance from NRCS and local conservation districts, land managers have improved 12 acres of grazing lands and improved water quality and quantity on 12 acres of irrigated land. Several thousand more acres of wetland restoration are in the process of being planned or implemented around Upper Klamath Lake. Upper Klamath Lake Subbasin Land Ownership Private Lands 235,100 Public Lands 230,200 Total Land Area: 465,300 Irrigated Acres USBR Project: 0 Non- USBR: 52,300 Total: 52,300 28 Priority Conservation Opportunities Water Quality: The most effective conservation includes practices that restore riparian areas, improve grazing management and increase irrigation efficiency. This can be accomplished by either converting pastures to permanent wildlife habitat or by creating riparian pastures. While most pastures are being inefficiently irrigated, conditions do not warrant extensive changes from current flood irrigation systems since water is reused or enters the soil profile Water Storage: In the Upper Klamath Lake Subbasin, the potential for non- traditional water storage presents a unique conservation opportunity. Restoring drained wetlands, still farmed around Upper Klamath Lake, could produce positive benefits for all four resource concerns. By actively managing areas for both seasonal wetlands and farming, water can be both filtered to improve water quality and stored in wetland areas for future use. Upper Klamath Lake Subbasin Upper Klamath Lake Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices Water Demand Wildlife Habitat Water Storage Water Quality Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Conservation Investment Projected Conservation Acres to be Treated* Irrigated Land ............ 42,500 Range & Forestland ... 36,300 Wildlife Habitat ........... 2,900 Estimated Installation Cost Irrigated Land .......................$ 10,462,000 Range & Forestland .........................$ 7,254,000 Wildlife Habitat .........................$ 4,113,000 Estimated Annual Operation, Maintenance & Management Cost Irrigated Land .........................$ 2,017,000 Range & Forestland ............................$ 308,000 Wildlife Habitat ............................$ 130,000 * Based on conservation need and projected participation rates. 29 Table of Contents Tupper Ansel Blake/ USFWS 30 Irrigated Crop 4,209 The Lost River Subbasin originates above Clear Lake and passes through several agricultural valleys, ending in Tulelake. The valley once supported a vast network of wet meadows and marshes. This subbasin covers approximately 1.2 million acres and is split from the Middle Lost River Subbasin near Olene. Irrigated agriculture generally occurs in the warmer valleys. Flood is the most common pasture irrigation method, with about 50 percent of the water coming from the USBR project. Pasture condition is fair, and most pastures have not been renovated or re- leveled for some time. Maintenance would increase the efficiencies of 60 to 80 percent of the systems. Alfalfa is customarily sprinkler- irrigated and well- managed. Although irrigation efficiencies are higher than for pasture, many sprinkler systems still need upgrading. Several irrigated crops are grown in the subbasin including cereal grains, potatoes, and strawberry plants. Forestland, range and pasture are grazed by livestock. Rangelands are comprised of juniper and sagebrush steppes. Forestlands are generally mixed conifer. Livestock operations include cow/ calf, stockers and dairies. Confined livestock operations are located throughout the subbasin. The location and duration of confinement may pose a potential risk to water quality. Seven dairies located within the subbasin have existing liquid and dry livestock waste storage facilities. Upper Lost River Subbasin Water & Wetlands 13,250 Range 72,630 Irrigated Pasture/ Grass Hay 41,352 Forest/ Mixed 204,420 Upper Lost River Subbasin Agricultural Land Use/ Cover Irrigated Alfalfa 38,943 31 Resource Concerns Wildlife habitat and water quality are two of the major resource concerns in the subbasin. High water temperatures are usually linked to lack of shade, irrigation return flow or other warm water inputs. As measured by total phosphorus, water quality appears to be gradually improving over the last 10 to 20 years. While agriculture is the dominant land use in this subbasin, other sources of phosphorus and other pollutants exist. Sewage treatment outfalls, on- site sewage disposal systems, wildlife, and natural inputs also contribute nutrients and other pollutants to the system. While historically the river had significant fish runs, it currently supports only a small population of Shortnose and Lost River suckers. Conservation Accomplishments In the Upper Lost River Subbasin during the last two years, significant conservation progress has been made. With assistance from NRCS and local conservation districts, land managers have improved resource conditions on 234 acres of croplands and 5,282 acres of grazing lands, and have improved their management of irrigation water on 5,596 acres of irrigated lands. In addition, 846 acres of riparian and wetland areas have been restored. Upper Lost River Subbasin Land Ownership Private Lands 407,500 Public Lands 771,300 Total Land Area: 1,178,800 Irrigated Acres USBR Project: 40,400 Non- USBR: 44,100 Total: 84,500 32 Priority Conservation Opportunities Water Quality: Rotating livestock through smaller pastures will increase forage production, reduce soil compaction and improve water quality. On cropland, integrated pest management, irrigation scheduling, increasing crop residue or installing filter strips will minimize risks associated with some pesticides used on cereal grains, potatoes, onions and other crops. Implementing practices like diverting clean water before it flows through livestock confinement areas near water sources, will reduce the risk of polluted runoff. Water Demand: On both surface-irrigated pastures and cropland areas, there are opportunities for land leveling or smoothing, lining or piping irrigation delivery ditches, upgrading irrigation systems and developing tailwater recovery systems to improve water use efficiency. Upper Lost River Subbasin Upper Lost River Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices Water Demand Wildlife Habitat Water Storage Water Quality Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Conservation Investment Projected Conservation Acres to be Treated* Irrigated Land ............ 58,100 Range & Forestland 147,400 Wildlife Habitat ........... 1,200 Estimated Installation Cost Irrigated Land .......................$ 10,993,000 Range & Forestland .......................$ 20,397,000 Wildlife Habitat .........................$ 1,945,000 Estimated Annual Operation, Maintenance & Management Cost Irrigated Land .........................$ 3,667,000 Range & Forestland .........................$ 1,384,000 Wildlife Habitat ..............................$ 66,000 * Based on conservation need and projected participation rates. 33 Gary Kramer/ NRCS 34 The Middle Lost River Subbasin covers 454,500 acres and is the center of the USBR Klamath Project. Farms near Klamath Falls tend to be smaller, indicating part- time or hobby operations. The area includes 12 irrigation districts and leased lands on the Lower Klamath Wildlife Refuge that receive water supplied by the USBR Klamath Project. Public lands include the refuge, and parts of Modoc and Klamath national forests. Irrigated agriculture includes pasture, alfalfa, cereal grain, potatoes, onions and mint. Roughly 70 percent is irrigated with USBR- supplied water; the rest is obtained from groundwater, individual surface water rights or special USBR contracts. Many fields are either flood or sprinkler irrigated depending on the year and crop. Most farm irrigation diversions lack a means to measure water delivery. Livestock operations include several dairies and cattle feeding operations. Substantial range acreage is used for livestock grazing. Pasture condition is fair and most pastures have not been renovated or re- leveled for some time. Pastures associated with smaller livestock operations in and around Klamath Falls appear to be in the most need of improved pastures and irrigation systems. Wildlife habitat: Ten river miles are in relatively good riparian condition given the river is used for conveying irrigation water. Some 13 miles of stream lack adequate riparian vegetation and streambank protection. Middle Lost River Subbasin Water & Wetlands 10,766 Range 121,713 Irrigated Pasture/ Grass Hay 40,230 Middle Lost River Subbasin Agricultural Land Use/ Cover Irrigated Alfalfa 34,866 Irrigated Crop 41,837 35 Resource Concerns The primary concern is maintaining a reliable water supply that meets the needs of all users. Drought conditions and increased competition for available water have increased economic, social, political and environmental concerns and uncertainty over the future. Habitat and water quality are two additional major resource concerns in the subbasin. High water temperatures are usually linked to lack of shade, irrigation return flow or other warm water inputs. As measured by total phosphorus, water quality appears to be gradually improving. Agriculture is the dominant land use in this subbasin, but other pollutant sources exist. While the river had significant historic fish runs, it currently supports only a small sucker population. Conservation Accomplishments In the last two years, the Middle Lost River Subbasin has seen significant conservation progress. With assistance from NRCS and local conservation districts, land managers have improved the condition of natural resources on 489 acres of cropland and 3,521 grazing land acres. In addition, 564 acres of riparian and wetland areas have been restored, and water use efficiency has been increased on 3,731 acres of irrigated lands. Middle Lost River Subbasin Land Ownership Private Lands 272,900 Public Lands 181,600 Total Land Area: 454,500 Irrigated Acres USBR Project: 84,700 Non- USBR: 32,300 Total: 117,000 36 Priority Conservation Opportunities Water Demand: Providing irrigators with water measurement tools and training on irrigation scheduling would improve their ability to apply irrigation water more efficiently. Highly effective conservation measures on hay and cropland should focus on updating existing irrigation systems and improving irrigation water management. Water Quality: The use of grazing systems that rotate livestock through smaller pastures will increase forage production, reduce soil compaction and improve water quality. While fishery benefits from restoring riparian areas are minimal, streamside buffers will improve water quality and provide habitat for other wildlife. On cropland, integrated pest management, irrigation scheduling, increasing crop residue or installing filter strips will minimize risks associated with some pesticides used on cereal grains, potatoes, onions and other crops. Middle Lost River Subbasin Middle Lost River Subbasin Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices Water Demand Wildlife Habitat Water Storage Water Quality Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Conservation Investment Projected Conservation Acres to be Treated* Irrigated Land ............ 80,400 Range & Forestland ... 85,200 Wildlife Habitat .............. 400 Estimated Installation Cost Irrigated Land .......................$ 18,859,000 Range & Forestland .........................$ 6,797,000 Wildlife Habitat ............................$ 195,000 Estimated Annual Operation, Maintenance & Management Cost Irrigated Land .........................$ 5,585,000 Range & Forestland ............................$ 902,000 Wildlife Habitat ................................$ 8,000 * Based on conservation need and projected participation rates. 37 38 The Tulelake Subbasin covers 296,600 acres, bordered by the J Canal and the Lava Beds National Monument. The Tulelake Irrigation District and the Tulelake National Wildlife Refuge receive water from the USBR Klamath Project. Tulelake is a remnant of historic Lake Modoc that once connected the subbasin with both Lower and Upper Klamath Lake. The Lost River watershed was once a closed basin. Runoff flowed into Tulelake and evaporated. Pumping plants and drains constructed as a part of the project have provided an outlet from Tulelake, which now functions as an open basin. Irrigated agriculture is generally supplied by the USBR. Alfalfa, grain, potatoes, onions, mint and pasture are the principal crops. Fields are flood or sprinkler irrigated depending on the year and crop. Often diversions lack devices to measure water delivery. Pasture condition is fair, and most have not been renovated for some time. Groundwater provides 40- 50 percent of water for irrigated pastures, and most excess water is reused. Rangeland is the other significant land use. Most ranches are cow/ calf operations that have winter holdings in the subbasin. Rangelands are generally encroached with juniper. Wildlife habitat along the Lost River has reeds and bullrush, providing some habitat for waterfowl and songbirds. Suckers have been located in the river and Tulelake; however, it is not known whether they are successfully reproducing. There are few opportunities to improve habitat along this heavily manipulated reach of the river. Tulelake Subbasin Water & Wetlands 13,285 Range 36,229 Irrigated Pasture/ Grass Hay 4,050 Tulelake Subbasin Agricultural Land Use/ Cover Irrigated Alfalfa 12,334 Irrigated Crop 48,481 Forest/ Mixed 4,492 39 Resource Concerns The Tulelake Subbasin is at the tail- end of the USBR Klamath Project. Irrigators depend on water- use decisions made by fellow irrigators and resource managers for their irrigation needs. Drought and increased competition for water leads to the primary resource concern in the basin - a reliable supply of water to meet agriculture, wildlife and other resource needs. Water quality deteriorates as it moves through the USBR project. As measured by total phosphorus, water quality appears to be gradually improving. Agriculture is the dominant land use in this subbasin, but other sources of phosphorus and other pollutants exist. The presence of ESA- listed suckers creates concerns for improving habitat and water quality. The two national wildlife refuges support large waterfowl populations. Farmland on the refuges is leased to farmers to supply grain for waterfowl and shorebirds. These populations depend on refuges, leased lands and adjacent farms during the fall and spring migratory periods. Both refuges depend upon tailwater from the USBR project to maintain their marshes and ponds. Conservation Accomplishments In the Tulelake Subbasin during the last two years, significant conservation progress has been made. With assistance from NRCS and local conservation districts, local land managers have improved the condition of natural resources on 72 cropland acres and 1,854 irrigated land acres, and have restored 21 acres of riparian and wetland areas. Tulelake Subbasin Land Ownership Private Lands 131,600 Public Lands 165,000 Total Land Area: 296,600 Irrigated Acres USBR Project: 62,600 Non- USBR: 2,200 Total: 64,800 40 Priority Conservation Opportunities Water Demand: On hay and croplands, upgrading existing irrigation systems and improving irrigation water management will decrease water demand. Subsurface drainage could be added before re- establishing alfalfa stands, permitting better control of water table and soil moisture levels. During years that alfalfa fields are rotated to grain, winter flooding or pre- season irrigation could be used to reduce water demand. Water Storage/ Yield: Adding subsurface drainage may be the most significant practice to implement on cropland acres. Subsurface drains would allow farmers to winter flood or pre-irrigate fields, thereby reducing their demand for water during the irrigation season. If pre- irrigated, farmers could grow a cereal crop even if water deliveries are cut off during drought years. In addition, juniper control on rangelands will yield additional water to meet downstream needs. Tulelake Subbasin Tulelake Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices Water Demand Wildlife Habitat Water Storage Water Quality Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Conservation Investment Projected Conservation Acres to be Treated* Irrigated Land ............ 45,400 Range & Forestland ... 28,500 Wildlife Habitat ........... 1,700 Estimated Installation Cost Irrigated Land .......................$ 18,263,000 Range & Forestland .........................$ 1,741,000 Wildlife Habitat ............................$ 298,000 Estimated Annual Operation, Maintenance & Management Cost Irrigated Land .........................$ 2,590,000 Range & Forestland ............................$ 257,000 Wildlife Habitat ..............................$ 25,000 * Based on conservation need and projected participation rates. 41 Tupper Ansel Blake/ USFWS 42 The Butte Valley Subbasin lies southwest of Lower Klamath Lake. While part of the Upper Klamath Basin, it is an internal drainage basin with only an artificial outlet. Groundwater flows from west to east out of the subbasin under the Mahogany Mountains toward the lake. A channel and pump plant were built to remove floodwaters. This channel is used infrequently and for only short durations. The Klamath National Forest, Butte Valley National Grassland, and the Butte Valley Wildlife Area make up the majority of the public lands. Irrigated agriculture includes alfalfa hay as the predominate crop. Cereal grains, potatoes and strawberry plants are also grown. Crops are usually sprinkler irrigated, and sprinklers are well maintained. Few irrigators measure water applied or schedule irrigation. Cattle operations graze irrigated pastures and meadows scattered throughout the subbasin along with range and forestlands. Pastures are generally flood irrigated and are supplied by streams. Most farm irrigation diversions lack water measuring devices. Mixed conifer forests are found at higher elevations and are generally operated as industrial forests. Range sites are dominated by Western Juniper and are generally in poor condition. Wildlife habitat is generally wetlands in the state wildlife refuge or on national grasslands. Approximately 26 miles of streams on private lands have inadequate riparian vegetation. Butte Valley Subbasin Water & Wetlands 9,488 Range 73,891 Irrigated Pasture/ Grass Hay 10,355 Butte Valley Subbasin Agricultural Land Use/ Cover Irrigated Alfalfa 30,361 Irrigated Crop 11,490 Forest/ Mixed 52,031 43 Butte Valley Subbasin Resource Concerns The expense of deepening wells and pumping from deeper elevations for irrigation water is a major resource concern. Generally, streams in the upper portions of the subbasin support good populations of Brown and Rainbow trout. The Tulelake National Wildlife Refuge and Lower Klamath Lake National Wildlife Refuge support large populations of migratory and permanent waterfowl. Farmland on the refuges is leased to area farmers to supply grain for the waterfowl and shorebirds. The large bird populations depend on the refuges, leased lands and adjacent farms throughout the fall and spring migratory periods for habitat. Both refuges depend upon tailwater from the USBR project to maintain their marshes and ponds. Conservation Accomplishments In the Butte Valley Subbasin during the last two years, some conservation progress has been made. With assistance from NRCS and local conservation districts, local land managers have restored 27 acres of riparian and wetland areas in the last two years. Land Ownership Private Lands 188,400 Public Lands 199,700 Total Land Area: 388,100 Irrigated Acres USBR Project: 0 Non- USBR: 52,300 Total: 52,300 44 Butte Valley Subbasin Butte Valley Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices Water Demand Wildlife Habitat Water Storage Water Quality Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Priority Conservation Opportunities Water Demand: Butte Valley is an internal drainage basin. Other than limited contributions to groundwater in the Upper Klamath Basin, reductions in water demand only benefit the subbasin. Sprinkler- irrigated hay, cereal crops and row crops dominate land use on the better soils. Highly effective conservation on hay and cropland should focus on improving the overall irrigation efficiency of existing systems. This can be accomplished by upgrading systems and scheduling irrigation. An estimated 40 percent of the existing systems would benefit from maintenance. On controlled flood irrigated pastures, there are opportunities for land leveling or smoothing, lining or piping delivery ditches, and recovering tailwater. Additional water savings and water quality benefits could be gained by converting existing surface irrigation to sprinklers if power is available and affordable. On rangelands, juniper control and improved grazing management are the primary conservation opportunities. Conservation Investment Projected Conservation Acres to be Treated* Irrigated Land ............ 35,000 Range & Forestland ... 49,400 Wildlife Habitat ................ 55 Estimated Installation Cost Irrigated Land .........................$ 6,652,000 Range & Forestland .........................$ 5,243,000 Wildlife Habitat ............................$ 109,000 Estimated Annual Operation, Maintenance & Management Cost Irrigated Land .........................$ 1,569,000 Range & Forestland ............................$ 625,000 Wildlife Habitat ................................$ 3,000 * Based on conservation need and projected participation rates. 45 46 The Upper Klamath River East Subbasin covers the Klamath River drainage between Iron Gate and Keno dams. Nearly half of the area is in public ownership. Iron Gate and Copco reservoirs are used extensively for recreational fishing, boating and camping. Whitewater rafting and kayaking are popular below the KC Boyle Dam. The KC Boyle, Copco and Iron Gate dams are used and regulated for power generation. Irrigated agriculture occurs on only 4,000 acres of pasture. Only a few isolated ranches are located in this subbasin. Cattle operations rotate grazing of irrigated pastures with significant acreage of grazed range and forest. Pastures are surface irrigated with a mix of controlled and flood irrigation. All irrigation water is diverted from the river or tributary streams. Most farm irrigation diversions lack devices to measure water. Even though overall irrigation application efficiency is low, the proximity of irrigated pastures to the river allows most excess water diverted to be reused downstream. Private forest and rangelands make up most of the private land, nearly all of which is used for livestock grazing. Much of the rangeland is in poor condition, with heavy juniper encroachment. More than half of the forest stands are overstocked with trees. Wildlife habitat along riparian areas is generally in good condition. Of the 12 miles of riparian areas surveyed, five would benefit from some restoration. Upper Klamath River East Subbasin Water & Wetlands 4,552 Forestlands 195,516 Irrigated Pasture/ Grass Hay 4,044 Upper Klamath River East Subbasin Agricultural Land Use/ Cover Range 52,366 47 Upper Klamath River East Subbasin Resource Concerns The need to increase water availability to downstream users is the main resource concern along this stretch of the river. Water withdrawals are insignificant along this stretch of the river. Salmon and steelhead are blocked at Iron Gate Dam from upstream passage. Several resident trout species exist, supporting a recreational fishery. Conservation Accomplishments In the Klamath River East Subbasin during the last two years, some conservation progress has been made. With assistance from NRCS and local conservation districts, land managers have improved the condition of natural resources on 56 acres of cropland, 332 acres of grazing land, and 560 acres of irrigated lands. They have also improved forestland health on 46 acres and have restored 924 acres of riparian and wetland areas. Land Ownership Private Lands 256,500 Public Lands 162,900 Total Land Area: 419,400 Irrigated Acres USBR Project: 0 Non- USBR: 4,000 Total: 4,000 48 Upper Klamath River East Subbasin Upper Klamath River East Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices Water Demand Wildlife Habitat Water Quality Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Priority Conservation Opportunities Water Demand/ Yield: Juniper control, thinning forest stands, managing grazing lands by cross- fencing and providing off- stream water for livestock will improve hydrologic conditions, yielding more water to meet downstream needs. This will also improve forage production, habitat condition and water quality in area streams, as well as reduce the opportunity for a catastrophic fire. There are opportunities for land smoothing and tailwater recovery systems to improve overall irrigation efficiency and effectiveness. Additional water savings and water quality benefits would be gained by converting from surface irrigation to sprinklers if power is available and affordable. Conservation Investment Projected Conservation Acres to be Treated* Irrigated Land .............. 1,700 Range & Forestland ... 44,800 Wildlife Habitat .................. 5 Estimated Installation Cost Irrigated Land ............................$ 454,000 Range & Forestland .........................$ 4,769,000 Wildlife Habitat ..............................$ 13,000 Estimated Annual Operation, Maintenance & Management Cost Irrigated Land ..............................$ 86,000 Range & Forestland ............................$ 406,000 Wildlife Habitat .......................................$ 0 * Based on conservation need and projected participation rates. 49 USDA Nondiscrimination Statement “ The U. S. Department of Agriculture ( USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. ( 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, Room 326- W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250- 9410, or call ( 202) 720- 5964 ( voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.” 50 Upper Klamath Basin 51 Developed by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service September, 2004
-
Only portions of issues of The Water Report are available in the Klamath Waters Digital Library. See the full report at http://www.thewaterreport.com/
Citation -
76. [Image] Implementation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Report to the House Committee on Resources)
I. Executive Summary There is increasing recognition from most quarters that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) needs to be improved. Exactly what those improvements should be is less uniform. ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Implementation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Report to the House Committee on Resources)
- Author:
- United States. Congress. House. Committee on Resources
- Year:
- 2005, 2007
I. Executive Summary There is increasing recognition from most quarters that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) needs to be improved. Exactly what those improvements should be is less uniform. This report examines the implementation of selected aspects of the endangered species program relying predominately on information provided by the primary implementing agencies, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and offers some recommendations for possible improvements to the program. Debate over the ESA has traditionally been highly polarized. For example, compensating landowners for takings or reductions in property value has been opposed by some who argue updating the law to address this is not necessary. While consensus on other issues such as the need for increasing conservation incentives and the role states play in endangered species conservation has begun to emerge, one of the most debated aspects of ESA implementation continues to be whether the ESA is effectively conserving endangered and threatened species. While there have been significant strides in conserving individual species such as the whooping crane, red-cockaded woodpecker and gray wolf, few species have been delisted (removed from the endangered list) or downlisted (changed in status from endangered to threatened) because of successful ESA conservation efforts. Some argue that the number of recovered species is an unfair measure, asserting that the three decades the ESA has been in existence is an insufficient amount of time for the lengthy process of species recovery and point to listed species that have not gone extinct as evidence the ESA 'saves' species. From the opposing perspective, while recovery to the point of delisting may require a substantial amount of time for many species, after three decades more progress should be demonstrable through species that have recovered and been delisted. Even if a species has increased in numbers or distribution or the threats facing the species have been reduced, if it has not been delisted on the basis of recovery, the ESA's prohibitions and regulations remain applicable and the ESA should not be a 'one way street.' Of 40 total species removed from the list, 10 domestic species were delisted because of "recovery". Of 33 reclassified species, 10 domestic downlistings (a change from endangered to threatened status) reflected a reduced threat assessment which also allowed more flexibility in management. The FWS's most recent report to Congress (Fiscal years 2001-2002) shows that 77 percent of listed species fall in the 0 to 25 percent recovery achieved bracket and 2 percent fall in the 76 to 100 percent recovery achieved bracket. 39 percent of the FWS managed species are of uncertain status. Of those with an assessed trend, at one end of the spectrum are 3 percent possibly extinct, 1 percent occurring only in captivity and 21 percent declining and at the other end are 30 percent stable and 6 percent improving. These assessments however are subjective. Additionally, the assessment that a species is improving or stable may reflect, for example, a reduction in perceived threats or corrections to inaccurate threat assessments that stemmed from erroneous data rather than actual changes in species' trends that are demonstrated by improved numbers, distribution or other such measurements. Consequently, a meaningful assessment of conservation trends under the ESA using these data is not possible. The data used to list a number of species has been subsequently determined to be erroneous and species that likely do not merit classification as endangered or threatened remain listed. This can consume resources that could be directed to species that do merit listing. The assignment of recovery priorities appears highly skewed and the recovery priority for some species seems questionable. A meaningful distinction between endangered status and threatened status has been blurred as has been the framework for the mechanism of critical habitat. Expenditure reporting has improved but presents an incomplete picture of financial resources dedicated to endangered species. Workloads for litigation regarding activities such as consultation and listing under the ESA's complex structure compete for resources that could otherwise be directed at recovery efforts. The demands associated with ESA Section 4 determinations in combination with the pace of species listings and delistings, the number of possible future additions to the list and the economic impact of listings likely indicate that the current program is not sustainable.
-
1982-2002; ill, maps; Report title; CA 9000-3-0003 Subagreement 8; Includes appendices: Crater Lake Liminological Studies 1988 and 1989; "Submitted by Robert E. Benton, Superintendent Crater Lake National ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- A report on Crater Lake water quality: Crater Lake National Park, Oregon, 1988-1989
- Author:
- National Park Service, Crater Lake National Park
- Year:
- 1988, 2009
1982-2002; ill, maps; Report title; CA 9000-3-0003 Subagreement 8; Includes appendices: Crater Lake Liminological Studies 1988 and 1989; "Submitted by Robert E. Benton, Superintendent Crater Lake National Park." - T.p.; Includes bibliographical references; Issues lack volume numbering
-
79. [Image] Preparation plan for the Klamath River management plan and environmental impact statement
"October 2001"; "This planning effort is being undertaken because the current recreation plan is outdated, almost 20 years old . . . At the conclusion of this planning effort there will be one [Environmental ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Preparation plan for the Klamath River management plan and environmental impact statement
- Author:
- United States. Bureau of Land Management. Klamath Falls Resource Area Office
- Year:
- 2001, 2005
"October 2001"; "This planning effort is being undertaken because the current recreation plan is outdated, almost 20 years old . . . At the conclusion of this planning effort there will be one [Environmental Impact Statement] and management plan that will guide and coordinate all land management activities along the river. This EIS could amend both the BLM Redding (Califonia) and the Klamath Falls (Oregon) Resource Management Plans."- Introduction.; This document appears to be a planning document to organize the process of completing later documents, including the Draft Upper Klamath River management plan environmental impact statement and resource management plan amendments (2003) which can be found at http://klamathwaterlib.oit.edu/cgi-bin/viewer.exe?CISOROOT=/WaterLibContent&CISOPTR=110
-
24 p.; ill.; Title from cover
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Klamath County, Oregon: its resources and advantages, its present and its future; a land of great pines, hardy cattle, wonderful lakes and temperate climate; its productive land needs thousands of people for its proper development
- Author:
- Pierce, Joseph G.
- Year:
- 1900, 2006, 2005
24 p.; ill.; Title from cover
-
-
iii; 99p.; "Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources"; Distributed to some depository libraries in microfiche
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Water Symposium: Symposium before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Ninth Congress, First Session, on Water Issues, April 5, 2005
- Author:
- Water Symposium (2005: Washington, D.C.)
- Year:
- 2005, 2006
iii; 99p.; "Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources"; Distributed to some depository libraries in microfiche
-
The study examines two species of sucker,the shortnose sucker(chasmistes brevirostrix), and the Lost River sucker,(deltisties luxatus) that inhabit Upper Klamath Lake and the effects of chronic toxicity ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Chronic toxicity of low dissolved oxygen concentrations, elevated pH, and elevated ammonia concentrations to lost river suckers (deltistes luxatus), and swimming performance of lost river suckers at various temperatures.
- Author:
- Meyer, Joseph S.
- Year:
- 2000, 2007, 2006
The study examines two species of sucker,the shortnose sucker(chasmistes brevirostrix), and the Lost River sucker,(deltisties luxatus) that inhabit Upper Klamath Lake and the effects of chronic toxicity and temperature changes. The study examines two species of sucker,the shortnose sucker(chasmistes brevirostrix), and the Lost River sucker,(deltisties luxatus) that inhabit Upper Klamath Lake and the effects of chronic toxicity and temperature changes.
-
84. [Image] Water quality monitoring : technical guide book
-
Executive Summary The Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST) convened a panel of experts on stream temperature and fish ecology on October 5-6, 2000 for a scientific workshop on human influences ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Influences of human activity on stream temperatures and existence of cold-water fish in streams with elevated temperature: report of a workshop: Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team, Corvallis, OR, October 5-6, 2000
- Author:
- Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (Oregon)
- Year:
- 2000, 2008, 2005
Executive Summary The Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST) convened a panel of experts on stream temperature and fish ecology on October 5-6, 2000 for a scientific workshop on human influences on stream temperature and responses by salmonids. The workshop was designed to review and discuss scientifically credible data and publications about 1) factors related to human activity that influence stream temperature and 2) behavioral, physical, and ecological mechanisms of cold water fish species for existing in streams with elevated temperatures. The goal of the workshop was to review empirical evidence and to identify points of agreement, disagreement, and knowledge gaps within the scientific community concerning the factors that influence stream temperature and fish responses to elevated temperatures. This information will assist the IMST in preparing a broader temperature report on Oregon's stream temperature water quality standards and their implementation. This report is prepared by the IMST. It was reviewed by workshop participants and revised by the IMST accordingly. The report includes abstracts of plenary presentations on factors that influence stream temperatures and fish responses, and the results of group discussions. The workshop participants focused on three main questions and were asked to list statements of agreement and disagreement, and to identify gaps in the scientific knowledge related to each question: ? How and where does riparian vegetation influence stream temperature? ? Do other changes in streams cause increases in stream temperature? ? How can apparently healthy fish populations exist in streams with temperatures higher than laboratory and field studies would indicate as healthy? The workshop participants provided answers to the questions in the form of bullets. The answers below represent the IMST's summation of the workshop findings and were reviewed by the participants. Several gaps in the scientific basis for specific questions or relationships were identified. The participants found no areas of disagreement for which technical information was available. They noted that any disagreements were not related to scientific interpretation, but were based on concerns or opinions about application, regulation, and management. How and where does riparian vegetation influence stream temperature? The influence of riparian vegetation on stream temperature is cumulative and complex, varying by site, over time, and across regions. Riparian vegetation can directly affect stream temperature by intercepting solar radiation and reducing stream heating. The influence of riparian shade in controlling temperature declines as streams widen in downstream reaches, but the role of riparian vegetation in providing water quality and fish habitat benefits continues to be important. Besides providing shade, riparian vegetation can also indirectly affect stream temperature by influencing microclimate, affecting channel morphology, affecting stream flow, influencing wind speed, affecting humidity, affecting soil temperature, using water, influencing air temperature, enhancing infiltration, and influencing thermal radiation. It is critical to know the site potential to understand what vegetation a site can support. There is not a good scientific understanding of how much vegetation shading is required to affect stream temperature. 1 This lack of understanding may be due to the spatial and temporal variability in landscape components, and the resulting variability in both the direct and indirect influences of vegetation on stream temperature. Therefore, it is difficult to generalize about the effects of vegetation on stream temperature. Do other changes in streams cause increases in stream temperature? The answer to this question is yes, other physical changes in the stream system can modify stream temperatures. Stream temperature is a product of complex interactions between geomorphology, soil, hydrology, vegetation, and climate within a watershed. Changes in these factors will result in changes in stream temperature. Human activities influence stream temperature by affecting one or more of four major components: riparian vegetation, channel morphology, hydrology, and surface/subsurface interactions. Stream systems vary substantially across the landscape, and site-specific information is critical to understanding stream temperature responses to human activities. How can apparently healthy fish populations exist in streams with temperatures higher than laboratory and field studies would indicate as healthy? Workshop participants identified several mechanisms that might explain the ability of fish populations to exist at higher than expected temperatures. The first mechanism was that the fish may have physiological adaptations to survive exposures to high temperatures. A second possibility was that stream habitats may contain cooler microhabitats that fish can occupy as refuge from higher temperatures. A third consideration is that ecological interactions may be different under differing thermal conditions resulting, for example, in changes in disease virulence or cumulative effects of stressors. Finally, since substantial differences exist between laboratory and field studies, it is difficult to apply results of laboratory studies to fish responses in the field. It is important to note that these proposed mechanisms are speculative and, as the list of gaps indicates, substantial experimental work is required to establish their influences on fish in different stream systems. Workshop Summaiy Workshop participants recognized gaps in the available science. Additional knowledge about human influences on stream temperatures and, consequently, influences on cold-water fish populations, will improve our ability to prevent further degradation of stream habitat and will enhance efforts geared towards the recovery of depressed fish populations. Even with these gaps, there was enough agreement on factors that influence stream temperature to indicate information is available to start developing and implementing management practices that are designed to reduce stream warming. It was suggested that managers should consider riparian vegetation, channel morphology, and hydrology, and should account for site differences.
-
The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is the responsible Federal agency for operation of the Klamath Project (Project). Operation of the Project has been the subject of numerous previous consultations ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Biological assessment of the Klamath Project's continuing operations on southern Oregon/Northern California esu coho salmon and critical habitat for southern Oregon/northern California esu coho salmon
- Year:
- 2001, 2004
The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is the responsible Federal agency for operation of the Klamath Project (Project). Operation of the Project has been the subject of numerous previous consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and one with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Severe drought conditions in 1992 and 1994 and resultant associated shortages in project water supplies coupled with the 1997 listing of the southern Oregon/northern California (SONCC) coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch, as threatened in the Klamath River downstream from the Project led to a review of Reclamation 19s operations. This biological assessment (BA) describes the effects on federally-listed species (i.e., coho salmon) and its designated critical habitat from on-going operation of the project based on historic operations, as described in this BA. The biological opinion (BO) addressing this BA and any subsequent BA amendments will be among the information that will inform the development of alternatives of the long-term operations plan and environmental impact statement (EIS). Reclamation is developing a long-term operations plan and EIS for the Project. The preferred alternative for implementation from the long-term operations plan would be the subject of a separate future ESA consultation. This BA describes the needs of anadromous fish with emphasis on SONCC coho salmon. It was developed using the best available scientific and commercial information on anadromous fish in the Klamath River. Coho salmon were listed as threatened on June 6, 1997 (NMFS 1997). The NMFS published a final rule designating critical habitat for SONCC coho salmon in May, 1999 (NMFS 1999a). Designated critical habitat for SONCC coho salmon encompasses accessible reaches of all rivers (including estuarine areas and tributaries) between the Mattole River in California and the Elk River in Oregon. Critical habitat includes all waterways, substrate, and adjacent riparian zones below longstanding, naturally impassable barriers. The areas upstream from Iron Gate Dam (IGD) (river mile 190) were not proposed critical habitat because areas downstream were considered sufficient for the conservation of the species. Reclamation has not evaluated whether the action that is the subject of this BA is consistent with its trust responsibility to Klamath Basin Indian Tribes. There are several important scientific reports and analyses (e.g., Phase II flow study) currently not available to Reclamation concerning threatened coho salmon, their habitat, and water quality as it relates to appropriate river flows that may be necessary to operate the Project consistent with the trust responsibility to Klamath Basin Indian Tribes. When this additional information becomes available, Reclamation intends to consider it during the development of the Project operations plans and include it in subsequent consultations with NMFS, as appropriate.
-
Klamath River Fish Die-off, September 2002, Mortality Report, FWS, Arcata, CA Summary of Findings This report provides an estimate of the fish mortality that occurred during the September 2002 Klamath ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Klamath River fish die-off, September 2002 : report on estimate of mortality
- Author:
- Guillen, George.
- Year:
- 2003, 2005, 2004
Klamath River Fish Die-off, September 2002, Mortality Report, FWS, Arcata, CA Summary of Findings This report provides an estimate of the fish mortality that occurred during the September 2002 Klamath River die-off. The intent of this report is to provide natural resource agencies and trustees with information describing the magnitude of this event for their consideration in near-term decisions regarding the affected fisheries resources and related assets under their authority. The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), in cooperation with other federal and state agencies and Tribes, will continue to collaborate and evaluate information collected during the die-off. This report describes a conservative assessment, which probably underestimates the total number of fish that died during this event. Findings described in this report include the following: 22 The most accurate estimate of the total number of observable fish that died during the incident is 34,056. 22 Approximately 98.4 percent of the dead fish observed were adult anadromous salmonids 22 Out of 33,527 anadromous salmonids estimated to have succumbed during this event, 97.1 percent (32,533) were fall-run Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, 1.8 percent (629) were steelhead, O. mykiss, and 1.0 percent (344) were coho salmon, O. kisutch. Only one coastal cutthroat, O. clarki clarki was found dead during the investigation. 22 Approximately 91.5 percent of the coho salmon, and 38.7 percent of the steelhead observed had marks indicating that they were of hatchery origin. All hatchery coho originated from the Trinity River Hatchery. After accounting for variable tagging and shed rates, the Klamath River Technical Advisory Team (KRTAT) estimated that 7,060 (21.7 percent) Chinook were of hatchery origin. A total of 2,921 (9 percent) Chinook were of Iron Gate (Klamath River) Hatchery origin. A total of 4,139 (12.7 percent) Chinook were of Trinity River Hatchery origin. 22 The KRTAT also estimated that dead Chinook salmon represented 19.2 percent of the total (169,,297) in-river Klamath-Trinity River run. 22 Other dead fish observed during the investigation included sculpins, Cottus spp. (87 fish), speckled dace, Rhinichthys osculus (9 fish), Klamath smallscale sucker, Catostomus rimiculus (311 fish), one American shad, Alosa sapidissima, and one green sturgeon, Acipencer medirostris. ii Klamath River Fish Die-off, September 2002, Mortality Report, FWS, Arcata, CA 22 Throughout the investigation, live adult and juvenile fish of affected and unaffected species were observed in the river. In addition, some species (e.g. American shad, speckled dace, and green sturgeon) did not appear to experience extensive mortality. Almost all (greater than 99 percent) of the dead fish observed were adults or larger species offish. 22 The majority of the recently dead fish examined exhibited one or more outward gross signs of disease including gill necrosis, bacterial growth, sores, bloody vents, and ulcerations. Pathological examinations confirmed that white spot disease and columnaris were the principle immediate causes of death. Additional information collected by the Service and cooperating agencies included a suite of water quality parameters collected during the summer and fall of 2001 and 2002, fish pathology analyses, and related hydrologic information. The Service will provide reports on this additional information after it has received quality assurance review. A more comprehensive report addressing contributing factors associated with causes of the fish die-off will follow. in
-
-
Executive Summary The jawless lampreys are remnants of the oldest vertebrates in the world. Oregon has somewhere between eight and a dozen species of these primitive fishes. Their taxonomy is obscure ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Oregon lampreys : natural history, status, and analysis of management issues
- Author:
- Kostow, Kathryn
- Year:
- 2002, 2008, 2005
Executive Summary The jawless lampreys are remnants of the oldest vertebrates in the world. Oregon has somewhere between eight and a dozen species of these primitive fishes. Their taxonomy is obscure because different species tend to look very similar through most of their life cycle, and they have not been well-studied in Oregon. Lampreys occur in the Columbia Basin, including the lower Snake River, along the Oregon coast, in the upper Klamath Basin, and in Goose Lake Basin in southeastern Oregon. They all begin life in fresh water where juveniles burrow into silt and filter feed on algae. As some species approach adulthood they migrate to the ocean or to lakes where they briefly become ecto-parasites, feeding on other live fishes by attaching to them with sucker disc mouths. Other species remain non-parasitic. In addition to some enigmatic species identities, we generally have very little information about the detailed distributions, life histories and basic biology of lampreys. Lampreys became a conservation concern in the early 1990s when tribal co-managers and some Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) staff noted that populations of Pacific Lampreys, Lampetra tridentata, were apparently declining to perilously low numbers. Pacific Lampreys were listed as an Oregon State sensitive species in 1993 and were given further legal protected status by the state in 1997 (OAR 635-044-0130). Lamprey status is difficult to assess for several reasons: 1) Most observations of lampreys in fresh water are of juveniles and it is difficult to tell the various species apart, even to the extent that the various species are currently clearly designated; 2) Data on lamprey is only collected incidental to monitoring of salmonids. The design and efficiency of the data collection effort is not always adequate for lampreys; and 3) We have very few historic data sets for lampreys. Therefore we often cannot determine how the abundances and distributions we see now compare with those in the past. The limited data that we have suggests that lampreys have declined through many parts of their ranges. The most precipitous declines appear to be in the upper Columbia and Snake basins where we have some historic data from mainstem dam counts. Pacific Lampreys have declined to only about 200 adults annually passing the Snake River dams. We also have evidence of declines of Pacific Lampreys in the lower Columbia and on the Oregon coast, although our data is quite limited. We have little to no information about any of the other species of lampreys. We are not even sure whether some of the recognized species, like the River Lamprey (L. ayresi), is still present in Oregon. This paper concludes with a Problem Analysis for Oregon lampreys. Our biggest problem is poor information, ranging from not knowing basic species identity to having inefficient or no systematic monitoring of lamprey abundance and distribution. ODFW continued an annual harvest on Pacific Lamprey in the Willamette Basin in 2001, but we lack the necessary information to assess the affects of the harvest on the population. Major habitat problems that affect lampreys include upstream passage over artificial barriers, a need for lamprey-friendly screening of water diversions, and urban and agricultural development of low-gradient flood plain habitats.
-
90. [Image] Annual program summary 2004
Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - FY2004 Table of Contents ANNUAL PROGRAM SUMMARY 1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Summary of Accomplishments 3 3.0 Budget and Employment 6 4.0 Land ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Annual program summary 2004
- Author:
- United States. Bureau of Land Management. Klamath Falls Resource Area Office District
- Year:
- 2005
Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - FY2004 Table of Contents ANNUAL PROGRAM SUMMARY 1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Summary of Accomplishments 3 3.0 Budget and Employment 6 4.0 Land Use Allocations within the Klamath Falls Resource Area 6 Late-Successional Reserves and Assessments 8 Matrix 8 5.0 Aquatic Conservation Strategy 9 Riparian Reserves 9 Watershed Analysis and Key Watersheds 9 Watershed Restoration 10 Roads 10 Riparian Habitat Enhancement 10 Stream Restoration 11 6.0 Air Quality 11 7.0 Water and Soils 11 Water - Project Implementation 11 Soils - Project Implementation 12 Water - Inventory and Monitoring 12 Soils -Inventory and Monitoring 13 State-listed Clean Water Act 303d Streams 13 RMP Best Management Practices 13 8.0 Terrestrial Species and Habitat Management 14 Survey and Manage Species 14 Threatened/Endangered Species 14 Northern Spotted Owl 14 Bald Eagle 14 Special Status Species-Animals 15 Peregrine Falcon 15 Yellow Rails 15 Bats 15 Northern Goshawk 15 Oregon Spotted Frog 15 Sage Grouse 16 vii Klamath Falls Resource Area Mollusks 16 Great Gray Owl 16 Special Status Species - Plants 16 Other Species of Concern 17 Neotropical Migratory Landbirds 17 Terrestrial Habitat Management 17 Nest Sites, Activity Centers, and Rookeries 17 Big Game Habitat 19 9.0 Aquatic Species and Habitat Management 19 Threatened/Endangered Species 19 Lost River and Shortnose Suckers 19 Bull Trout 20 Endangered Species Act Consultation 20 Aquatic Habitat Restoration 20 Klamath River Hydroelectric Facility Relicensing 21 10.0 Pathogen, Disease, and Pest Management 21 11.0 Weed Management 22 Inventories 22 Control 22 12.0 Special Areas/Management 23 Wild and Scenic Rivers 23 Wilderness 23 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 23 Tunnel Creek Special Botanical Area 24 Klamath Canyon ACEC 24 Old Baldy Research Natural Area 24 Wood River Wetland ACEC 24 Environmental Education Areas 25 13.0 Cultural Resources 26 14.0 Visual Resources 26 15.0 Rural Interface Areas 26 16.0 Socioeconomic Conditions 27 Jobs-in-the-Woods 28 17.0 Environmental Justice 30 18.0 Recreation 30 Recreation Pipeline Restoration Funds 30 Recreation Projects 31 viii Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - FY2004 Recreation Fee Demonstration Project 31 Status of Recreation Plans 32 Volunteer Activities 32 Tourism 33 19.0 Forest Management and Timber Resources 33 Silvicultural Prescriptions 33 Timber Sale Planning 34 FY 2004 Timber Sale Accomplishments 34 Status of Sold & Awarded Klamath Falls RMP Timber Sales 35 Forest Development Activities 39 Stewardship Contracting 42 20.0 Special Forest Products 42 21.0 Energy and Minerals 43 22.0 Land Tenure Adjustments 44 23.0 Access and Rights-of-Way 45 24.0 Transportation and Roads 45 25.0 Hazardous Materials 46 26.0 Wildfire/Fuels Management 46 27.0 Law Enforcement 47 28.0 Rangeland Resources / Grazing Management 48 Fiscal Year 2004 Summary 49 Fiscal Years 1996-2004 Summary 50 Wild Horse Management 51 29.0 Cadastral Survey 52 30.0 Education and Outreach 52 31.0 Research 56 32.0 Coordination and Consultation 58 Federal Agencies 58 State of Oregon 58 Counties 59 Cities 59 Tribes 59 IX Klamath Falls Resource Area Watershed Councils 59 Chartered Advisory Groups 60 Other Local Coordination and Cooperation 61 33.0 National Environmental Policy Act Analysis and Documentation 63 NEPA documentation 63 Klamath Falls Resource Area Environmental Documentation 63 Protests and Appeals 63 34.0 Plan Evaluations 64 Third Year Evaluation 64 Eighth Year Evaluation 64 35.0 Plan Maintenance 65 36.0 Plan Amendments 72 Plan Revision 76 MONITORING REPORT Introduction 79 All Land Use Allocations 83 Late-Successional Reserves 86 Matrix 88 Riparian Reserves 92 Air Quality 95 Water and Soils 96 Terrestrial Species Habitat 101 Special Status and SEIS Special Attention Species Habitat 106 Aquatic Species Habitat 110 Noxious Weeds 112 Special Areas 113 Wild and Scenic Rivers 115 Cultural Resources Including American Indian Values 116 Visual Resources 118 Rural Interface Areas 119 Socioeconomic Conditions 120 Recreation 121 Forest Management and Timber Resources 121 Special Forest/Natural Products 122 Wildfire / Fuels Management 124 Rangeland Resources / Grazing Management 124 GLOSSARY/ACRONYMS 129 Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - FY2004 List of Tables Table 2.1 - Summary of Resource Management Actions, Directions, and Accomplishments 4 Table 2.1 - Summary of Resource Management Actions, Directions, and Accomplishments (Cont.).5 Table 3.1 - Resource Area Budget Fiscal Year 2004 6 Table 4.1 - Land Use Allocation 8 Table 5.1 - Watershed Analysis Schedule 10 Table 5.2-Watershed Analysis Status Fiscal Year 2004 10 Table 6.1 -Air Quality Management Fiscal Year 2004 11 Table 7.1 - Watershed Activity Fiscal Year 2004 12 Table 7.2 - KFRA Clean Water Act 303(d) Water Bodies 13 Table 8.1a - BLM /KFRA Special Status Species Designations Summary -Animals 18 Table 8.1b - BLM (KFRA) Special Status Species Designations Summary - Plants 18 Table 8.2 - Terrestrial Habitat Monitoring Fiscal Year 2004 18 Table 8.3 - Monitoring for Nest Sites, Activity Centers, Rookeries, Special Habitats 18 Table 9.1 -Aquatic Habitat/ Fish Passage Management Fiscal Year 2004 19 Table 11.1 - Managed Weed Species 20 Table 12.1 - Special Management Areas 25 Table 13.1 - Cultural Resources Management Fiscal Year 2004 26 Table 16.1 - Total Payments in Lieu of Taxes and Acres by County for FY 2004 28 Table 16.2 - O&C Payments To Counties FY 2004 29 Table 16.3 - Jobs in the Woods Program Fiscal Year 2004 29 Table 18.1 - Recreation Statistics Fiscal Year 2004 30 Table 18.2 - Recreation Fee Demonstration Project Fiscal Year 2004 32 Table 19.1 - Klamath Falls Timber Sale Volume (MBF) and Acres FY 2004 35 Table 19.2-Timber Volume Sold in FY 2004 36 Table 19.3 - Harvest Activity for FY 2004 36 Table 19.4 - Planned Timber Sales (FY 2005 & 2006) 36 Table 19.5 - Status of Sold and Awarded Timber Sales 37 Table 19.6 - Summary of Volume Sold 38 Table 19.7 -Volume and Acres Sold by Allocations 38 Table 19.8 - Timber Sales Sold by Harvest Types 38 Table 19.9 - Timber Sale Acres Sold by Age Class 39 Table 19.10 - Forest Development Activities 41 Table 20.1 - Special Forest Products Fiscal Year 2004 43 Table 21.1 - Energy and Minerals Management Fiscal Year 2004 44 Table 22.1 - Land Use Tenure Adjustments Fiscal Year 2004 45 Table 24.1 - Roads and Transportation Management Fiscal Year 2004 45 Table 25.1 - Hazardous Materials Management Fiscal Year 2004 46 Table 26.1 - Fire and Fuels Management Fiscal Year 2004 46 Table 27.1 - Law Enforcement Fiscal Year 2004 47 Table 28.1 - Range Resources Management Fiscal Year 2004 48 Table 29.1 -Cadastral Survey Summary Fiscal Year 2004 52 Table 30.1 - Environmental Education/Outreach Program Summary FY2004 54 Table 30.2 - Environmental Education/Outreach Special Events FY2004 55 Table 30.3 - Environmental Education/Outreach Programs & Tours FY 2004 56 Table 32.1 - Challenge Cost Share Fiscal Year 2004 62 XI Klamath Falls Resource Area Table 33.1 - NEPA Analyses and Documentation Fiscal Year 2004 64 Table 36.1 - Redefined Survey and Manage Categories 74 Table M.I - Projects Monitored FY 2004 80 Table M-2 - FY 2004 Implementation Monitoring Selection Categories 81 Table M-3 - Comparison of Projected vs. Actual Harvest Volume (MMBF)/Acres to Date 82 Table M-4 - Timber Sale Volume and Acres Offered (Entire Resource Area) 83 Table M-5 - Timber Sale Monitoring Summary 89 Table M-6 - Post Treatment Stand Characteristics for West Grenada Timber Sale - FY 2004 90 Table M-7 - Status of Watershed Analysis 98 List of Figures Figure 1 - General Location Map 2 Figure 2 - KFRA Land Allocations 7 Xll
-
Cover title; Shipping list no.: 99-0252-P; "May 1999"--P. [4] of cover
Citation -
- 7' -, > \ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR B U R E A U O F R E C L A M A T I O N U N I T E D S T A T E S G O V E R N M E N T P R I N T I N G O F F I C E W A S H I N G T O N : 1936 FEDERAL RECLAMATION ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Klamath Federal Reclamation Project : Oregon-California
- Author:
- United States. Bureau of Reclamation
- Year:
- 1936, 2005
- 7' -, > \ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR B U R E A U O F R E C L A M A T I O N U N I T E D S T A T E S G O V E R N M E N T P R I N T I N G O F F I C E W A S H I N G T O N : 1936 FEDERAL RECLAMATION PROJECT OREGON - CALIFORNIA n )> >> GENERAL STATEMENT THEKla m- ath reclamation project comprises practically all of the agricultural land in the Klamath Basin, except a small area adjacent to Upper Klamath Lake, and is situated in southern Oregon and northern California. The extent of the area irrigated, or that may be irrigated by reason of Bureau of Reclamation activities, is approxi-mately 140,000 acres. This includes about 20,000 acres suitable only for pasture and approximately 12,000 acres of good land in the Tule Lake division not yet opened for settlement. Within the older developed sections of the project the soil is mostly of a sandy loam . type that is particularly suitable for growing potatoes and summer vegetables as well as all of the ordinary crops that thrive in a cool, tem-perate climate. The price of this type of land ranges from $ 100 to $ 200 per acre. The water- right cost, which origi- Klamath Falls, Oregon, the prolect office headquarters nally was about $ 55 per acre, is approximately half paid up. The balance has an average of about 25 years to run without interest. Operation and maintenance costs usually run about $ 1.25 an acre per annum. I R R I G A B L E L A N D S The Tule Lake division of the project, which will eventually comprise about 32,000 acres of agricultural land and about 5,000 acres of thin soil land good only for pasture, carries a construction charge of $ 88.35, with 40 years in A! Klamath : desert. Looking~ southwest up Lan Valley from a point 4 miles west of Lorella, Ore which to pay without interest. No payments have been required to date, but the Secretary of the Interior will soon issue public notice announcing the commencement of pay-ments, which will be approximately $ 2.20 per acre each year. In addition to the construction charge, there is an operation and maintenance charge which will probably run between $ 1.50 and $ 2 un acre a year. These lands are of lacustrian origin and are very fertile. They are particularly adapted to the growth of small grains, alfalfa, and pasture grasses. Patented land in this division sells for $ 50 to $ 100 per acre. Patented lands in private ownership, where of goc; d quality, well improved and conveniently situated, can be purchased for from $ 150 to $ 200 per acre. Good lands not so well improved nor so desirably located sell at around $ 100 per acre. There is very little undeveloped, privately owned good land on the project. Small tracts of 5, 10, or 20 acres, located along paved highways and within 6 to 8 miles of Klamath Falls, are obtainable at from $ 200 to $ 400 per acre. W A T E R S U P P L Y The Klamath project is ! ortunate in having an abundant water supply for all lands susceptible of irrigation. The map on the inside of the back cover page shows the location of the three reservoirs and their immediate proximity to the lands they serve. The irrigable project lands lie between elevations of 4,035 and 4,070 feet above sea level and occupy the Klamath Basin and the Valley of Lost River, situated in south central Oregon and north central California, about 150 miles east of the Pacific coast. The average annual pre-cipitation is 12.51 inches. SCHOOLS Klamath County schools are run on the county unit basis Public School in Klamath Falls and are fully up to standard. Busses run at county expense transport rural children to and from school, and there is no lost time on account of bad weather. Within the county there are 9,242 children of school age, 4,107 of these within the city of Klamath Falls. The high school enrollment for Klamath Falls is 1,156, and for the remainder of the county is 459. There are 9 high schools in the county that employ 62 teachers. The grade schools employ 185 teachers, of whom' 76 are in the city of Klamath Falls. : let of concrete flume, Canal C, of the main project structures R E C R E A T I O N No part of the United States affords more interesting and attractive recreational areas than are found near at hand and in all directions from the Klamath project. From 1 to 2 hours in any kind of an automobile is sufficient to land one on the banks of a cold mountain stream inhabited by many wary trout or alongside the shores of any one of a half dozen crystal lakes, where boating and bathing may be enjoyed to the full. Some of the lakes that are conven-iently located with reference to the project, and where many summer camps as well as extensive hotel and camp accommodations already exist, are Upper Klamath Lake, Lake of the Woods, Crater Lake, Diamond Lake, Crescent I., ake, Ode11 Lake, and Paulina Lake. The most distant of the lot, Paulina Lake, can be reached in 3 hours' driving from Klamath Falls. Some of the important recreational areas lying in convenient distances from the project are shown in the ilh~ strationsa ccompanying this chapter. The principal water supply is in Upper Klamath Lake, where regulation provides a possible storage of about 524,800 acre- feet, and this with the natural inflow insures the lands served from this source an adequate water supply at all times. Under the terms of the contract dated February 24, 1917, between the United States and the California- Oregon Power Co., the power company was given the right to regulate the outflow of Upper Klamath Lake, subject to existing rights and the prior rights of the Klamath project for water for irrigation. To regulate the outflow, the company, in 1921, constructed the Link River Dam at a cost of about $ 310,000. Storage for the lands on the west side of Langell Valley and a portion of the lands in the Horsefly irrigation district is provided by Clear Lake Reservoir. This reservoir, lying just across the line in California, is the source of Lost River and has a total capacity of 454,000 acre- feet, most of which was made available during 1931 by the construction of a channel from the outlet works to the deeper portion of the reservoir, a distance of about 6 miles. The reservoir is also used for flood storage for the protection of lands in the Tule Lake division. Gerber Reservoir, on Miller Creek, a tributary of Lost River, has a storage capacity of 94,000 acre- feet and fur-nishes a water supply for the lands on the east side of Lost River in the Langell Valley division. This reservoir also provides for the storage of flood water for the protection of lands in the Tule Lake division. Water from Upper Klamath Lake is diverted to the main or " A" canal from the east side of Link River, the outlet of the lake, several hundred feet below the lake and a few I I / Klamath River near Klamath Falls k River diversion dam Alfalfa field near Malin, Oreg. Two cuttings are grown, which yield 2- 4 tons per acre on the older project lands, and 3- 6 in Tule Lake section hundred feet above Link River Dam. Water for all lands in the main and pumping divisions and for a portion of the lands in the Tule Lake division are diverted through the " A" canal. Additional water for the lands in the Tule Lake division is diverted from the Klamath River, through the Lost River diversion channel ( reversing the direction of flow), and spilled into Lost River, frcm which it is diverted to the " J" canal at a point about 3 miles southeasterly from Merrill, Oreg. At this point the river level is raised about 12 feet by means of the lower Lost River diversion dam, a concrete structure of the Ambursen type, with a crest length of 204 feet. The Lost River diversion channel leads off from Lost River at a point about 10 miles southeast of Klamath Falls, Oreg., immediately above a hollow U- shaped concrete dam which raises the river level about 23 feet. Prior to the Irrigating a 65- acre field of potatoes; showing application of m irrigation season the flow of Lost River is diverted to the Klamath River and wasted; however, after the spring flood flow of Lost River has passed and water for irrigation in the Tule Lake division is required, the flow of Lost River is ~ assed through the dam and down to the " J" canal. This flow is augmented, when demand is heavy, from Klamath River as indicated ahve. Lands on the east side of Langell Valley division are served by the north canal, which diverts water from Miller Creek at the Miller Creek Dam, located about 6 miles below Gerber Dam. At this point the water surface in Miller Creek is raised by placing flashboards against wooden trestles, the grade of the canal and that of the stream being substan-tially the same elevation. The lands on the west side of Lost River in the Langell Valley division are served by the West Canal, which diverts water from Lost River at the Malone Dam, located about 42 miles southeasterly from Klamath Falls, Oreg. At this point the level of Lost River is raised about 18 feet by means of an earth diversion dam. Clear Lake Reservoir provides storage for the West Canal. TOWNS Klamath Falls, Merrill, Malin, and Bonanza are project towns, the first named being the principal city in southern, Oregon east of the Cascades. It has a population of approximately 16,000 and is the distributing center for a large territory. Klamath County has a population of 32,400, one- half residing in the city of Klamath Falls and perhaps 4,000 more in suburban districts only a few miles away. Merrill and Malin are small towns within the irrigated area with populations of six or seven hundred each. In Klamath Basin are some 1,800 farms and approximately as many farm families. LUMBERING Approximately 30 mills and box factories are in operation, this district being the largest manufacturing center of box shook in the United States. The Klamath district contains the heaviest stand of yellow pine left in the United States. Throughout the spring, summer, and fall all lumber com-panies maintain large pay rolls both in the plants and in the lumber camps. Lumber contributes greatly to the heavy traffic originating at K! amath Falls, making this city the second largest shipping point in Oregon. The majority of the mills and box factories are located in or near Klamath Falls. T R A N S P O R T A T I O N Two main- line railways, the Southern Pacific and Great Northern, enter Klamath Falls and traverse the project throughout its longest dimension. Hard- surfaced highways radiate from Klamath Falls in all directions, connecting with Portland, Sun Francisco, and Salt Lake. These high-ways supplemented by county market roads penetrate all sections of the project, with the result that few farms are more than a mile from a hard- surfaced outlet. CLIMATE The Klamath Basin has a remarkably pleasant and healthful climate. Winters are not cold, and summers are not hot. Precipitation, which amounts to about 12): inches a year on the average, falls mainly from November to April. Late and early frosts are to be expected, and occasionally light frosts occur even in the summer months. me on the Main division of the project A G R I C U L T U R E The principal crops grown are potatoes, alfalfa, small grains, and vegetables. The yield of small grains in the Tule Lake area is unusually high. Oats frequently make 100 bushels per acre; barley runs from 60 to 80; and any good wheat field will thresh out more than 40 bushels per acre. Potatoes, when conditions are right, are par excelience the big money crop. A good yield of tubers is considered to be around 150 sacks of U. S. No. 1' s per acre, and every year a few fields are reported with yields of double that amount. The price for potatoes is unstable, depending on the market demand, and ranges from about 50 cents to $ 1.50 a sack. The quality of Klamath potatoes on the Sun Francisco market is recognized as the best, and the price usually ranges from 10 to 20 cents a sack higher than is paid for Washington and Idaho production. Flock of 6,000 turkeys being fattened for market L I V E S T O C K Cattle. On account of its geographical location, sur-rounded as it is with immense areas of sagebrush plateaus and forest ranges, the Klamath project is, and probably always will be, essentially a stock country. Its cheap forage, abundant water and mild winters offer ideal con-ditions for the wintering of range stock and the fattening of mature animals for market. Favorable feeding- in- transit rates for both grass and feed lot cattle have resulted in the fattening, locally, of thousands of range and outside cattle. The beef industry alone returns approximately $ 900,000 annually. There are several killing and manu-facturing plants located in Klamath Falls. Sheep. Approxinately 150,000 ewes are maintained in the Klamafh Basin with an average annual output of about three- quarters of a million dollars. From 75,000 to 100,000~ lambs~ afraet tened for market each year on the project. Sun Francisco js the principal market. licken ranch. The production of eggs chickens is an important industry A project Holstein dairy her Dairying. The dairying industry is increasing steadily on the project. There are now about 8,000 milk cows in the district. Klamath Falls, with its large industrial popu-lation, furnishes a good market for milk, butter, and cheese. Two local cooperative cheese manufacturing plants and four privately owned creameries operate in the district. The value of the dairy industry is approximately $ 600,000 annually. Local dairy prices for butterfat are maintained at l> e to 2 cents above the State average cwing to the favored position of the project-- half- way between Portland and Sun Francisco. This district offers many opportunities for increased dairying production, as costs are compara-tively low and climatic conditions are favorable. Ewes and lambs on Tule Lake leased lands OREGON - CALIFORNIA MAP NO. 27606 Scale of Miles 1 -- 0 1 2- 3 4 6 1
-
Abstract Everest, Fred H.; Stouder, Deanna J.; Kakoyannis, Christina; Houston, Laurie; Stankey, George; Kline, Jeffery; Alig, Ralph. 2004. A review of scientific information ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- A review of scientific information on issues related to the use and management of water resources in the Pacific Northwest
- Year:
- 2004
Abstract Everest, Fred H.; Stouder, Deanna J.; Kakoyannis, Christina; Houston, Laurie; Stankey, George; Kline, Jeffery; Alig, Ralph. 2004. A review of scientific information on issues related to the use and management of water resources in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-595. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 128 p. Fresh water is a valuable and essential commodity in the Pacific Northwest States, specifically Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and one provided abundantly by forested watersheds in the region. The maintenance and growth of industrial, municipal, agricultural, and recreational activities in the region are dependent on adequate and sustainable supplies of fresh water from surface and ground-water sources. Future development, especially in the semiarid intermountain area, depends on the conservation and expansion of the region's water resource. This synthesis reviews the state of our knowledge and condition of water resources in the Pacific Northwest. Keywords: Water distribution, flow regimes, water demand, conflicts, tools, water use.
-
94. [Image] Klamath River Basin issues and activities
Klamath River Basin Issues and Activities: An Overview Summary The Klamath River Basin, an area on the California-Oregon border, has become a focal point for local and national discussions on water ...Citation Citation
- Title:
- Klamath River Basin issues and activities
- Author:
- Kyna Powers
- Year:
- 2005, 2008, 2006
Klamath River Basin Issues and Activities: An Overview Summary The Klamath River Basin, an area on the California-Oregon border, has become a focal point for local and national discussions on water management and water scarcity. Water and species management issues were brought to the forefront when severe drought in 2001 exacerbated competition for scarce water resources and generated conflict among several interests - farmers, Indian tribes, commercial and sport fishermen, other recreationists, federal wildlife refuge managers, environmental groups, and state, local, and tribal governments. The conflicts over water distribution and allocation are physically and legally complex, reflecting the varied and sometimes competing uses of limited water supplies in the Basin. For management purposes, the Basin is divided at Iron Gate Dam into the Upper and Lower Basins. As is true in many regions in the West, the federal government plays a prominent role in the Klamath Basin's water management. This role stems from three primary activities: (1) the operation and management of the Bureau of Reclamation's Klamath Water Project and Central Valley Project (e.g., Trinity River dams); (2) management of federal lands in the Basin, including five national wildlife refuges, several national forests, and public lands; and (3) implementation of federal laws, such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Clean Water Act (CWA), and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Conflict was sparked in April of 2001 when the Bureau of Reclamation, which has supplied water to farms in the Upper Basin for nearly 100 years, announced that "no water [would] be available" for farms normally receiving water from the Upper Klamath Lake to avoid jeopardizing the existence of three fish species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA. While some water was subsequently made available to some farmers from other sources (e.g., wells and other Bureau sources), many farmers faced serious hardships. During Reclamation's operations in September of 2002, warm water temperatures and atypically low flows in the lower Klamath contributed to the death of at least 33,000 adult salmonids. This die-off damaged fish stocks and the tribes, commercial fishermen, and recreational anglers that catch Klamath fish. There have been many studies, Biological Opinions, and operating plans over recent years, all of which have been controversial. The events of 2001 and 2002 prompted renewed efforts to resolve water conflicts in the Klamath Basin. Congress has responded to the controversy in a number of ways, including holding oversight hearings and appropriating funds for activities in the area. This report provides an overview of recent conflict in the Klamath Basin, with an emphasis on activities in the Upper Basin, and summarizes some of the activities taking place to improve water supply reliability and fish survival. This report will be updated as events warrant.
-
95. [Image] Gerber-Willow Valley Watershed Analysis
x, 386 p., ill., maps (some col.); Cover title; "July 2003"Citation Citation
- Title:
- Gerber-Willow Valley Watershed Analysis
- Author:
- U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management; Klamath Falls Resource Area Office; U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service; Fremont-Winema National Forests; Modoc National Forest
- Year:
- 2003, 2006, 2005
x, 386 p., ill., maps (some col.); Cover title; "July 2003"
-
1 Acknowledgements 2 3 The completion of this work in large part can be attributed to the efforts of the 4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Field Office staff and in particular to Mr. 5 Thomas Shaw ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Evaluation of Interim Instream Flow Needs in the Klamath River Phase II Final Report
- Author:
- Hardy, Thomas B; Addley. R. Craig
- Year:
- 2001, 2008, 2005
1 Acknowledgements 2 3 The completion of this work in large part can be attributed to the efforts of the 4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Field Office staff and in particular to Mr. 5 Thomas Shaw for providing much of the supporting site-specific field data, 6 habitat mapping, and fisheries data used in the analyses. The efforts of the 7 various Tribal fisheries personnel were critical in supplying additional fisheries 8 collection data, and intensive site substrate and cover mapping. In particular, the 9 efforts of Tim Hayden, Charlie Chamberlain and Mike Belchik. USGS personnel 10 from the Midcontinent Ecological Science Center also provided valuable 11 assistance and field data used in the cross section based hydraulic and habitat 12 modeling. Mr. Gary Smith and Mike Rode of the California Department of Fish 13 and Game also provided critical information on site-specific habitat suitability 14 criteria and conceptual foundations for the escape cover analysis used in the 15 habitat simulations. Much of this work was also supported by work of Tim 16 Harden (Harden and Associates). The Bureau of Reclamation also provided 17 valuable input during the Phase II study process on Klamath Project operations. 18 A special thanks is also given to Mr. Mike Deas (U.C. Davis) for providing water 19 temperature simulations below Iron Gate Dam. The Technical Team also 20 provided critical input and review of all technical elements of this work as well as 21 providing reviews of the report. Finally, the completion of this work would not 22 have been possible without the tireless efforts of Jennifer Ludlow, Mark 23 Winkelaar, James Shoemaker, Shannon Clemens, Jerilyn Brunson, William 24 Bradford, Sarah Blake, Brandy Blank, Matt Combes, Leon Basdekas, and Aaron 25 Hardy at the Institute for Natural Systems Engineering, Utah State University. 26 27 Executive Summary 28 29 Previous instream flow recommendations developed as part of Phase I (Hardy, 30 1999) recommended interim instream flows in the main stem Klamath River 31 based on analyses of hydrology data. At that time, site-specific data suitable for 32 analysis and evaluation using habitat based modeling were not available. This 33 report details the analytical approach and modeling results from site-specific 34 studies conducted within the main stem Klamath River below Iron Gate Dam 35 downstream to the estuary. Study results are utilized to make revised interim 36 instream flow recommendations necessary to protect the aquatic resources 37 within the main stem Klamath River between Iron Gate and the estuary. This 38 report also makes specific recommendations for future research needs as part of 39 the on-going strategic instream flow studies being undertaken by the U.S. Fish 40 and Wildlife Service and collaborating private, local, state, federal, and tribal 41 entities. 42 43 This report was developed for the Department of the Interior (DOI) who provided 44 access to a technical review team composed of representatives of the U.S. Fish 45 and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. 46 Geological Survey, and the National Marine Fisheries Service. The technical Draft - Subject to Change 1 review team also included participation by the Yurok, Hoopa Valley, and Karuk 2 Tribes given the Departments trust responsibilities and the California Department 3 of Fish and Game as the state level resource management agency. The 4 technical review team provided invaluable assistance in the review of methods 5 and results used in the analysis, provided comments on draft sections of the 6 report, and provided data and supporting material for use in completion of the 7 Phase II report. In addition, several agencies and private individuals provided 8 written comments on the Preliminary Draft Report, which have been addressed in 9 this report where appropriate. 10 11 This report is organized to follow the general process used to implement the 12 technical studies. It first provides important background information on the 13 historical and current conditions of the anadromous species, highlights factors 14 that have contributed to their decline, provides an overview of the Phase I study 15 process and its principal findings. The report then continues with a description of 16 the Phase II technical study process. Key sections address methods and 17 findings for each technical component such as study design, study site selection, 18 field methods, analytical approaches, summary results, and recommended 19 instream flows. 20 21 The Phase II study relied on state-of-the-art field data collection methodologies 22 and modeling of physical habitat for target species and life stages of anadromous 23 fish. The field methods were directed toward achieving a three-dimensional 24 representation of each study site that incorporated between 0.6 to over one mile 25 of river depending on the specific study site. At each study site, a spatially 26 explicit substrate and vegetation map was developed and then integrated with 27 the three-dimensional channel topography in GIS. Fieldwork also involved 28 collection of hydraulic calibration data and fish observation data. The later 29 information was used in the development of habitat suitability criteria, conceptual 30 habitat model development and implementation, and habitat model validation 31 efforts. 32 33 Hydrology in the main stem Klamath River below Iron Gate Dam was estimated 34 differently for different purposes in Phase II. For example, we used simulated 35 unimpaired inflows (i.e., no depletions) to Upper Klamath Lake routed to Iron 36 Gate Dam with no Klamath Project imposed water demands. This simulated 37 scenario represents the best available estimates of the unimpaired flows below 38 Iron Gate Dam for the purposes of this study. The remaining flow scenarios 39 included the use of Upper Klamath Lake net inflows, historical Klamath Project 40 water demands, and the USFWS Biological Opinion (2000) target Upper Klamath 41 Lake water elevations. These scenarios represent different potential operational 42 flow scenarios as points of reference to the instream flow recommendations 43 developed as part of Phase II. Differences between these simulated flow 44 scenarios required the use of different models and/or modeling assumptions. 45 The assumptions and modeling tools are described in the appropriate technical 46 sections of the report. The estimated hydrology at each study site was used in Draft - Subject to Change 1 both the physical habitat modeling and temperature simulations using the USGS 2 Systems Impact Assessment Model (SIAM) or its components. 3 4 Physical habitat modeling at each study site relied on two-dimensional hydraulic 5 simulations that were coupled to three-dimensional habitat models. The 6 analytical form of the habitat models varied for spawning, fry, and 'juveniles' (i.e., 7 pre-smolts). These modeling results were compared to available 1-dimensional 8 cross section based hydraulic and habitat modeling at study sites that overlapped 9 between existing USFWS/USGS and Phase II studies. 10 11 Habitat suitability criteria for target species and life stages of anadromous fish 12 were developed from site-specific data for Chinook spawning, Chinook fry, and 13 steelhead 1+. These curves were validated both by field observations using the 14 habitat modeling results as well as by comparison to results from an individual 15 based bioenergetics model for drift feeding salmonids developed at USU. A 16 separate procedure was developed to obtain habitat suitability curves for Chinook 17 juvenile (i.e., pre-smolts), steelhead fry, and coho fry based on available 18 literature data. This approach used a systematic process to construct an 19 'envelope' habitat suitability curve that encompassed the available literature 20 curves. The overall process included a validation component that compared the 21 habitat versus discharge relationships between envelope curves to the site- 22 specific curves for Chinook spawning, Chinook fry, and steelhead 1+. The results 23 validated the use of the envelope curves for use as interim criteria pending 24 further research and development of site-specific curves for these species and 25 life stages within the Klamath River. 26 27 Habitat modeling involved the integration of substrate and cover mapping with 28 the three-dimensional topography and hydraulic properties at each study site with 29 the habitat suitability curves. Habitat modeling was undertaken for Chinook 30 spawning, fry, and juveniles, coho fry and juveniles, and steelhead fry and 31 steelhead 1+. Different habitat models were developed for spawning, fry, and 32 juveniles. The study generated a salmonid fry habitat model that incorporated a 33 distance to escape cover that also required sufficient depth within the escape 34 cover in order for it to be utilized at a given flow rate. This model also 35 incorporated quantitative differences in the type of escape cover. 36 37 The habitat modeling results for each species and life stage were validated 38 against the spatial distribution of each species and life stage surveyed at study 39 sites at different flow rates. These results generally demonstrated that the 40 integrated habitat modeling was validated for the study in terms of spawning and 41 fry life stages. Our assessment of the pre-smolt or juvenile life stage results is 42 that they are consistent for the existing habitat model assumptions. However, we 43 discuss what we perceive to be inherent biases in these results (juveniles) based 44 on the existing habitat model structure and make specific recommendations of 45 what additional work would likely improve the results for this particular life stage. 46 Draft - Subject to Change jjj 1 Temperature simulations based on the unimpaired flow regime below Iron Gate 2 Dam were conducted with HEC5Q as part of the SIAM applications. These 3 results supported the findings in Phase I that flows lower than ~ 1000 cfs during 4 the late summer would likely increase the environmental risk to anadromous 5 species due to almost continual exposure to chronic temperature thresholds. We 6 believe that these simulation results show that there is very little flexibility for 7 reservoir operations at Iron Gate Dam to mitigate deleterious flow dependent 8 temperature effects. This finding has previously been reported by the USGS 9 (Bartholow 1995) and Deas (1999). 10 11 The integration of the habitat modeling with the unimpaired hydrology was used 12 to develop habitat reference values for target species and life stages at each 13 study reach on a monthly basis for flow exceedence ranges between 10 and 90 14 percent. The reference habitat value was computed as the percent of maximum 15 habitat associated with the unimpaired flow values for each species and life 16 stage on a monthly basis. This reference habitat value was used as one 'target' 17 condition to guide the selection of monthly flow recommendations at a given 18 exceedence flow level. 19 20 The flow recommendation process also employed a prioritization of species and 21 life stages to be considered within the year and/or within a specific month. The 22 prioritization of life stages was taken from the life history sequence of 23 anadromous species (i.e., spawning, fry, and then juveniles). The initial priority 24 order for species was defined as Chinook, then coho, and finally steelhead. It is 25 stressed that this initial prioritization was used to conceptually simplify the flow 26 recommendation process only, and that all species and life stages were 27 examined as part of the overall analysis. The process then relied on an iterative 28 procedure to select target flows for each month at a given exceedence level. 29 This procedure attempted to pick a target flow that would simultaneously 30 preserve the underlying characteristics of the seasonal unimpaired hydrograph at 31 that exceedence flow, the underlying relationship of the unimpaired hydrograph 32 between all exceedence flow levels, while striving to maximize habitat for the 33 priority species and life stages relative to the unimpaired habitat reference 34 conditions. The corresponding monthly flow rates at each exceedence level 35 were then used to compute the percent of maximum habitat for all other species 36 and life stages in a given month. These values were then compared to their 37 respective unimpaired habitat values to ensure that adequate protection of 38 habitat for non-priority species and life stages remained reasonable. 39 40 The flow recommendations developed in the Iron Gate to Shasta River Reach 41 were 'propagated' downstream to each successive reach by addition of the reach 42 gains as presently defined by the USGS in their MODSIM module of SIAM. It is 43 recognized that these reach gains reflect existing depletions in tributary systems 44 (e.g., Shasta and Scott Rivers) but are the only estimates presently available for 45 use in the simulation models for the system. The flow recommendations for each 46 river reach were then used to compute the percent of maximum habitat on a Draft - Subject to Change 1 monthly basis for each species and life stage. The recommended flow based 2 calculation of percent of maximum habitat for each species and life stage was 3 then compared against the associated unimpaired flow based habitat values. 4 5 Although flow recommendations were developed for the 10 to 90 percent 6 exceedence range (i.e., nine water year types), five water year types were 7 identified representing Critically Dry, Dry, Average, Wet, and Extremely Wet 8 inflow conditions for Upper Klamath Lake. These water year classifications 9 parallel those developed for the Trinity River and were used as operational 10 definitions in the Phase I report. Furthermore, the USBR KPSIM model was 11 modified to use this five-water year type format for simulating operations under 12 different instream flow requirements below Iron Gate Dam. The 90, 70, 50, 30, 13 and 10 percent exceedence flow levels were assigned to each of these water 14 year types, respectively (i.e., critically dry to extremely wet). This assignment 15 was used to demonstrate several key points regarding the use of 16 recommendations at this level of resolution (i.e., five water year types) and how 17 the existing operational models for the Klamath Project simulate flow scenarios. 18 19 These five water year type dependent recommendations were utilized in the U.S. 20 Bureau of Reclamation's Klamath Project Simulation Module (KPSIM) to simulate 21 project operations over the 1961 to 1997 period of record. This analysis 22 confirmed that the project could be operated to achieve these recommendations 23 in all but 19 of the 468 simulated months in this period of record. These results 24 also highlighted that an alternative water year 'classification' strategy for 25 specifying instream flows should be considered in lieu of a five water year type 26 scheme. We provide a specific recommendation of how this could be 27 approached based on the instream flow recommendations developed in Phase II. 28 29 30 Draft - Subject to Change
-
CONTENTS PAGE I. THE SALMON AND THE FISHERY OF KLAMATH RIVER 2695 Introduction 2697 General Characteristics of Klamath River Salmon 2699 Species Other Than King Salmon 26916 The Spring Migration (Immigration) ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Salmon of the Klamath river, California : 1. The salmon and the fishery of Klamath river. 2. A report on the 1930 catch of king salmon in Klamath river
- Author:
- Snyder, John Otterbein
- Year:
- 1931, 2005
CONTENTS PAGE I. THE SALMON AND THE FISHERY OF KLAMATH RIVER 2695 Introduction 2697 General Characteristics of Klamath River Salmon 2699 Species Other Than King Salmon 26916 The Spring Migration (Immigration) 26918 The Summer Migration (Immigration) 26923 Sex Representation in the Migration 26933 Fish Increase in Average Weight and Size as the Season Advances 26939 Angling for Salmon 26943 Seaward Migration (Emigration) 26944 Obstructions in the River 26950 The Age at Maturity of Klamath King Salmon 26952 Marking Experiments 26967 Experiment in 1916 26968 Experiment in 1918 26968 Experiment in 1919 26968 Experiment in 1920 26968 Experiment in 1922 (Sacramento River) 26971 Experiment in 1922 (Klamath River) 26972 Experiment in 1923-1924 269 143 Ocean Tagging 26980 Depletion 26981 Notes Relating to the Salmon Catch of Klamath River 26988 The Ocean Catch 26992 Age Characteristics of the Ocean Catch 269108 Artificial Propagation in Klamath River 269111 Summary 18 269119 II. A REPORT ON THE 1930 CATCH OF KING SALMON IN KLAMATH RIVER 1823
-
"BLM/OR/WA/PL-02/038+1792"--P. [2] of cover; Cover title; Includes bibliographical references (v. 2, p. 219-228) and index
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Draft upper Klamath River management plan environmental impact statement and resource management plan amendments. Volume 2 - Appendices
- Author:
- United States. Bureau of Land Management. Klamath Falls Resource Area Office
- Year:
- 2003, 2004
"BLM/OR/WA/PL-02/038+1792"--P. [2] of cover; Cover title; Includes bibliographical references (v. 2, p. 219-228) and index
-
FINAL PROGRESS REPORT FOR FISHERIES INVESTIGATIONS ON BLUE CREEK, TRIBUTARY TO K1AMATH RIVER, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA FY 1993 (October 1992 - September 1993) ABSTRACT The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ...
Citation Citation
- Title:
- Final progress report for fisheries investigations on Blue Creek, tributary to Klamath River, northern California, FY 1993
- Author:
- Longenbaugh, Matthew H.; Chan, Jeffrey R.
- Year:
- 1994, 2008, 2005
FINAL PROGRESS REPORT FOR FISHERIES INVESTIGATIONS ON BLUE CREEK, TRIBUTARY TO K1AMATH RIVER, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA FY 1993 (October 1992 - September 1993) ABSTRACT The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Coastal California Fishery Resource Office (CCFRO) in Arcata, CA, was funded to investigate chinook salmon spawning use, juvenile salmonid emigration and characterize habitats in Blue Creek, Klamath Basin, CA. Investigations that began in October, 1988, have continued to date, with this reporting period covering Fiscal Year 1993 (FY 1993, October, 1992, through September, 1993). In addition, some information already presented in previous progress reports, FY 1989 - FY 1992, is summarized. In 1993, adult chinook spawner escapements were addressed by snorkel surveys of redds and carcasses. Spawner numbers were very low, with only 17 redds observed in fall/winter 1992-93. The peak count of adult chinook was 136 fish in early November. Emigrating juvenile s&lmonids were trapped at river kilometer (rkm) 3.35 with a screw trap and panel weir. The screw trapping period extended from April through July for a total of 91 trapping nights. Screw trap catches totaled 14,526 chinook, 912 steelhead and 69 coho. Chinook emigration was spread over the entire trapping period, with increases during mid-May, and from mid-June throughout July. A juvenile weir was operated 60 nights, and caught a total of 6,334 chinook, 992 steelhead, 49 coho salmon, and 0 juvenile cutthroat. The total index of production for emigrating chinook during the 1993 juvenile trapping period was 101,819. Chinook that were marked with coded-wire tags (n-12,299) were released, with other juvenile fish, into Blue Creek at rkm 3.3. Mean temperatures varied from 6.3 to 18.6 ?C and flows ranged from 0.91 cubic m/s (32 cubic feet/s) to 202.6 cubic m/s (7,160 cubic feet/s) during FY 1993. Extreme flows for FY 1993 were the lowest and highest observed by CCFRO since the project began in 1989, and lower than the previous low of the 13 years of record.
-
Only portions of issues of The Water Report are available in the Klamath Waters Digital Library. See the full report at http://www.thewaterreport.com/.
Citation Citation
- Title:
- The Water Report - The ESA, salmon, and Western water law
- Author:
- Envirotech Publications
- Year:
- 2004, 2008, 2006
Only portions of issues of The Water Report are available in the Klamath Waters Digital Library. See the full report at http://www.thewaterreport.com/.