Search

Search Results

• 1. [Image] Integrated land management on Tule Lake Wildlife Refuge: an alternative management strategy developed by the Integrated Land Management Working Group: promoting productive wetland habitats and sustainable agriculture on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge

  	EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document describes the rationale for and implementation of an Integrated Land Management (ILM) Plan for the Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). The proposal is the recommendation ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Integrated land management on Tule Lake Wildlife Refuge: an alternative management strategy developed by the Integrated Land Management Working Group: promoting productive wetland habitats and sustainable agriculture on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge Author: Integrated Land Management Working Group (Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Calif.) Year: 2000, 2006, 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document describes the rationale for and implementation of an Integrated Land Management (ILM) Plan for the Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). The proposal is the recommendation of 5 representative stakeholders in the Tule Lake area. During the 1950fs, 1960fs, and early 1970's, Tule Lake NWR was considered the single most important waterfowl refuge in North America when peak populations exceeded 2.5 million ducks and 1.0 million geese. The Kuchel Act of 1964 was enacted to preserve these waterfowl values as well as the local agricultural economy dependent on Refuge lands. However, restrictive management of wetlands and water levels under the Kuchel Act has eliminated the ecological processes critical to the Refuge's sustained wetland diversity and productivity. Currently, Tule Lake NWR supports a fraction of its past waterfowl use, species diversity has declined, and its value to endangered species has diminished. Agricultural sustainability is also thre Title: Integrated land management on Tule Lake Wildlife Refuge: an alternative management strategy developed by the Integrated Land Management Working Group: promoting productive wetland habitats and sustainable agriculture on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge Author: Integrated Land Management Working Group (Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Calif.) Year: 2000, 2006, 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document describes the rationale for and implementation of an Integrated Land Management (ILM) Plan for the Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). The proposal is the recommendation of 5 representative stakeholders in the Tule Lake area. During the 1950fs, 1960fs, and early 1970's, Tule Lake NWR was considered the single most important waterfowl refuge in North America when peak populations exceeded 2.5 million ducks and 1.0 million geese. The Kuchel Act of 1964 was enacted to preserve these waterfowl values as well as the local agricultural economy dependent on Refuge lands. However, restrictive management of wetlands and water levels under the Kuchel Act has eliminated the ecological processes critical to the Refuge's sustained wetland diversity and productivity. Currently, Tule Lake NWR supports a fraction of its past waterfowl use, species diversity has declined, and its value to endangered species has diminished. Agricultural sustainability is also thre Close

• 2. [Image] Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds biennial report, 2005-2007

  	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 ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy 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 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 Close

• 3. [Image] Seeking refuge: making space for migratory waterfowl and wetlands along the Pacific Flyway

  	Abstract "Seeking Refuge" examines the history of migratory waterfowl management along the Pacific Flyway, the westernmost of four main migration routes in North America. Drawing on approaches from historical ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Seeking refuge: making space for migratory waterfowl and wetlands along the Pacific Flyway Author: Wilson, Robert Michael Year: 2003, 2005, 2004 Abstract "Seeking Refuge" examines the history of migratory waterfowl management along the Pacific Flyway, the westernmost of four main migration routes in North America. Drawing on approaches from historical geography and environmental history, this study shows how wildlife officials developed migratory bird refuges in Oregon and California, where over 60 percent of Pacific Flyway waterfowl winter. During the early-twentieth century, reclamation and river diking eliminated most of the wetlands in the birds' wintering range. Bird enthusiasts such as bird watchers and duck hunters successfully lobbied for the creation of wildlife refuges in a few areas along the flyway. These early refuges failed to protect waterfowl habitat and they were severely degraded by reclamation. In the 1930s and 1940s, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and its predecessor, the Bureau of Biological Survey, undertook an ambitious program to resurrect these sanctuaries and to create new ones. Many farmers opposed these refuges out of fear that waterfowl would damage crops. To respond to these concerns and to ensure an adequate food supply for the birds, the FWS raised rice, barley, and other grains. The agency adopted many of the technologies of modern, industrial agriculture including synthetic herbicides and insecticides such as 2, 4-D and DDT. By the 1960s, the refuges had become largely mirrors of the surrounding irrigated farmlands, the main difference being that the FWS raised grain for waterfowl rather than for market. Refuges could not escape the agricultural settings in which they were embedded. As units within the irrigated countryside, Pacific Flyway refuges were often at the mercy of nearby farmers and federal reclamation agencies. Poor water quality and insufficient supplies of water often hampered FWS efforts to manage refuges. In the late-twentieth century, reduced water supply due to diversions to California municipalities and to sustain endangered fish species affected the amount of water reaching refuges. This dissertation has other goals. First, it critiques the anthropocentrism of most historical geography by focusing on how political, cultural, and ecological factors affected wildlife. Second, it contributes to the literature on the state's role in environmental protection by investigating the overlapping, and often contradictory, spaces within which wildlife managers implemented environmental regulations. Title: Seeking refuge: making space for migratory waterfowl and wetlands along the Pacific Flyway Author: Wilson, Robert Michael Year: 2003, 2005, 2004 Abstract "Seeking Refuge" examines the history of migratory waterfowl management along the Pacific Flyway, the westernmost of four main migration routes in North America. Drawing on approaches from historical geography and environmental history, this study shows how wildlife officials developed migratory bird refuges in Oregon and California, where over 60 percent of Pacific Flyway waterfowl winter. During the early-twentieth century, reclamation and river diking eliminated most of the wetlands in the birds' wintering range. Bird enthusiasts such as bird watchers and duck hunters successfully lobbied for the creation of wildlife refuges in a few areas along the flyway. These early refuges failed to protect waterfowl habitat and they were severely degraded by reclamation. In the 1930s and 1940s, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and its predecessor, the Bureau of Biological Survey, undertook an ambitious program to resurrect these sanctuaries and to create new ones. Many farmers opposed these refuges out of fear that waterfowl would damage crops. To respond to these concerns and to ensure an adequate food supply for the birds, the FWS raised rice, barley, and other grains. The agency adopted many of the technologies of modern, industrial agriculture including synthetic herbicides and insecticides such as 2, 4-D and DDT. By the 1960s, the refuges had become largely mirrors of the surrounding irrigated farmlands, the main difference being that the FWS raised grain for waterfowl rather than for market. Refuges could not escape the agricultural settings in which they were embedded. As units within the irrigated countryside, Pacific Flyway refuges were often at the mercy of nearby farmers and federal reclamation agencies. Poor water quality and insufficient supplies of water often hampered FWS efforts to manage refuges. In the late-twentieth century, reduced water supply due to diversions to California municipalities and to sustain endangered fish species affected the amount of water reaching refuges. This dissertation has other goals. First, it critiques the anthropocentrism of most historical geography by focusing on how political, cultural, and ecological factors affected wildlife. Second, it contributes to the literature on the state's role in environmental protection by investigating the overlapping, and often contradictory, spaces within which wildlife managers implemented environmental regulations. Close

• 4. [Image] Summary of ongoing and planned work of the Department of the Interior related to the Klamath River Basin, March 2003

  	The Department of the Interior, Klamath River Basin, Work Plans and Reports
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Summary of ongoing and planned work of the Department of the Interior related to the Klamath River Basin, March 2003 Author: United States. Dept. of the Interior Year: 2003, 2005 The Department of the Interior, Klamath River Basin, Work Plans and Reports Title: Summary of ongoing and planned work of the Department of the Interior related to the Klamath River Basin, March 2003 Author: United States. Dept. of the Interior Year: 2003, 2005 The Department of the Interior, Klamath River Basin, Work Plans and Reports Close

• 5. [Image] Draft resource management plan/environmental impact statement for the Upper Klamath Basin

  	"March 1994."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Draft resource management plan/environmental impact statement for the Upper Klamath Basin Author: United States. Bureau of Land Management. Klamath Falls Resource Area Office Year: 1994, 2005 "March 1994." Title: Draft resource management plan/environmental impact statement for the Upper Klamath Basin Author: United States. Bureau of Land Management. Klamath Falls Resource Area Office Year: 1994, 2005 "March 1994." Close

• 6. [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 Citation Abstract Copy 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. 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. Close

• 7. [Image] A selected bibliography of water related research in the upper Klamath Basin, Oregon

  	prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation; Also available via Internet as PDF file through Southern Oregon Digital Archives: http://soda.sou.edu. Search Bioregion Collection.
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: A selected bibliography of water related research in the upper Klamath Basin, Oregon Author: Brownell, Dorie Lynn and Mia R. Renallo Year: 1995, 2011, 2013 prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation; Also available via Internet as PDF file through Southern Oregon Digital Archives: http://soda.sou.edu. Search Bioregion Collection. Title: A selected bibliography of water related research in the upper Klamath Basin, Oregon Author: Brownell, Dorie Lynn and Mia R. Renallo Year: 1995, 2011, 2013 prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation; Also available via Internet as PDF file through Southern Oregon Digital Archives: http://soda.sou.edu. Search Bioregion Collection. Close

• 8. [Image] Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges, California/Oregon

  	Cover title; Shipping list no.: 99-0252-P; "May 1999"--P. [4] of cover
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges, California/Oregon Author: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Year: 1999, 2007, 2005 Cover title; Shipping list no.: 99-0252-P; "May 1999"--P. [4] of cover Title: Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges, California/Oregon Author: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Year: 1999, 2007, 2005 Cover title; Shipping list no.: 99-0252-P; "May 1999"--P. [4] of cover Close

• 9. [Image] The Third Klamath Basin Watershed Restoration and Research Conference

  	Cover title; "March 1999."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Third Klamath Basin Watershed Restoration and Research Conference Year: 1999, 2004 Cover title; "March 1999." Title: The Third Klamath Basin Watershed Restoration and Research Conference Year: 1999, 2004 Cover title; "March 1999." Close

• 10. [Image] Land use and vegetation community changes at Beswick Ranch, Klamath River Canyon, California from 1955 to 2003 : focus on relationship between the irrigation and the vegetation and the land use cover

  	Humans have altered the Klamath River Canyon in many ways. This study focuses on the years from 1955 to 2003. One substantial alteration is the conversion of terraces into irrigated pastures for agriculture ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Land use and vegetation community changes at Beswick Ranch, Klamath River Canyon, California from 1955 to 2003 : focus on relationship between the irrigation and the vegetation and the land use cover Author: Bilka, Monika N. Year: 2002, 2005 Humans have altered the Klamath River Canyon in many ways. This study focuses on the years from 1955 to 2003. One substantial alteration is the conversion of terraces into irrigated pastures for agriculture and cattle ranching. This research project explains the relationships between the irrigation network and the vegetation and land use cover patterns that existed in the past and that exist today at Beswick Ranch. Data sources such as aerial photographs, maps, and other historical information are used to create Geographic Information System (GIS) maps and models of the area. Due to time constraints, the final maps and models are not complete at this time. However, the completed models were synthesized with observational data to come to preliminary conclusions. While the ditches of Shovel Creek Pasture have undergone little to no change at all since 1955, ranchers have added ditches to Faye Pasture. Ranch workers have also increased the amount of agricultural land use cover and decreased in tree cover of Faye Pasture. Conversely, ranchers increased the tree cover and non-agricultural land cover, and they have decreased the agricultural cover. The GIS coverages of Shovel Pasture remain in the preliminary stage, and further analyses of the calculated areas of land use cover and ditch lengths are needed to complete this study. In partnership with PacifiCorp and the BLM, this project aims to provide information about the impacts of the current and historical irrigation systems used on the pastures and riparian zones within this reach of the Klamath River Canyon from 1955 to 2003. Even at this stage, the preliminary coverages provide insight into the relationships between irrigation, vegetation communities, and land use cover that have occurred during the study period. Title: Land use and vegetation community changes at Beswick Ranch, Klamath River Canyon, California from 1955 to 2003 : focus on relationship between the irrigation and the vegetation and the land use cover Author: Bilka, Monika N. Year: 2002, 2005 Humans have altered the Klamath River Canyon in many ways. This study focuses on the years from 1955 to 2003. One substantial alteration is the conversion of terraces into irrigated pastures for agriculture and cattle ranching. This research project explains the relationships between the irrigation network and the vegetation and land use cover patterns that existed in the past and that exist today at Beswick Ranch. Data sources such as aerial photographs, maps, and other historical information are used to create Geographic Information System (GIS) maps and models of the area. Due to time constraints, the final maps and models are not complete at this time. However, the completed models were synthesized with observational data to come to preliminary conclusions. While the ditches of Shovel Creek Pasture have undergone little to no change at all since 1955, ranchers have added ditches to Faye Pasture. Ranch workers have also increased the amount of agricultural land use cover and decreased in tree cover of Faye Pasture. Conversely, ranchers increased the tree cover and non-agricultural land cover, and they have decreased the agricultural cover. The GIS coverages of Shovel Pasture remain in the preliminary stage, and further analyses of the calculated areas of land use cover and ditch lengths are needed to complete this study. In partnership with PacifiCorp and the BLM, this project aims to provide information about the impacts of the current and historical irrigation systems used on the pastures and riparian zones within this reach of the Klamath River Canyon from 1955 to 2003. Even at this stage, the preliminary coverages provide insight into the relationships between irrigation, vegetation communities, and land use cover that have occurred during the study period. Close

• 11. [Image] Final biological assessment: the effects of proposed actions related to Klamath Project operation (April 1, 2002-March 31, 2012) on federally-listed threatened and endangered species

  	"Partially incorporating January 22, 2001 Biological assessment submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service and February 13, 2001 Biological Assessment submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service" ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Final biological assessment: the effects of proposed actions related to Klamath Project operation (April 1, 2002-March 31, 2012) on federally-listed threatened and endangered species Author: United States. Bureau of Reclamation. Klamath Basin Area Office Year: 2002, 2004 "Partially incorporating January 22, 2001 Biological assessment submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service and February 13, 2001 Biological Assessment submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service" ; Includes bibliographical references ; "February 25, 2002" Title: Final biological assessment: the effects of proposed actions related to Klamath Project operation (April 1, 2002-March 31, 2012) on federally-listed threatened and endangered species Author: United States. Bureau of Reclamation. Klamath Basin Area Office Year: 2002, 2004 "Partially incorporating January 22, 2001 Biological assessment submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service and February 13, 2001 Biological Assessment submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service" ; Includes bibliographical references ; "February 25, 2002" Close

• 12. [Image] Williamson River delta restoration project : environmental assessment

  	"May 2000"; From cover: Prepared for U.S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2316 South 6th Street, Suite C, Klamath Falls, Oregon 97601. In Partnership with The Nature Conservancy, ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Williamson River delta restoration project : environmental assessment Year: 2000, 2005 "May 2000"; From cover: Prepared for U.S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2316 South 6th Street, Suite C, Klamath Falls, Oregon 97601. In Partnership with The Nature Conservancy, 821 SE 14th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97214 and US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Tribes, PacifiCorp, Cell Tech International; Includes bibliographic references (p. 60-66) Title: Williamson River delta restoration project : environmental assessment Year: 2000, 2005 "May 2000"; From cover: Prepared for U.S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2316 South 6th Street, Suite C, Klamath Falls, Oregon 97601. In Partnership with The Nature Conservancy, 821 SE 14th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97214 and US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Tribes, PacifiCorp, Cell Tech International; Includes bibliographic references (p. 60-66) Close

• 13. [Image] The Oregon conservation strategy

  	v, 419 p.; col.ill.; col.maps; "February 2006"; Foreword by Marla Rae, Chair, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Oregon conservation strategy Year: 2006 v, 419 p.; col.ill.; col.maps; "February 2006"; Foreword by Marla Rae, Chair, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission Title: The Oregon conservation strategy Year: 2006 v, 419 p.; col.ill.; col.maps; "February 2006"; Foreword by Marla Rae, Chair, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission Close

• 14. [Image] Oregon aquatic habitat restoration and enhancement guide

  	"May 1999"
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Oregon aquatic habitat restoration and enhancement guide Author: Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds Year: 1999, 2005, 2004 "May 1999" Title: Oregon aquatic habitat restoration and enhancement guide Author: Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds Year: 1999, 2005, 2004 "May 1999" Close

• 15. [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 Citation Abstract Copy 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 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 Close

• 16. [Image] Summary of the analysis of the management situation: Klamath Falls Resource Area resource management plan

  	"December 1990"
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Summary of the analysis of the management situation: Klamath Falls Resource Area resource management plan Author: United States. Bureau of Land Management. Klamath Falls Resource Area Office. Year: 1990, 2005, 2004 "December 1990" Title: Summary of the analysis of the management situation: Klamath Falls Resource Area resource management plan Author: United States. Bureau of Land Management. Klamath Falls Resource Area Office. Year: 1990, 2005, 2004 "December 1990" Close

• 17. [Image] Making the ESA work better: implementing the 10 point plan - and beyond

  	19p.; ill.; Cover title; "June 1997"; "Reprint September 1998"; [Washington, D.C.]: Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O., 1999
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Making the ESA work better: implementing the 10 point plan - and beyond Year: 1998, 2006, 2005 19p.; ill.; Cover title; "June 1997"; "Reprint September 1998"; [Washington, D.C.]: Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O., 1999 Title: Making the ESA work better: implementing the 10 point plan - and beyond Year: 1998, 2006, 2005 19p.; ill.; Cover title; "June 1997"; "Reprint September 1998"; [Washington, D.C.]: Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O., 1999 Close

• 18. [Image] Gerber-Willow Valley Watershed Analysis

  	x, 386 p., ill., maps (some col.); Cover title; "July 2003"
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy 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" 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" Close

• 19. [Image] Klamath Falls Resource Area resource management plan and environmental impact statement : final : Volume 1

  	Proposed resource management plan/final environmental impact statement for the Klamath Falls Resource Area
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath Falls Resource Area resource management plan and environmental impact statement : final : Volume 1 Author: United States. Bureau of Land Management. Klamath Falls Resource Area Office Year: 1994, 2005, 2004 Proposed resource management plan/final environmental impact statement for the Klamath Falls Resource Area Title: Klamath Falls Resource Area resource management plan and environmental impact statement : final : Volume 1 Author: United States. Bureau of Land Management. Klamath Falls Resource Area Office Year: 1994, 2005, 2004 Proposed resource management plan/final environmental impact statement for the Klamath Falls Resource Area Close

• 20. [Image] Federal Register - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened

  	In this Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), present an updated list of plant and animal species native to the United States that we regard as candidates ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Federal Register - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Year: 2005, 2008 In this Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), present an updated list of plant and animal species native to the United States that we regard as candidates or have proposed for addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Identification of candidate species can assist environmental planning efforts by providing advance notice of potential listings, allowing resource managers to alleviate threats and thereby possibly remove the need to list species as endangered or threatened. Even if we subsequently list a candidate species, the early notice provided here could result in more options for species management and recovery by prompting candidate conservation measures to alleviate threats to the species. Additional material that we relied on is available in the Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Forms (species assessment forms, previously called candidate forms) for each candidate species. We request additional status information that may be available for the 286 candidate species. We will consider this information in preparing listing documents and future revisions to the notice of review, as it will help us in monitoring changes in the status of candidate species and in management for conserving them. Previous Notices of Review The Act directed the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to prepare a report on endangered and threatened plant species, which was published as House Document No. 94-51 Title: Federal Register - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Year: 2005, 2008 In this Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), present an updated list of plant and animal species native to the United States that we regard as candidates or have proposed for addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Identification of candidate species can assist environmental planning efforts by providing advance notice of potential listings, allowing resource managers to alleviate threats and thereby possibly remove the need to list species as endangered or threatened. Even if we subsequently list a candidate species, the early notice provided here could result in more options for species management and recovery by prompting candidate conservation measures to alleviate threats to the species. Additional material that we relied on is available in the Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Forms (species assessment forms, previously called candidate forms) for each candidate species. We request additional status information that may be available for the 286 candidate species. We will consider this information in preparing listing documents and future revisions to the notice of review, as it will help us in monitoring changes in the status of candidate species and in management for conserving them. Previous Notices of Review The Act directed the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to prepare a report on endangered and threatened plant species, which was published as House Document No. 94-51 Close

• 21. [Image] Tule Lake, Lower Klamath, and Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuges : hearing before the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, United States Senate, Eighty-seventh Congress, second session, on S. 1988 ... February 23, 1962

  	CONTENTS Page S. 1988 1 Committee Print of S. 1988 2 Departmental reports: Agriculture 9 Budget 10 Interior 4 STATEMENT Brown, Edmund G., Governor, State of California 26 Butcher, ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Tule Lake, Lower Klamath, and Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuges : hearing before the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, United States Senate, Eighty-seventh Congress, second session, on S. 1988 ... February 23, 1962 Author: United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs Year: 1962, 2005 CONTENTS Page S. 1988 1 Committee Print of S. 1988 2 Departmental reports: Agriculture 9 Budget 10 Interior 4 STATEMENT Brown, Edmund G., Governor, State of California 26 Butcher, Deveraux, editor, National Wildlands News 158 Cushman, Lester M., vice president; Alvin Landis, counsel; Howard Stoddard, consulting engineer; Edwin Lance, engineer and manager; and Ivan Rose, director, Tulelake Irrigation District 116, 132 Douglas, Philip A., executive secretary, Sport Fishing Institute 144 Dugan, Harold P., regional director, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, Calif., Department of the Interior 60 Elser, William P., president, California Fish and Game Association 137 Gordon, Seth, California Duck Hunters Association 138 Gutermuth, C. R., vice president, Wildlife Management Institute, Wash ington, D.C 148 Henzel, Richard, president, board of supervisors, Klamath Drainage Dis trict 84 Horn, Everett E., California Duck Hunters Association 142 Janzen, Daniel H., Director, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Fish and Wildlife Service; accompanied by Richard Dittman, engineer; Richard Griffith, chief, Regional Wildlife Division, Portland, Oreg.; Robert Russell, refuge manager, Klamath and Tule Lake Wildlife Refuges; and Jean Branson, staff assistant, regional office, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior 40 Johnson, Hon. Harold T., a Representative in Congress from the State of California 114 Kimball, Thomas L., executive director, National Wildlife Federation 146 Kuchel, Hon. Thomas, a U.S. Senator from the State of California 27 Landis, Alvin, counsel, Tulelake Irrigation District 116 Langslet, Chester L., representing the Klamath Basin Water Users' Protective Association, Klamath Sportsmen's Association, and Oregon Wildlife Federation 64, 83 Metcalf, Hon. Lee, a U.S. Senator from the State of Montana 25 Penfold, Joe, Izaak Walton League of America 152 Proctor, George H., counsel, Klamath Drainage District 90 Smith, Dr. Spencer M., Jr., secretary, Citizens Committee on Natural Resources 158 Stearns, James G., supervisor, Modoc County, Calif 110 Stoddard, Howard, consulting engineer, Tulelake Irrigation District 129 Udall, Hon. Stewart L., Secretary of the Interior, accompanied by Robert M. Paul, Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife 18 Title: Tule Lake, Lower Klamath, and Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuges : hearing before the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, United States Senate, Eighty-seventh Congress, second session, on S. 1988 ... February 23, 1962 Author: United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs Year: 1962, 2005 CONTENTS Page S. 1988 1 Committee Print of S. 1988 2 Departmental reports: Agriculture 9 Budget 10 Interior 4 STATEMENT Brown, Edmund G., Governor, State of California 26 Butcher, Deveraux, editor, National Wildlands News 158 Cushman, Lester M., vice president; Alvin Landis, counsel; Howard Stoddard, consulting engineer; Edwin Lance, engineer and manager; and Ivan Rose, director, Tulelake Irrigation District 116, 132 Douglas, Philip A., executive secretary, Sport Fishing Institute 144 Dugan, Harold P., regional director, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, Calif., Department of the Interior 60 Elser, William P., president, California Fish and Game Association 137 Gordon, Seth, California Duck Hunters Association 138 Gutermuth, C. R., vice president, Wildlife Management Institute, Wash ington, D.C 148 Henzel, Richard, president, board of supervisors, Klamath Drainage Dis trict 84 Horn, Everett E., California Duck Hunters Association 142 Janzen, Daniel H., Director, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Fish and Wildlife Service; accompanied by Richard Dittman, engineer; Richard Griffith, chief, Regional Wildlife Division, Portland, Oreg.; Robert Russell, refuge manager, Klamath and Tule Lake Wildlife Refuges; and Jean Branson, staff assistant, regional office, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior 40 Johnson, Hon. Harold T., a Representative in Congress from the State of California 114 Kimball, Thomas L., executive director, National Wildlife Federation 146 Kuchel, Hon. Thomas, a U.S. Senator from the State of California 27 Landis, Alvin, counsel, Tulelake Irrigation District 116 Langslet, Chester L., representing the Klamath Basin Water Users' Protective Association, Klamath Sportsmen's Association, and Oregon Wildlife Federation 64, 83 Metcalf, Hon. Lee, a U.S. Senator from the State of Montana 25 Penfold, Joe, Izaak Walton League of America 152 Proctor, George H., counsel, Klamath Drainage District 90 Smith, Dr. Spencer M., Jr., secretary, Citizens Committee on Natural Resources 158 Stearns, James G., supervisor, Modoc County, Calif 110 Stoddard, Howard, consulting engineer, Tulelake Irrigation District 129 Udall, Hon. Stewart L., Secretary of the Interior, accompanied by Robert M. Paul, Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife 18 Close

• 22. [Image] Ecology of shortnose and Lost River suckers in Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California : progress report, April - November 1999

  	Ecology of shortnose and Lost River suckers in Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, Progress Report, April - November 1999 Lisa A. Hicks, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Basin National ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Ecology of shortnose and Lost River suckers in Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California : progress report, April - November 1999 Author: Hicks, Lisa A.; Mauser, David M.; Beckstrand, John; Thomson, Dani Year: 2000, 2005 Ecology of shortnose and Lost River suckers in Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, Progress Report, April - November 1999 Lisa A. Hicks, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge, Route 1, Box 74, Tulelake, CA 96134 David M. Mauser, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge, Route 1, Box 74, Tulelake, CA 96134 John Beckstrand, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge, Route 1, Box 74, Tulelake, CA 96134 Dani Thomson, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge, Route 1, Box 74, Tulelake, CA 96134 Introduction The Lost River ( Deltistes luxatus) and shortnose ( Chasmistes brevirostris) suckers were federally listed as endangered species on July 18, 1988 ( Federal Register 53: 27130- 27134). Both sucker species are relatively long- lived, have a limited geographic range, and are endemic to the Upper Klamath Basin of Northern California and Southern Oregon. Habitat degradation from water diversions and loss of riparian and wetlands habitats associated with agricultural development within their historic range is believed to be the major reason for the species decline ( U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). A more detailed description on the life history, habitat requirements, and causes of decline of the species can be found in the Lost River and Shortnose Sucker Recovery Plan ( U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge ( NWR), established in 1928, consists of 2 return flow sumps ( Sump 1( A) and 1( B)) totaling 13,000 acres surrounded by 17,000 acres of intensively farmed lands ( Fig. 1). The refuge and surrounding private agricultural lands occupy the historic lake bed of Tule Lake, a 95,000 acre lake and marsh area that was reclaimed in the early 1900fs as part of the Klamath Reclamation Project. Current management of the refuge is directed by the Kuchel Act of 1964 which mandates the refuge be managed for the major purpose of waterfowl management but with optimal agricultural use that is consistent therewith. Both sumps are shallow ( 0.1 - 2.0 m) and consist of approximately 10,500 acres of open water with a 2,500 acre shallow (< 0.1 m) emergent marsh at the northeast corner of Sump 1( A). Tule Lake has been identified as a potential refugia for both sucker species ( U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). Tule T like National Wildlife Sump 3 Lease lands Field . Station Cocbetative Fanning Fields Area J Lease Lands Sump 2 I ease I , ands Figure 1. Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California. During winter, water within the sumps is comprised primarily of local runoff and during summer water is comprised primarily of irrigation return flows, originating from Upper Klamath Lake. Summer water quality in the sumps is similar to other water bodies within the Upper Klamath Basin and is considered hypereutrophic ( Dileanis et al. 1996). Water quality problems include low dissolved oxygen ( DO) and high hydrogen ion concentrations ( pH) and unionized ammonia. Water quality in the Tule Lake sumps is directly affected by hypereutrophic conditions in Upper Klamath Lake ( U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). Studies conducted after publication of the Shortnose and Lost River Sucker Recovery Plan indicate that Tule Lake contains an estimated 159 ( 95% CI = 48- 289) shortnose and 105 ( 95% CI = 25- 175) Lost River suckers ( Scoppetone and Buettner 1995). Confidence intervals for these estimates are large because of small sample sizes and low rates of recapture. Recruitment rates for the Tule Lake population via spawning below Anderson- Rose Dam is low with significant larval production occurring only in 1995 ( monitoring occurred 1991- 99) ( M. Buettner, pers. comm). Entrainment from the irrigation system is likely the largest source offish for Tule Lake ( U. S. Bureau of Reclamation 1998). Both species of suckers in Tule lake are in good physical condition relative to fish in Clear Lake and Upper Klamath Lake with Tule Lake fish being generally heavier and exhibiting few if any problems with parasites or lamprey. ( Scoppetone and Buettner 1995). U. S. Bureau of Reclamation ( Reclamation) biologists tracked 10 radio- marked suckers in Tule Lake from 1993- 95. From these studies, specific use areas by time period were identified with over 99% of radio locations occurring in Sump 1( A). Of particular importance from these studies was identification of an over- summer site in the south central region of Sump 1( A) termed the ADonut Hole# ( DH). In early 1999, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( Service) proposed a wetland enhancement project on the 3,500 acre Sump 1( B). The project was designed to improve habitat for waterfowl and other associated wetland species as well as improve water quality through the conversion of Sump 1( B) from an open body of shallow water to an emergent year- round flooded wetland. The primary mechanism to create the desired habitat condition is a series of annual spring/ summer drawdowns thereby creating conditions suitable for germination of desired emergent plant species. Of principal concern in developing the project was the potential effects on suckers within the sumps. Because of the proximity of both sucker species in adjacent Sump 1( A), a project monitoring plan was developed to ascertain the potential effects of the Sump 1( B) Project on suckers and water quality. Our monitoring design benefitted from studies of water quality and sucker movements by Reclamation biologists from 1992- 95. This report summarizes findings of the first year= s pre- project monitoring effort ( April- December, 1999) relative to water quality and movements of radio- marked suckers. Objectives 1. Describe seasonal distribution and movement patterns of both sucker species in Tule Lake NWR and determine if fish movements have changed since initial studies by Reclamation biologists in 1993- 95. 2. Characterize water quality, in space and time, of areas used by adult suckers compared to areas which are not used. 3. Document and describe movements of radio- marked suckers to spawning areas below Anderson- Rose dam. 4. Determine whether recruitment of larvae and juvenile was occurring below Anderson- Rose Dam. Methods Monitoring radio- marked adult suckers In April and May, 1999, Reclamation biologists captured 14 suckers and surgically implanted radio- transmitters ( ATS, Isanti, MN) having a projected battery life of 12 months. Each transmitter had an external antennae that exited the body cavity near the lateral line of the fish. Eleven Lost River and 3 shortnose suckers were captured using trammel nets at the northwest corner of Sump 1( A) ( 9 fish) and immediately downstream of Anderson- Rose Dam on the Lost River ( 5 fish) ( Table 1). We located radio- marked fish via air thrust boats using a scanning receiver and 4- element yagi antennae. Fish were located fish 4 times/ month during March and April, 2 times/ month from May through September, and once per month from October through December. Fish not located via boat were located from fixed wing aircraft. We determined fish locations by moving as close as possible to undisturbed fish and recording locations with a Global Positioning System ( GPS). All GPS positions consisted of 180 rover points/ location and were differentially corrected via post processing software ( PFinder ver. 2.11). We recorded depth information at each fish location. To determine timing and duration of the spawning migration, we monitored radio-marked fish from vehicles on the east levee of the Lost River downstream of Anderson- Rose Dam. Table 1. Data from Lost River and shortnose suckers captured on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California and Anderson- Rose Dam, Oregon in 1999. RADIO TAG 165.043 165.063 165.073 165.103 165.084 165.094 164.641 164.863 164.494 164.854 165.054 164.845 164.763 164.914 CAPTURE DATE 4/ 2/ 99 4/ 2/ 99 4/ 2/ 99 4/ 2/ 99 4/ 2/ 99 4/ 2/ 99 4/ 9/ 99 4/ 2/ 99 4/ 9/ 99 4/ 30/ 99 5/ 5/ 99 5/ 5/ 99 5/ 18/ 99 5/ 18/ 99 CAPTURE LOCATION TULELAKE SUMP1A TULELAKE SUMP 1A TULELAKE SUMP 1A TULELAKE SUMP 1A TULELAKE SUMP1A TULELAKE SUMP 1A TULELAKE SUMP1A TULELAKE SUMP1A TULELAKE SUMP 1A ANDERSON ROSE DAM ANDERSON ROSE DAM ANDERSON ROSE DAM ANDERSON ROSE DAM ANDERSON ROSE DAM SPECIES LOST RIVER LOST RIVER LOST RIVER SHORTNOSE SHORTNOSE LOST RIVER SHORTNOSE LOST RIVER LOST RIVER LOST RIVER LOST RIVER LOST RIVER LOST RIVER LOST RIVER SEX FEMALE FEMALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE FEMALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE FEMALE MALE MALE MALE FEMALE WEIGHT NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA 2830 g 1040 g 5260 g NO DATA 2214 g 1542g 2350 g 1811 g FORK LENGTH 777 mm 681 mm 754 mm 473 mm 523 mm 754 mm 544 mm 440 mm 775 mm 753 mm 556 mm 486 mm 594 mm 477 mm PIT TAG NO. 1F3E34432C 1F39064959 1F4C5A6754 1F07315752 1F31462743 1F4C5A6754 1F3726750F 1F36490062 1F37103466 1F390F1801 1F3E2A7702 1F36443235 1F30753309 1F390E6B2F Recruitment Reclamation biologists conducted larval and juvenile sucker surveys during May and June by sampling, visually and with dip nets, the emergent vegetation at the periphery of the Lost River downstream of Anderson- Rose Dam. Egg viability surveys were conducted in the gravel sediments immediately below the dam in May. Water quality We preselected water quality sampling sites ( Fig. 2, Table 2) in Sump 1( A) to correspond to adult sucker use areas as determined by studies of radio- marked adult suckers conducted by Reclamation in 1993- 95 ( Fig. 3). We selected 2 sites in Sump 1( B) which met or exceeded the minimum depth requirement (> 3ft) for both sucker species ( M. Buettner, pers. comm.) after referring to 1986 bathymetric maps. We attempted to obtain data from each site twice/ month. We moved 2 sample sites ( Donut Hole and Donut Hole Northwest) early in the summer and 1 site ( Donut Hole West) ( Fig. 2) during mid- summer to better represent summer use locations of radio- marked fish. From May through November, we measured water quality parameters ( dissolved oxygen ( DO), hydrogen ion concentration ( pH), and temperature (° C)) using DataSonde 3, 4 and 4a= s ( Hydrolab Corp., Austin, Texas) ( hereafter referred to as Hydrolabs) 26 cm ( 12 in) above the sediment. We suspended Hydrolabs, within PVC tubes, from metal fence posts driven into the sediment. Data were collected hourly over a 96 hr period at each monitoring site. We downloaded data from Hydrolabs using the Hyperterminal software package v. 690170 to a personal computer. Unit probes were cleaned and calibrated according to Hydrolab guidelines ( Hydrolab Corporation 1997) and local geographic standards. Using the same deployment schedule as with our Hydrolabs, we sampled turbidity at each site using a Portable Turbidimeter model 21 OOP ( Hach Corp., P. O. Box 389, Loveland, CO 80539). We collected water samples 27 cm ( 12 in) above the sediment at each sample site. We measured turbidity in NTUs, following the guidelines in the product manual and we measured water depth using a hand- crafted wooden pole, marked in measured increments. We summarized water quality data using Microsoft 8 EXCEL software v. 97 SR- 1 and SPSS for Windows release 9.0.0. Because of the apparent difference in summer water quality in the DH versus other sampling sites, data were summarized as DH sites and Non- DH ( NDH) sites. Tule Lake NWR Water Quality Monitoring 1999 MfSVTHOLE \ OKTIIH ' w Background Hvdrolon> Luke m Mudflats Uplands X Water Vionitonny Stations ( Hydrolafa sites) MK ker Radio \ ckmcin L. Hicks. D. .1 Beckitraod, K Miller, USFWS Background HydfOlOf} Sat'I Wetlands Invcnlon LSI Sh S Map Projection UTMZCM IO, WGS-* 4 By: L. Hkks. USFWSUSBR 02/ 00 i Figure 2. Water quality sample sites, Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 8 Table 2. Characteristics of water quality sampling sites, Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Tulelake, California, 1999. SITE NAME NORTHWEST SUMP 1A DONUT HOLE NORTHWEST DONUT HOLE WEST DONUT HOLE SOUTH DONUT HOLE DONUT HOLE EAST ENGLISH CHANNEL WEST SUMP IB EAST SUMP IB PUMP 10 SUMP 1A2 SITE ABBREVIATION NWS1A DHNWSlAor DHNW DHWEST DHSOUTH DHSlAorDH DHEAST ECSlAorEC WS1B ES1B PMP10 UTM N 4642199 4638316 4638881 4638144 4637299 4639024 4634604 4634153 4633948 4636635 UTME 620803 620542 321022 621355 621475 621971 625041 636647 628835 624748 DEPTH of MONITORING SITE ( m) 1 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.5 1 Depth of water at deployment 2 Pump 10 data will not be discussed in this document. Results Radio- marked suckers We located fish 231 times in locations similar to those determined by Reclamation biologists in 1993- 95 ( Figs 3- 4). Lost River and shortnose suckers did not appear to differentiate use of the sump by species; we located both species intermixed throughout the monitoring period. With the exception DH and DHNW ( Fig. 2), water quality sampling sites were close to seasonal sucker use areas. Of 14 suckers marked, mortality occurred in only 1 fish. A Lost River sucker (# X9) was tagged on 18 May at the Anderson Rose Dam; she was not located again until 23 days later on 9 June. From 9 June to 17 November, # X9 was located by signal within approximately 15 m of the original location based on the location data. It is likely that this fish died in early June within 2- 3 weeks of being radio- marked. It is unknown if this mortality was related to the stress of handling and marking or some other cause. April - May - In April- May, a period of maximum fish movements ( Figs. 5- 18), most suckers congregated in the AEnglish Channel ® between the sumps with a scattering offish located between the northwest corner of Sump 1( A) and the AEnglish Channel ® ( Fig. 4). Only 1 fish radio- marked in Tule Lake moved into the Lost River. This particular fish, a female shortnose sucker (# G9) was radio- marked in the northwest corner of Tule Lake on 9 April, was located in the AEnglish Channel ® on 14 April, and subsequently was located in Lost River below Anderson Rose Dam on 29 April and 6 May. Tule Lake Sucker Radio Telemetry \ pril 1993 - \! a> 1995 Hi tckwtstmd H) drohgy mm Marth/ Wi'lhiml • • River I Sucker Locations o Jan - Mar & Apr - May ° Jim - Sep • O t t - l h i 1 I . . . . . . ydtOl Ig) -: i '•'•, l: i M h - c .1 J I SI WS UtoBiihywwUy KkmrtiiB ••. iraOffia MapPinoiccii.- i rM2oni VM, S- » 4 • HJ I-. IKKV USffW& n SBB Figure 3. Locations of radio- marked suckers from studies conducted by U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1993- 1995. 10 Tule Lake NWR Sucker Radio Telemetry April - December 1999 Oregon California [ Sump 1A Background Hydrology J Lake Uplands SOcker Locations • Apr May o Jun - Sep • Oc! - Dec | Qanuthole area = * 466 acres ( manually est from fish bca Suckei EUdiQ Tdctrcter: L Hi cks, D TtccnsDn, : Nati Wedatd^ Inventory. USTWS i t Hi cfa, usFwsnrsBH o 2/ 00 Figure 4. Locations of radio- marked suckers on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 11 Tule Lake- Sucker Radio Telemetr> - 1999 MMti « phrnl Fish: Lost River Sucker " A9" Sex Female Length: 777 mm fag I ocation I ulc I ; ike Sump IA Tai: Dare: 04/ 02 99 Vlort. Date: 3 - O 5 ni 0 5 - 1 ni ( Surface Fixation - 4034.9( 1') Lain' ihpth 1 - 15m Itydrolah tUm » t tm fcdarl .' i rein: l. llni. i. Becb- rmc l^ . I M I ^ I V I M . Kl; nn: nli limm Xvtup,- :, rr, k, I M •'• - \ * e BMb% « ldry KIWWHI I t em ,^ wnOi-... I SB I Background Hy* » : 4.. .. , „ | WCIIWKIJ faivewior^. I'SI A S >• • ••• i •• i MZcne IC ' •..-• .: i;% i n . , i s , u s Figure 5. Movements of radio- marked sucker A9 on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 12 Tule Lake- Sucker Radio Telemetry ~- 1999 Hsh ], ost River Sucker"! Sc\ Female Length: UK] mm Tag Location [ We Lake Sump IA IML Dace U4/ O? W Mort Date: • i Khrr( m » depth) • 1 Mwrvl. Will. 1.1,1 I |- l Muil I t * 3 - O 5 m 0 5 - t rn ( Surtax i: Nation - 4O34. W) flyJrttlaff SiKker RacfcTclemdn: I. IliduU. Bccks CompK. i BFW8 I. a.- Mil ,. l klmulklfaun \ « » OI.. . I MM Background llyfrotogv \ « bonB| W ctlands inv « « or., U8FWS Map IVv^ vi ... i M ,. !• ' ••"• . I:-. | || ... i JFWS Figure 6. Movements of radio- marked sucker B9 on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 13 Tule Lake- Sucker Radio Telemetry - 1999 Fidi Lost River Sucker * C9" Sex Male Length: 619 mm Tag Location I ule Lake Sump IA Fag Date: M/ 02 w VIon. Date: { Surface Fixation - 4II34. W) tiat- ttffawmf th- frohf(\ • • Khii i> nJv|> th) H i \ iM, vh\ wtl,..., i UplniKi Lak mm MU. I n. i 3 - 0 5 ni 0 5 - 1 ru • I n kaAo Tckwdn: LHkfcaJ. Beduimd P HMUWM K V'l « • .|: I- II: I-| I I n i ii Cwnpk. I 8FWS Klmwil.[ ten< •• . : M . . . I M : mind I l > * o t i c \ Ntttaaal Wetlands Inventory* I ^| •.!•••• • • . • I -. I \ | . , K 1 1 . i •• » •• -; !:•• I II . I SFWS r Mil . Figure 7. Movements of radio- marked sucker C9 on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 14 Tule Lake- Sucker Radio Telemetry - 1999 Haf kgnm n BB Rh « ' i MM. Fish Shortnose Sucker " l) l>" Sex Male Length: 473 nun ail Location: I ale Lake Sump IA Tag Date 04/ 02/ 99 Mort. Date: I Surface Fixation - 41> 34. lW) /....'.:• Depth Mi, I lbtx 0- OSm ^ ^ 0 5 - 1 rti - I - ' I •' • • ' ' • I HkfcU. lUbrxilHil) I ! . . . ! - . K Mil M KlttiHtfiBttk K « Aig « : . , - , - , L . I M ''. •• Ifydrolah Kit,-* i., i.- . il ... (.. , , , i , , •. . ; „ , . . , M ! - U a d ^ r t w n d ! ! > * • ••'• • t n | XVctinjKlt [ mcTrt « . T\. • SFWS I • • . . • • , , • l:% | n ...... i M A S * £*> Figure 8. Movements of radio- marked sucker D9 on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 15 Tule Lake- Sucker Radio Telemetry - 1999 Fish Shortnose Sucker T39" Sc\ Female Length: 523 mm rag Location I ule I ake Sump IA rag Date M/ 02 w Date: • 1.1 I i) I 1-.. 1 • | i i . . I. llcct. M m i l l ) ] Compl- • ' "* I '• S 5> NJUOIWI Wetlands b i v c m u r y I IS I » S • ••• I " I ••. l/. nc It. i . . . : - . , ' II-. | || ..... Figure 9. Movements of radio- marked sucker E9 on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 16 Tule Lake- Sucker Radio Telemetry - 1999 Fish Lost River Sucker " IV Sc\ female Length: 754 mm Tag Location Tule Lake Sump 1A * rag Date 040; 99 Vkirt Date: ( Surface Fixation - 4( 134.90') Hat ground Hydrology U • : • • Rhtr< iM » < Jvpfh) • iM.., lll » r • i M. tvh\ VHl,, na 0.0,5m Uphml » 0S- 1rt. 1 - 1 5 IT » 1 £ m fackcrRadk> 1 r .. In: UfisfcaJ. Ikvkwjjjui P » •, K V, 1 • l: m: rli M a Jfcflifc* CorapUv I IFWS Uydrolth sit,- s i , i t \ t, il*> m. f n Klmwlh tfewn .\ wn < » flfa . I SBR K o t o ^ : \ ai,,, na| Wctljmd* bivcm^ f • I SFWS Map hV^ vl .. . I MZpftClO Cony aid I;-, i n , . UWTOS Figure 10. Movements of radio- marked sucker F9 on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 17 Tule Lake- Sucker Radio Telemetry - 1999 Fish Shortnose Sucker " Q9" I cm ale Length: 544mm I. IL1 Location Tule Lake Sump IA * rag Date 04/ 09/ 99 Mori ( Surface rloaliun - I II . . I. \'-.-\-- m.' I-K V i ! l • l : n i : r l l ! - i i : ii : . r , : . | , . I s|\ VS KlmuHi Btom Aivs 4 M1K. I SBR \ j i > i m l Wetlands invcnlon i 5FWS M. « ;. ' - . . I - . I M / . „ . • | » . I II , • I SFWS BB Ki^ i imi M \ hrvh\\ ilhiml Upland Lais Otfttk MuiJ Hals Figure 11. Movements of radio- marked sucker G9 on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 18 Tule Lake- Sucker Radio Telemetry ~ 1999 • Jit" Fish Sex Length: Tag Location: Tag Date: Sh oi1no so Male 440 mm Tule 1 < ikc 04/ 09/ 99 / Sucker Sump " H9" IA f tif( rtitiini / / i Kh< < 1- 1 . ri. l Mud FliitK 0 - 0 5 m 05 - 1 ni < SurfiKi 1 , - > 18m K V , , • l; , - n : , l , 5 , , , : . • „ • , '• • ' • • : ' k • ' s | ' ' ' s K i i. l I-. . . . tVu. I M i ^ ' ^ \ tbonn\ Wetl « nd « faiv « mor>. I . \ I A • » - i I M „, | i. Ih | || , , I M Figure 12. Movements of radio- marked sucker H9 on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 19 Tule Lake- Sucker Radio Telemetry - 1999 I- isii Lost River Sucker " 1 Sc\ Female Length: 775 mm Tag Location: Tule Lake Sump IA Tag Dale: 04/ 09/ 99 Mort. Date: ( Surface I* k^ atinn Tckmrtn: l.|| uk. I. K J y me l> I..: II> M K •-.•. I - I : . . , : Compkv • BPWS "' ••' Klmwlbl? ti » m A* MOffice I SBR IvckuioRv : \ atxin » l Wetlands biv « Mory. I > I / i < n k j f M U U l f i x • • • ' < • . • • Khri ( IM » tlr|> rh) Mat vh Wit I HI ii I LpbmJ Figure 13. Movements of radio- marked sucker 19 on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 20 Tule Lake- Sucker Radio Telemetry - 1999 Fish: I- osi River Sucker " P9" Sc\ Female Length: 7^ ' m m lag Location Anderson Rose Dam Tag Dale: 04/ 30/ 99 Mort. Date: ( Surface bk'talkm - 4UJ4. W) % mkm i .' i eraetn: |.| ikk* J. lkvl> « uui I) . . . . i - K '•.'. . - i . . r . . i . BMte Rvtug « , « ., .. . . - . M V . . Compk. i IPWa I « l.- . ll ,. t ,.. , , , | , , •. . „ ,. . | M i • E* K* gr° umi I K v H , ^ htaHml Wctl » nd » knvMori i -- I - s ^ • •• I •• I M i . , - It. > •—•• . i;-. i II . . i MWN Figure 14. Movements of radio- marked sucker P9 on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 21 Tule Lake- Sucker Radio Telemetry - 1999 Fish Lost River Sucker " i;(>" Sex Male Length: 556mm Tag Location Anderson Rose Dam Tag Date 05 05 w Mort. Date: ( Surface H o at ion - - MM4. W) • i • i n. t . i. ikJ^•. m..- I) . M. HV*. K Vi . • hnrnflh ii » m Hvfil^- '" I - I K ••. . I" K i r •• . M ... I MiM \-, ..,.•. \ , ,,.| v. , |,,.|. ( r. v : , f . l MH • . ! ., I M „ |. Figure 15. Movements of radio- marked sucker U9 on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 22 Tule Lake- Sucker Radio Telemetry - 1999 Fish: Lost River Sucker " W Sox: Male Leagth 486 mm \ AII Location; Anderson Rose Dam Tag Date: 05/ 05/ 99 Mort. Date: ( SurfiK- c Floaiiun 4 « . U. W| •• ' • •• ' • ; • ' ' ' ' I I I . . • 1. Bedu HI.- D . K V I " , I . < l: iMi; iTh : - i • : .1 MIK! KI. HH I - • • > • . • • \ 1 i i i v . v l . r i l - i r . v : • ! • . 1 • . . . 1 . • 1 \ | , , c 1. Figure 16. Movements of radio- marked sucker V9 on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 23 Tule Lake- Sucker Radio Telemetrv - 1999 Fish: Lost River Sticker " W(>" Sex: Male Length 594 nun I nil Location: Anderson Rose Dam Tag Date: 05/ 18/ 99 Meet. Date ( Surface H o at inn 4< i. U/) i » ') - ' • ' I ' : ' - ' • I Hid • i. Bcvl. v.' im: P . , i iikr. Klanwlh B* oi R< tu^ : . . r v . k v I M •'•- ' -*•• Mil - >•> • KlMmth IViim .\ wn 0 1 . . . I SBR g \ ^ m u l Wcllmls En^ :• r I ^ | V \ • • • I - i I M/ V. u- It; 1 ••••:•• .-.' II-. W Figure 17. Movements of radio- marked sucker W9 on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 24 Tule Lake- Sucker Radio Telemetry - 1999 Fish: Lost River Sucker " X9" Sex: Female Length 477 mm Tag Location; Anderson Rose Dam Tag Date: 05,1899 Mori. Date, suspected in June 1999 Hn i in Mat* h Will •. 1. fackn RadioTclenvtn; i. tfidbU. lkvk « ramLI>. r* Mmw « t K ','. . hmtdth B* m R^ UB* CompK- • n •'• • B % VJI < Kflb . I M i ,• h> tir> l Wetlands Envcntun. I SFft'S \ I , \ ' I K I I | , ... | s.| , \ s Figure 18. Movements of radio- marked sucker X9 on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 25 June - September - During this period, nearly all suckers ( particularly during July and August) could be found in the DH at the south central portion of Sump 1( A) ( Fig. 4). By connecting the outermost locations of approximately 90% of radio locations, the calculated area of the DH was 188 ha. Suckers using the DH were found in depths ranging from 1.0- 1.3 m ( 39- 50 in) ( Fig. 19). September - December - During this period suckers moved from the DH to the northwest corner of Sump 1( A). As of the writing of this report, ( February 15, 2000) the 13 remaining fish occupy the same area. Recruitment Surveys by Reclamation biologists for larval and juvenile suckers in the Lost River below Anderson- Rose Dam failed to document the presence young of the year fish. Below is a summary of surveys: Date 5/ 25/ 99 6/ 2/ 99 6/ 10/ 99 Result Searches for eggs in gravel below Anderson- Rose Dam revealed eggs in 4 of 5 sites, some of which were viable. Larval surveys conducted at 3 sites ( visual and dip net) from the dam to the wooden bridge were negative. Larval surveys conducted at 5 sites including the dam, 2 and 1 mile downstream, the wooden bridge, and East- West Road were negative. Larval surveys conducted at 2 sites downstream of dam were negative. Water quality pHBln general, pH values were less variable in the DH then areas outside this region ( Fig. 20). In all areas, median pH values remained below 9.5 until early June at which time values outside the DH were frequently above 10.0. pH values were particularly high (> 10.0) in late June through August in ESIB and NWS1A and periodically in the EC and WS1B. pH values in the DH and areas adjacent, remained below 10.0 through September; however, there was a gradual rise in pH values in DH sites from May through September. In late September and early October, DH pH values exceeded all other sites. rem/ reratareBTemperatures in all regions reached a peak in late July through early August with no discernible difference between DH or NDH sites ( Fig. 21). Dissolved oxvgenBDonut Hole sampling station s differed in dissolved oxygen characteristics relative to other areas of the sumps. During the June through August period DH sites ranged from 4.5 to 11.2 mg/ 1 while areas outside this region ranged from 1.1 mg/ 1 to 18.2 mg/ 1 ( Fig. 21). Toward November DH and NDH sites became similar DO dynamics ( Fig. 21). 26 Turbiditvllln general, turbidity values appeared greater in the DH versus areas outside, although some sites particularly in Sump 1( B) were quite variable particularly in June and July. This may have been due to the large amount of filamentous algae in Sump 1( B), potentially interfering with the measurement. Turbidity rose sharply at sites by late October and November ( Fig. 23- 24). 20 >• 1 5 O UJ a UJ DC 10 0 39 41 43 45 47 More DEPTH Figure 19. Water depth used by radio- marked suckers in the " Donut Hole" ( June- August), Tule Lake NWR. California. 27 BJll I U r S o I! Figure 20. pH data collected from " Donut Hole" and non- Donut Hole water quality sampling sites on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. Box and whisker plots represent the median, 25- 75* and 10- 90* percentiles, and outliers. 28 temp rC) S 2 £ ' I j 1 II i 9 E 9 S Figure 21. Water temperatures collected at " Donut Hole" and non- Donut Hole sites on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. Box and whisker plots represent the median, 25- 75^ and 10- 90^ percentiles, and outliers. 29 do ( mgfl) I do ( mg/ l) OP> !*• WKamm 01900 gGBM s ' S:' TP" » S i I ! if Figure 22. Dissolved oxygen concentrations at " Donut Hole" and non- Donut Hole sites on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. Box and whisker plots represent the median, 25- 75* and 10- 90* percentiles, and outliers. 30 260.0 -. 240.0 220.0 - 200 0 180.0 => 160.0 H 140.0 - z 120.0 100.0 - 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 n n - » NT" —•— Depth ( m) fc= _ 6/ 2 107.00 0.8 Donut Hole Northwest - — .^^^ 6/ 7 77.20 0.8 H •—-^^ ' '—^ 6/ 14 25.30 0.8 6/ 21 24.80 0.8 - 1.0 o o O CJl depth ( m) 260.0 -, 240.0 220 0 200.0 180.0 - 2 160.0 z 140.0 - 120.0 100.0 - 80.0 - 60.0 40.0 20 0 0.0 » NTU — a— Depth ( m) , •=— mmm •= « a 6/ 22 44.00 0.9 Donut Hole West — « — — » - 6/ 28 26.60 08 •— 7/ 6 19.90 08 . ^ m — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 7/ 13 25.70 0.8 • - _ — r- • 7/ 19 51.40 0.8 1.0 0.5 £ a. T3 0.0 260 0 240.0 - 220.0 - 200.0 - 180.0 i « n n _ H 140.0 - z 120 0 ^ 100.0 • 80 0 60.0 40.0 20.0 - u. u » NTU — m— Depth ( m) 6/ 22 93.70 0.8 6/ 28 95.40 0.7 Donut Hole East 7/ 6 72.70 0.7 7/ 13 32.30 0.7 —•'•"-""* 7/ 19 50.20 0.5 -*"— 7/ 28 62.50 0.8 8/ 2 73.30 0.8 \ ^ 8/ 10 18.55 0.8 8/ 19 50.20 0.8 8/ 25 22.20 0.8 8/ 31 58.67 0.7 \ 9/ 8 14.38 0.8 9/ 14 11.03 0.8 9/ 20 7.00 0.7 9/ 29 7.80 0.7 j / A - 10/ 25 51.00 0.7 t - fT u 11/ 23 210.00 0.6 1 0 - 0.5 JZ jepi - 0.0 Figure 23. Turbidity at " Donut Hole" sites on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, May to November 1999. 31 260.0 i 240.0 220.0 200.0 180.0 3 160.0 £ 140.0 - 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 » NTU —•— Depth ( m) • ^ 6/ 2 81.10 0.8 Donut Hole - — - ^ 6/ 7 49.20 0.8 — • 6/ 14 21.50 0.8 =— 1 6/ 21 24.80 0.8 r 1 0 o p d en depth ( m) 260 0 240.0 • 220.0 - 200.0 . 180.0 - K 160.0 • z 140.0 - 120.0 100.0 80.0 . 60.0 - 40.0 - 20.0 0.0 . t K » TII — a— Depth ( m) B — • 7/ 21 53.30 0.8 .— m-— 7/ 28 40.50 0.8 Donut Hole South _—• 8/ 2 56.80 0 9 » - ^ 8/ 10 17.13 0.9 *—• 8/ 18 19.70 0 8 8/ 25 21.73 0.9 ^ \ 8/ 31 64.90 0.8 9/ 8 21.27 0.8 9/ 14 20.80 0.8 9/ 20 29.97 0.8 ^ - • - ^ 9/ 29 49.30 0.8 / / 10/ 25 33.70 0.8 / / 11/ 23 170.00 0.7 1 0 o o d en depth ( m) Figure 23 ( cont.). Turbidity at " Donut Hole" sites on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, May- November, 1999. 32 260.0 -, 240.0 - 220.0 200.0 180.0 - 160.0 Z> 140.0 \ z 120.0 - z 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 - 0.0 *_ NTU • depth ( m) y 5/ 26 12.30 0.7 6/ 2 58.70 0.8 A- 6/ 7 20.30 0.9 / / 6/ 21 57.40 0.8 // A A\\ 6/ 28 239.0C 0.8 V\ East Sump 1B J s in 81.70 0.7 : / I 7/ 12 10.40 1.0 | A / \ J I s f 7/ 27 228.00 1.0 \ - V \ 8/ 2 88.00 0.8 8/ 10 40.00 0.9 8/ 18 38.17 0.8 8/ 31 11.30 0.7 9/ 9 7.00 0.7 9/ 14 6.17 0.7 9/ 20 5.83 0.7 • / 10/ 25 44.80 1.0 * 4-— \ ft . 11/ 23 186.00 0.5 1.0 ? e Q. 0.5 • 0.0 260.0 n 240.0 - 220.0 200.0 180.0 160.0 D 140.0 1— 120 0 z 100^ 0 80.0 60.0 An n 20.0 - 0.0 - —+— NTU —•— depth ( m) —•— 5/ 26 13.70 1.0 _, • —- « - 6/ 2 57.30 1.1 --•— ' \ 6/ 7 41.10 1.1 6/ 21 18.70 1.0 —•— / \ 6/ 28 138.0( 1.0 \ \ / ¥ West Sump 1B - . • — • / 7/ 7 ) 29.90 1.0 A \\ 7/ 12 88.90 1.0 k / \ / 7/ 27 19.00 0.9 / \ / \ 8/ 2 73.00 1.0 L \ \ 8/ 10 5.47 1.0 8/ 18 6.40 1.0 8/ 31 9.20 1.0 9/ 9 8.58 1.0 9/ 14 8.37 0.9 9/ 20 11.73 0.9 / / 10/ 25 39.50 0.7 f 11/ 23 85.00 0.8 1 5 sz Q. - 0 . 5 • - 0.0 260 0 240.0 220.0 - 200.0 - 180.0 160.0 3 140.0 t ; 120.0 100.0 80.0 - 60.0 An n . 20.0 0.0 » NT" — m— Depth ( m) 6/ 2 46.50 0.8 -~ « — 6/ 7 16.10 0.9 —•—. 6/ 14 39.00 0.8 / 6/ 22 9.71 0.8 English Channel Sump 1A 6/ 28 6.79 0.8 \ ^ _ 7/ 13 17.90 0.8 7/ 20 17.60 0.8 7/ 28 26.80 0.8 8/ 10 4.80 0.9 8/ 19 7.33 0.8 8/ 25 6.50 0.8 8/ 31 7.10 0.8 9/ 8 13.34 0.8 ==•== 9/ 20 15.50 0.8 J 9/ 29 22.60 0.7 — y / 10/ 25 98.70 0.8 11/ 23 146.00 0.8 1 5 - 1.0 — 0.5 - g 0.0 260 0 240.0 220 0 - 200.0 - 180.0 - 160.0 => 140.0 - £ 120.0 mnn . 60.0 40.0 - 20.0 u. u J •— NTU —•— Depth ( m) I 6/ 2 36.50 1.2 —•— 6 / 7 12.60 1.2 6/ 14 13.10 1.2 y 6/ 28 7.40 1.1 7/ 6 71.60 1.0 Northwest Sump 1A —•— 7/ 13 5.27 1.1 — » — —•— 7/ 19 28.50 1.1 7/ 28 20.50 1.2 8/ 2 32.10 1.2 ^- B—' 8/ 19 4.50 1.1 / 8/ 25 52.87 1.1 A ' \ 8/ 31 115.67 1.2 ="-•— \ —•*=; 9/ 8 4.10 1.1 1 4- 9/ 14 7.89 1.1 —•— J I \ 9/ 20 12.43 1.1 — « ^ 10/ 25 180.00 1.1 11/ 23 164.00 0.9 1 S d jpth ( m) • 0.5 - o - 0.0 Figure 24. Turbidity at non- Donut Hole sites on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 33 Discussion Water Quality The area of the DH was delineated from plotted June through September locations of radio-marked suckers ( approximately 188 ha.). The location of the DH could also be seen as an area of relatively turbid water from aerial photographs from August 1998 ( Fig. 25) as well as aerial photographs taken in 1984. It is possible that the combination of 2 factors may cause the observed turbidity in the DH. First, seeps or springs may be present in the area which result in more favorable water quality during summer which attracts suckers as well as other fish species to the area. The resultant concentration offish ( suckers and chubs) may stir the sediments during feeding activities, thereby creating the observed turbidity. The additional turbidity in the DH may inhibit light penetration and the production of algae, thereby reducing photo synthetically elevated pH and the extreme minimum and maximums in DO typical of may water bodies in the Klamath Basin including Tule Lake ( Dileanis et al. 1996). The rise in turbidity at all sites in fall is likely due to the break down of rooted aquatic vegetation which then allows for wind induced wave action to stir the sediments. Other than the DH, all other sites had dense concentrations of rooted aquatic plants and/ or filamentous green algae during summer. June to September DO and pH dynamics in the DH appeared different than at NDH sites ( Figs. 20 and 22). The difference was greatest in early summer with the difference becoming smaller by late summer and essentially disappearing by fall. Whether this water quality difference was a result of the more turbid waters or inflow from springs is unknown. However, attempts by Service hydrologists to model inflows, evapotranspiration, and outflows from the sumps have resulted in a positive imbalance of approximately 21,000 acre- feet of water from April through September. This positive imbalance is greatest in spring and early summer, gradually lessening by summer and essentially disappearing by fall ( Tim Mayer, pers. comm.). If this inflow is occurring, it may explain differences in summer water quality between DH and NDH sites. June to September water quality in the DH may be critical to the over summer survival of suckers in Tule Lake as pH and DO in NDH sites during summer often exceeded the tolerance limits for the fish. DO and pH levels at DH sites were less variable and did not reach the extremes that were reached in NDH sites. The lowest DO measured during June through September at DH sites were 4.83 mg/ 1 ( DHWEST) and 4.96 mg/ 1 ( DHEAST). DO and pH during summer from this study were similar to values collected by Reclamation in 1992 ( Table 3). Buettner and Scoppettone ( 1990) found juvenile suckers only where DO was above 4.5 mg/ 1. It is currently believed that adult suckers become stressed at DO levels below 4.0 mg/ 1 with mortality occurring at or below 2.0 mg/ 1 ( M. Buettner, pers. comm.). The relatively high over- summer survival of radio- marked suckers, compared to suckers radio- marked in Upper Klamath Lake ( M. Buettner, pers. comm), is further evidence of suitable summer water quality conditions in the DH on Tule Lake. 34 Figure 25. " Donut Hole" in Sump 1( A) of Tule Lake NWR. Note visible turbidity of area. 35 Table 3. Mean dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity, and temperature on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, July and August 1992. Data are from 2 sites; 1 site each in Sump 1( A) ( within the ADonut Hole@) and 1( B). All data were from 96 hour continuous readings from Hydrolabs. Data were collected at intervals of 1- 2 hours. ( Data summarized from U. S. Bureau of Reclamation). Site Sump 1( A) Sump ( IB) Depth ( M) < 0.5 0.51- 1.5 > 1.5 < 0.5 0.51- 1.5 > 1.5 pH (± SD) ( 1200- 1700 hrs) 9.32 ± 0.83 n= 81 9.22 ± 0.93 n= 26 8.30 ± 0.71 n= 10 9.65 + 0.44 n= 21 9.79 ± 0.45 n= 7 No data Temp ° C (± SD) ( 1200- 1700 hrs) 21.85 ± 2.84 n= 81 21.53 ± 2.46 n= 26 19.90 ± 1.59 n= 10 22.96+ 1.10 n= 21 22.11 ± 0.51 n= 7 No data Conductivity 500 ± 266 n= 81 598 ± 277 n= 26 859 ± 694 628 ± 148 n= 21 571 ± 74 n= 7 No data DO1 Oof 31 days - - 8 of 21 days - - 1 Proportion of monitored days having a minimum dissolved oxygen level below 5 mg/ 1. ( Data from U. S. Bureau of Reclamation) pH levels in the DH generally remained below 10.0 whereas non DH sites frequently exceeded 10.0 ( Fig. 19). Falter and Cech ( 1991) determined a maximum pH tolerance in shortnose suckers of 9.55+ 0.43 under laboratory conditions, levels generally exceeded in June - September at non DH sites and some DH sites in late summer. Buettner and Scoppettone ( 1990) found juvenile fish in Upper Klamath Lake largely at sites with pH < 9.0, as did Simon et al. ( 1996) in 1994. However, in 1995, Simon et al. ( 1996) found that most juvenile fish ( 54%) were captured in areas of higher pH (> 10.0). Laboratory studies indicate significant mortality of larval and juvenile fish at high pH values (> 9.55) ( Falter and Cech 1991) and 9.92- 10.46 ( Bellerud and Saiki 1995). Previous water quality and fish health studies on the refuge determined that water quality conditions were stressful to aquatic life and was resulting in a high ( up to 37%) proportion offish with deformities ( Dileanis et al. 1996), however, studies of sucker ecology in Tule Lake have indicated that individual fish in the lake have a high condition factor and are free of external parasites ( Scoppettone and Buettner 1995). Bennet ( 1994) recognized this apparent inconsistency, stating, A... the observation that Tule Lake suckers are in better physical condition than Upper Klamath Lake suckers indicates that certain areas of the aquatic system may be of particular importance for the recovery of those species. ® In the case of Tule Lake this Acertain area@ is likely the DH.. Suckers in Tule Lake may be in good condition because of their limited population size, the abundant food resources in this lake, and adequate water quality ( in the DH) to survive the summer period. 36 Sucker movements Although, suckers were relatively sedentary during most periods of the year, they exhibited the ability to make long distance moves in relatively short periods of time, particularly during the April spawning period. The northwest corner of Sump 1( A) receives about 90% of the inflow from the Lost River and spring winds on Tule Lake tend to move large quantities of water through the AEnglish Channels back and forth between Sump 1( A) and 1( B). This movement of water at both locations may explain the movement of fish observed in April and May. Suckers may be attracted to both locations when seeking spawning habitat in spring. Recruitment During the April marking period, most captured suckers appeared to be physiologically ready to spawn; however, only one fish moved into the river. Of 10 radio- marked fish monitored by Reclamation in 1993- 95 no fish attempted to run the Lost River. This low proportion offish that attempt to spawn may have one or several causes or a combination, including: 1. Stress of handling and implanting radio- transmitters so close to the spawning season may prevent fish from becoming reproductively active. 2. Under normal conditions, only a small proportion of Tule Lake suckers may attempt to spawn in any particular year. 3. Flow conditions in or at the mouth of the Lost River may be inadequate to draw the fish into the river. 4. A shallow bar (< 0.3 m) of deposited silt exists between the lake and the mouth of the river which may form a physical barrier to the fish. At the present time, a mandated flow of 30 cfs is released below Anderson- Rose Dam to provide spawning habitat at the Dam. Although this flow is intended to provide suitable spawning conditions at the Dam, these flows may be inadequate to entice fish into the river. It is likely that the historic spring flows in the Lost River were many times higher than current regulated flows. However, given that the fish are largely unsuccessful in spawning and risk additional mortality traversing the river, adult survival may be enhanced by remaining in the lake. Scoppettone and Buettner ( 1995) also observed no radio- marked fish from Clear Lake to move into Willow Creek during the spring spawning period. In this case the authors attributed this result to either capture stress or low stream flows during spring. 37 Habitat use Although the DH is relatively shallow relative to other areas of Tule Lake, use of the DH may be mandatory to ensure over- summer survival. Although deeper waters are available to the fish, especially in the northwest corner of Sump 1( A), DO levels, in particular, likely preclude their use. Suckers did not move out of the DH until October when DO levels began to rise with cooler water temperatures. Although, Sump 1( B) contained suitable water depths and water quality conditions in fall, no suckers were located in this area. It is possible that suckers may prefer not to pass through the pipes connecting the Sumps or the proximity and flow from the Lost River in the northwest corner of Sump 1( A) may make this area more attractive as an over- winter habitat area. The relative lack of water depth in the DH as well as other areas of the sumps is becoming of increasing concern because of the loss of water depth through sedimentation. If suckers require a minimum of 3 ft of water, as is current believed ( M. Buettner, pers. comm.), current rates of sedimentation in the sumps threaten the future suitability of Tule Lake for suckers. Based on a comparison of bathymetric surveys conducted by Reclamation in 1958 and again in 1986, sedimentation has been steadily reducing the water holding capacity of both sumps. Between the 1958 and 1986 surveys ( 28 years), Sump 1( A) has lost 22.4% of its water capacity and Sump 1( B) has lost 30.8% of its capacity due to sedimentation. This would indicate a total mean sedimentation of 11.8 inches over this time period ( U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, unpubl. rep). Over the last several years, an attempt has been made to store additional water in Tule Lake during summer by raising water levels above 4034.60 ft. This increase in water elevations ( between 4034.60 and 4034.90 ft) has somewhat mitigated the loss of depth through sedimentation. However, without reinforcing and raising the levees around the sumps, there is a limit as to how high water elevations can rise. At elevation 4035.50 ft., operating regulations require breaching the sumps into overflow areas ( Sump 2 or 3). Although increased summer operating levels may assist the fish, they may also increase the risk of a flood event requiring the breaching of the sumps with potentially negative impacts to the fish. Acknowledgements The authors are indebted to fisheries biologist from the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Project, especially M. Buettner, B. Peck, and M. Green whom provided and surgically implanted radio transmitters, captured adult suckers, located fish from fixed wing aircraft, and assisted with study design. K. Miller from Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge collected telemetry, water quality, and GPS data and ensured all data were collected and coordinated consistent with study design. T. Mayer provide training in the calibration, deployment, and downloading of data from the hydrolabs and assisted with interpretation of water quality data. 38 Personnel Communications Buettner, M., Fisheries Biologist, U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Project Office, 6600 Washburn Way, Klamath Falls, Oregon. Mayer, T., Hydrologist, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland Regional Office, Lloyd Center, Portland, Oregon. Literature Cited Bellerud, B., and M. K. Saiki. 1995. Tolerance of larval and juvenile Lost River and shortnose suckers to high ph, ammonia concentration, and temperature, and to low dissolved oxygen concentration, National Biological Service, California Pacific Science Center, Dixon 103pp. Bennett, J. K. 1994. Bioassessment of irrigation drain water effects on aquatic resources in the Klamath Basin of California and Oregon. Ph. D Dissertation. University of Washington, Seattle. 197pp. Buettner, M. E., and G. Scoppettone. 1990. Life history and status of catostomids in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. National Fisheries Research Center, Reno Field Station, Reno, Nevada, 108pp. Coots, M. 1965. Occurrences of the Lost River sucker, Deltistes luxatus ( Cope), and shortnose sucker, Chasmistes brevirostris ( Cope), in Northern California. Calif. Fish and Game 51: 68- 73. Dileanis, P. D., S. K. Schwarzbach, and J. K. Bennett. 1996. Detailed study of water quality, bottom sediment, and biota associated with irrigation drainage in the Klamath Basin, California and Oregon, 1990- 92. U. S. Geological Survey, Water- Resources Investigations Report 95- 4232, 68pp. Falter, M. A., and J. J. Cech. 1991. Maximum pH tolerance of three Klamath Basin fishes. Copia 4: 1109- 1 111. Simon, D. C, G. R. Hoff, D. J. Logan, and D. F. Markle. 1996. Larval and juvenile ecology of Upper Klamath Lake suckers. Annual Report: 1995, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. 60pp. 39 Scoppettone, G. G., and M. E. Buettner. 1995. Information on population dynamics and life history of shortnose suckers ( Chasmistes brevirostris) and Lost River suckers ( Deltistes luxatus) in Tule and Clear Lakes. U. S. Geological Survey, Reno Field Station, Reno, Nevada. 79pp. U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1998. Lost River and shortnose sucker spawning in Lower Lost River, Oregon, U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Falls, Oregon. 1 lpp. . 1993. Lost River { Deltistes luxatus) and shortnose { Chasmistes brevirostris) Sucker Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon 108pp. Hydrolab Corporation. 1997. DataSondeR 4 and MiniSondeR water quality multiprobes, users manual. Hydrolab Corp., Austin, Texas. Title: Ecology of shortnose and Lost River suckers in Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California : progress report, April - November 1999 Author: Hicks, Lisa A.; Mauser, David M.; Beckstrand, John; Thomson, Dani Year: 2000, 2005 Ecology of shortnose and Lost River suckers in Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, Progress Report, April - November 1999 Lisa A. Hicks, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge, Route 1, Box 74, Tulelake, CA 96134 David M. Mauser, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge, Route 1, Box 74, Tulelake, CA 96134 John Beckstrand, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge, Route 1, Box 74, Tulelake, CA 96134 Dani Thomson, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge, Route 1, Box 74, Tulelake, CA 96134 Introduction The Lost River ( Deltistes luxatus) and shortnose ( Chasmistes brevirostris) suckers were federally listed as endangered species on July 18, 1988 ( Federal Register 53: 27130- 27134). Both sucker species are relatively long- lived, have a limited geographic range, and are endemic to the Upper Klamath Basin of Northern California and Southern Oregon. Habitat degradation from water diversions and loss of riparian and wetlands habitats associated with agricultural development within their historic range is believed to be the major reason for the species decline ( U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). A more detailed description on the life history, habitat requirements, and causes of decline of the species can be found in the Lost River and Shortnose Sucker Recovery Plan ( U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge ( NWR), established in 1928, consists of 2 return flow sumps ( Sump 1( A) and 1( B)) totaling 13,000 acres surrounded by 17,000 acres of intensively farmed lands ( Fig. 1). The refuge and surrounding private agricultural lands occupy the historic lake bed of Tule Lake, a 95,000 acre lake and marsh area that was reclaimed in the early 1900fs as part of the Klamath Reclamation Project. Current management of the refuge is directed by the Kuchel Act of 1964 which mandates the refuge be managed for the major purpose of waterfowl management but with optimal agricultural use that is consistent therewith. Both sumps are shallow ( 0.1 - 2.0 m) and consist of approximately 10,500 acres of open water with a 2,500 acre shallow (< 0.1 m) emergent marsh at the northeast corner of Sump 1( A). Tule Lake has been identified as a potential refugia for both sucker species ( U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). Tule T like National Wildlife Sump 3 Lease lands Field . Station Cocbetative Fanning Fields Area J Lease Lands Sump 2 I ease I , ands Figure 1. Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California. During winter, water within the sumps is comprised primarily of local runoff and during summer water is comprised primarily of irrigation return flows, originating from Upper Klamath Lake. Summer water quality in the sumps is similar to other water bodies within the Upper Klamath Basin and is considered hypereutrophic ( Dileanis et al. 1996). Water quality problems include low dissolved oxygen ( DO) and high hydrogen ion concentrations ( pH) and unionized ammonia. Water quality in the Tule Lake sumps is directly affected by hypereutrophic conditions in Upper Klamath Lake ( U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). Studies conducted after publication of the Shortnose and Lost River Sucker Recovery Plan indicate that Tule Lake contains an estimated 159 ( 95% CI = 48- 289) shortnose and 105 ( 95% CI = 25- 175) Lost River suckers ( Scoppetone and Buettner 1995). Confidence intervals for these estimates are large because of small sample sizes and low rates of recapture. Recruitment rates for the Tule Lake population via spawning below Anderson- Rose Dam is low with significant larval production occurring only in 1995 ( monitoring occurred 1991- 99) ( M. Buettner, pers. comm). Entrainment from the irrigation system is likely the largest source offish for Tule Lake ( U. S. Bureau of Reclamation 1998). Both species of suckers in Tule lake are in good physical condition relative to fish in Clear Lake and Upper Klamath Lake with Tule Lake fish being generally heavier and exhibiting few if any problems with parasites or lamprey. ( Scoppetone and Buettner 1995). U. S. Bureau of Reclamation ( Reclamation) biologists tracked 10 radio- marked suckers in Tule Lake from 1993- 95. From these studies, specific use areas by time period were identified with over 99% of radio locations occurring in Sump 1( A). Of particular importance from these studies was identification of an over- summer site in the south central region of Sump 1( A) termed the ADonut Hole# ( DH). In early 1999, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( Service) proposed a wetland enhancement project on the 3,500 acre Sump 1( B). The project was designed to improve habitat for waterfowl and other associated wetland species as well as improve water quality through the conversion of Sump 1( B) from an open body of shallow water to an emergent year- round flooded wetland. The primary mechanism to create the desired habitat condition is a series of annual spring/ summer drawdowns thereby creating conditions suitable for germination of desired emergent plant species. Of principal concern in developing the project was the potential effects on suckers within the sumps. Because of the proximity of both sucker species in adjacent Sump 1( A), a project monitoring plan was developed to ascertain the potential effects of the Sump 1( B) Project on suckers and water quality. Our monitoring design benefitted from studies of water quality and sucker movements by Reclamation biologists from 1992- 95. This report summarizes findings of the first year= s pre- project monitoring effort ( April- December, 1999) relative to water quality and movements of radio- marked suckers. Objectives 1. Describe seasonal distribution and movement patterns of both sucker species in Tule Lake NWR and determine if fish movements have changed since initial studies by Reclamation biologists in 1993- 95. 2. Characterize water quality, in space and time, of areas used by adult suckers compared to areas which are not used. 3. Document and describe movements of radio- marked suckers to spawning areas below Anderson- Rose dam. 4. Determine whether recruitment of larvae and juvenile was occurring below Anderson- Rose Dam. Methods Monitoring radio- marked adult suckers In April and May, 1999, Reclamation biologists captured 14 suckers and surgically implanted radio- transmitters ( ATS, Isanti, MN) having a projected battery life of 12 months. Each transmitter had an external antennae that exited the body cavity near the lateral line of the fish. Eleven Lost River and 3 shortnose suckers were captured using trammel nets at the northwest corner of Sump 1( A) ( 9 fish) and immediately downstream of Anderson- Rose Dam on the Lost River ( 5 fish) ( Table 1). We located radio- marked fish via air thrust boats using a scanning receiver and 4- element yagi antennae. Fish were located fish 4 times/ month during March and April, 2 times/ month from May through September, and once per month from October through December. Fish not located via boat were located from fixed wing aircraft. We determined fish locations by moving as close as possible to undisturbed fish and recording locations with a Global Positioning System ( GPS). All GPS positions consisted of 180 rover points/ location and were differentially corrected via post processing software ( PFinder ver. 2.11). We recorded depth information at each fish location. To determine timing and duration of the spawning migration, we monitored radio-marked fish from vehicles on the east levee of the Lost River downstream of Anderson- Rose Dam. Table 1. Data from Lost River and shortnose suckers captured on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California and Anderson- Rose Dam, Oregon in 1999. RADIO TAG 165.043 165.063 165.073 165.103 165.084 165.094 164.641 164.863 164.494 164.854 165.054 164.845 164.763 164.914 CAPTURE DATE 4/ 2/ 99 4/ 2/ 99 4/ 2/ 99 4/ 2/ 99 4/ 2/ 99 4/ 2/ 99 4/ 9/ 99 4/ 2/ 99 4/ 9/ 99 4/ 30/ 99 5/ 5/ 99 5/ 5/ 99 5/ 18/ 99 5/ 18/ 99 CAPTURE LOCATION TULELAKE SUMP1A TULELAKE SUMP 1A TULELAKE SUMP 1A TULELAKE SUMP 1A TULELAKE SUMP1A TULELAKE SUMP 1A TULELAKE SUMP1A TULELAKE SUMP1A TULELAKE SUMP 1A ANDERSON ROSE DAM ANDERSON ROSE DAM ANDERSON ROSE DAM ANDERSON ROSE DAM ANDERSON ROSE DAM SPECIES LOST RIVER LOST RIVER LOST RIVER SHORTNOSE SHORTNOSE LOST RIVER SHORTNOSE LOST RIVER LOST RIVER LOST RIVER LOST RIVER LOST RIVER LOST RIVER LOST RIVER SEX FEMALE FEMALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE FEMALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE FEMALE MALE MALE MALE FEMALE WEIGHT NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA 2830 g 1040 g 5260 g NO DATA 2214 g 1542g 2350 g 1811 g FORK LENGTH 777 mm 681 mm 754 mm 473 mm 523 mm 754 mm 544 mm 440 mm 775 mm 753 mm 556 mm 486 mm 594 mm 477 mm PIT TAG NO. 1F3E34432C 1F39064959 1F4C5A6754 1F07315752 1F31462743 1F4C5A6754 1F3726750F 1F36490062 1F37103466 1F390F1801 1F3E2A7702 1F36443235 1F30753309 1F390E6B2F Recruitment Reclamation biologists conducted larval and juvenile sucker surveys during May and June by sampling, visually and with dip nets, the emergent vegetation at the periphery of the Lost River downstream of Anderson- Rose Dam. Egg viability surveys were conducted in the gravel sediments immediately below the dam in May. Water quality We preselected water quality sampling sites ( Fig. 2, Table 2) in Sump 1( A) to correspond to adult sucker use areas as determined by studies of radio- marked adult suckers conducted by Reclamation in 1993- 95 ( Fig. 3). We selected 2 sites in Sump 1( B) which met or exceeded the minimum depth requirement (> 3ft) for both sucker species ( M. Buettner, pers. comm.) after referring to 1986 bathymetric maps. We attempted to obtain data from each site twice/ month. We moved 2 sample sites ( Donut Hole and Donut Hole Northwest) early in the summer and 1 site ( Donut Hole West) ( Fig. 2) during mid- summer to better represent summer use locations of radio- marked fish. From May through November, we measured water quality parameters ( dissolved oxygen ( DO), hydrogen ion concentration ( pH), and temperature (° C)) using DataSonde 3, 4 and 4a= s ( Hydrolab Corp., Austin, Texas) ( hereafter referred to as Hydrolabs) 26 cm ( 12 in) above the sediment. We suspended Hydrolabs, within PVC tubes, from metal fence posts driven into the sediment. Data were collected hourly over a 96 hr period at each monitoring site. We downloaded data from Hydrolabs using the Hyperterminal software package v. 690170 to a personal computer. Unit probes were cleaned and calibrated according to Hydrolab guidelines ( Hydrolab Corporation 1997) and local geographic standards. Using the same deployment schedule as with our Hydrolabs, we sampled turbidity at each site using a Portable Turbidimeter model 21 OOP ( Hach Corp., P. O. Box 389, Loveland, CO 80539). We collected water samples 27 cm ( 12 in) above the sediment at each sample site. We measured turbidity in NTUs, following the guidelines in the product manual and we measured water depth using a hand- crafted wooden pole, marked in measured increments. We summarized water quality data using Microsoft 8 EXCEL software v. 97 SR- 1 and SPSS for Windows release 9.0.0. Because of the apparent difference in summer water quality in the DH versus other sampling sites, data were summarized as DH sites and Non- DH ( NDH) sites. Tule Lake NWR Water Quality Monitoring 1999 MfSVTHOLE \ OKTIIH ' w Background Hvdrolon> Luke m Mudflats Uplands X Water Vionitonny Stations ( Hydrolafa sites) MK ker Radio \ ckmcin L. Hicks. D. .1 Beckitraod, K Miller, USFWS Background HydfOlOf} Sat'I Wetlands Invcnlon LSI Sh S Map Projection UTMZCM IO, WGS-* 4 By: L. Hkks. USFWSUSBR 02/ 00 i Figure 2. Water quality sample sites, Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 8 Table 2. Characteristics of water quality sampling sites, Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Tulelake, California, 1999. SITE NAME NORTHWEST SUMP 1A DONUT HOLE NORTHWEST DONUT HOLE WEST DONUT HOLE SOUTH DONUT HOLE DONUT HOLE EAST ENGLISH CHANNEL WEST SUMP IB EAST SUMP IB PUMP 10 SUMP 1A2 SITE ABBREVIATION NWS1A DHNWSlAor DHNW DHWEST DHSOUTH DHSlAorDH DHEAST ECSlAorEC WS1B ES1B PMP10 UTM N 4642199 4638316 4638881 4638144 4637299 4639024 4634604 4634153 4633948 4636635 UTME 620803 620542 321022 621355 621475 621971 625041 636647 628835 624748 DEPTH of MONITORING SITE ( m) 1 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.5 1 Depth of water at deployment 2 Pump 10 data will not be discussed in this document. Results Radio- marked suckers We located fish 231 times in locations similar to those determined by Reclamation biologists in 1993- 95 ( Figs 3- 4). Lost River and shortnose suckers did not appear to differentiate use of the sump by species; we located both species intermixed throughout the monitoring period. With the exception DH and DHNW ( Fig. 2), water quality sampling sites were close to seasonal sucker use areas. Of 14 suckers marked, mortality occurred in only 1 fish. A Lost River sucker (# X9) was tagged on 18 May at the Anderson Rose Dam; she was not located again until 23 days later on 9 June. From 9 June to 17 November, # X9 was located by signal within approximately 15 m of the original location based on the location data. It is likely that this fish died in early June within 2- 3 weeks of being radio- marked. It is unknown if this mortality was related to the stress of handling and marking or some other cause. April - May - In April- May, a period of maximum fish movements ( Figs. 5- 18), most suckers congregated in the AEnglish Channel ® between the sumps with a scattering offish located between the northwest corner of Sump 1( A) and the AEnglish Channel ® ( Fig. 4). Only 1 fish radio- marked in Tule Lake moved into the Lost River. This particular fish, a female shortnose sucker (# G9) was radio- marked in the northwest corner of Tule Lake on 9 April, was located in the AEnglish Channel ® on 14 April, and subsequently was located in Lost River below Anderson Rose Dam on 29 April and 6 May. Tule Lake Sucker Radio Telemetry \ pril 1993 - \! a> 1995 Hi tckwtstmd H) drohgy mm Marth/ Wi'lhiml • • River I Sucker Locations o Jan - Mar & Apr - May ° Jim - Sep • O t t - l h i 1 I . . . . . . ydtOl Ig) -: i '•'•, l: i M h - c .1 J I SI WS UtoBiihywwUy KkmrtiiB ••. iraOffia MapPinoiccii.- i rM2oni VM, S- » 4 • HJ I-. IKKV USffW& n SBB Figure 3. Locations of radio- marked suckers from studies conducted by U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1993- 1995. 10 Tule Lake NWR Sucker Radio Telemetry April - December 1999 Oregon California [ Sump 1A Background Hydrology J Lake Uplands SOcker Locations • Apr May o Jun - Sep • Oc! - Dec | Qanuthole area = * 466 acres ( manually est from fish bca Suckei EUdiQ Tdctrcter: L Hi cks, D TtccnsDn, : Nati Wedatd^ Inventory. USTWS i t Hi cfa, usFwsnrsBH o 2/ 00 Figure 4. Locations of radio- marked suckers on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 11 Tule Lake- Sucker Radio Telemetr> - 1999 MMti « phrnl Fish: Lost River Sucker " A9" Sex Female Length: 777 mm fag I ocation I ulc I ; ike Sump IA Tai: Dare: 04/ 02 99 Vlort. Date: 3 - O 5 ni 0 5 - 1 ni ( Surface Fixation - 4034.9( 1') Lain' ihpth 1 - 15m Itydrolah tUm » t tm fcdarl .' i rein: l. llni. i. Becb- rmc l^ . I M I ^ I V I M . Kl; nn: nli limm Xvtup,- :, rr, k, I M •'• - \ * e BMb% « ldry KIWWHI I t em ,^ wnOi-... I SB I Background Hy* » : 4.. .. , „ | WCIIWKIJ faivewior^. I'SI A S >• • ••• i •• i MZcne IC ' •..-• .: i;% i n . , i s , u s Figure 5. Movements of radio- marked sucker A9 on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 12 Tule Lake- Sucker Radio Telemetry ~- 1999 Hsh ], ost River Sucker"! Sc\ Female Length: UK] mm Tag Location [ We Lake Sump IA IML Dace U4/ O? W Mort Date: • i Khrr( m » depth) • 1 Mwrvl. Will. 1.1,1 I |- l Muil I t * 3 - O 5 m 0 5 - t rn ( Surtax i: Nation - 4O34. W) flyJrttlaff SiKker RacfcTclemdn: I. IliduU. Bccks CompK. i BFW8 I. a.- Mil ,. l klmulklfaun \ « » OI.. . I MM Background llyfrotogv \ « bonB| W ctlands inv « « or., U8FWS Map IVv^ vi ... i M ,. !• ' ••"• . I:-. | || ... i JFWS Figure 6. Movements of radio- marked sucker B9 on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 13 Tule Lake- Sucker Radio Telemetry - 1999 Fidi Lost River Sucker * C9" Sex Male Length: 619 mm Tag Location I ule Lake Sump IA Fag Date: M/ 02 w VIon. Date: { Surface Fixation - 4II34. W) tiat- ttffawmf th- frohf(\ • • Khii i> nJv|> th) H i \ iM, vh\ wtl,..., i UplniKi Lak mm MU. I n. i 3 - 0 5 ni 0 5 - 1 ru • I n kaAo Tckwdn: LHkfcaJ. Beduimd P HMUWM K V'l « • .|: I- II: I-| I I n i ii Cwnpk. I 8FWS Klmwil.[ ten< •• . : M . . . I M : mind I l > * o t i c \ Ntttaaal Wetlands Inventory* I ^| •.!•••• • • . • I -. I \ | . , K 1 1 . i •• » •• -; !:•• I II . I SFWS r Mil . Figure 7. Movements of radio- marked sucker C9 on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 14 Tule Lake- Sucker Radio Telemetry - 1999 Haf kgnm n BB Rh « ' i MM. Fish Shortnose Sucker " l) l>" Sex Male Length: 473 nun ail Location: I ale Lake Sump IA Tag Date 04/ 02/ 99 Mort. Date: I Surface Fixation - 41> 34. lW) /....'.:• Depth Mi, I lbtx 0- OSm ^ ^ 0 5 - 1 rti - I - ' I •' • • ' ' • I HkfcU. lUbrxilHil) I ! . . . ! - . K Mil M KlttiHtfiBttk K « Aig « : . , - , - , L . I M ''. •• Ifydrolah Kit,-* i., i.- . il ... (.. , , , i , , •. . ; „ , . . , M ! - U a d ^ r t w n d ! ! > * • ••'• • t n | XVctinjKlt [ mcTrt « . T\. • SFWS I • • . . • • , , • l:% | n ...... i M A S * £*> Figure 8. Movements of radio- marked sucker D9 on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 15 Tule Lake- Sucker Radio Telemetry - 1999 Fish Shortnose Sucker T39" Sc\ Female Length: 523 mm rag Location I ule I ake Sump IA rag Date M/ 02 w Date: • 1.1 I i) I 1-.. 1 • | i i . . I. llcct. M m i l l ) ] Compl- • ' "* I '• S 5> NJUOIWI Wetlands b i v c m u r y I IS I » S • ••• I " I ••. l/. nc It. i . . . : - . , ' II-. | || ..... Figure 9. Movements of radio- marked sucker E9 on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 16 Tule Lake- Sucker Radio Telemetry - 1999 Fish Lost River Sucker " IV Sc\ female Length: 754 mm Tag Location Tule Lake Sump 1A * rag Date 040; 99 Vkirt Date: ( Surface Fixation - 4( 134.90') Hat ground Hydrology U • : • • Rhtr< iM » < Jvpfh) • iM.., lll » r • i M. tvh\ VHl,, na 0.0,5m Uphml » 0S- 1rt. 1 - 1 5 IT » 1 £ m fackcrRadk> 1 r .. In: UfisfcaJ. Ikvkwjjjui P » •, K V, 1 • l: m: rli M a Jfcflifc* CorapUv I IFWS Uydrolth sit,- s i , i t \ t, il*> m. f n Klmwlh tfewn .\ wn < » flfa . I SBR K o t o ^ : \ ai,,, na| Wctljmd* bivcm^ f • I SFWS Map hV^ vl .. . I MZpftClO Cony aid I;-, i n , . UWTOS Figure 10. Movements of radio- marked sucker F9 on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 17 Tule Lake- Sucker Radio Telemetry - 1999 Fish Shortnose Sucker " Q9" I cm ale Length: 544mm I. IL1 Location Tule Lake Sump IA * rag Date 04/ 09/ 99 Mori ( Surface rloaliun - I II . . I. \'-.-\-- m.' I-K V i ! l • l : n i : r l l ! - i i : ii : . r , : . | , . I s|\ VS KlmuHi Btom Aivs 4 M1K. I SBR \ j i > i m l Wetlands invcnlon i 5FWS M. « ;. ' - . . I - . I M / . „ . • | » . I II , • I SFWS BB Ki^ i imi M \ hrvh\\ ilhiml Upland Lais Otfttk MuiJ Hals Figure 11. Movements of radio- marked sucker G9 on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 18 Tule Lake- Sucker Radio Telemetry ~ 1999 • Jit" Fish Sex Length: Tag Location: Tag Date: Sh oi1no so Male 440 mm Tule 1 < ikc 04/ 09/ 99 / Sucker Sump " H9" IA f tif( rtitiini / / i Kh< < 1- 1 . ri. l Mud FliitK 0 - 0 5 m 05 - 1 ni < SurfiKi 1 , - > 18m K V , , • l; , - n : , l , 5 , , , : . • „ • , '• • ' • • : ' k • ' s | ' ' ' s K i i. l I-. . . . tVu. I M i ^ ' ^ \ tbonn\ Wetl « nd « faiv « mor>. I . \ I A • » - i I M „, | i. Ih | || , , I M Figure 12. Movements of radio- marked sucker H9 on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 19 Tule Lake- Sucker Radio Telemetry - 1999 I- isii Lost River Sucker " 1 Sc\ Female Length: 775 mm Tag Location: Tule Lake Sump IA Tag Dale: 04/ 09/ 99 Mort. Date: ( Surface I* k^ atinn Tckmrtn: l.|| uk. I. K J y me l> I..: II> M K •-.•. I - I : . . , : Compkv • BPWS "' ••' Klmwlbl? ti » m A* MOffice I SBR IvckuioRv : \ atxin » l Wetlands biv « Mory. I > I / i < n k j f M U U l f i x • • • ' < • . • • Khri ( IM » tlr|> rh) Mat vh Wit I HI ii I LpbmJ Figure 13. Movements of radio- marked sucker 19 on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 20 Tule Lake- Sucker Radio Telemetry - 1999 Fish: I- osi River Sucker " P9" Sc\ Female Length: 7^ ' m m lag Location Anderson Rose Dam Tag Dale: 04/ 30/ 99 Mort. Date: ( Surface bk'talkm - 4UJ4. W) % mkm i .' i eraetn: |.| ikk* J. lkvl> « uui I) . . . . i - K '•.'. . - i . . r . . i . BMte Rvtug « , « ., .. . . - . M V . . Compk. i IPWa I « l.- . ll ,. t ,.. , , , | , , •. . „ ,. . | M i • E* K* gr° umi I K v H , ^ htaHml Wctl » nd » knvMori i -- I - s ^ • •• I •• I M i . , - It. > •—•• . i;-. i II . . i MWN Figure 14. Movements of radio- marked sucker P9 on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 21 Tule Lake- Sucker Radio Telemetry - 1999 Fish Lost River Sucker " i;(>" Sex Male Length: 556mm Tag Location Anderson Rose Dam Tag Date 05 05 w Mort. Date: ( Surface H o at ion - - MM4. W) • i • i n. t . i. ikJ^•. m..- I) . M. HV*. K Vi . • hnrnflh ii » m Hvfil^- '" I - I K ••. . I" K i r •• . M ... I MiM \-, ..,.•. \ , ,,.| v. , |,,.|. ( r. v : , f . l MH • . ! ., I M „ |. Figure 15. Movements of radio- marked sucker U9 on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 22 Tule Lake- Sucker Radio Telemetry - 1999 Fish: Lost River Sucker " W Sox: Male Leagth 486 mm \ AII Location; Anderson Rose Dam Tag Date: 05/ 05/ 99 Mort. Date: ( SurfiK- c Floaiiun 4 « . U. W| •• ' • •• ' • ; • ' ' ' ' I I I . . • 1. Bedu HI.- D . K V I " , I . < l: iMi; iTh : - i • : .1 MIK! KI. HH I - • • > • . • • \ 1 i i i v . v l . r i l - i r . v : • ! • . 1 • . . . 1 . • 1 \ | , , c 1. Figure 16. Movements of radio- marked sucker V9 on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 23 Tule Lake- Sucker Radio Telemetrv - 1999 Fish: Lost River Sticker " W(>" Sex: Male Length 594 nun I nil Location: Anderson Rose Dam Tag Date: 05/ 18/ 99 Meet. Date ( Surface H o at inn 4< i. U/) i » ') - ' • ' I ' : ' - ' • I Hid • i. Bcvl. v.' im: P . , i iikr. Klanwlh B* oi R< tu^ : . . r v . k v I M •'•- ' -*•• Mil - >•> • KlMmth IViim .\ wn 0 1 . . . I SBR g \ ^ m u l Wcllmls En^ :• r I ^ | V \ • • • I - i I M/ V. u- It; 1 ••••:•• .-.' II-. W Figure 17. Movements of radio- marked sucker W9 on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 24 Tule Lake- Sucker Radio Telemetry - 1999 Fish: Lost River Sucker " X9" Sex: Female Length 477 mm Tag Location; Anderson Rose Dam Tag Date: 05,1899 Mori. Date, suspected in June 1999 Hn i in Mat* h Will •. 1. fackn RadioTclenvtn; i. tfidbU. lkvk « ramLI>. r* Mmw « t K ','. . hmtdth B* m R^ UB* CompK- • n •'• • B % VJI < Kflb . I M i ,• h> tir> l Wetlands Envcntun. I SFft'S \ I , \ ' I K I I | , ... | s.| , \ s Figure 18. Movements of radio- marked sucker X9 on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 25 June - September - During this period, nearly all suckers ( particularly during July and August) could be found in the DH at the south central portion of Sump 1( A) ( Fig. 4). By connecting the outermost locations of approximately 90% of radio locations, the calculated area of the DH was 188 ha. Suckers using the DH were found in depths ranging from 1.0- 1.3 m ( 39- 50 in) ( Fig. 19). September - December - During this period suckers moved from the DH to the northwest corner of Sump 1( A). As of the writing of this report, ( February 15, 2000) the 13 remaining fish occupy the same area. Recruitment Surveys by Reclamation biologists for larval and juvenile suckers in the Lost River below Anderson- Rose Dam failed to document the presence young of the year fish. Below is a summary of surveys: Date 5/ 25/ 99 6/ 2/ 99 6/ 10/ 99 Result Searches for eggs in gravel below Anderson- Rose Dam revealed eggs in 4 of 5 sites, some of which were viable. Larval surveys conducted at 3 sites ( visual and dip net) from the dam to the wooden bridge were negative. Larval surveys conducted at 5 sites including the dam, 2 and 1 mile downstream, the wooden bridge, and East- West Road were negative. Larval surveys conducted at 2 sites downstream of dam were negative. Water quality pHBln general, pH values were less variable in the DH then areas outside this region ( Fig. 20). In all areas, median pH values remained below 9.5 until early June at which time values outside the DH were frequently above 10.0. pH values were particularly high (> 10.0) in late June through August in ESIB and NWS1A and periodically in the EC and WS1B. pH values in the DH and areas adjacent, remained below 10.0 through September; however, there was a gradual rise in pH values in DH sites from May through September. In late September and early October, DH pH values exceeded all other sites. rem/ reratareBTemperatures in all regions reached a peak in late July through early August with no discernible difference between DH or NDH sites ( Fig. 21). Dissolved oxvgenBDonut Hole sampling station s differed in dissolved oxygen characteristics relative to other areas of the sumps. During the June through August period DH sites ranged from 4.5 to 11.2 mg/ 1 while areas outside this region ranged from 1.1 mg/ 1 to 18.2 mg/ 1 ( Fig. 21). Toward November DH and NDH sites became similar DO dynamics ( Fig. 21). 26 Turbiditvllln general, turbidity values appeared greater in the DH versus areas outside, although some sites particularly in Sump 1( B) were quite variable particularly in June and July. This may have been due to the large amount of filamentous algae in Sump 1( B), potentially interfering with the measurement. Turbidity rose sharply at sites by late October and November ( Fig. 23- 24). 20 >• 1 5 O UJ a UJ DC 10 0 39 41 43 45 47 More DEPTH Figure 19. Water depth used by radio- marked suckers in the " Donut Hole" ( June- August), Tule Lake NWR. California. 27 BJll I U r S o I! Figure 20. pH data collected from " Donut Hole" and non- Donut Hole water quality sampling sites on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. Box and whisker plots represent the median, 25- 75* and 10- 90* percentiles, and outliers. 28 temp rC) S 2 £ ' I j 1 II i 9 E 9 S Figure 21. Water temperatures collected at " Donut Hole" and non- Donut Hole sites on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. Box and whisker plots represent the median, 25- 75^ and 10- 90^ percentiles, and outliers. 29 do ( mgfl) I do ( mg/ l) OP> !*• WKamm 01900 gGBM s ' S:' TP" » S i I ! if Figure 22. Dissolved oxygen concentrations at " Donut Hole" and non- Donut Hole sites on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. Box and whisker plots represent the median, 25- 75* and 10- 90* percentiles, and outliers. 30 260.0 -. 240.0 220.0 - 200 0 180.0 => 160.0 H 140.0 - z 120.0 100.0 - 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 n n - » NT" —•— Depth ( m) fc= _ 6/ 2 107.00 0.8 Donut Hole Northwest - — .^^^ 6/ 7 77.20 0.8 H •—-^^ ' '—^ 6/ 14 25.30 0.8 6/ 21 24.80 0.8 - 1.0 o o O CJl depth ( m) 260.0 -, 240.0 220 0 200.0 180.0 - 2 160.0 z 140.0 - 120.0 100.0 - 80.0 - 60.0 40.0 20 0 0.0 » NTU — a— Depth ( m) , •=— mmm •= « a 6/ 22 44.00 0.9 Donut Hole West — « — — » - 6/ 28 26.60 08 •— 7/ 6 19.90 08 . ^ m — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 7/ 13 25.70 0.8 • - _ — r- • 7/ 19 51.40 0.8 1.0 0.5 £ a. T3 0.0 260 0 240.0 - 220.0 - 200.0 - 180.0 i « n n _ H 140.0 - z 120 0 ^ 100.0 • 80 0 60.0 40.0 20.0 - u. u » NTU — m— Depth ( m) 6/ 22 93.70 0.8 6/ 28 95.40 0.7 Donut Hole East 7/ 6 72.70 0.7 7/ 13 32.30 0.7 —•'•"-""* 7/ 19 50.20 0.5 -*"— 7/ 28 62.50 0.8 8/ 2 73.30 0.8 \ ^ 8/ 10 18.55 0.8 8/ 19 50.20 0.8 8/ 25 22.20 0.8 8/ 31 58.67 0.7 \ 9/ 8 14.38 0.8 9/ 14 11.03 0.8 9/ 20 7.00 0.7 9/ 29 7.80 0.7 j / A - 10/ 25 51.00 0.7 t - fT u 11/ 23 210.00 0.6 1 0 - 0.5 JZ jepi - 0.0 Figure 23. Turbidity at " Donut Hole" sites on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, May to November 1999. 31 260.0 i 240.0 220.0 200.0 180.0 3 160.0 £ 140.0 - 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 » NTU —•— Depth ( m) • ^ 6/ 2 81.10 0.8 Donut Hole - — - ^ 6/ 7 49.20 0.8 — • 6/ 14 21.50 0.8 =— 1 6/ 21 24.80 0.8 r 1 0 o p d en depth ( m) 260 0 240.0 • 220.0 - 200.0 . 180.0 - K 160.0 • z 140.0 - 120.0 100.0 80.0 . 60.0 - 40.0 - 20.0 0.0 . t K » TII — a— Depth ( m) B — • 7/ 21 53.30 0.8 .— m-— 7/ 28 40.50 0.8 Donut Hole South _—• 8/ 2 56.80 0 9 » - ^ 8/ 10 17.13 0.9 *—• 8/ 18 19.70 0 8 8/ 25 21.73 0.9 ^ \ 8/ 31 64.90 0.8 9/ 8 21.27 0.8 9/ 14 20.80 0.8 9/ 20 29.97 0.8 ^ - • - ^ 9/ 29 49.30 0.8 / / 10/ 25 33.70 0.8 / / 11/ 23 170.00 0.7 1 0 o o d en depth ( m) Figure 23 ( cont.). Turbidity at " Donut Hole" sites on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, May- November, 1999. 32 260.0 -, 240.0 - 220.0 200.0 180.0 - 160.0 Z> 140.0 \ z 120.0 - z 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 - 0.0 *_ NTU • depth ( m) y 5/ 26 12.30 0.7 6/ 2 58.70 0.8 A- 6/ 7 20.30 0.9 / / 6/ 21 57.40 0.8 // A A\\ 6/ 28 239.0C 0.8 V\ East Sump 1B J s in 81.70 0.7 : / I 7/ 12 10.40 1.0 | A / \ J I s f 7/ 27 228.00 1.0 \ - V \ 8/ 2 88.00 0.8 8/ 10 40.00 0.9 8/ 18 38.17 0.8 8/ 31 11.30 0.7 9/ 9 7.00 0.7 9/ 14 6.17 0.7 9/ 20 5.83 0.7 • / 10/ 25 44.80 1.0 * 4-— \ ft . 11/ 23 186.00 0.5 1.0 ? e Q. 0.5 • 0.0 260.0 n 240.0 - 220.0 200.0 180.0 160.0 D 140.0 1— 120 0 z 100^ 0 80.0 60.0 An n 20.0 - 0.0 - —+— NTU —•— depth ( m) —•— 5/ 26 13.70 1.0 _, • —- « - 6/ 2 57.30 1.1 --•— ' \ 6/ 7 41.10 1.1 6/ 21 18.70 1.0 —•— / \ 6/ 28 138.0( 1.0 \ \ / ¥ West Sump 1B - . • — • / 7/ 7 ) 29.90 1.0 A \\ 7/ 12 88.90 1.0 k / \ / 7/ 27 19.00 0.9 / \ / \ 8/ 2 73.00 1.0 L \ \ 8/ 10 5.47 1.0 8/ 18 6.40 1.0 8/ 31 9.20 1.0 9/ 9 8.58 1.0 9/ 14 8.37 0.9 9/ 20 11.73 0.9 / / 10/ 25 39.50 0.7 f 11/ 23 85.00 0.8 1 5 sz Q. - 0 . 5 • - 0.0 260 0 240.0 220.0 - 200.0 - 180.0 160.0 3 140.0 t ; 120.0 100.0 80.0 - 60.0 An n . 20.0 0.0 » NT" — m— Depth ( m) 6/ 2 46.50 0.8 -~ « — 6/ 7 16.10 0.9 —•—. 6/ 14 39.00 0.8 / 6/ 22 9.71 0.8 English Channel Sump 1A 6/ 28 6.79 0.8 \ ^ _ 7/ 13 17.90 0.8 7/ 20 17.60 0.8 7/ 28 26.80 0.8 8/ 10 4.80 0.9 8/ 19 7.33 0.8 8/ 25 6.50 0.8 8/ 31 7.10 0.8 9/ 8 13.34 0.8 ==•== 9/ 20 15.50 0.8 J 9/ 29 22.60 0.7 — y / 10/ 25 98.70 0.8 11/ 23 146.00 0.8 1 5 - 1.0 — 0.5 - g 0.0 260 0 240.0 220 0 - 200.0 - 180.0 - 160.0 => 140.0 - £ 120.0 mnn . 60.0 40.0 - 20.0 u. u J •— NTU —•— Depth ( m) I 6/ 2 36.50 1.2 —•— 6 / 7 12.60 1.2 6/ 14 13.10 1.2 y 6/ 28 7.40 1.1 7/ 6 71.60 1.0 Northwest Sump 1A —•— 7/ 13 5.27 1.1 — » — —•— 7/ 19 28.50 1.1 7/ 28 20.50 1.2 8/ 2 32.10 1.2 ^- B—' 8/ 19 4.50 1.1 / 8/ 25 52.87 1.1 A ' \ 8/ 31 115.67 1.2 ="-•— \ —•*=; 9/ 8 4.10 1.1 1 4- 9/ 14 7.89 1.1 —•— J I \ 9/ 20 12.43 1.1 — « ^ 10/ 25 180.00 1.1 11/ 23 164.00 0.9 1 S d jpth ( m) • 0.5 - o - 0.0 Figure 24. Turbidity at non- Donut Hole sites on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, 1999. 33 Discussion Water Quality The area of the DH was delineated from plotted June through September locations of radio-marked suckers ( approximately 188 ha.). The location of the DH could also be seen as an area of relatively turbid water from aerial photographs from August 1998 ( Fig. 25) as well as aerial photographs taken in 1984. It is possible that the combination of 2 factors may cause the observed turbidity in the DH. First, seeps or springs may be present in the area which result in more favorable water quality during summer which attracts suckers as well as other fish species to the area. The resultant concentration offish ( suckers and chubs) may stir the sediments during feeding activities, thereby creating the observed turbidity. The additional turbidity in the DH may inhibit light penetration and the production of algae, thereby reducing photo synthetically elevated pH and the extreme minimum and maximums in DO typical of may water bodies in the Klamath Basin including Tule Lake ( Dileanis et al. 1996). The rise in turbidity at all sites in fall is likely due to the break down of rooted aquatic vegetation which then allows for wind induced wave action to stir the sediments. Other than the DH, all other sites had dense concentrations of rooted aquatic plants and/ or filamentous green algae during summer. June to September DO and pH dynamics in the DH appeared different than at NDH sites ( Figs. 20 and 22). The difference was greatest in early summer with the difference becoming smaller by late summer and essentially disappearing by fall. Whether this water quality difference was a result of the more turbid waters or inflow from springs is unknown. However, attempts by Service hydrologists to model inflows, evapotranspiration, and outflows from the sumps have resulted in a positive imbalance of approximately 21,000 acre- feet of water from April through September. This positive imbalance is greatest in spring and early summer, gradually lessening by summer and essentially disappearing by fall ( Tim Mayer, pers. comm.). If this inflow is occurring, it may explain differences in summer water quality between DH and NDH sites. June to September water quality in the DH may be critical to the over summer survival of suckers in Tule Lake as pH and DO in NDH sites during summer often exceeded the tolerance limits for the fish. DO and pH levels at DH sites were less variable and did not reach the extremes that were reached in NDH sites. The lowest DO measured during June through September at DH sites were 4.83 mg/ 1 ( DHWEST) and 4.96 mg/ 1 ( DHEAST). DO and pH during summer from this study were similar to values collected by Reclamation in 1992 ( Table 3). Buettner and Scoppettone ( 1990) found juvenile suckers only where DO was above 4.5 mg/ 1. It is currently believed that adult suckers become stressed at DO levels below 4.0 mg/ 1 with mortality occurring at or below 2.0 mg/ 1 ( M. Buettner, pers. comm.). The relatively high over- summer survival of radio- marked suckers, compared to suckers radio- marked in Upper Klamath Lake ( M. Buettner, pers. comm), is further evidence of suitable summer water quality conditions in the DH on Tule Lake. 34 Figure 25. " Donut Hole" in Sump 1( A) of Tule Lake NWR. Note visible turbidity of area. 35 Table 3. Mean dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity, and temperature on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California, July and August 1992. Data are from 2 sites; 1 site each in Sump 1( A) ( within the ADonut Hole@) and 1( B). All data were from 96 hour continuous readings from Hydrolabs. Data were collected at intervals of 1- 2 hours. ( Data summarized from U. S. Bureau of Reclamation). Site Sump 1( A) Sump ( IB) Depth ( M) < 0.5 0.51- 1.5 > 1.5 < 0.5 0.51- 1.5 > 1.5 pH (± SD) ( 1200- 1700 hrs) 9.32 ± 0.83 n= 81 9.22 ± 0.93 n= 26 8.30 ± 0.71 n= 10 9.65 + 0.44 n= 21 9.79 ± 0.45 n= 7 No data Temp ° C (± SD) ( 1200- 1700 hrs) 21.85 ± 2.84 n= 81 21.53 ± 2.46 n= 26 19.90 ± 1.59 n= 10 22.96+ 1.10 n= 21 22.11 ± 0.51 n= 7 No data Conductivity 500 ± 266 n= 81 598 ± 277 n= 26 859 ± 694 628 ± 148 n= 21 571 ± 74 n= 7 No data DO1 Oof 31 days - - 8 of 21 days - - 1 Proportion of monitored days having a minimum dissolved oxygen level below 5 mg/ 1. ( Data from U. S. Bureau of Reclamation) pH levels in the DH generally remained below 10.0 whereas non DH sites frequently exceeded 10.0 ( Fig. 19). Falter and Cech ( 1991) determined a maximum pH tolerance in shortnose suckers of 9.55+ 0.43 under laboratory conditions, levels generally exceeded in June - September at non DH sites and some DH sites in late summer. Buettner and Scoppettone ( 1990) found juvenile fish in Upper Klamath Lake largely at sites with pH < 9.0, as did Simon et al. ( 1996) in 1994. However, in 1995, Simon et al. ( 1996) found that most juvenile fish ( 54%) were captured in areas of higher pH (> 10.0). Laboratory studies indicate significant mortality of larval and juvenile fish at high pH values (> 9.55) ( Falter and Cech 1991) and 9.92- 10.46 ( Bellerud and Saiki 1995). Previous water quality and fish health studies on the refuge determined that water quality conditions were stressful to aquatic life and was resulting in a high ( up to 37%) proportion offish with deformities ( Dileanis et al. 1996), however, studies of sucker ecology in Tule Lake have indicated that individual fish in the lake have a high condition factor and are free of external parasites ( Scoppettone and Buettner 1995). Bennet ( 1994) recognized this apparent inconsistency, stating, A... the observation that Tule Lake suckers are in better physical condition than Upper Klamath Lake suckers indicates that certain areas of the aquatic system may be of particular importance for the recovery of those species. ® In the case of Tule Lake this Acertain area@ is likely the DH.. Suckers in Tule Lake may be in good condition because of their limited population size, the abundant food resources in this lake, and adequate water quality ( in the DH) to survive the summer period. 36 Sucker movements Although, suckers were relatively sedentary during most periods of the year, they exhibited the ability to make long distance moves in relatively short periods of time, particularly during the April spawning period. The northwest corner of Sump 1( A) receives about 90% of the inflow from the Lost River and spring winds on Tule Lake tend to move large quantities of water through the AEnglish Channels back and forth between Sump 1( A) and 1( B). This movement of water at both locations may explain the movement of fish observed in April and May. Suckers may be attracted to both locations when seeking spawning habitat in spring. Recruitment During the April marking period, most captured suckers appeared to be physiologically ready to spawn; however, only one fish moved into the river. Of 10 radio- marked fish monitored by Reclamation in 1993- 95 no fish attempted to run the Lost River. This low proportion offish that attempt to spawn may have one or several causes or a combination, including: 1. Stress of handling and implanting radio- transmitters so close to the spawning season may prevent fish from becoming reproductively active. 2. Under normal conditions, only a small proportion of Tule Lake suckers may attempt to spawn in any particular year. 3. Flow conditions in or at the mouth of the Lost River may be inadequate to draw the fish into the river. 4. A shallow bar (< 0.3 m) of deposited silt exists between the lake and the mouth of the river which may form a physical barrier to the fish. At the present time, a mandated flow of 30 cfs is released below Anderson- Rose Dam to provide spawning habitat at the Dam. Although this flow is intended to provide suitable spawning conditions at the Dam, these flows may be inadequate to entice fish into the river. It is likely that the historic spring flows in the Lost River were many times higher than current regulated flows. However, given that the fish are largely unsuccessful in spawning and risk additional mortality traversing the river, adult survival may be enhanced by remaining in the lake. Scoppettone and Buettner ( 1995) also observed no radio- marked fish from Clear Lake to move into Willow Creek during the spring spawning period. In this case the authors attributed this result to either capture stress or low stream flows during spring. 37 Habitat use Although the DH is relatively shallow relative to other areas of Tule Lake, use of the DH may be mandatory to ensure over- summer survival. Although deeper waters are available to the fish, especially in the northwest corner of Sump 1( A), DO levels, in particular, likely preclude their use. Suckers did not move out of the DH until October when DO levels began to rise with cooler water temperatures. Although, Sump 1( B) contained suitable water depths and water quality conditions in fall, no suckers were located in this area. It is possible that suckers may prefer not to pass through the pipes connecting the Sumps or the proximity and flow from the Lost River in the northwest corner of Sump 1( A) may make this area more attractive as an over- winter habitat area. The relative lack of water depth in the DH as well as other areas of the sumps is becoming of increasing concern because of the loss of water depth through sedimentation. If suckers require a minimum of 3 ft of water, as is current believed ( M. Buettner, pers. comm.), current rates of sedimentation in the sumps threaten the future suitability of Tule Lake for suckers. Based on a comparison of bathymetric surveys conducted by Reclamation in 1958 and again in 1986, sedimentation has been steadily reducing the water holding capacity of both sumps. Between the 1958 and 1986 surveys ( 28 years), Sump 1( A) has lost 22.4% of its water capacity and Sump 1( B) has lost 30.8% of its capacity due to sedimentation. This would indicate a total mean sedimentation of 11.8 inches over this time period ( U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, unpubl. rep). Over the last several years, an attempt has been made to store additional water in Tule Lake during summer by raising water levels above 4034.60 ft. This increase in water elevations ( between 4034.60 and 4034.90 ft) has somewhat mitigated the loss of depth through sedimentation. However, without reinforcing and raising the levees around the sumps, there is a limit as to how high water elevations can rise. At elevation 4035.50 ft., operating regulations require breaching the sumps into overflow areas ( Sump 2 or 3). Although increased summer operating levels may assist the fish, they may also increase the risk of a flood event requiring the breaching of the sumps with potentially negative impacts to the fish. Acknowledgements The authors are indebted to fisheries biologist from the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Project, especially M. Buettner, B. Peck, and M. Green whom provided and surgically implanted radio transmitters, captured adult suckers, located fish from fixed wing aircraft, and assisted with study design. K. Miller from Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge collected telemetry, water quality, and GPS data and ensured all data were collected and coordinated consistent with study design. T. Mayer provide training in the calibration, deployment, and downloading of data from the hydrolabs and assisted with interpretation of water quality data. 38 Personnel Communications Buettner, M., Fisheries Biologist, U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Project Office, 6600 Washburn Way, Klamath Falls, Oregon. Mayer, T., Hydrologist, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland Regional Office, Lloyd Center, Portland, Oregon. Literature Cited Bellerud, B., and M. K. Saiki. 1995. Tolerance of larval and juvenile Lost River and shortnose suckers to high ph, ammonia concentration, and temperature, and to low dissolved oxygen concentration, National Biological Service, California Pacific Science Center, Dixon 103pp. Bennett, J. K. 1994. Bioassessment of irrigation drain water effects on aquatic resources in the Klamath Basin of California and Oregon. Ph. D Dissertation. University of Washington, Seattle. 197pp. Buettner, M. E., and G. Scoppettone. 1990. Life history and status of catostomids in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. National Fisheries Research Center, Reno Field Station, Reno, Nevada, 108pp. Coots, M. 1965. Occurrences of the Lost River sucker, Deltistes luxatus ( Cope), and shortnose sucker, Chasmistes brevirostris ( Cope), in Northern California. Calif. Fish and Game 51: 68- 73. Dileanis, P. D., S. K. Schwarzbach, and J. K. Bennett. 1996. Detailed study of water quality, bottom sediment, and biota associated with irrigation drainage in the Klamath Basin, California and Oregon, 1990- 92. U. S. Geological Survey, Water- Resources Investigations Report 95- 4232, 68pp. Falter, M. A., and J. J. Cech. 1991. Maximum pH tolerance of three Klamath Basin fishes. Copia 4: 1109- 1 111. Simon, D. C, G. R. Hoff, D. J. Logan, and D. F. Markle. 1996. Larval and juvenile ecology of Upper Klamath Lake suckers. Annual Report: 1995, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. 60pp. 39 Scoppettone, G. G., and M. E. Buettner. 1995. Information on population dynamics and life history of shortnose suckers ( Chasmistes brevirostris) and Lost River suckers ( Deltistes luxatus) in Tule and Clear Lakes. U. S. Geological Survey, Reno Field Station, Reno, Nevada. 79pp. U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1998. Lost River and shortnose sucker spawning in Lower Lost River, Oregon, U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Falls, Oregon. 1 lpp. . 1993. Lost River { Deltistes luxatus) and shortnose { Chasmistes brevirostris) Sucker Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon 108pp. Hydrolab Corporation. 1997. DataSondeR 4 and MiniSondeR water quality multiprobes, users manual. Hydrolab Corp., Austin, Texas. Close

• 23. [Image] Technical assistance and the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds: a statewide assessment by the Healthy Streams Partnership

  	"November 2002"; 66 p. in various paginations: ill., form -- Executive summary ([6]p.)
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Technical assistance and the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds: a statewide assessment by the Healthy Streams Partnership Author: Healthy Streams Partnership Year: 2002, 2007, 2005 "November 2002"; 66 p. in various paginations: ill., form -- Executive summary ([6]p.) Title: Technical assistance and the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds: a statewide assessment by the Healthy Streams Partnership Author: Healthy Streams Partnership Year: 2002, 2007, 2005 "November 2002"; 66 p. in various paginations: ill., form -- Executive summary ([6]p.) Close

• 24. [Image] Klamath Basin summary of recent federal government activities, March 2003

  	The Department of the Interior, Klamath River Basin Work Plans and Reports
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath Basin summary of recent federal government activities, March 2003 Author: United States. Dept. of the Interior Year: 2003, 2005 The Department of the Interior, Klamath River Basin Work Plans and Reports Title: Klamath Basin summary of recent federal government activities, March 2003 Author: United States. Dept. of the Interior Year: 2003, 2005 The Department of the Interior, Klamath River Basin Work Plans and Reports Close

• 25. [Image] Klamath Falls Resource Area resource management plan and environmental impact statement : final : Volume 2

  	Proposed resource management plan/final environmental impact statement for the Klamath Falls Resource Area
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath Falls Resource Area resource management plan and environmental impact statement : final : Volume 2 Author: United States. Bureau of Land Management. Klamath Falls Resource Area Office Year: 1994, 2005, 2004 Proposed resource management plan/final environmental impact statement for the Klamath Falls Resource Area Title: Klamath Falls Resource Area resource management plan and environmental impact statement : final : Volume 2 Author: United States. Bureau of Land Management. Klamath Falls Resource Area Office Year: 1994, 2005, 2004 Proposed resource management plan/final environmental impact statement for the Klamath Falls Resource Area Close

• 26. [Image] The Klamath Basin sucker species complex

  	One chapter of a seven chapter annual report from 1999 examining ecological issues regarding the shortnose and Lost River sucker populations in Upper Klamath Lake and Williamson River.
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Klamath Basin sucker species complex Author: Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit Year: 2000, 2005 One chapter of a seven chapter annual report from 1999 examining ecological issues regarding the shortnose and Lost River sucker populations in Upper Klamath Lake and Williamson River. Title: The Klamath Basin sucker species complex Author: Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit Year: 2000, 2005 One chapter of a seven chapter annual report from 1999 examining ecological issues regarding the shortnose and Lost River sucker populations in Upper Klamath Lake and Williamson River. Close

• 27. [Image] Draft upper Klamath River management plan environmental impact statement and resource management plan amendments. Volume 2 - Appendices

  	"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 Citation Abstract Copy 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 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 Close

• 28. [Image] Oversight field hearing on the Endangered Species Act 30 years later : the Klamath Project : oversight field hearing before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, One Hundred Eighth Congress, second session, Saturday, July 17, 2004, in Klamath Falls, Oregon

  	"Serial no. 108-104."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Oversight field hearing on the Endangered Species Act 30 years later : the Klamath Project : oversight field hearing before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, One Hundred Eighth Congress, second session, Saturday, July 17, 2004, in Klamath Falls, Oregon Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Resources. Subcommittee on Water and Power Year: 2005 "Serial no. 108-104." Title: Oversight field hearing on the Endangered Species Act 30 years later : the Klamath Project : oversight field hearing before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, One Hundred Eighth Congress, second session, Saturday, July 17, 2004, in Klamath Falls, Oregon Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Resources. Subcommittee on Water and Power Year: 2005 "Serial no. 108-104." Close

• 29. [Image] Water allocation in the Klamath Reclamation Project, 2001 : an assessment of natural resource, economic, social, and institutional issues with a focus on the Upper Klamath Basin

  	"Reprinted May 2003."; Includes bibliographical references; Also available at http://eesc.oregonstate.edu/agcomwebfile/edmat/html/sr/sr1037/sr1037.html
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Water allocation in the Klamath Reclamation Project, 2001 : an assessment of natural resource, economic, social, and institutional issues with a focus on the Upper Klamath Basin Author: Braunworth, William S. Year: 2003, 2004 "Reprinted May 2003."; Includes bibliographical references; Also available at http://eesc.oregonstate.edu/agcomwebfile/edmat/html/sr/sr1037/sr1037.html Title: Water allocation in the Klamath Reclamation Project, 2001 : an assessment of natural resource, economic, social, and institutional issues with a focus on the Upper Klamath Basin Author: Braunworth, William S. Year: 2003, 2004 "Reprinted May 2003."; Includes bibliographical references; Also available at http://eesc.oregonstate.edu/agcomwebfile/edmat/html/sr/sr1037/sr1037.html Close

• 30. [Image] Draft upper Williamson River Watershed assessment

  	"Prepared for Klamath Basin Ecosystem Foundation, and the Upper Williamson River Catchment Group, in cooperation with the Upper Klamath Basin Working Group, and the Klamath Watershed Council."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Draft upper Williamson River Watershed assessment Author: David Evans and Associates, Inc. Year: 2004, 2005 "Prepared for Klamath Basin Ecosystem Foundation, and the Upper Williamson River Catchment Group, in cooperation with the Upper Klamath Basin Working Group, and the Klamath Watershed Council." Title: Draft upper Williamson River Watershed assessment Author: David Evans and Associates, Inc. Year: 2004, 2005 "Prepared for Klamath Basin Ecosystem Foundation, and the Upper Williamson River Catchment Group, in cooperation with the Upper Klamath Basin Working Group, and the Klamath Watershed Council." Close

• 31. [Image] Freshwater supply : states' views of how federal agencies could help them meet the challenges of expected shortages : report to Congressional Requesters

  	"July 2003."; "GAO-03-514."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Freshwater supply : states' views of how federal agencies could help them meet the challenges of expected shortages : report to Congressional Requesters Author: United States. General Accounting Office Year: 2003, 2005 "July 2003."; "GAO-03-514." Title: Freshwater supply : states' views of how federal agencies could help them meet the challenges of expected shortages : report to Congressional Requesters Author: United States. General Accounting Office Year: 2003, 2005 "July 2003."; "GAO-03-514." Close

• 32. [Image] Crisis to consensus : restoration planning for the Upper Klamath Basin

  	Executive Summary This report presents the Upper Klamath Basin Working Group's (Working Group) recommendations for the development and implementation of a restoration plan for the Upper Klamath Basin. ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Crisis to consensus : restoration planning for the Upper Klamath Basin Author: Upper Klamath Basin Working Group Year: 2002, 2005, 2004 Executive Summary This report presents the Upper Klamath Basin Working Group's (Working Group) recommendations for the development and implementation of a restoration plan for the Upper Klamath Basin. In 1996, the 104th Congress of the United States chartered the Upper Klamath Basin Working Group (Public Law 104-333 - the Oregon Resources Conservation Act) to develop a plan for the Upper Basin that focuses on enhancing ecosystem restoration, improving economic stability, and minimizing impacts associated with drought on all resources and stakeholders. The Working Group is comprised of over 30 individuals appointed by the Governor of Oregon, representing federal, state, and local governments and agencies; the Klamath Tribes; conservation organizations; farmers and ranchers; and industry and local businesses. The objective of the Working Group is to develop and oversee a restorative course of action that allows for mutually beneficial gains for stakeholders wherein everybody in the Upper Basin can achieve positive, affirming results together, and where no one is left economically, culturally, or spiritually disadvantaged. Chapter 1 of this report presents a brief summary of the history of the Working Group and the conditions leading to the development of this effort. Chapter 2 describes the facilitated "interim planning process" the Working Group engaged in between April 2001 and July 2002. Chapter 3 presents the results of the interim planning process including key recommendations regarding Working Group decision-making and operating rules, technical data needs, future cost and time frame of the restoration planning process, and similar planning decisions. Chapter 4 describes the next steps and actions the Working Group is prepared to take to lead the restoration planning process. The Working Group's goals and objectives will be achieved through the Working Group's continued commitment to public outreach, collaborative problem solving, and implementation of real world solutions. Desired outcomes from implementation of the restoration plan include, but are not limited to, the following: improved water quality through the implementation of accepted Best Management Practices; restoration of wetlands and riparian habitat; enhancement of natural and structural water storage; improvements to irrigation efficiency and water conservation; economic growth and diversity through activities such as value added natural resource products and ecotourism; and enhancement of wildlife Tribal Trust resources. Title: Crisis to consensus : restoration planning for the Upper Klamath Basin Author: Upper Klamath Basin Working Group Year: 2002, 2005, 2004 Executive Summary This report presents the Upper Klamath Basin Working Group's (Working Group) recommendations for the development and implementation of a restoration plan for the Upper Klamath Basin. In 1996, the 104th Congress of the United States chartered the Upper Klamath Basin Working Group (Public Law 104-333 - the Oregon Resources Conservation Act) to develop a plan for the Upper Basin that focuses on enhancing ecosystem restoration, improving economic stability, and minimizing impacts associated with drought on all resources and stakeholders. The Working Group is comprised of over 30 individuals appointed by the Governor of Oregon, representing federal, state, and local governments and agencies; the Klamath Tribes; conservation organizations; farmers and ranchers; and industry and local businesses. The objective of the Working Group is to develop and oversee a restorative course of action that allows for mutually beneficial gains for stakeholders wherein everybody in the Upper Basin can achieve positive, affirming results together, and where no one is left economically, culturally, or spiritually disadvantaged. Chapter 1 of this report presents a brief summary of the history of the Working Group and the conditions leading to the development of this effort. Chapter 2 describes the facilitated "interim planning process" the Working Group engaged in between April 2001 and July 2002. Chapter 3 presents the results of the interim planning process including key recommendations regarding Working Group decision-making and operating rules, technical data needs, future cost and time frame of the restoration planning process, and similar planning decisions. Chapter 4 describes the next steps and actions the Working Group is prepared to take to lead the restoration planning process. The Working Group's goals and objectives will be achieved through the Working Group's continued commitment to public outreach, collaborative problem solving, and implementation of real world solutions. Desired outcomes from implementation of the restoration plan include, but are not limited to, the following: improved water quality through the implementation of accepted Best Management Practices; restoration of wetlands and riparian habitat; enhancement of natural and structural water storage; improvements to irrigation efficiency and water conservation; economic growth and diversity through activities such as value added natural resource products and ecotourism; and enhancement of wildlife Tribal Trust resources. Close

• 33. [Image] Lost River and shortnose sucker : proposed critical habitat : biological support document : draft

  	Proposed rule from Federal Register, vol. 59, no. 230, December 1, 1994, pages 61744-61759, inserted after p. 35; Includes biliographical references (p. 31-35)
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Lost River and shortnose sucker : proposed critical habitat : biological support document : draft Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland Field Office Year: 1994, 2004 Proposed rule from Federal Register, vol. 59, no. 230, December 1, 1994, pages 61744-61759, inserted after p. 35; Includes biliographical references (p. 31-35) Title: Lost River and shortnose sucker : proposed critical habitat : biological support document : draft Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland Field Office Year: 1994, 2004 Proposed rule from Federal Register, vol. 59, no. 230, December 1, 1994, pages 61744-61759, inserted after p. 35; Includes biliographical references (p. 31-35) Close

• 34. [Image] Histopathological changes in gills of Lost River suckers (Deltistes luxatus) exposed to elevated ammonia and elevated pH

  	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 Citation Abstract Copy 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. 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. Close

• 35. [Image] Work plan for adaptive management : Klamath River Basin, Oregon & California

  	"May 19, 2004"
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Work plan for adaptive management : Klamath River Basin, Oregon & California Author: United States. Natural Resources Conservation Service Year: 2004, 2005 "May 19, 2004" Title: Work plan for adaptive management : Klamath River Basin, Oregon & California Author: United States. Natural Resources Conservation Service Year: 2004, 2005 "May 19, 2004" Close

• 36. [Image] A guide to Oregon permits issued by state & federal agencies with a focus on permits for watershed restoration activities Watersheds and the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board

  	"Spring 2000."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: A guide to Oregon permits issued by state & federal agencies with a focus on permits for watershed restoration activities Watersheds and the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Year: 2000, 2005 "Spring 2000." Title: A guide to Oregon permits issued by state & federal agencies with a focus on permits for watershed restoration activities Watersheds and the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Year: 2000, 2005 "Spring 2000." Close

• 37. [Image] Reproductive biology and demographics of endangered Lost River and shortnose suckers in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon

  	We analyzed the reproductive biology and demographics of the Lost River sucker Deltistes luxatus and shortnose sucker Chasmistes brevirostris, two endangered species endemic to the upper Klamath Basin ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Reproductive biology and demographics of endangered Lost River and shortnose suckers in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon Author: Perkins, David L.; Scoppettone, Gary; Buettner, Mark Year: 2000, 2005 We analyzed the reproductive biology and demographics of the Lost River sucker Deltistes luxatus and shortnose sucker Chasmistes brevirostris, two endangered species endemic to the upper Klamath Basin of Oregon and California, from 1984-1997. Lost River suckers had distinct river and lake shoreline spawning stocks, and individuals of both species commonly spawned in consecutive years. In the Williamson River and lower Sprague River, spawning migration by both species occurred mainly during a 5-week period that started within the first three weeks of April and peaked between mid April and early May, although a separate, earlier (mid March) run of Lost River suckers may also spawn in the upper Sprague River. Migration of both species was several times higher at dawn (0500-0730 h) and evening (1800-2200 h) than other times of the day. Peak migrations almost always corresponded to peaks in water temperature, usually at 10-15°C. Lost River suckers were captured at springs along the east shore of the lake from late February through mid May, with peak spawning usually in mid March to mid April. Shortnose suckers were generally captured at the springs from late March through late May, but the time of peak spawning was not determined. Size and age at maturity was determined by recruitment from a strong year class (1991). Male Lost River suckers began recruitment into the adult population at age 4+ (375-475 mm). Substantial recruitment of females did not begin until age 7+ (510-560 mm). Male and female shortnose suckers began recruitment at age 4+, with the majority offish recruited by age 5+. Males recruited at 270-370 mm; females recruited at 325-425 mm. Fecundity estimates were quite variable ranging from 44,000-236,000 eggs per female Lost River sucker and 18,000-72,000 eggs per female shortnose sucker. In 1984 and 1985, the spawning populations of both species were dominated by large, old individuals, with little indication of recent adult recruitment. In the next 13 years, only one strong year class (1991) recruited into the spawning populations of both species. This year class temporarily boosted population numbers, but annual fish kills from 1995 to 1997 eliminated most adults of both species. Associated with poor water quality caused by the proliferation and decay of blue-green algae Aphanizomenonflos-aquae, these fish kills raise concern that alterations to the lake ecosystem over the past several decades have Perkins et al. Lost River and shortnose suckers 5 increased the magnitude and frequency of poor water quality. As a result, mortality rates of all life stages may have increased, thereby disrupting the species' life history pattern and potentially decreasing long-term population viability. Introduction The Lost River sucker Deltistes luxatus and shortnose sucker Chasmistes brevirostris are large, long-lived suckers endemic to the upper Klamath Basin of Oregon and California. Both species are typically lake dwelling but migrate to tributaries or shoreline springs to spawn (Moyle 1976, Scoppettone and Vinyard 1991). Once extremely abundant (Cope 1884, Gilbert 1898), both species have experienced severe population declines and were federally listed as endangered in 1988 (USFWS 1988). Much of the original habitat of these suckers has been destroyed or altered by conversion of lake areas to agriculture, dams, instream flow diversions, and water quality problems associated with timber harvest, loss of riparian vegetation, livestock grazing, and agricultural practices (USFWS 1988). Knowledge of the life history of Lost River and shortnose suckers is fundamental to recovery of these species. The objective of this report was to present the results of studies conducted from 1987-1998 on the reproductive biology and demographics of Lost River and shortnose suckers, and to compare these results with earlier unpublished data. Study Sites Studies were conducted on Upper Klamath Lake and the lower Williamson-Sprague river system (Figure 1). These waters form the upper portion of the Klamath River Basin in south-central Oregon and represent most remaining native habitat of Lost River and shortnose suckers. Upper Klamath Lake is a remnant of pluvial Lake Modoc that included eight major basins and encompassed 2,839 km2 (Dicken 1980). Today, Upper Klamath Lake serves as a storage reservoir that provides water for agricultural irrigation, waterfowl refuges, instream flow requirements of anadromous fish, and hydroelectric power generation. At full capacity, the lake covers approximately 360 km2 and has an average depth of 2.4 m. Most deeper water (3-12 m) is restricted to narrow trenches along the western shore. Lake elevation is controlled at the outlet by Link River Title: Reproductive biology and demographics of endangered Lost River and shortnose suckers in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon Author: Perkins, David L.; Scoppettone, Gary; Buettner, Mark Year: 2000, 2005 We analyzed the reproductive biology and demographics of the Lost River sucker Deltistes luxatus and shortnose sucker Chasmistes brevirostris, two endangered species endemic to the upper Klamath Basin of Oregon and California, from 1984-1997. Lost River suckers had distinct river and lake shoreline spawning stocks, and individuals of both species commonly spawned in consecutive years. In the Williamson River and lower Sprague River, spawning migration by both species occurred mainly during a 5-week period that started within the first three weeks of April and peaked between mid April and early May, although a separate, earlier (mid March) run of Lost River suckers may also spawn in the upper Sprague River. Migration of both species was several times higher at dawn (0500-0730 h) and evening (1800-2200 h) than other times of the day. Peak migrations almost always corresponded to peaks in water temperature, usually at 10-15°C. Lost River suckers were captured at springs along the east shore of the lake from late February through mid May, with peak spawning usually in mid March to mid April. Shortnose suckers were generally captured at the springs from late March through late May, but the time of peak spawning was not determined. Size and age at maturity was determined by recruitment from a strong year class (1991). Male Lost River suckers began recruitment into the adult population at age 4+ (375-475 mm). Substantial recruitment of females did not begin until age 7+ (510-560 mm). Male and female shortnose suckers began recruitment at age 4+, with the majority offish recruited by age 5+. Males recruited at 270-370 mm; females recruited at 325-425 mm. Fecundity estimates were quite variable ranging from 44,000-236,000 eggs per female Lost River sucker and 18,000-72,000 eggs per female shortnose sucker. In 1984 and 1985, the spawning populations of both species were dominated by large, old individuals, with little indication of recent adult recruitment. In the next 13 years, only one strong year class (1991) recruited into the spawning populations of both species. This year class temporarily boosted population numbers, but annual fish kills from 1995 to 1997 eliminated most adults of both species. Associated with poor water quality caused by the proliferation and decay of blue-green algae Aphanizomenonflos-aquae, these fish kills raise concern that alterations to the lake ecosystem over the past several decades have Perkins et al. Lost River and shortnose suckers 5 increased the magnitude and frequency of poor water quality. As a result, mortality rates of all life stages may have increased, thereby disrupting the species' life history pattern and potentially decreasing long-term population viability. Introduction The Lost River sucker Deltistes luxatus and shortnose sucker Chasmistes brevirostris are large, long-lived suckers endemic to the upper Klamath Basin of Oregon and California. Both species are typically lake dwelling but migrate to tributaries or shoreline springs to spawn (Moyle 1976, Scoppettone and Vinyard 1991). Once extremely abundant (Cope 1884, Gilbert 1898), both species have experienced severe population declines and were federally listed as endangered in 1988 (USFWS 1988). Much of the original habitat of these suckers has been destroyed or altered by conversion of lake areas to agriculture, dams, instream flow diversions, and water quality problems associated with timber harvest, loss of riparian vegetation, livestock grazing, and agricultural practices (USFWS 1988). Knowledge of the life history of Lost River and shortnose suckers is fundamental to recovery of these species. The objective of this report was to present the results of studies conducted from 1987-1998 on the reproductive biology and demographics of Lost River and shortnose suckers, and to compare these results with earlier unpublished data. Study Sites Studies were conducted on Upper Klamath Lake and the lower Williamson-Sprague river system (Figure 1). These waters form the upper portion of the Klamath River Basin in south-central Oregon and represent most remaining native habitat of Lost River and shortnose suckers. Upper Klamath Lake is a remnant of pluvial Lake Modoc that included eight major basins and encompassed 2,839 km2 (Dicken 1980). Today, Upper Klamath Lake serves as a storage reservoir that provides water for agricultural irrigation, waterfowl refuges, instream flow requirements of anadromous fish, and hydroelectric power generation. At full capacity, the lake covers approximately 360 km2 and has an average depth of 2.4 m. Most deeper water (3-12 m) is restricted to narrow trenches along the western shore. Lake elevation is controlled at the outlet by Link River Close

• 38. [Image] Handbook for developing watershed plans to restore and protect our waters

  	Draft; Title from title screen (viewed on Mar. 17, 2006); "October 2005."; "EPA 841-B-05-005."; Includes bibliographical references
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Handbook for developing watershed plans to restore and protect our waters Author: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Year: 2005, 2008, 2006 Draft; Title from title screen (viewed on Mar. 17, 2006); "October 2005."; "EPA 841-B-05-005."; Includes bibliographical references Title: Handbook for developing watershed plans to restore and protect our waters Author: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Year: 2005, 2008, 2006 Draft; Title from title screen (viewed on Mar. 17, 2006); "October 2005."; "EPA 841-B-05-005."; Includes bibliographical references Close

• 39. [Image] Biological assessment of Klamath Project's continuing operations on the endangered Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker

  	BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF KLAMATH PROJECT'S CONTINUING OPERATIONS ON THE ENDANGERED LOST RIVER SUCKER AND SHORTNOSE SUCKER U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region Klamath Basin Area Office Klamath ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Biological assessment of Klamath Project's continuing operations on the endangered Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker Author: United States. Bureau of Reclamation Year: 2001, 2005 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF KLAMATH PROJECT'S CONTINUING OPERATIONS ON THE ENDANGERED LOST RIVER SUCKER AND SHORTNOSE SUCKER U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region Klamath Basin Area Office Klamath Falls, Oregon February 13,2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION 3 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF HISTORIC OPERATIONS 6 4.0 ENDANGERED SPECIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE KLAMATH PROJECT 16 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 60 6.0 EFFECTS OF KLAMATH PROJECT ON BALD EAGLES 60 7.0 EFFECTS OF KLAMATH PROJECT ENDANGERED SUCKERS 63 8.0 PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR ENDANGERED SUCKERS 82 9.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 84 10.0 DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS 89 11.0 LITERATURE CITED 90 12.0 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS 100 13.0 APPENDIX 1 - ESA CONSULTATION REVIEW 101 Title: Biological assessment of Klamath Project's continuing operations on the endangered Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker Author: United States. Bureau of Reclamation Year: 2001, 2005 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF KLAMATH PROJECT'S CONTINUING OPERATIONS ON THE ENDANGERED LOST RIVER SUCKER AND SHORTNOSE SUCKER U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region Klamath Basin Area Office Klamath Falls, Oregon February 13,2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION 3 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF HISTORIC OPERATIONS 6 4.0 ENDANGERED SPECIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE KLAMATH PROJECT 16 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 60 6.0 EFFECTS OF KLAMATH PROJECT ON BALD EAGLES 60 7.0 EFFECTS OF KLAMATH PROJECT ENDANGERED SUCKERS 63 8.0 PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR ENDANGERED SUCKERS 82 9.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 84 10.0 DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS 89 11.0 LITERATURE CITED 90 12.0 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS 100 13.0 APPENDIX 1 - ESA CONSULTATION REVIEW 101 Close

• 40. [Image] Nitrogen and phosphorus loading from drained wetlands adjacent to Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon

  	Two maps digitized separately; Includes bibliographical references (p. 44-49)
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Nitrogen and phosphorus loading from drained wetlands adjacent to Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon Author: Snyder, Daniel T. Year: 1997, 2005, 2004 Two maps digitized separately; Includes bibliographical references (p. 44-49) Title: Nitrogen and phosphorus loading from drained wetlands adjacent to Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon Author: Snyder, Daniel T. Year: 1997, 2005, 2004 Two maps digitized separately; Includes bibliographical references (p. 44-49) Close

• 41. [Image] Klamath Project 2001 biological opinion

  	Fact sheet summarizing what a biological opinion is and how one is related to the issues surrounding the Klamath Project.
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath Project 2001 biological opinion Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Year: 2001, 2005 Fact sheet summarizing what a biological opinion is and how one is related to the issues surrounding the Klamath Project. Title: Klamath Project 2001 biological opinion Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Year: 2001, 2005 Fact sheet summarizing what a biological opinion is and how one is related to the issues surrounding the Klamath Project. Close

• 42. [Image] Federal Register - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Klamath River and Columbia River Populations of Bull Trout

  	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 Citation Abstract Copy 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 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 Close

• 43. [Image] Federal Register - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat for Lost River Sucker and Shortnose Sucker

  	The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to designate critical habitat for the Lost River sucker {Deltistes luxatus) and shortnose sucker [Chasmistes brevirostris), two species federally listed ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Federal Register - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat for Lost River Sucker and Shortnose Sucker Year: 1994, 2008, 2005 The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to designate critical habitat for the Lost River sucker {Deltistes luxatus) and shortnose sucker [Chasmistes brevirostris), two species federally listed as endangered pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973. as amended (Act). Both species are large, long-lived fish endemic to the Upper Klamath River Basin of Oregon and California. The proposed designation includes a total of approximately 182,400 hectares (456,000 acres) of stream, river, lake, and shoreline areas as critical habitat for the shortnose sucker and approximately 170,000 hectares (424,000 acres) of stream, river, lake, and shoreline areas as critical habitat for the Lost River sucker. This proposed critical habitat designation would result in additional review requirements under section 7 of the Act with regard to Federal agency actions. Section 4 of the Act requires the Service to consider economic costs and benefits prior to making a final decision on the size and scope of critical habitat Title: Federal Register - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat for Lost River Sucker and Shortnose Sucker Year: 1994, 2008, 2005 The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to designate critical habitat for the Lost River sucker {Deltistes luxatus) and shortnose sucker [Chasmistes brevirostris), two species federally listed as endangered pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973. as amended (Act). Both species are large, long-lived fish endemic to the Upper Klamath River Basin of Oregon and California. The proposed designation includes a total of approximately 182,400 hectares (456,000 acres) of stream, river, lake, and shoreline areas as critical habitat for the shortnose sucker and approximately 170,000 hectares (424,000 acres) of stream, river, lake, and shoreline areas as critical habitat for the Lost River sucker. This proposed critical habitat designation would result in additional review requirements under section 7 of the Act with regard to Federal agency actions. Section 4 of the Act requires the Service to consider economic costs and benefits prior to making a final decision on the size and scope of critical habitat Close

• 44. [Image] Dear concerned citizen

  	"Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) proposed decision and finding of no significant impact for the Lost River Management Framework Plan amendments."-- P. [1]; August 19, 1988."; "BLM-OR-PT-88-12-1792"--P. ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Dear concerned citizen Year: 1988, 2005 "Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) proposed decision and finding of no significant impact for the Lost River Management Framework Plan amendments."-- P. [1]; August 19, 1988."; "BLM-OR-PT-88-12-1792"--P. 8 Title: Dear concerned citizen Year: 1988, 2005 "Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) proposed decision and finding of no significant impact for the Lost River Management Framework Plan amendments."-- P. [1]; August 19, 1988."; "BLM-OR-PT-88-12-1792"--P. 8 Close

• 45. [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 Citation Abstract Copy 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 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 Close

• 46. [Image] IMST review of the USFWS and NMFS 2001 biological opinions on management of the Klamath Reclamation Project and related reports: a report of the Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team, Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds

  	This report is a review of scientific research done by various organizations involved in the Klamath Reclamation Project to assess the "status and management of coho salmon in the Klamath River and . . ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: IMST review of the USFWS and NMFS 2001 biological opinions on management of the Klamath Reclamation Project and related reports: a report of the Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team, Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds Author: Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (Oregon) Year: 2003, 2004 This report is a review of scientific research done by various organizations involved in the Klamath Reclamation Project to assess the "status and management of coho salmon in the Klamath River and . . . management of Upper Klamath Lake and its watershed"; "April 16, 2003"; Includes bibliographical references (p. 104-112) Title: IMST review of the USFWS and NMFS 2001 biological opinions on management of the Klamath Reclamation Project and related reports: a report of the Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team, Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds Author: Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (Oregon) Year: 2003, 2004 This report is a review of scientific research done by various organizations involved in the Klamath Reclamation Project to assess the "status and management of coho salmon in the Klamath River and . . . management of Upper Klamath Lake and its watershed"; "April 16, 2003"; Includes bibliographical references (p. 104-112) Close

• 47. [Image] Final economic analysis of critical habitat designation for the bull trout

  	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 Citation Abstract Copy 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 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 Close

• 48. [Image] 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

  	"April 1998"--P. [4] of cover; Includes bibliographical references (p. 57-66)
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy 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) 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) Close

• 49. [Image] Recovery of wild salmonids in western Oregon forests : Oregon Forest Practices Act rules and the measures in the Oregon plan for salmon and watersheds

  	"September 8, 1999."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Recovery of wild salmonids in western Oregon forests : Oregon Forest Practices Act rules and the measures in the Oregon plan for salmon and watersheds Author: Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (Or.) Year: 1999, 2005 "September 8, 1999." Title: Recovery of wild salmonids in western Oregon forests : Oregon Forest Practices Act rules and the measures in the Oregon plan for salmon and watersheds Author: Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (Or.) Year: 1999, 2005 "September 8, 1999." Close

• 50. [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 Citation Abstract Copy 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 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 Close

• 51. [Image] The Water Report - Klamath update water purchase / release

  	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 Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Water Report - Klamath update water purchase / release 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/ Title: The Water Report - Klamath update water purchase / release 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/ Close

• 52. [Image] Klamath Falls Resource Area Planning Update, Winter 2003

  	U. S. Die artment sf the Interior Bu. rea. u oP L and Management K I W ~ Falls R~& G urnw . 2795 & tdeaonAvepue, BuMng #% Klamath F~ HSO, r egon 97803 . . January 2004 Klamath Falls Resource Area Planning ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath Falls Resource Area Planning Update, Winter 2003 Author: United States. Bureau of Land Management. Klamath Falls Resource Area Office Year: 2003, 2004 U. S. Die artment sf the Interior Bu. rea. u oP L and Management K I W ~ Falls R~& G urnw . 2795 & tdeaonAvepue, BuMng #% Klamath F~ HSO, r egon 97803 . . January 2004 Klamath Falls Resource Area Planning Update Winter 2003 United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Klamath Falls Resource Area 2795 Anderson Avenue, Building 25 Klarnath Falls, Oregon 97603- 7891 Phone: ( 541) 883- 6916 1 Fax: ( 541) 884- 2097 E- Mail Address: Username@ or. blm. gov Website: http: llwww. or. blrngov/ L. akeview/ kfra/ index. htrn KLAMATH FALLS RESOURCE AREA PLANNING UPDATE Winter 2003 The primary purpose of this Planning Update is to inform you about the activities on the Klarnath Falls Resource Area. It is my desire to keep you informed about issues, activities, and opportunities I think are important to the public. More importantly, I am seeking ideas and comments from those who may be affected by multiple- use management programs here on the resource area. This planning update is organized to make it easy for you to find projects of most interest. Projects have been arranged into categories ( i. e., Recent Decisions, New Projects, On- going Projects, and Environmental Education Activities). In addition, each of these categories is sorted by resource topics ( e. g., Lands Program, Timber Sales, etc.). The table will give you a brief description of activities occurring within the Klamath Falls Resource Area and for most projects a location. Refer to one of three maps following the table, for locations of projects. Additional information can be obtained fi- om the contact listed in the project descriptions. If you have any concerns about the proposed actions, please call the Klarnath Falls Resource Area and ask for the " Contact" person listed or the Resource Area Planner as soon as possible. The earlier you get involved, the more capability we have to adjust or change planned actions. Also be alert for news releases and public notices published in the Herald and News as projects reach stages for public involvement. If you want to provide comments to a specific environmental assessment, please send or deliver your written comments addressed to the Field Manager, Klamath Falls Resource Area, by the close of, or postmarked by the last day of the comment period. Your comments and concerns are welcomed, and could influence the final decision on these projects. I would appreciate any comments or suggestions you may have regarding this p l h i n g update or how it could be improved to make it more useful to you. Thank you for your continued interest in BLM's management of public lands. If you have any questions on this planning update, stop by the office or call ( 541) 883- 6916. Jon Raby, Field Manager Klamath Falls Resource Area BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT ' KLAMATH FALLS RESOURCE AREA 2795 ANDERSON AVENUE, BLDG. # t5 KLAMATH FALLS, OR 97603 PHONE NUMBER: ( 541) 883- 6916 MAP PROJECT TITLE & DESCRIPTION LOCATION SPECIAL AREAS STATUS OF COMPLETION CONTACT REF. # AFFECTED ANALYSIS DATE CX = Categorical Exclusion, DNA = Determination of NEPA Adequacy, EA = Environmental Assessment, EIS = Environmental Impact Statement Klarnath Falls Resource Area, Winter 2003 Planning Update - Page 2 New Projects - Watershed Map # 4 T39S. R14E, Secs. 10, 11,14, 15 Norcross Vegetation Treatments - Thin ponderosa pine, remove invasive juniper, restore native vegetative communities ( grass, shrub, pine), and monitor the effects of treatment on vegetative and hydrologic resources. New Projects - Roads and Facilities None Map 1 EA in progress. Road crossing Spencer Creek Spencer Creek Culvert Replacement Spencer Watershed Riparian Fence Reconstruction New Projects - Recreation I Topsy Recreation Site Improvements - Campground water 1 T40S, R7E, Sm. 1 Map # I0 1 system and boat ramp improvements None I DNAS~ nnrrr2004 I Fall 2005 New Projects - Range Management Fall 2007 Fish passage Riparian Protection Mike Turaski in progress CX in progress Map #' DNA Spring 2004 Pitch Log Creek, Long Branch Creek, and Antelope Creek within the Gerber Block Gerber Watershed Riparian Fencing - Emposed project to construct livestock exclosure fencing along about 1.1 miles of Pitch Log Creek, 1.5 miles of Long Branch Creek, and 1.7 miles of Antelope Creek. Maintain fences as riparian exclosures or riparian pastures. Monitor effects of reduced livestock use on vegetation and streambank conditions. New Projects - Timber Management Contract - Fall 2004 Construction - 2005. Summer 2004 Riparian protection Fall 2004 Andy Hamilton Andy Hamilton Dana Eckard Jenny Creek Watershed South Gerber Block Jenny Creek Watershed South Gerber Block I I I None 1 None Jenny Creek EA - Purpose of this EA is to address a variety of forest health and restoration treatments in the Jenny Creek Watershed. Proposed treatments may include; commercial timber sales, non- commercial silvicultural treatments, riparian restoration treatments, aspen stand restoration and road restoration projects. South Gerber EA - Purpose of this EA is to address a variety of forest health and restoration treatments in the South Gerber Block area. Proposed treatments may include; commercial timber sales, non- commercial silvicultural treatments, riparian restoration treatments, juniper woodland treatments, aspen stand restoration and road restoration projects. LOCATION Recent Decisions - Lands Program 1 I I I I I Upper Spencer Creek Road Treatments - Road Upper Spencer Creek I' Implementation in July obliteration, decommissioning, realignment, improvement, T38S, R6E Sections Riparian Resenres DDRBs I 2M Mike Turaski and stream crossing removal. 15 and 23 12123103 Recent Decisions - Wildlife M Map 1 # 43 ecisions - Waters Map 1 # 21 Willow Valley Habitat Enhancement Willow Valley Warm water fishexies Implementation pending Reservoir ODFW involvement. Section 1 Exploration Quarry Expansion Drilling - Authorization for ODOT to conduct exploratory drilling in and around an existingpit to identify a source for additional mineral material. Scott Snedaker I I I I I I Recent Decisions - Fuels Treatment T40S, R6E, Sec. 1. N112NW114 Map 1 # 3 None Boundary Springs Yarding and Removal of Cut Juniper - Purpose of this project is to remove juniper boles in previously treated areas to reduce fuel accumulation and promote commercial use of juniper. None Ben Hall 1 & 2, Cerber Potholes, Sehnipps, and FIZ 95- 71 Juniper Yarding - to remove juniper boles in previously treated areas to reduce fuel accumulation and promote commercial use of juniper. Fint 360 acres yarded and material sold to Area FTZ- 1 04 utilization local mill ( REACH) that utilizes juniper. Exploration initiated as weather permits. Rebecca La& Linda Younger Mike Bechdolt Various Mike Bechdolt Klamath Falls Resource Area, Winter 2003 Planning Update - Page 3 Fuel treatment, juniper utilization DNA completed. Project on hold. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT KLAMATH FALLS RESOURCE AREA AVEl PHONE NUMBER: 2795 ANDERSON AVENUE, BLDG. # 25 ' E ( 541) 8836916 SPECIAL AREAS STATUS OF AEFECrED ANALYSIS PROJECT TITLE & DESCRIPTlON LOCATION AEFErnD COMPLETION DATE CONTACT r~ ann~ ng~ na~ ysis~ lrnp~ ernen- r Gareinoenr al RMP Evaluation~ Revision- In the final settlement agreement to the American Forest Resource Council vs. Bureau of Land Management ( BLM) litigation, the BLM is directed to revise Resource Management Plans ( RMPs) in western Oregon by December, 2008. The BLM began the revision process in 2003, evaluating current plans and developing a project preplan. Project status information will be posted on the District website. Formal scoping is expected in the second half of calendar year 2004. RMP Revision - FY 2008 None Resource Area Wide All Resources Evaluation in progress Don Homeins GerberlWillow Valley Coordinated Resource Management Plan ( CRMP) Watershed Analysis. - A local planning team of private landowners, StatelFederal land managers, and concerned citizens recommends future project implementation on private land in CRMP area. CRMP meetings/ discussions are continuing Map 1 # 5 GerberNillow Valley Watershed Completion date open-Rivate Lands ended Don Homeins Lany Frazier Wild and Scenic River designation, Area of Critical Concern, T& E spp. Map l # 28 Upper Klamath River Management Plan DEE - Develop a management plan in response to Wild and Scenic Riven Act requirements for river segment approx. 20 miles long encompassing 6,400 acres. Klarnath River - J. C. Boyle Reservoir, Oregon, to Copco One Reservoir, California Draft EIS released 511 612003. Comment period closed 8/ 13/ 2003. FEIS December 2004 Upper Klamath Basin and Wood River Wetland Resource Management Plan Amendment for the Fourmile Creek portion of this area. The purpose of this project is to amend the Upper Klamath Basin and Wood River Wetland RMP EIS to designate the Fourmile Creek area as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. Riparian Wetland Area of Critical Environmental Concern ( ACEC) Draft EIS to be prepared. Specific schedule and completion date unknown. ACEC Evaluation submitted to District Manager, October 2000. Map 1 # 29 Fourmile Creek Wetland Lou Whiteaker Lany Frazier Draft MOU presented to the Tribal Council on 2/ 22/ 2000. Waiting for Tribal feedback. - -- Unknown Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) between the Klamath Tribes and BLM for Coordination on Management Issues. - The proposed MOU identifies a process to coordinate tribal involvement with BLM management actions on public lands. Late- Successional Reserve ( LSR) Assessment. A single LSR Assessment was prepared to assess all 19 Unmapped LSRs designated within the resource area and develop management recommendations for these areas to restore or maintain late successional habitat. Former Tribal None Lakeview District Lands - None Draft submitted to and pending approval from the Regional Ecosystem Office ( REO). BLM lands west of Highway 97 covered by the Northwest Forest Plan Unmapped Late Successional - Reserves. Analysis is complete. - ou Whiteaker Klamath Falls Resource Area, Winter 2003 Planning Update - Page 4 2795 ANDERSON AVENUE, BLDG. # 25 KLAMATH FALLS, OR 97603 541) 8834916 STATUS OF COMPLETION DATE CONTACT AFFECTED I ANALYSIS I - Map 2 # 46 - None Map 1 -# 7 Map 1 # 22 - None Map 2 # 44 Map 2 # 30 Oak Thinning - Thin 100 acres of oak woodland to restore plant communities and reduce potential for stand replacing wildfires and overall fire management costs. Noxious Weed Treatments - contain1 reduce noxious weed populations using integrated pest management ( manual, mechanical, chemical, and biological control methods). Activities tier to KFRA Integrated Weed Control Plan ( IWCP) and EA- OR- 014- 93- 09 approved July 21, 1993. T40S, R6E, Sec. 35 T41S, R6E, Sec. 3 and 10 T41S, WE, Sec. 1 Weed- infested sites throughout the Klamath Falls Resource Area Bitterbrush Planting - - Various locations Ongoing Planning/ Analysisflmplementation - Vegetation Treatments I I I -- -- - Horton Rim I Windy Ridge Juniper Removal - Juniper treatment for fuel reduction and wildlife habitat inmovement GerberlWillow Valley Riparian Conifer Treatments - removing invasive juniper from riparian areas in the Gerber Block G& I Willow Valley Watersheds Spencer Creek Riparian Thinning- thin 80 acres of iuniverlmixed conifer T38S, R6E, Secs. 21 and 28 Clover Creek DDRB - 108 acres mechanical treatment. T. 38S, R6E, Sec. 27.34 Off Spencer Hookup Road I Document is tiered to the Northwest Area Noxious 1 Noxious Weed I Klamath River canyon/ ACEC None I Wyd Control Program Treatments occur May - EIS avvroved December I October on a vearlv I Lou mitaker Analysis in Progress. 1985: supplemented in March 1987. Analysis completion expected Spring 2004. - . basis. Mule deer winter range. Rob Roninger None I EA completed Riparian Reserves EA completed. I Ongoing - Possible in Key Watershed completion in 2004 I Mike Turaski cx completed. h j e c t in progress. Riparian, critical sucker habitat 2- 3 year implementation began Spring 2003. Ongoing Planning/ Analysis/ Implementation- Lands Treatments occur on a yearly basis. Hapa DNA completed. Bald Eagles, Survey and Manage species Map l # 8 Greg Reddell Map 1 # 17 Implementation initiated 2003 - Ongoing DNA completed in Spring 2001. Mike Turaski Map I -# 20 Map 1 -# 9 On hold for RE0 approval of LSRA - ~- - Dehlinger Trust - Residential Road ROW and easement. Bmner Land Exchange Steve Haper Bly Dump Sale ( EA No. OR- 014- 97- 01) - Purpose of # l8 this project is to sell Bly Transfer Station to Klamath Co. I of Bly'OrrgOn. Map I I None Known I Analysis in progress I Winter2004 Linda Younger T40S, RIOE, Sec. 9 South Bryant Mountain Al B ~ n eLra nd Sale Nancy Charley Trust Reciprocal Easement and ROW Klamath Falls Resource Area, Winter 2003 Planning Update - Page 5 None Unknown T41S, R13E. Sec. 14 T38S, RSE, Sec 12- 13 Reciprocal Easement Pending On hold Unknown Borders Riparian Reserve Winter 2004 Spring 2005 EA completedl Decision record pending CX completed, easement pending Linda Younger Linda Younger Spring 2004 Fall 2004 Linda Younger Linda Younger MAP PROJECT TITLE & DESCRIPTION REF. SPECIAL AREAS IC OMPLI AFFECTED Ongoing Planning/ Analysis/ Imp LOCATION ETION DATE I COMA dementation - rimber Sales I - - - Non - Non Roaming Salvage EA - The purpose is to provide NEPA coverage for timely salvage of timber mortality over the entire Resource Area. Entire Resource Area Unknown Preparing scoping letters. Spring 2004 I MI* cBechdo1t FY 04 - Baldy Salvage Timber Sale - Sale is designed to harvest windthrown trees as a result of 2003- 4 windstorms and scattered insect and disease related mortality. Anticipated volume is I . O- 1 SMMBF on 300- 500 acres. FY 04 - Matchbox Title I1 Service Contradl'imber Sale - The project consists of a Forest Health Density ManagementIUnderstory Thinning of overstocked mixed conifer stands. The sale is being designed under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self- Determination Act of 200 - Public Law 106- 393. A service contract will be used to thin, yard, and deck trees from an overstocked mixed conifer stand. A timber sale contract will be used sell the decked material. Approximately 300 acres are scheduled for treatment resulting in about 600 MBF. Primarily in the Surveyor Mtn and Burton Butte Areas. May also include some eastside areas. Timber Sale is scheduled to be sold in Mike Bechdolt May or June of 2004 Presently marking some of the scatted salvage Matrix Contract is scheduled to be awarded in June or Mike Bechdolt July of 2004 Chase Mountain Area T. 40S., R. 7E., Sec. 9 Presently Preparing the Matrix Timber Sale Contract Proposed sale date: Summer 2005 Mike Bechdolt Riparian Reserves T38S., ME., Sec. l3,15,23, 25 and 26 Reserves! Matrix Buck Again Timber Sale - An estimated 700 acres is designed for treatment in the Spencer Creek watershed near Buck Lake. Approx. 4 MMBF to be harvested. Sale preparation. Chew Timber Sale- Approximately 1,000 acres density management understory reduction adjacent to and south of T40S. R6E, Secs. 1, 1 1,14 T40S, R7E. Secs. 3 and 5 Proposed sale date Mike Bechdolt Hwy 66 west of la math Falls. ~ aleanal~ zuendd er the Sale preparation. Spring 2004 or 2005. Topsy/ Pokegama/ Hamaker EA (# OR- 0 14- 98- 01 ). Estimated volume of 2.5 m b f . None Oneoine Plannine/ Analvsis/ Implementation - Roads and Facilities Map 1 # 77 Map # 73 Klamath Falls Resource Area, Winter 2003 Planning Update - Page 6 Sediment Traps - 30 sediment traps on BLM, USFS, and private land Map I # 6 Gcrber Road Sediment Reduction - road resurfacing and drainage improvement to reduce sediment delivery to streams in the Gerber Watershed Spencer Creek Watershed and Gerber Block Gerber Washrack- Installation of facility at Gerber Guard Station for washing equipment to control the suread of noxious weeds and overhead filling of tankers. 5 stream crossings None Gerber Guard Station Critical sucker habitat DNA completed. Sediment traps installed. Noxious weed prevention EA completed. Implementation initiated I Fall 2004 Monitoring in progress. Mike Turaski CX completed. Mike Turaski Pending funding. Bob Crumrine/ Brian McCarty - I - 1 - Map 1 # 6 Ongoing Planning/ Analysis/ Implementation - Roads and Facilities ( continued) Gerber Area Recreation Improvements - ( RMP ROD EIS 6- 2- 95, pp. 49- 50) - Project falls under corrective maintenance, improvement or replacement in the Klamath Falls RMP. Existing maintenance, improvement or replacement include: rocking and chip- sealinglpaving road system and campsites, picnic tables, barrier posts, camp host RV holding tank, hydrants, Barnes Valley Boat Ramp access road. Scott Smter Gerber Reservoir Recreation Site Gerber Area Primitive Camp and Day Use Sites Recreation Improvements. The objectives of these improvements are to update or improve existing facilities to continue to provide an enhanced recreational experience and satisfy visitor needs. T& ESpecies ( suckers and bald eagles) Scott Senter Stan H Spring, Potholes, Miller Creek, Frog Camp, Pitchlog Creek, Wildhorse, Basin, Rock Creek and Willow Valley Reservoir Map l # 6 Projects in compliance GththeKFIURMP. Determination of NEPA Adequacy completed and approved on 10128199. Wood River Wetlands Project - Remaining projects: Finish installation of fish screen on 7- mile Canal diversion structure and floating boardwalk, interpretive signs, and trail system. Surface rock dike roads from bridge to 7- mile Canal and add group interpretive site. Juniper Chip Road - Using juniper debris for biomass or by- product in Oshea ( mZ 95/ 71), and Norcross Springs. FY 2004 - Miller Creek- Potholes trail to be constructed T& E Species ( suckers) wood River Property I I Upper Klamath Basin and Wood River Wetland I A Determination of NEPA Adequacy ( DNA) completed 9/ 25/ 2000. ( Project contingent on funding) Map 1 # 25 - Map 2 # 70 FY 2004- sidewalks and pinic tables to be installed at Willow Valley Res. Wedge Watkins Joe Foran 25 miles north of Klamath Falls, Oregon T 39 8 40s. R13,14,14XE I None Known I I Stewardship contract EAcompIeted being developed. Ongoing Projects - Prescribed Burning and Fuels Treatment Wetlands Map 2 # 2 Resource Management Plan EIS; decision signed June 16,1995. Joe Foran Pending funding Short Lake Broadcast Bum - Prescribe bum approx. 280 acres outside FTZ to reduce fuel loading and risk of wildfire. T38S. R1 I E, Sec 20 & 29 - - - - - - -- - - - - - Miller Creek Mechanical Treatment - Proposal to use mechanical piling instead of prescribed buming of a~ oroximatelv I00 acres. Map 2 # 37 - T39S. R13E. Sec. 14 & 23 Analysis Completed ACEC 1 FONSl and Decision Record on 3- 24- 99. Joe Foran None Known Project delayed. EA completed Fuels Maintenance Treatments # t ( KCER - 00- 03) Treat approximately 1,200 acres to remove fire- prone brush, excessive levels of hazardous fuels ( less than 6" in diameter), and small conifers that are ladder fuels and threats to over stow trees bv crown fire.. Map 2 # I 1 Spring 2004 Klamath Falls Resource Area, east of Hwy 97. See Prescribed Fire Map for locations. None Known Dale Brush Map 2 # 62 Analysis completed. Multiple year implementation - ongoing. Mechanical Slash Treatment Project - Mechanical treatments ( shearing, chipping, or grinding) to reduce fuels and control vegetation on approx. 12,000 acres. Joe Foran Multiple Locations Resource Area Wide None / Second DNA completed. Klamath Falls Resource Area, Winter 2003 Planning Update - Page 7 Projects tasked out over a three year period - ongoing. PROJECT K. 1 TITLE & DESCRIPTIO SPECIAL AREAS STATUS OF 4 CONTACT AFFECTED ANALYSIS - Map 2 -# 39 Map 2 # 40 - Map 2 -# 42 Map 2 # 38 Map 2 # 63 Map 2 # 64 - Map 2 # 65 & # I9 Map 2 # 45 - Map 2 # 49 - Stukel98- 1 Mechanical Treatment - Mechanical piling T40S, RIOE, Sec. 10,11,14, instead of pmcribed burning of approximately 500 acres. 23,24 Stukel98- 2 Prescribed Burn - Prescribe bum approx. 3,000 acres to: Reintroduce fire to restore plant communities, while reducing the potential for stand-replacement wildfires and overall fire management costs. T40S, RIOE, Sec. 12,13,24 T40S, RllE, Sec. 7& 18 HamakerIChase Fuels Treatment - Reduce Fuels on T40S, R8E 4000 acres south of Hwy 66 I Stiles Spring Prescribed Burn - Project purpose to bum approximately 1,000 acres to: Reinduce fire to restore sustainable function and structure to plant communities, while reducing the potential for stand- replacement wildfires, and reducing overall fire management costs. Stukel98- 7 & 9 Prescribed Burns - Prescribe bum approximately 525 acres to: reintroduce fire to restore plant communities, reduce overall fire management costs and the potential for stand- replacing wildfires. Statelinel Holbmk Prescribed Bums - Presmie bum approximately 4.000 acres to reduce fuel loading and risk of catastrophic wildfire. T37S, RIOE, Sec. 3- 5,9- 11, 14- 15 T40S, RllE, Sec5 & 6 T. 40S, R15 E., T. 41S, RISE. -- Big Adobe Prescribed Burn - Prescribe bum approximately 6,700 acres to reduce fuel loading and risk of catastrophic wildfire ( includes Wild Midway Rx Bum) Range- Juniper Treatment - Hazardous fuel reduction, T40S. R12E. Sec. 1 1 using mechanical and prescribed fire methods. T41 S, RISE Upper Swan Prescribed Burn - Project purpose: bum approximately 98 acres to restore sustainable function and structure to plant communities, reduce potential for stand-replacement wildfires and overall fire management costs. g and Fuels Treatment ( continued) None Known Project0 t1ie 4r- s9 4to- 0E9A. # OR- Project ongoing Joe Fmn T37S, RIOE, Sec. 24 & 25 T37S, RI 1.5E, Sec. 31 Bald Eagle ( Analysis Completed- I 200 acres treated in FY I None Analysis Completed Project tiers to EA # OR- 014- 94- 09. EA completed Wildlife Habitat Riparian Initiated Winter 2001 Fall 2004 Joe Foran Project delayed until the Spring 2004 Bald None Bald Eagle I Planned projects tier to the Promammatic Fire I Joe Foran Joe Foran Project initiated, 2- 3 year implementation FONSI - 12- 1 9- 99. 2000; Remainder Decision Record on 01 - 25- 2000 ,, Foran Joe Foran Analysis Completed Project tiers to EA # OR- 014- 94- 09) approved on 4- 29- 94. Initiated Winter 2001 Klamath Falls Resource Area, Winter 2003 Planning Update - Page 8 Wildlife forage/ habitat improvement 130 acres completed Remainder Spring 2004 Accomplished 1500 acres. Remainder Fall 2004. Steve Pehick- Underwood Joe Foran DNA completed ongoing 2- 3 year implementation Joe Foran .. " "" . 7 < .,.. - . . 7 - " b - . " < * - - ' 7 , 4 . , v ,-' w., ,. ' q"* -*?, . x*-.. s,... >,% VW? P ,*.- 7i*,- .*. x., < 8 SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED PROJECTS BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT KLAMATH FALLS RESOURCE AREA * 2795 ANDERSON AVENUE, BLDG. # 25 KLAMATH FALLS, OR 97603 PHONE NUMBER: ( 541) 883- 69 MAP PROJECT TITLE & DESCRIPTION LOCATION I SPECIAL AREAS STATUS OF ANALYSIS COMPLETION CONTACT REF. # AFFECTED DATE Rangeland Health Standards Assessments - in progress I These assessments compare the monitoring information collected against the five Standards for Rangeland Health and propose management changes if current grazing use is not meeting the Standards, or not making significant improvement towards meeting them. Changes are implemented through the grazing decision or agreement process. z3I Re16 Allotment ( M893) I South Langell Valley I None Known I Assessment in progress I Summer 2004 I Dana Eckard M$\ 3 I KIamatL Forest Estates Allotment ( M862) 1 North of Bonanza -~ Yainax Allotment ( M861) I None Known I Assessment in progress I ~ ~ - 2 0 0 4 I Bill Lindsey North of Bonanza Map # 55 None Known ? G3 Haskins Allotment (# 0826) y&' Assessment in progress Masten Allotment ( M842) Map # 68 North of Bonanza Kellian Allotment (# 0834) Hungry Hollow Allotment (# 0830) Klamath Falls Resource Area, Winter 2003 Planning Update - Page 9 SUM 2004 North of Bonanza Adams Allotment (# 0800) Rangeland Health Standards Assessments - completed* Bill Lindsey None Known North of Bonanza North of Bonanza None Known East of Bonanza Bill Lindsey Assessment in progress None Known None Known * A total of 37 Rangeland Health Standards Assessments have been completed to date, 1 has been completed so far in FY 2004. Assessment in progress None Known None Known Assessment completed Summer 2004 Assessment in progress Assessment in progress Map North of Bonanza December 2003 # 48 Dana Eckard Summer 2004 Assessment in progress McCartie Allotment (# 0860) Dana Eckard Summer 2004 Summer 2004 Dana Eckard Summer 2004 Dana Eckard Dana Eckard Presentations/ Environmental Education Programs/ Tours ( Fiscal Year to Date) Fun With Fungi I 1 1/ 2/ 03 I Seven Mile Area Adults 25 I What Was Presented Overview of past and current outreach events; permit sales Wood River Wetland Field Trip Operation Indian Rocks ARPA Investigation 1 1 1/ 3/ 03 ( Central Washington University 1 Faculty and Students I 51 I Date 1 Group / Age # of People 1 01 1 5/ 03 10/ 28/ 03 Where Cultural Resource Management and the NEPA Process Archaeological Investigations in the Great Basin I Wildlife Management 1 12/ 16/ 03 1 OIT - " Expanding Horizons" I 8* Grade Students I 120 1 Ross Ragland Theater Wood River Wetland Coloring Books 1 1/ 3/ 03 1 1/ 4/ 03 Klarnath Falls Resource Area, Winter 2003 Planning Update - Page 10 Answer People/ Adults Oregon Institute of Technology Students I 1 1 11 9/ 03 Shasta Elementary School -- - S - 290 Fire Behavior 25 - 30 Central Washington University Central Washington University Elementary Students 30 12/ 20/ 03 Graduate Student Seminar Graduate Student Seminar 24 35 Klamth Community College Adults 8 EventIActivlty Date Location Contact( s) F 01 rarnclpanrs ( EmployeeslPublic*) IBald Eagle Conference I Februaryl3- IS I Oregon Institute of Technology I Steve Haynerl Kelly Hollums I l~ arthD ay I April I Jefferson Square Mall I Greg Reddell I Klamath Watershed conference February 24 - 26 Wilderness & Horse Packing Clinic** International Migratory Bird Day IMBD Pre- event Classes -- - IMBD Educator Workshop Oregon Institute of Technology May ( IMBD) April 24 IMBD Event National Free Fishing Day RAP Camp Klamath County Fair Klamath Falls Resource Area, Winter 2003 Planning Update - Page 11 Wedge WatkinslKelly Hollums April 16 - pp - - Sixth Grade Forestry Tour National Public Lands Day Oregon Archeology Celebration Klarnath County Fairgrounds Klamath Community College May 8 June June August Tonya PinckneyIScott Senter Steve Hayner, et al OSU- Klamath Co. Extension * Numbers of public participants for large events are estimated. ** BOLD WRITING indicates that project is funded with District Outreach dollars. September September September Veteran's Park To Be Announced Camp Esther Applegate Klamath County Fairgrounds Steve Hayner, et al Steve Hayner Scott Snedaker To Be Announced PinckneylSenter Clover Creek Educational Area To Be Announced To Be Announced ~ p Bill Johnson To Be Announced Michelle Durant Glama th Falls Resource Area Miscellaneo~ wP roject Loca ticms R6E RBE R7E RBE RBE RlOE RIIE R12E R13E R14E R14.6E R16E Klamath Falls Resource Area, Winter 2003 Planning Update - Page 12 N LEGEND R5E R6E R7E R8E RQE RIOE R l l E R12E R13E R14E R14.5E R15E Klarnath Falls Resource Area, Fall 2003 Planning Update - Page 13 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGE~ ENT Klarnath Falls Resource Area Office 2395 Parderson Avenue, Building a 5 Kfamth MIS. Oregan 97603 OF. FIGIAL, BUSI~ ESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $ 300 Marita Kunkel Library Director Oregon Institute of Techolagy 3201 Cempus Dr Klamath Falls, OR 97601 Title: Klamath Falls Resource Area Planning Update, Winter 2003 Author: United States. Bureau of Land Management. Klamath Falls Resource Area Office Year: 2003, 2004 U. S. Die artment sf the Interior Bu. rea. u oP L and Management K I W ~ Falls R~& G urnw . 2795 & tdeaonAvepue, BuMng #% Klamath F~ HSO, r egon 97803 . . January 2004 Klamath Falls Resource Area Planning Update Winter 2003 United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Klamath Falls Resource Area 2795 Anderson Avenue, Building 25 Klarnath Falls, Oregon 97603- 7891 Phone: ( 541) 883- 6916 1 Fax: ( 541) 884- 2097 E- Mail Address: Username@ or. blm. gov Website: http: llwww. or. blrngov/ L. akeview/ kfra/ index. htrn KLAMATH FALLS RESOURCE AREA PLANNING UPDATE Winter 2003 The primary purpose of this Planning Update is to inform you about the activities on the Klarnath Falls Resource Area. It is my desire to keep you informed about issues, activities, and opportunities I think are important to the public. More importantly, I am seeking ideas and comments from those who may be affected by multiple- use management programs here on the resource area. This planning update is organized to make it easy for you to find projects of most interest. Projects have been arranged into categories ( i. e., Recent Decisions, New Projects, On- going Projects, and Environmental Education Activities). In addition, each of these categories is sorted by resource topics ( e. g., Lands Program, Timber Sales, etc.). The table will give you a brief description of activities occurring within the Klamath Falls Resource Area and for most projects a location. Refer to one of three maps following the table, for locations of projects. Additional information can be obtained fi- om the contact listed in the project descriptions. If you have any concerns about the proposed actions, please call the Klarnath Falls Resource Area and ask for the " Contact" person listed or the Resource Area Planner as soon as possible. The earlier you get involved, the more capability we have to adjust or change planned actions. Also be alert for news releases and public notices published in the Herald and News as projects reach stages for public involvement. If you want to provide comments to a specific environmental assessment, please send or deliver your written comments addressed to the Field Manager, Klamath Falls Resource Area, by the close of, or postmarked by the last day of the comment period. Your comments and concerns are welcomed, and could influence the final decision on these projects. I would appreciate any comments or suggestions you may have regarding this p l h i n g update or how it could be improved to make it more useful to you. Thank you for your continued interest in BLM's management of public lands. If you have any questions on this planning update, stop by the office or call ( 541) 883- 6916. Jon Raby, Field Manager Klamath Falls Resource Area BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT ' KLAMATH FALLS RESOURCE AREA 2795 ANDERSON AVENUE, BLDG. # t5 KLAMATH FALLS, OR 97603 PHONE NUMBER: ( 541) 883- 6916 MAP PROJECT TITLE & DESCRIPTION LOCATION SPECIAL AREAS STATUS OF COMPLETION CONTACT REF. # AFFECTED ANALYSIS DATE CX = Categorical Exclusion, DNA = Determination of NEPA Adequacy, EA = Environmental Assessment, EIS = Environmental Impact Statement Klarnath Falls Resource Area, Winter 2003 Planning Update - Page 2 New Projects - Watershed Map # 4 T39S. R14E, Secs. 10, 11,14, 15 Norcross Vegetation Treatments - Thin ponderosa pine, remove invasive juniper, restore native vegetative communities ( grass, shrub, pine), and monitor the effects of treatment on vegetative and hydrologic resources. New Projects - Roads and Facilities None Map 1 EA in progress. Road crossing Spencer Creek Spencer Creek Culvert Replacement Spencer Watershed Riparian Fence Reconstruction New Projects - Recreation I Topsy Recreation Site Improvements - Campground water 1 T40S, R7E, Sm. 1 Map # I0 1 system and boat ramp improvements None I DNAS~ nnrrr2004 I Fall 2005 New Projects - Range Management Fall 2007 Fish passage Riparian Protection Mike Turaski in progress CX in progress Map #' DNA Spring 2004 Pitch Log Creek, Long Branch Creek, and Antelope Creek within the Gerber Block Gerber Watershed Riparian Fencing - Emposed project to construct livestock exclosure fencing along about 1.1 miles of Pitch Log Creek, 1.5 miles of Long Branch Creek, and 1.7 miles of Antelope Creek. Maintain fences as riparian exclosures or riparian pastures. Monitor effects of reduced livestock use on vegetation and streambank conditions. New Projects - Timber Management Contract - Fall 2004 Construction - 2005. Summer 2004 Riparian protection Fall 2004 Andy Hamilton Andy Hamilton Dana Eckard Jenny Creek Watershed South Gerber Block Jenny Creek Watershed South Gerber Block I I I None 1 None Jenny Creek EA - Purpose of this EA is to address a variety of forest health and restoration treatments in the Jenny Creek Watershed. Proposed treatments may include; commercial timber sales, non- commercial silvicultural treatments, riparian restoration treatments, aspen stand restoration and road restoration projects. South Gerber EA - Purpose of this EA is to address a variety of forest health and restoration treatments in the South Gerber Block area. Proposed treatments may include; commercial timber sales, non- commercial silvicultural treatments, riparian restoration treatments, juniper woodland treatments, aspen stand restoration and road restoration projects. LOCATION Recent Decisions - Lands Program 1 I I I I I Upper Spencer Creek Road Treatments - Road Upper Spencer Creek I' Implementation in July obliteration, decommissioning, realignment, improvement, T38S, R6E Sections Riparian Resenres DDRBs I 2M Mike Turaski and stream crossing removal. 15 and 23 12123103 Recent Decisions - Wildlife M Map 1 # 43 ecisions - Waters Map 1 # 21 Willow Valley Habitat Enhancement Willow Valley Warm water fishexies Implementation pending Reservoir ODFW involvement. Section 1 Exploration Quarry Expansion Drilling - Authorization for ODOT to conduct exploratory drilling in and around an existingpit to identify a source for additional mineral material. Scott Snedaker I I I I I I Recent Decisions - Fuels Treatment T40S, R6E, Sec. 1. N112NW114 Map 1 # 3 None Boundary Springs Yarding and Removal of Cut Juniper - Purpose of this project is to remove juniper boles in previously treated areas to reduce fuel accumulation and promote commercial use of juniper. None Ben Hall 1 & 2, Cerber Potholes, Sehnipps, and FIZ 95- 71 Juniper Yarding - to remove juniper boles in previously treated areas to reduce fuel accumulation and promote commercial use of juniper. Fint 360 acres yarded and material sold to Area FTZ- 1 04 utilization local mill ( REACH) that utilizes juniper. Exploration initiated as weather permits. Rebecca La& Linda Younger Mike Bechdolt Various Mike Bechdolt Klamath Falls Resource Area, Winter 2003 Planning Update - Page 3 Fuel treatment, juniper utilization DNA completed. Project on hold. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT KLAMATH FALLS RESOURCE AREA AVEl PHONE NUMBER: 2795 ANDERSON AVENUE, BLDG. # 25 ' E ( 541) 8836916 SPECIAL AREAS STATUS OF AEFECrED ANALYSIS PROJECT TITLE & DESCRIPTlON LOCATION AEFErnD COMPLETION DATE CONTACT r~ ann~ ng~ na~ ysis~ lrnp~ ernen- r Gareinoenr al RMP Evaluation~ Revision- In the final settlement agreement to the American Forest Resource Council vs. Bureau of Land Management ( BLM) litigation, the BLM is directed to revise Resource Management Plans ( RMPs) in western Oregon by December, 2008. The BLM began the revision process in 2003, evaluating current plans and developing a project preplan. Project status information will be posted on the District website. Formal scoping is expected in the second half of calendar year 2004. RMP Revision - FY 2008 None Resource Area Wide All Resources Evaluation in progress Don Homeins GerberlWillow Valley Coordinated Resource Management Plan ( CRMP) Watershed Analysis. - A local planning team of private landowners, StatelFederal land managers, and concerned citizens recommends future project implementation on private land in CRMP area. CRMP meetings/ discussions are continuing Map 1 # 5 GerberNillow Valley Watershed Completion date open-Rivate Lands ended Don Homeins Lany Frazier Wild and Scenic River designation, Area of Critical Concern, T& E spp. Map l # 28 Upper Klamath River Management Plan DEE - Develop a management plan in response to Wild and Scenic Riven Act requirements for river segment approx. 20 miles long encompassing 6,400 acres. Klarnath River - J. C. Boyle Reservoir, Oregon, to Copco One Reservoir, California Draft EIS released 511 612003. Comment period closed 8/ 13/ 2003. FEIS December 2004 Upper Klamath Basin and Wood River Wetland Resource Management Plan Amendment for the Fourmile Creek portion of this area. The purpose of this project is to amend the Upper Klamath Basin and Wood River Wetland RMP EIS to designate the Fourmile Creek area as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. Riparian Wetland Area of Critical Environmental Concern ( ACEC) Draft EIS to be prepared. Specific schedule and completion date unknown. ACEC Evaluation submitted to District Manager, October 2000. Map 1 # 29 Fourmile Creek Wetland Lou Whiteaker Lany Frazier Draft MOU presented to the Tribal Council on 2/ 22/ 2000. Waiting for Tribal feedback. - -- Unknown Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) between the Klamath Tribes and BLM for Coordination on Management Issues. - The proposed MOU identifies a process to coordinate tribal involvement with BLM management actions on public lands. Late- Successional Reserve ( LSR) Assessment. A single LSR Assessment was prepared to assess all 19 Unmapped LSRs designated within the resource area and develop management recommendations for these areas to restore or maintain late successional habitat. Former Tribal None Lakeview District Lands - None Draft submitted to and pending approval from the Regional Ecosystem Office ( REO). BLM lands west of Highway 97 covered by the Northwest Forest Plan Unmapped Late Successional - Reserves. Analysis is complete. - ou Whiteaker Klamath Falls Resource Area, Winter 2003 Planning Update - Page 4 2795 ANDERSON AVENUE, BLDG. # 25 KLAMATH FALLS, OR 97603 541) 8834916 STATUS OF COMPLETION DATE CONTACT AFFECTED I ANALYSIS I - Map 2 # 46 - None Map 1 -# 7 Map 1 # 22 - None Map 2 # 44 Map 2 # 30 Oak Thinning - Thin 100 acres of oak woodland to restore plant communities and reduce potential for stand replacing wildfires and overall fire management costs. Noxious Weed Treatments - contain1 reduce noxious weed populations using integrated pest management ( manual, mechanical, chemical, and biological control methods). Activities tier to KFRA Integrated Weed Control Plan ( IWCP) and EA- OR- 014- 93- 09 approved July 21, 1993. T40S, R6E, Sec. 35 T41S, R6E, Sec. 3 and 10 T41S, WE, Sec. 1 Weed- infested sites throughout the Klamath Falls Resource Area Bitterbrush Planting - - Various locations Ongoing Planning/ Analysisflmplementation - Vegetation Treatments I I I -- -- - Horton Rim I Windy Ridge Juniper Removal - Juniper treatment for fuel reduction and wildlife habitat inmovement GerberlWillow Valley Riparian Conifer Treatments - removing invasive juniper from riparian areas in the Gerber Block G& I Willow Valley Watersheds Spencer Creek Riparian Thinning- thin 80 acres of iuniverlmixed conifer T38S, R6E, Secs. 21 and 28 Clover Creek DDRB - 108 acres mechanical treatment. T. 38S, R6E, Sec. 27.34 Off Spencer Hookup Road I Document is tiered to the Northwest Area Noxious 1 Noxious Weed I Klamath River canyon/ ACEC None I Wyd Control Program Treatments occur May - EIS avvroved December I October on a vearlv I Lou mitaker Analysis in Progress. 1985: supplemented in March 1987. Analysis completion expected Spring 2004. - . basis. Mule deer winter range. Rob Roninger None I EA completed Riparian Reserves EA completed. I Ongoing - Possible in Key Watershed completion in 2004 I Mike Turaski cx completed. h j e c t in progress. Riparian, critical sucker habitat 2- 3 year implementation began Spring 2003. Ongoing Planning/ Analysis/ Implementation- Lands Treatments occur on a yearly basis. Hapa DNA completed. Bald Eagles, Survey and Manage species Map l # 8 Greg Reddell Map 1 # 17 Implementation initiated 2003 - Ongoing DNA completed in Spring 2001. Mike Turaski Map I -# 20 Map 1 -# 9 On hold for RE0 approval of LSRA - ~- - Dehlinger Trust - Residential Road ROW and easement. Bmner Land Exchange Steve Haper Bly Dump Sale ( EA No. OR- 014- 97- 01) - Purpose of # l8 this project is to sell Bly Transfer Station to Klamath Co. I of Bly'OrrgOn. Map I I None Known I Analysis in progress I Winter2004 Linda Younger T40S, RIOE, Sec. 9 South Bryant Mountain Al B ~ n eLra nd Sale Nancy Charley Trust Reciprocal Easement and ROW Klamath Falls Resource Area, Winter 2003 Planning Update - Page 5 None Unknown T41S, R13E. Sec. 14 T38S, RSE, Sec 12- 13 Reciprocal Easement Pending On hold Unknown Borders Riparian Reserve Winter 2004 Spring 2005 EA completedl Decision record pending CX completed, easement pending Linda Younger Linda Younger Spring 2004 Fall 2004 Linda Younger Linda Younger MAP PROJECT TITLE & DESCRIPTION REF. SPECIAL AREAS IC OMPLI AFFECTED Ongoing Planning/ Analysis/ Imp LOCATION ETION DATE I COMA dementation - rimber Sales I - - - Non - Non Roaming Salvage EA - The purpose is to provide NEPA coverage for timely salvage of timber mortality over the entire Resource Area. Entire Resource Area Unknown Preparing scoping letters. Spring 2004 I MI* cBechdo1t FY 04 - Baldy Salvage Timber Sale - Sale is designed to harvest windthrown trees as a result of 2003- 4 windstorms and scattered insect and disease related mortality. Anticipated volume is I . O- 1 SMMBF on 300- 500 acres. FY 04 - Matchbox Title I1 Service Contradl'imber Sale - The project consists of a Forest Health Density ManagementIUnderstory Thinning of overstocked mixed conifer stands. The sale is being designed under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self- Determination Act of 200 - Public Law 106- 393. A service contract will be used to thin, yard, and deck trees from an overstocked mixed conifer stand. A timber sale contract will be used sell the decked material. Approximately 300 acres are scheduled for treatment resulting in about 600 MBF. Primarily in the Surveyor Mtn and Burton Butte Areas. May also include some eastside areas. Timber Sale is scheduled to be sold in Mike Bechdolt May or June of 2004 Presently marking some of the scatted salvage Matrix Contract is scheduled to be awarded in June or Mike Bechdolt July of 2004 Chase Mountain Area T. 40S., R. 7E., Sec. 9 Presently Preparing the Matrix Timber Sale Contract Proposed sale date: Summer 2005 Mike Bechdolt Riparian Reserves T38S., ME., Sec. l3,15,23, 25 and 26 Reserves! Matrix Buck Again Timber Sale - An estimated 700 acres is designed for treatment in the Spencer Creek watershed near Buck Lake. Approx. 4 MMBF to be harvested. Sale preparation. Chew Timber Sale- Approximately 1,000 acres density management understory reduction adjacent to and south of T40S. R6E, Secs. 1, 1 1,14 T40S, R7E. Secs. 3 and 5 Proposed sale date Mike Bechdolt Hwy 66 west of la math Falls. ~ aleanal~ zuendd er the Sale preparation. Spring 2004 or 2005. Topsy/ Pokegama/ Hamaker EA (# OR- 0 14- 98- 01 ). Estimated volume of 2.5 m b f . None Oneoine Plannine/ Analvsis/ Implementation - Roads and Facilities Map 1 # 77 Map # 73 Klamath Falls Resource Area, Winter 2003 Planning Update - Page 6 Sediment Traps - 30 sediment traps on BLM, USFS, and private land Map I # 6 Gcrber Road Sediment Reduction - road resurfacing and drainage improvement to reduce sediment delivery to streams in the Gerber Watershed Spencer Creek Watershed and Gerber Block Gerber Washrack- Installation of facility at Gerber Guard Station for washing equipment to control the suread of noxious weeds and overhead filling of tankers. 5 stream crossings None Gerber Guard Station Critical sucker habitat DNA completed. Sediment traps installed. Noxious weed prevention EA completed. Implementation initiated I Fall 2004 Monitoring in progress. Mike Turaski CX completed. Mike Turaski Pending funding. Bob Crumrine/ Brian McCarty - I - 1 - Map 1 # 6 Ongoing Planning/ Analysis/ Implementation - Roads and Facilities ( continued) Gerber Area Recreation Improvements - ( RMP ROD EIS 6- 2- 95, pp. 49- 50) - Project falls under corrective maintenance, improvement or replacement in the Klamath Falls RMP. Existing maintenance, improvement or replacement include: rocking and chip- sealinglpaving road system and campsites, picnic tables, barrier posts, camp host RV holding tank, hydrants, Barnes Valley Boat Ramp access road. Scott Smter Gerber Reservoir Recreation Site Gerber Area Primitive Camp and Day Use Sites Recreation Improvements. The objectives of these improvements are to update or improve existing facilities to continue to provide an enhanced recreational experience and satisfy visitor needs. T& ESpecies ( suckers and bald eagles) Scott Senter Stan H Spring, Potholes, Miller Creek, Frog Camp, Pitchlog Creek, Wildhorse, Basin, Rock Creek and Willow Valley Reservoir Map l # 6 Projects in compliance GththeKFIURMP. Determination of NEPA Adequacy completed and approved on 10128199. Wood River Wetlands Project - Remaining projects: Finish installation of fish screen on 7- mile Canal diversion structure and floating boardwalk, interpretive signs, and trail system. Surface rock dike roads from bridge to 7- mile Canal and add group interpretive site. Juniper Chip Road - Using juniper debris for biomass or by- product in Oshea ( mZ 95/ 71), and Norcross Springs. FY 2004 - Miller Creek- Potholes trail to be constructed T& E Species ( suckers) wood River Property I I Upper Klamath Basin and Wood River Wetland I A Determination of NEPA Adequacy ( DNA) completed 9/ 25/ 2000. ( Project contingent on funding) Map 1 # 25 - Map 2 # 70 FY 2004- sidewalks and pinic tables to be installed at Willow Valley Res. Wedge Watkins Joe Foran 25 miles north of Klamath Falls, Oregon T 39 8 40s. R13,14,14XE I None Known I I Stewardship contract EAcompIeted being developed. Ongoing Projects - Prescribed Burning and Fuels Treatment Wetlands Map 2 # 2 Resource Management Plan EIS; decision signed June 16,1995. Joe Foran Pending funding Short Lake Broadcast Bum - Prescribe bum approx. 280 acres outside FTZ to reduce fuel loading and risk of wildfire. T38S. R1 I E, Sec 20 & 29 - - - - - - -- - - - - - Miller Creek Mechanical Treatment - Proposal to use mechanical piling instead of prescribed buming of a~ oroximatelv I00 acres. Map 2 # 37 - T39S. R13E. Sec. 14 & 23 Analysis Completed ACEC 1 FONSl and Decision Record on 3- 24- 99. Joe Foran None Known Project delayed. EA completed Fuels Maintenance Treatments # t ( KCER - 00- 03) Treat approximately 1,200 acres to remove fire- prone brush, excessive levels of hazardous fuels ( less than 6" in diameter), and small conifers that are ladder fuels and threats to over stow trees bv crown fire.. Map 2 # I 1 Spring 2004 Klamath Falls Resource Area, east of Hwy 97. See Prescribed Fire Map for locations. None Known Dale Brush Map 2 # 62 Analysis completed. Multiple year implementation - ongoing. Mechanical Slash Treatment Project - Mechanical treatments ( shearing, chipping, or grinding) to reduce fuels and control vegetation on approx. 12,000 acres. Joe Foran Multiple Locations Resource Area Wide None / Second DNA completed. Klamath Falls Resource Area, Winter 2003 Planning Update - Page 7 Projects tasked out over a three year period - ongoing. PROJECT K. 1 TITLE & DESCRIPTIO SPECIAL AREAS STATUS OF 4 CONTACT AFFECTED ANALYSIS - Map 2 -# 39 Map 2 # 40 - Map 2 -# 42 Map 2 # 38 Map 2 # 63 Map 2 # 64 - Map 2 # 65 & # I9 Map 2 # 45 - Map 2 # 49 - Stukel98- 1 Mechanical Treatment - Mechanical piling T40S, RIOE, Sec. 10,11,14, instead of pmcribed burning of approximately 500 acres. 23,24 Stukel98- 2 Prescribed Burn - Prescribe bum approx. 3,000 acres to: Reintroduce fire to restore plant communities, while reducing the potential for stand-replacement wildfires and overall fire management costs. T40S, RIOE, Sec. 12,13,24 T40S, RllE, Sec. 7& 18 HamakerIChase Fuels Treatment - Reduce Fuels on T40S, R8E 4000 acres south of Hwy 66 I Stiles Spring Prescribed Burn - Project purpose to bum approximately 1,000 acres to: Reinduce fire to restore sustainable function and structure to plant communities, while reducing the potential for stand- replacement wildfires, and reducing overall fire management costs. Stukel98- 7 & 9 Prescribed Burns - Prescribe bum approximately 525 acres to: reintroduce fire to restore plant communities, reduce overall fire management costs and the potential for stand- replacing wildfires. Statelinel Holbmk Prescribed Bums - Presmie bum approximately 4.000 acres to reduce fuel loading and risk of catastrophic wildfire. T37S, RIOE, Sec. 3- 5,9- 11, 14- 15 T40S, RllE, Sec5 & 6 T. 40S, R15 E., T. 41S, RISE. -- Big Adobe Prescribed Burn - Prescribe bum approximately 6,700 acres to reduce fuel loading and risk of catastrophic wildfire ( includes Wild Midway Rx Bum) Range- Juniper Treatment - Hazardous fuel reduction, T40S. R12E. Sec. 1 1 using mechanical and prescribed fire methods. T41 S, RISE Upper Swan Prescribed Burn - Project purpose: bum approximately 98 acres to restore sustainable function and structure to plant communities, reduce potential for stand-replacement wildfires and overall fire management costs. g and Fuels Treatment ( continued) None Known Project0 t1ie 4r- s9 4to- 0E9A. # OR- Project ongoing Joe Fmn T37S, RIOE, Sec. 24 & 25 T37S, RI 1.5E, Sec. 31 Bald Eagle ( Analysis Completed- I 200 acres treated in FY I None Analysis Completed Project tiers to EA # OR- 014- 94- 09. EA completed Wildlife Habitat Riparian Initiated Winter 2001 Fall 2004 Joe Foran Project delayed until the Spring 2004 Bald None Bald Eagle I Planned projects tier to the Promammatic Fire I Joe Foran Joe Foran Project initiated, 2- 3 year implementation FONSI - 12- 1 9- 99. 2000; Remainder Decision Record on 01 - 25- 2000 ,, Foran Joe Foran Analysis Completed Project tiers to EA # OR- 014- 94- 09) approved on 4- 29- 94. Initiated Winter 2001 Klamath Falls Resource Area, Winter 2003 Planning Update - Page 8 Wildlife forage/ habitat improvement 130 acres completed Remainder Spring 2004 Accomplished 1500 acres. Remainder Fall 2004. Steve Pehick- Underwood Joe Foran DNA completed ongoing 2- 3 year implementation Joe Foran .. " "" . 7 < .,.. - . . 7 - " b - . " < * - - ' 7 , 4 . , v ,-' w., ,. ' q"* -*?, . x*-.. s,... >,% VW? P ,*.- 7i*,- .*. x., < 8 SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED PROJECTS BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT KLAMATH FALLS RESOURCE AREA * 2795 ANDERSON AVENUE, BLDG. # 25 KLAMATH FALLS, OR 97603 PHONE NUMBER: ( 541) 883- 69 MAP PROJECT TITLE & DESCRIPTION LOCATION I SPECIAL AREAS STATUS OF ANALYSIS COMPLETION CONTACT REF. # AFFECTED DATE Rangeland Health Standards Assessments - in progress I These assessments compare the monitoring information collected against the five Standards for Rangeland Health and propose management changes if current grazing use is not meeting the Standards, or not making significant improvement towards meeting them. Changes are implemented through the grazing decision or agreement process. z3I Re16 Allotment ( M893) I South Langell Valley I None Known I Assessment in progress I Summer 2004 I Dana Eckard M$\ 3 I KIamatL Forest Estates Allotment ( M862) 1 North of Bonanza -~ Yainax Allotment ( M861) I None Known I Assessment in progress I ~ ~ - 2 0 0 4 I Bill Lindsey North of Bonanza Map # 55 None Known ? G3 Haskins Allotment (# 0826) y&' Assessment in progress Masten Allotment ( M842) Map # 68 North of Bonanza Kellian Allotment (# 0834) Hungry Hollow Allotment (# 0830) Klamath Falls Resource Area, Winter 2003 Planning Update - Page 9 SUM 2004 North of Bonanza Adams Allotment (# 0800) Rangeland Health Standards Assessments - completed* Bill Lindsey None Known North of Bonanza North of Bonanza None Known East of Bonanza Bill Lindsey Assessment in progress None Known None Known * A total of 37 Rangeland Health Standards Assessments have been completed to date, 1 has been completed so far in FY 2004. Assessment in progress None Known None Known Assessment completed Summer 2004 Assessment in progress Assessment in progress Map North of Bonanza December 2003 # 48 Dana Eckard Summer 2004 Assessment in progress McCartie Allotment (# 0860) Dana Eckard Summer 2004 Summer 2004 Dana Eckard Summer 2004 Dana Eckard Dana Eckard Presentations/ Environmental Education Programs/ Tours ( Fiscal Year to Date) Fun With Fungi I 1 1/ 2/ 03 I Seven Mile Area Adults 25 I What Was Presented Overview of past and current outreach events; permit sales Wood River Wetland Field Trip Operation Indian Rocks ARPA Investigation 1 1 1/ 3/ 03 ( Central Washington University 1 Faculty and Students I 51 I Date 1 Group / Age # of People 1 01 1 5/ 03 10/ 28/ 03 Where Cultural Resource Management and the NEPA Process Archaeological Investigations in the Great Basin I Wildlife Management 1 12/ 16/ 03 1 OIT - " Expanding Horizons" I 8* Grade Students I 120 1 Ross Ragland Theater Wood River Wetland Coloring Books 1 1/ 3/ 03 1 1/ 4/ 03 Klarnath Falls Resource Area, Winter 2003 Planning Update - Page 10 Answer People/ Adults Oregon Institute of Technology Students I 1 1 11 9/ 03 Shasta Elementary School -- - S - 290 Fire Behavior 25 - 30 Central Washington University Central Washington University Elementary Students 30 12/ 20/ 03 Graduate Student Seminar Graduate Student Seminar 24 35 Klamth Community College Adults 8 EventIActivlty Date Location Contact( s) F 01 rarnclpanrs ( EmployeeslPublic*) IBald Eagle Conference I Februaryl3- IS I Oregon Institute of Technology I Steve Haynerl Kelly Hollums I l~ arthD ay I April I Jefferson Square Mall I Greg Reddell I Klamath Watershed conference February 24 - 26 Wilderness & Horse Packing Clinic** International Migratory Bird Day IMBD Pre- event Classes -- - IMBD Educator Workshop Oregon Institute of Technology May ( IMBD) April 24 IMBD Event National Free Fishing Day RAP Camp Klamath County Fair Klamath Falls Resource Area, Winter 2003 Planning Update - Page 11 Wedge WatkinslKelly Hollums April 16 - pp - - Sixth Grade Forestry Tour National Public Lands Day Oregon Archeology Celebration Klarnath County Fairgrounds Klamath Community College May 8 June June August Tonya PinckneyIScott Senter Steve Hayner, et al OSU- Klamath Co. Extension * Numbers of public participants for large events are estimated. ** BOLD WRITING indicates that project is funded with District Outreach dollars. September September September Veteran's Park To Be Announced Camp Esther Applegate Klamath County Fairgrounds Steve Hayner, et al Steve Hayner Scott Snedaker To Be Announced PinckneylSenter Clover Creek Educational Area To Be Announced To Be Announced ~ p Bill Johnson To Be Announced Michelle Durant Glama th Falls Resource Area Miscellaneo~ wP roject Loca ticms R6E RBE R7E RBE RBE RlOE RIIE R12E R13E R14E R14.6E R16E Klamath Falls Resource Area, Winter 2003 Planning Update - Page 12 N LEGEND R5E R6E R7E R8E RQE RIOE R l l E R12E R13E R14E R14.5E R15E Klarnath Falls Resource Area, Fall 2003 Planning Update - Page 13 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGE~ ENT Klarnath Falls Resource Area Office 2395 Parderson Avenue, Building a 5 Kfamth MIS. Oregan 97603 OF. FIGIAL, BUSI~ ESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $ 300 Marita Kunkel Library Director Oregon Institute of Techolagy 3201 Cempus Dr Klamath Falls, OR 97601 Close

• 53. [Image] The Endangered Species Act : a primer

  	Report for Congress; "Updated March 31, 2005."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Endangered Species Act : a primer Author: Baldwin, Pamela; Buck, Eugene H.; Corn, M. Lynne (Mary Lynne), 1946- Year: 2005 Report for Congress; "Updated March 31, 2005." Title: The Endangered Species Act : a primer Author: Baldwin, Pamela; Buck, Eugene H.; Corn, M. Lynne (Mary Lynne), 1946- Year: 2005 Report for Congress; "Updated March 31, 2005." Close

• 54. [Image] Natural history and ecology of larval Lost River suckers and larval shortnose suckers in the Williamson River-Upper Klamath Lake System

  	We monitored larval Lost River and shortnose suckers from natal beds in the Williamson and Sprague rivers to nursery grounds in Upper Klamath Lake. Downstream movements occurred at night, in the middle ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Natural history and ecology of larval Lost River suckers and larval shortnose suckers in the Williamson River-Upper Klamath Lake System Author: Cooperman, Michael S. Year: 2004, 2005 We monitored larval Lost River and shortnose suckers from natal beds in the Williamson and Sprague rivers to nursery grounds in Upper Klamath Lake. Downstream movements occurred at night, in the middle of the channel, and on the falling limb of the hydrograph. Ages, sizes, and developmental stages of larvae from spawning beds and the river mouth were similar, while larvae collected contemporaneously from the lake tended to be larger and better fed. Our results indicate in-river rearing was rare, that a rapid outmigration to the lake was favorable for larval survival, and that modification of the lower Williamson River does not appear to have prohibited rapid entry or preclude access to Upper Klamath Lake. Within the Williamson River and Upper Klamath Lake, emergent macrophytes supported significantly higher abundance, larger mean sizes, and better fed larvae than submerged macrophytes, woody vegetation, or open water areas. Analysis of seven years of larval sucker production and survival corroborated the habitat analysis by identifying a positive relationship with emergent macrophyte availability as well as a positive relationship with air temperature and a negative relationship with high wind. These findings illustrate the importance of fast growth, appropriate habitat and calm hydrological conditions for larvae, and are highly consistent with other larval fish studies. Title: Natural history and ecology of larval Lost River suckers and larval shortnose suckers in the Williamson River-Upper Klamath Lake System Author: Cooperman, Michael S. Year: 2004, 2005 We monitored larval Lost River and shortnose suckers from natal beds in the Williamson and Sprague rivers to nursery grounds in Upper Klamath Lake. Downstream movements occurred at night, in the middle of the channel, and on the falling limb of the hydrograph. Ages, sizes, and developmental stages of larvae from spawning beds and the river mouth were similar, while larvae collected contemporaneously from the lake tended to be larger and better fed. Our results indicate in-river rearing was rare, that a rapid outmigration to the lake was favorable for larval survival, and that modification of the lower Williamson River does not appear to have prohibited rapid entry or preclude access to Upper Klamath Lake. Within the Williamson River and Upper Klamath Lake, emergent macrophytes supported significantly higher abundance, larger mean sizes, and better fed larvae than submerged macrophytes, woody vegetation, or open water areas. Analysis of seven years of larval sucker production and survival corroborated the habitat analysis by identifying a positive relationship with emergent macrophyte availability as well as a positive relationship with air temperature and a negative relationship with high wind. These findings illustrate the importance of fast growth, appropriate habitat and calm hydrological conditions for larvae, and are highly consistent with other larval fish studies. Close

• 55. [Image] Raising Upper Klamath Lake, appraisal study : draft.

  	Executive Summary This report documents an appraisal-level evaluation of raising Upper Klamath Lake in south-central Oregon. The lake is the State's largest freshwater lake and is a principal storage feature ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Raising Upper Klamath Lake, appraisal study : draft. Author: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Year: 2000, 2008, 2005 Executive Summary This report documents an appraisal-level evaluation of raising Upper Klamath Lake in south-central Oregon. The lake is the State's largest freshwater lake and is a principal storage feature of the Klamath Project. The Klamath Project provides water for irrigating approximately 240,000 acres in the Klamath Basin in south-central Oregon and northern California. The Klamath Project was authorized for construction in 1905, and work began shortly thereafter. In 1921, Link River Dam was constructed at the south end of the lake, near the city of Klamath Falls, to provide regulation of the lake. Background The listing of fish species as threatened or endangered, and the Federal responsibility to protect Tribal trust assets, have placed increasing demands on the limited water supply of the Klamath Project and reduced its flexibility to meet demands. There is an immediate need to increase water supplies and improve the timing of their availability to improve fish and wildlife habitat and water quality. The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) began the Klamath Basin Water Supply Initiative (Initiative) in 1996 to identify options for increasing water supplies in the Klamath River Basin. The Initiative is a joint effort partnership of Reclamation, the Klamath River Compact Commission, the California Department of Water Resources, and the Oregon Water Resources Department. The Initiative identified 96 options for increasing water supplies and recommended 44 for further study, including raising Upper Klamath Lake. Options Evaluated The evaluation documented in this report considers increasing the maximum operating level of Upper Klamath Lake by 2 feet by raising Link River Dam. Two options are described: (1) raising existing levees around the lake to contain the lake within its current surface area and (2) allowing the lake to spread and flood adjacent lands. Option 1 constrains the higher water surface elevation to the current shoreline. Modifications would be provided to protect all existing land, roads, and structures surrounding the lake. A 2-foot-high parapet will be constructed on top of the dam to accommodate the higher water level. Major construction activities include: Raising Upper Klamath Lake ? Eight sections of new seawall, totaling 6.6 linear miles ? Modifying 14 sections of existing dikes with roads, totaling 44.3 linear miles ? Modifying 10 sections of existing dikes without roads, totaling 25.2 linear miles ? Two sections of new dikes with roads, totaling 1.9 linear miles ? Three sections of new dikes without roads, totaling 2.7 linear miles ? Armoring two sections of existing dikes, totaling 3.5 linear miles ? Raising one bridge and county and local roads at seven locations, totaling 1.3 miles of roads ? Raising 2.5 miles of a State highway ? Rehabilitating 126 private residences (relocating septic tanks, providing foundation drainage, and landscaping) ? Rehabilitating headworks and intake structures at 10 locations ? Relocating an existing boat dock The estimated cost of Option 1 is $125 million. Option 2 does not protect structures and property, but, instead, allows the lake to spread beyond the current shoreline and flood adjacent lands. Existing dikes will be breached, and existing roads that would otherwise be inundated will be raised. Either existing headworks and water intakes at various locations will be retrofitted for the higher water surface elevation, or the associated facility will be purchased. Link River Dam will be modified as in Option 1. Major construction activities include: ? Breaching (every % mile) 14 sections of existing dikes with roads, totaling 44.3 linear miles of dikes ? Breaching 10 sections of existing dikes without roads, totaling 25.3 linear miles of dikes ? Armoring 3.0 linear miles of an existing dike ? Raising one bridge and county and local roads at three locations, totaling 0.6 mile of roads Executive Summary ? Raising 2.5 miles of an existing State highway ? Rehabilitating headworks and intake structures at nine locations ? Relocating an existing boat dock The estimated cost of Option 2 is $129 million, including $113 million for the acquisition of private land and structures. Raising Upper Klamath Lake 2 feet will increase storage by approximately 170,000 acre-feet, or about 25 percent. Winter floodflows, which are presently spilled to the Klamath River and not available for project use, will be stored and made available to help meet water needs for endangered species, Tribal trust resources, agricultural contractors, and national wildlife refuges. Future operation of the enlarged lake will be contingent upon acquisition of appropriate rights to divert and store additional water in the lake and may require filing an application for the appropriation of additional water with the Oregon Water Resource Department. Costs associated with implementing either Option 1 or Option 2 are significant. In addition, implementing either option will have both positive and negative impacts on the natural and human environment. Recommendations Several engineering studies are recommended. These include: ? Estimating quantities, properties, and availability of embankment and riprap materials, and identifying their locations (quaries) ? Constructing a modified dike test section to assess construction methodology and performance of rockfill protection ? Using detailed aerial topography (maximum 1-foot contours) of the Upper Klamath Lake shoreline to better define existing features and required improvements ? Conducting a comprehensive survey of all shoreline structures to provide a better estimate of the work required and associated costs ? Inspecting existing dam gates and concrete bulk heads to determine if additional modifications are required for the higher reservoir water surface ? S-3 Raising Upper Klamath Lake ? Developing site-specific, cost-effective alternatives to the proposed shore protection features ? Identifying and securing suitable rights-of-way Recreation facilities need to be analyzed in more detail to determine impacts and associated protection, relocation, and modification costs. A user survey and appropriate mapping of all recreational facilities has been initiated to determine existing recreation use levels and assist in the analysis of potential impacts. A detailed hydrology study demonstrating that unappropriated water is available to fill the additional storage in Upper Klamath Lake is recommended. Better descriptions of area-elevation-capacity relationships and evaporation and transpiration losses will also be needed. The following environmental studies are recommended: ? Develop detailed topographic information for the entire lake and surrounding area to predict the extent of flooding and potential vegetation changes ? Develop topographic mapping in 1-foot increments to predict effects on wetland vegetation ? Determine potential streamflow changes below Link River Dam and potential benefits to threatened and endangered fishes ? Determine impacts to upland areas that would be inundated by the higher reservoir water surface elevations. The following economic studies are recommended: ? Determine all costs (e.g., planning, design, construction, mitigation, and operation, maintenance, and replacement) ? Determine benefit/cost Early development and implementation of a public involvement plan will be essential to a feasibility study. Various studies to identify and analyze social impacts and impacts to environmental justice, Tribal trust, and cultural resources are recommended. Opportunities to avoid or lessen adverse impacts will also need to be identified. S-4 Title: Raising Upper Klamath Lake, appraisal study : draft. Author: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Year: 2000, 2008, 2005 Executive Summary This report documents an appraisal-level evaluation of raising Upper Klamath Lake in south-central Oregon. The lake is the State's largest freshwater lake and is a principal storage feature of the Klamath Project. The Klamath Project provides water for irrigating approximately 240,000 acres in the Klamath Basin in south-central Oregon and northern California. The Klamath Project was authorized for construction in 1905, and work began shortly thereafter. In 1921, Link River Dam was constructed at the south end of the lake, near the city of Klamath Falls, to provide regulation of the lake. Background The listing of fish species as threatened or endangered, and the Federal responsibility to protect Tribal trust assets, have placed increasing demands on the limited water supply of the Klamath Project and reduced its flexibility to meet demands. There is an immediate need to increase water supplies and improve the timing of their availability to improve fish and wildlife habitat and water quality. The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) began the Klamath Basin Water Supply Initiative (Initiative) in 1996 to identify options for increasing water supplies in the Klamath River Basin. The Initiative is a joint effort partnership of Reclamation, the Klamath River Compact Commission, the California Department of Water Resources, and the Oregon Water Resources Department. The Initiative identified 96 options for increasing water supplies and recommended 44 for further study, including raising Upper Klamath Lake. Options Evaluated The evaluation documented in this report considers increasing the maximum operating level of Upper Klamath Lake by 2 feet by raising Link River Dam. Two options are described: (1) raising existing levees around the lake to contain the lake within its current surface area and (2) allowing the lake to spread and flood adjacent lands. Option 1 constrains the higher water surface elevation to the current shoreline. Modifications would be provided to protect all existing land, roads, and structures surrounding the lake. A 2-foot-high parapet will be constructed on top of the dam to accommodate the higher water level. Major construction activities include: Raising Upper Klamath Lake ? Eight sections of new seawall, totaling 6.6 linear miles ? Modifying 14 sections of existing dikes with roads, totaling 44.3 linear miles ? Modifying 10 sections of existing dikes without roads, totaling 25.2 linear miles ? Two sections of new dikes with roads, totaling 1.9 linear miles ? Three sections of new dikes without roads, totaling 2.7 linear miles ? Armoring two sections of existing dikes, totaling 3.5 linear miles ? Raising one bridge and county and local roads at seven locations, totaling 1.3 miles of roads ? Raising 2.5 miles of a State highway ? Rehabilitating 126 private residences (relocating septic tanks, providing foundation drainage, and landscaping) ? Rehabilitating headworks and intake structures at 10 locations ? Relocating an existing boat dock The estimated cost of Option 1 is $125 million. Option 2 does not protect structures and property, but, instead, allows the lake to spread beyond the current shoreline and flood adjacent lands. Existing dikes will be breached, and existing roads that would otherwise be inundated will be raised. Either existing headworks and water intakes at various locations will be retrofitted for the higher water surface elevation, or the associated facility will be purchased. Link River Dam will be modified as in Option 1. Major construction activities include: ? Breaching (every % mile) 14 sections of existing dikes with roads, totaling 44.3 linear miles of dikes ? Breaching 10 sections of existing dikes without roads, totaling 25.3 linear miles of dikes ? Armoring 3.0 linear miles of an existing dike ? Raising one bridge and county and local roads at three locations, totaling 0.6 mile of roads Executive Summary ? Raising 2.5 miles of an existing State highway ? Rehabilitating headworks and intake structures at nine locations ? Relocating an existing boat dock The estimated cost of Option 2 is $129 million, including $113 million for the acquisition of private land and structures. Raising Upper Klamath Lake 2 feet will increase storage by approximately 170,000 acre-feet, or about 25 percent. Winter floodflows, which are presently spilled to the Klamath River and not available for project use, will be stored and made available to help meet water needs for endangered species, Tribal trust resources, agricultural contractors, and national wildlife refuges. Future operation of the enlarged lake will be contingent upon acquisition of appropriate rights to divert and store additional water in the lake and may require filing an application for the appropriation of additional water with the Oregon Water Resource Department. Costs associated with implementing either Option 1 or Option 2 are significant. In addition, implementing either option will have both positive and negative impacts on the natural and human environment. Recommendations Several engineering studies are recommended. These include: ? Estimating quantities, properties, and availability of embankment and riprap materials, and identifying their locations (quaries) ? Constructing a modified dike test section to assess construction methodology and performance of rockfill protection ? Using detailed aerial topography (maximum 1-foot contours) of the Upper Klamath Lake shoreline to better define existing features and required improvements ? Conducting a comprehensive survey of all shoreline structures to provide a better estimate of the work required and associated costs ? Inspecting existing dam gates and concrete bulk heads to determine if additional modifications are required for the higher reservoir water surface ? S-3 Raising Upper Klamath Lake ? Developing site-specific, cost-effective alternatives to the proposed shore protection features ? Identifying and securing suitable rights-of-way Recreation facilities need to be analyzed in more detail to determine impacts and associated protection, relocation, and modification costs. A user survey and appropriate mapping of all recreational facilities has been initiated to determine existing recreation use levels and assist in the analysis of potential impacts. A detailed hydrology study demonstrating that unappropriated water is available to fill the additional storage in Upper Klamath Lake is recommended. Better descriptions of area-elevation-capacity relationships and evaporation and transpiration losses will also be needed. The following environmental studies are recommended: ? Develop detailed topographic information for the entire lake and surrounding area to predict the extent of flooding and potential vegetation changes ? Develop topographic mapping in 1-foot increments to predict effects on wetland vegetation ? Determine potential streamflow changes below Link River Dam and potential benefits to threatened and endangered fishes ? Determine impacts to upland areas that would be inundated by the higher reservoir water surface elevations. The following economic studies are recommended: ? Determine all costs (e.g., planning, design, construction, mitigation, and operation, maintenance, and replacement) ? Determine benefit/cost Early development and implementation of a public involvement plan will be essential to a feasibility study. Various studies to identify and analyze social impacts and impacts to environmental justice, Tribal trust, and cultural resources are recommended. Opportunities to avoid or lessen adverse impacts will also need to be identified. S-4 Close

• 56. [Image] Wildlife of the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges, California-Oregon

  	Distributed to depository libraries in microfiche; Shipping list no.: 96-0055-P; "September 1995"--P. [18]; "RF116690"--P. [18]
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy 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] 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] Close

• 57. [Image] Endangered Species Act : successes and challenges in agency collaboration and the use of scientific information in the decision making process : testimony before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water, Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate / statement of Robin M. Nazzaro

  	Summary In summary, we found that federal agencies have taken steps to improve collaboration as a way to reduce conflicts that often occur between species protections and other resource uses, but that ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Endangered Species Act : successes and challenges in agency collaboration and the use of scientific information in the decision making process : testimony before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water, Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate / statement of Robin M. Nazzaro Author: Nazzaro, Robin M Year: 2005, 2007 Summary In summary, we found that federal agencies have taken steps to improve collaboration as a way to reduce conflicts that often occur between species protections and other resource uses, but that more could be done to promote routine use of collaboration and clarify agencies' responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. In September 2003, we reported on efforts taken by the Department of Defense (DOD) to coordinate with other federal land managers in order to reduce the impact of species protections on military activities. We found several cases where such efforts were successful. For example, at the Barry M. Goldwater range in Arizona, Air Force officials worked with officials at FWS and the National Park Service to enhance food sources for the endangered Sonoran pronghorn in locations away from military training areas. As a result, the Air Force was able to minimize the impact of restrictions on training missions due to the presence of the pronghorn. However, such cases were few and far between because, among other things, there were no procedures or centralized information sources for facilitating such collaboration. In March 2004, we reported on collaboration that takes place pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the act?referred to as the consultation process?in the Pacific Northwest. In this area, large numbers of protected species and vast amounts of federal land conspire to make balancing species protection and resource use a contentious endeavor. We found that steps the Services and other federal agencies had taken made the consultation process run smoother and contributed to improved interagency relationships. However, some problems have persisted. For example, some agencies disagree with the Services about when consultation is necessary and how much analysis is required to determine potential impacts on protected species. In each of these reports, we made recommendations intended to further improve collaboration among federal agencies with regard to balancing species protections and other resource uses, and?in the March 2004 report?to resolve disagreements about the consultations process. DOD and FWS have begun discussing an implementation strategy to improve collaboration regarding species protection on military and other federal lands and development of a training program. With regard to the consultation process, while FWS and NMFS have continued to take steps to expand their collaboration processes, the agencies did not believe that disagreements about the consultation process require additional steps. They believe that current training and guidance is sufficient to address questions about the process. With regard to the use of science, we have found that FWS generally used the best available information in key Endangered Species Act decisions, although the agency was not always integrating new research into ongoing species management decisions. In addition, we identified concerns with the adequacy of the information available to make critical habitat decisions. In December 2002, we reported on many aspects of the decision making for species protections regarding the Mojave Desert tortoise. We found that the decision to list the tortoise as threatened, its critical habitat designation, and the recommended steps in the species' recovery plan, were based on the best available information. However, despite over $100 million in expenditures on recovery actions and research over the past 25 years, it is still unclear what the status of the tortoise is and what effect, if any, recovery actions are having on the species because research has not been coordinated in a way to provide essential management information. Such information is critically important as some of the protective actions, such as restrictions on grazing and off road vehicle use, are vigorously opposed by interest groups who question whether they are necessary for the tortoise's recovery. Accordingly, we recommended that FWS better link land management decisions with research results to ensure that conservation actions and land use restrictions actually benefit the tortoise. In response, FWS recently established a new office with a tortoise recovery coordinator and plans to create an advisory committee to ensure that monitoring and recovery actions are fed back into management decisions. In August 2003, we found that, similar to the decision making regarding the tortoise, FWS decisions about listing species for protection under the act were generally based on the best available information. However, while most critical habitat designations also appeared to be based on the best available information, there were concerns about the adequacy of the information available at the time these decisions are made. Specifically, critical habitat decisions require detailed information of a species' life history and habitat needs and the economic impacts of such decisions?information that is often not available and that FWS is unable to gather before it is obligated under the act to make the decision. As a result, we recommended that the Secretary of the Interior clarify how and when critical habitat should be designated and identify if any policy, regulatory, or legislative changes are required to enable the department to make better informed designations. FWS has not responded to our recommendation. Title: Endangered Species Act : successes and challenges in agency collaboration and the use of scientific information in the decision making process : testimony before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water, Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate / statement of Robin M. Nazzaro Author: Nazzaro, Robin M Year: 2005, 2007 Summary In summary, we found that federal agencies have taken steps to improve collaboration as a way to reduce conflicts that often occur between species protections and other resource uses, but that more could be done to promote routine use of collaboration and clarify agencies' responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. In September 2003, we reported on efforts taken by the Department of Defense (DOD) to coordinate with other federal land managers in order to reduce the impact of species protections on military activities. We found several cases where such efforts were successful. For example, at the Barry M. Goldwater range in Arizona, Air Force officials worked with officials at FWS and the National Park Service to enhance food sources for the endangered Sonoran pronghorn in locations away from military training areas. As a result, the Air Force was able to minimize the impact of restrictions on training missions due to the presence of the pronghorn. However, such cases were few and far between because, among other things, there were no procedures or centralized information sources for facilitating such collaboration. In March 2004, we reported on collaboration that takes place pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the act?referred to as the consultation process?in the Pacific Northwest. In this area, large numbers of protected species and vast amounts of federal land conspire to make balancing species protection and resource use a contentious endeavor. We found that steps the Services and other federal agencies had taken made the consultation process run smoother and contributed to improved interagency relationships. However, some problems have persisted. For example, some agencies disagree with the Services about when consultation is necessary and how much analysis is required to determine potential impacts on protected species. In each of these reports, we made recommendations intended to further improve collaboration among federal agencies with regard to balancing species protections and other resource uses, and?in the March 2004 report?to resolve disagreements about the consultations process. DOD and FWS have begun discussing an implementation strategy to improve collaboration regarding species protection on military and other federal lands and development of a training program. With regard to the consultation process, while FWS and NMFS have continued to take steps to expand their collaboration processes, the agencies did not believe that disagreements about the consultation process require additional steps. They believe that current training and guidance is sufficient to address questions about the process. With regard to the use of science, we have found that FWS generally used the best available information in key Endangered Species Act decisions, although the agency was not always integrating new research into ongoing species management decisions. In addition, we identified concerns with the adequacy of the information available to make critical habitat decisions. In December 2002, we reported on many aspects of the decision making for species protections regarding the Mojave Desert tortoise. We found that the decision to list the tortoise as threatened, its critical habitat designation, and the recommended steps in the species' recovery plan, were based on the best available information. However, despite over $100 million in expenditures on recovery actions and research over the past 25 years, it is still unclear what the status of the tortoise is and what effect, if any, recovery actions are having on the species because research has not been coordinated in a way to provide essential management information. Such information is critically important as some of the protective actions, such as restrictions on grazing and off road vehicle use, are vigorously opposed by interest groups who question whether they are necessary for the tortoise's recovery. Accordingly, we recommended that FWS better link land management decisions with research results to ensure that conservation actions and land use restrictions actually benefit the tortoise. In response, FWS recently established a new office with a tortoise recovery coordinator and plans to create an advisory committee to ensure that monitoring and recovery actions are fed back into management decisions. In August 2003, we found that, similar to the decision making regarding the tortoise, FWS decisions about listing species for protection under the act were generally based on the best available information. However, while most critical habitat designations also appeared to be based on the best available information, there were concerns about the adequacy of the information available at the time these decisions are made. Specifically, critical habitat decisions require detailed information of a species' life history and habitat needs and the economic impacts of such decisions?information that is often not available and that FWS is unable to gather before it is obligated under the act to make the decision. As a result, we recommended that the Secretary of the Interior clarify how and when critical habitat should be designated and identify if any policy, regulatory, or legislative changes are required to enable the department to make better informed designations. FWS has not responded to our recommendation. Close

• 58. [Image] The Water Report - Hydro relicensing OR/CA: fish passage

  	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 Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Water Report - Hydro relicensing OR/CA: fish passage Author: Envirotech Publications Year: 2006, 2008 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/ Title: The Water Report - Hydro relicensing OR/CA: fish passage Author: Envirotech Publications Year: 2006, 2008 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/ Close

• 59. [Image] Evaluation of Interim Instream Flow Needs in the Klamath River Phase II Final Report

  	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 Citation Abstract Copy 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 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 Close

• 60. [Image] The Water Report. Klamath Fishery Science: Controversy in the Klamath River Basin

  	Only portions of issues of The Water Report are available in the Klamath Waters Digital Library. Includes bibliographic references. See the full report at http://www.thewaterreport.com/.
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Water Report. Klamath Fishery Science: Controversy in the Klamath River Basin Author: Envirotech Publications Year: 2005, 2008, 2006 Only portions of issues of The Water Report are available in the Klamath Waters Digital Library. Includes bibliographic references. See the full report at http://www.thewaterreport.com/. Title: The Water Report. Klamath Fishery Science: Controversy in the Klamath River Basin Author: Envirotech Publications Year: 2005, 2008, 2006 Only portions of issues of The Water Report are available in the Klamath Waters Digital Library. Includes bibliographic references. See the full report at http://www.thewaterreport.com/. Close

• 61. [Image] The South Portal Project : creating a sense of arrival

  	"Holistic planning for Lake Ewauna & the south entry to the City of Klamath Falls"
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The South Portal Project : creating a sense of arrival Author: Carpenter Design, Inc. Year: 2005 "Holistic planning for Lake Ewauna & the south entry to the City of Klamath Falls" Title: The South Portal Project : creating a sense of arrival Author: Carpenter Design, Inc. Year: 2005 "Holistic planning for Lake Ewauna & the south entry to the City of Klamath Falls" Close

• 62. [Image] Biological opinion Klamath Project operations

  	"May 31, 2002."; Includes bibliographical references.
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Biological opinion Klamath Project operations Author: United States.; National Marine Fisheries Service. Year: 2002, 2008, 2005 "May 31, 2002."; Includes bibliographical references. Title: Biological opinion Klamath Project operations Author: United States.; National Marine Fisheries Service. Year: 2002, 2008, 2005 "May 31, 2002."; Includes bibliographical references. Close

• 63. [Image] Lakeview proposed resource management plan and final environmental impact statement [volume 3]

  	4 v.; maps (some col.); "August 2002"; "January 2003" -- cover
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Lakeview proposed resource management plan and final environmental impact statement [volume 3] Author: U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management; Lakeview Resource Area Office. Lakeview District Year: 2002, 2008, 2006 4 v.; maps (some col.); "August 2002"; "January 2003" -- cover Title: Lakeview proposed resource management plan and final environmental impact statement [volume 3] Author: U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management; Lakeview Resource Area Office. Lakeview District Year: 2002, 2008, 2006 4 v.; maps (some col.); "August 2002"; "January 2003" -- cover Close

• 64. [Image] Geographical analysis of Klamath Lakes

  	Undergraduate student project, Writing 227, Technical Writing
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Geographical analysis of Klamath Lakes Author: Zuschlag, Cody E. Year: 2004, 2005 Undergraduate student project, Writing 227, Technical Writing Title: Geographical analysis of Klamath Lakes Author: Zuschlag, Cody E. Year: 2004, 2005 Undergraduate student project, Writing 227, Technical Writing Close

• 65. [Image] Lakeview proposed resource management plan and final environmental impact statement [volume 1]

  	4 v.; maps (some col.); "August 2002"; "January 2003" -- cover
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Lakeview proposed resource management plan and final environmental impact statement [volume 1] Author: U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management; Lakeview Resource Area Office. Lakeview District Year: 2002, 2006, 2005 4 v.; maps (some col.); "August 2002"; "January 2003" -- cover Title: Lakeview proposed resource management plan and final environmental impact statement [volume 1] Author: U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management; Lakeview Resource Area Office. Lakeview District Year: 2002, 2006, 2005 4 v.; maps (some col.); "August 2002"; "January 2003" -- cover Close

• 66. [Image] Nutrient loading of surface waters in the Upper Klamath Basin : agricultural and natural sources

  	Abstract Implementation of the Federal Clean Water Act and Oregon Senate Bill 1010 is proceeding under two simultaneous processes in Oregon. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is responsible ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Nutrient loading of surface waters in the Upper Klamath Basin : agricultural and natural sources Author: Rykbost, K. A. Year: 2001, 2004 Abstract Implementation of the Federal Clean Water Act and Oregon Senate Bill 1010 is proceeding under two simultaneous processes in Oregon. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is responsible for developing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) allocations for water-quality limited water bodies. The Oregon Department of Agriculture is striving to develop Management Area Plans to provide guidance for management of private agricultural lands to meet Clean Water Act objectives. Both processes seek input from local advisory committees comprised of landowners and other stakeholders, and technical review committees. Klamath Lake and Klamath River have been designated water quality impaired for several parameters including nutrients. Researchers have attempted to determine the extent of agriculture's contributions to nutrient enrichment of surface waters in the Upper Klamath Basin. Two United States Geological Survey (USGS) studies focused attention on drainage of agricultural lands adjacent to Klamath Lake as a significant source of nutrient loading in the lake. A preliminary draft report by the Klamath River TMDL committee identified the outlet for drainage waters from the Klamath Irrigation Project to the Klamath River at the Straits Drain as a point source for nutrient loading. Preparation of a final TMDL for this sub-watershed was tabled pending development of a TMDL for Klamath Lake and its tributaries. Insufficient data are available to determine the relative contributions of agricultural activities, natural background sources, and other potential sources of nutrient enrichment to establish numerical limits for nutrient loading from agricultural lands. From 1998 through 2000, the Klamath Experiment Station has investigated nutrient loading from drainage of agricultural lands adjacent to Klamath Lake, natural background sources including major springs and several artesian wells, and loading to the Klamath Irrigation Project from diversions out of Klamath Lake and Klamath River. Findings indicate contributions from agricultural lands adjacent to Klamath Lake have been overestimated, and the Klamath Irrigation Project is probably a net sink for nutrients diverted out of Klamath Lake and Klamath River. Data to support these assertions are presented. Introduction Most of the surface waters in the Klamath Basin are included in the Oregon department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 303D list as water-quality limited. While the only criterion for listing of many streams is temperature, based on a preliminary standard of 64°F, Klamath Lake and Klamath River are listed for chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen, un-ionized ammonia, and pH. The DEQ is working toward development of TMDL allocations for Klamath River and Title: Nutrient loading of surface waters in the Upper Klamath Basin : agricultural and natural sources Author: Rykbost, K. A. Year: 2001, 2004 Abstract Implementation of the Federal Clean Water Act and Oregon Senate Bill 1010 is proceeding under two simultaneous processes in Oregon. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is responsible for developing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) allocations for water-quality limited water bodies. The Oregon Department of Agriculture is striving to develop Management Area Plans to provide guidance for management of private agricultural lands to meet Clean Water Act objectives. Both processes seek input from local advisory committees comprised of landowners and other stakeholders, and technical review committees. Klamath Lake and Klamath River have been designated water quality impaired for several parameters including nutrients. Researchers have attempted to determine the extent of agriculture's contributions to nutrient enrichment of surface waters in the Upper Klamath Basin. Two United States Geological Survey (USGS) studies focused attention on drainage of agricultural lands adjacent to Klamath Lake as a significant source of nutrient loading in the lake. A preliminary draft report by the Klamath River TMDL committee identified the outlet for drainage waters from the Klamath Irrigation Project to the Klamath River at the Straits Drain as a point source for nutrient loading. Preparation of a final TMDL for this sub-watershed was tabled pending development of a TMDL for Klamath Lake and its tributaries. Insufficient data are available to determine the relative contributions of agricultural activities, natural background sources, and other potential sources of nutrient enrichment to establish numerical limits for nutrient loading from agricultural lands. From 1998 through 2000, the Klamath Experiment Station has investigated nutrient loading from drainage of agricultural lands adjacent to Klamath Lake, natural background sources including major springs and several artesian wells, and loading to the Klamath Irrigation Project from diversions out of Klamath Lake and Klamath River. Findings indicate contributions from agricultural lands adjacent to Klamath Lake have been overestimated, and the Klamath Irrigation Project is probably a net sink for nutrients diverted out of Klamath Lake and Klamath River. Data to support these assertions are presented. Introduction Most of the surface waters in the Klamath Basin are included in the Oregon department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 303D list as water-quality limited. While the only criterion for listing of many streams is temperature, based on a preliminary standard of 64°F, Klamath Lake and Klamath River are listed for chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen, un-ionized ammonia, and pH. The DEQ is working toward development of TMDL allocations for Klamath River and Close

• 67. [Image] Evaluation of interim instream flow needs in the Klamath River : Phase I, final report

  	"August 5, 1999"
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Evaluation of interim instream flow needs in the Klamath River : Phase I, final report Author: United States. Dept. of the Interior Year: 1999, 2005 "August 5, 1999" Title: Evaluation of interim instream flow needs in the Klamath River : Phase I, final report Author: United States. Dept. of the Interior Year: 1999, 2005 "August 5, 1999" Close

• 68. [Image] Research information needs on terrestrial vertebrate species of the interior Columbia River basin and northern portions of the Klamath and Great basins: research, development, and application database

  	"September 1997"; Includes bibliographical references (p. 24)
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Research information needs on terrestrial vertebrate species of the interior Columbia River basin and northern portions of the Klamath and Great basins: research, development, and application database Author: Marcot, Bruce G. Year: 1997, 2005, 2004 "September 1997"; Includes bibliographical references (p. 24) Title: Research information needs on terrestrial vertebrate species of the interior Columbia River basin and northern portions of the Klamath and Great basins: research, development, and application database Author: Marcot, Bruce G. Year: 1997, 2005, 2004 "September 1997"; Includes bibliographical references (p. 24) Close

• 69. [Image] The Endangered Species Act and claims of property rights "takings"

  	The Endangered Species Act and Claims of Property Rights "Takings" Summary The federal Endangered Species Act (ES A) has long been one of the major flash points in the "property rights" debate. This ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Endangered Species Act and claims of property rights "takings" Author: Meltz, Robert Year: 2005, 2008 The Endangered Species Act and Claims of Property Rights "Takings" Summary The federal Endangered Species Act (ES A) has long been one of the major flash points in the "property rights" debate. This report first outlines the ESA provisions most relevant to the act's impacts on private property, and then surveys the major ESA-relevant principles of Fifth Amendment takings law. The report then proceeds to its core topic: the court decisions adjudicating whether government measures based on the ESA effect a taking of property under the Fifth Amendment. The cases address four kinds of ESA measures: (1) restrictions on land uses that might adversely affect species listed as endangered or threatened; (2) reductions in water delivery to preserve instream flows needed by listed fish; (3) restrictions on the defensive measures a property owner may take to protect his/her property from listed animals; and (4) restrictions on commercial dealings in members of species acquired prior to listing as endangered or threatened. To date, only one of the 12 ESA-based takings decisions revealed by research has found a taking. Title: The Endangered Species Act and claims of property rights "takings" Author: Meltz, Robert Year: 2005, 2008 The Endangered Species Act and Claims of Property Rights "Takings" Summary The federal Endangered Species Act (ES A) has long been one of the major flash points in the "property rights" debate. This report first outlines the ESA provisions most relevant to the act's impacts on private property, and then surveys the major ESA-relevant principles of Fifth Amendment takings law. The report then proceeds to its core topic: the court decisions adjudicating whether government measures based on the ESA effect a taking of property under the Fifth Amendment. The cases address four kinds of ESA measures: (1) restrictions on land uses that might adversely affect species listed as endangered or threatened; (2) reductions in water delivery to preserve instream flows needed by listed fish; (3) restrictions on the defensive measures a property owner may take to protect his/her property from listed animals; and (4) restrictions on commercial dealings in members of species acquired prior to listing as endangered or threatened. To date, only one of the 12 ESA-based takings decisions revealed by research has found a taking. Close

• 70. [Image] Klamath Falls Resource Area resource management plan and environmental impact statement : final : Volume 3

  	Proposed resource management plan/final environmental impact statement for the Klamath Falls Resource Area
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath Falls Resource Area resource management plan and environmental impact statement : final : Volume 3 Author: United States. Bureau of Land Management. Klamath Falls Resource Area Office Year: 1994, 2005 Proposed resource management plan/final environmental impact statement for the Klamath Falls Resource Area Title: Klamath Falls Resource Area resource management plan and environmental impact statement : final : Volume 3 Author: United States. Bureau of Land Management. Klamath Falls Resource Area Office Year: 1994, 2005 Proposed resource management plan/final environmental impact statement for the Klamath Falls Resource Area Close

• 71. [Image] Pinniped and seabird predation : implications for recovery of threatened stocks of salmonids in Oregon under the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds

  	"December 22, 1998."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Pinniped and seabird predation : implications for recovery of threatened stocks of salmonids in Oregon under the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds Author: Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (Or.) Year: 1998, 2005 "December 22, 1998." Title: Pinniped and seabird predation : implications for recovery of threatened stocks of salmonids in Oregon under the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds Author: Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (Or.) Year: 1998, 2005 "December 22, 1998." Close

• 72. [Image] Klamath wild and scenic river eligibility report and environmental assessment : Klamath River, Oregon : draft

  	"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 Citation Abstract Copy 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." 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." Close

• 73. [Image] Cascadia : a quarterly publication of the Oregon Department of Geology & Mineral Industries, volume 2, number 1 (Winter/Spring 2002)

  	Water and geology: how does geology control where you find and how you use water? / Roddey, James -- Through the eyes of the state geologist / Beaulieu, John D. -- What is groundwater? -- Geology and groundwater ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Cascadia : a quarterly publication of the Oregon Department of Geology & Mineral Industries, volume 2, number 1 (Winter/Spring 2002) Author: Oregon. Dept. of Geology and Mineral Industries Year: 2002, 2005 Water and geology: how does geology control where you find and how you use water? / Roddey, James -- Through the eyes of the state geologist / Beaulieu, John D. -- What is groundwater? -- Geology and groundwater -- Who owns and manages Oregon's water? -- Recent geologic efforts related to groundwater -- A groundwater case study: Catherine Creek and the Upper Grande Ronde Valley -- McKenzie - Willamette River confluence project Title: Cascadia : a quarterly publication of the Oregon Department of Geology & Mineral Industries, volume 2, number 1 (Winter/Spring 2002) Author: Oregon. Dept. of Geology and Mineral Industries Year: 2002, 2005 Water and geology: how does geology control where you find and how you use water? / Roddey, James -- Through the eyes of the state geologist / Beaulieu, John D. -- What is groundwater? -- Geology and groundwater -- Who owns and manages Oregon's water? -- Recent geologic efforts related to groundwater -- A groundwater case study: Catherine Creek and the Upper Grande Ronde Valley -- McKenzie - Willamette River confluence project Close

• 74. [Image] Environmental assessment for snowmobile rulemaking in Crater Lake National Park, January 2001

  	ill., maps; "00383.O1D-CRATER LAKE"; "NPSD-306 Jan 2001"; Includes bibliographical references
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Environmental assessment for snowmobile rulemaking in Crater Lake National Park, January 2001 Author: Crater Lake National Park (Agency : U.S.) Year: 2001, 2010 ill., maps; "00383.O1D-CRATER LAKE"; "NPSD-306 Jan 2001"; Includes bibliographical references Title: Environmental assessment for snowmobile rulemaking in Crater Lake National Park, January 2001 Author: Crater Lake National Park (Agency : U.S.) Year: 2001, 2010 ill., maps; "00383.O1D-CRATER LAKE"; "NPSD-306 Jan 2001"; Includes bibliographical references Close

• 75. [Image] Recovery strategy for California Coho salmon : report to the California Fish and Game Commission

  	"February 2004."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Recovery strategy for California Coho salmon : report to the California Fish and Game Commission Author: California. Dept. of Fish and Game Year: 2004, 2005 "February 2004." Title: Recovery strategy for California Coho salmon : report to the California Fish and Game Commission Author: California. Dept. of Fish and Game Year: 2004, 2005 "February 2004." Close

• 76. [Image] An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins [volume 1]

  	Quigley, Thomas M.; Arbelbide, Sylvia J., tech. eds. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: volume 1. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins [volume 1] Author: Quigley, Thomas Milton; Arbelbide, S. J. (Sylvia J.) Year: 1997, 2008, 2005 Quigley, Thomas M.; Arbelbide, Sylvia J., tech. eds. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: volume 1. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 4 vol. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed.; The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment). The Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins provides detailed information about current conditions and trends for the biophysical and social systems within the Basin. This information can be used by land managers to develop broad land management goals and priorities and provides the context for decisions specific to smaller geographic areas. The Assessment area covers about 8 percent of the U.S. land area, 24 percent of the Nation's National Forest System lands, 10 percent of the Nation's BLM-administered lands, and contains about 1.2 percent of the Nation's population. This results in a population density that is less than one-sixth of the U.S. average. The area has experienced recent, rapid population growth and generally has a robust, diverse economy. As compared to historic conditions, the terrestrial, aquatic, forest, and rangeland systems have undergone dramatic changes. Forested landscapes are more susceptible to fire, insect, and disease than under historic conditions. Rangelands are highly susceptible to noxious weed invasion. The disturbance regimes that operate on forest and rangeland have changed substantially, with lethal fires dominating many areas where non-lethal fires were the norm historically. Terrestrial habitats that have experienced the greatest decline include the native grassland, native shrubland, and old forest structures. There are areas within the Assessment area that have higher diversity than others. Aquatic systems are now more fragmented and isolated than historically and the introduction of non-native fish species has complicated current status of native fishes. Core habitat and population centers do remain as building blocks for restoration. Social and economic conditions within the Assessment area vary considerably, depending to a great extent on population, diversity of employment opportunities, and changing demographics. Those counties with the higher population densities and greater diversity of employment opportunities are generally more resilient to economic downturns. This Assessment provides a rich information base, including over 170 mapped themes with associated models and databases, from which future decisions can benefit. Keywords: Columbia basin, biophysical systems, social systems, ecosystem. Title: An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins [volume 1] Author: Quigley, Thomas Milton; Arbelbide, S. J. (Sylvia J.) Year: 1997, 2008, 2005 Quigley, Thomas M.; Arbelbide, Sylvia J., tech. eds. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: volume 1. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 4 vol. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed.; The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment). The Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins provides detailed information about current conditions and trends for the biophysical and social systems within the Basin. This information can be used by land managers to develop broad land management goals and priorities and provides the context for decisions specific to smaller geographic areas. The Assessment area covers about 8 percent of the U.S. land area, 24 percent of the Nation's National Forest System lands, 10 percent of the Nation's BLM-administered lands, and contains about 1.2 percent of the Nation's population. This results in a population density that is less than one-sixth of the U.S. average. The area has experienced recent, rapid population growth and generally has a robust, diverse economy. As compared to historic conditions, the terrestrial, aquatic, forest, and rangeland systems have undergone dramatic changes. Forested landscapes are more susceptible to fire, insect, and disease than under historic conditions. Rangelands are highly susceptible to noxious weed invasion. The disturbance regimes that operate on forest and rangeland have changed substantially, with lethal fires dominating many areas where non-lethal fires were the norm historically. Terrestrial habitats that have experienced the greatest decline include the native grassland, native shrubland, and old forest structures. There are areas within the Assessment area that have higher diversity than others. Aquatic systems are now more fragmented and isolated than historically and the introduction of non-native fish species has complicated current status of native fishes. Core habitat and population centers do remain as building blocks for restoration. Social and economic conditions within the Assessment area vary considerably, depending to a great extent on population, diversity of employment opportunities, and changing demographics. Those counties with the higher population densities and greater diversity of employment opportunities are generally more resilient to economic downturns. This Assessment provides a rich information base, including over 170 mapped themes with associated models and databases, from which future decisions can benefit. Keywords: Columbia basin, biophysical systems, social systems, ecosystem. Close

• 77. [Image] Water rights in Oregon : an introduction to Oregon's water laws and water rights system

  	CONTENTS THE WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT 1c "To serve the public by practicing and promoting wise long-term water management. " 1.¨REGON WATER LAWS 22 water management in Oregon 2.°ATER PROTECTIONS ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Water rights in Oregon : an introduction to Oregon's water laws and water rights system Author: Oregon. Water Resources Dept. Year: 2004, 2005 CONTENTS THE WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT 1c "To serve the public by practicing and promoting wise long-term water management. " 1.¨REGON WATER LAWS 22 water management in Oregon 2.°ATER PROTECTIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 262011 managing water appropriations 3.¨BTAINING NEW WATER RIGHTS 185 gaining authorization to use water 4.¨THER WATER RIGHTS 197 authorization for water use 5.­RANSFERRING WATER RIGHTS 1c1 existing rights for new uses 6.SANCELLING WATER RIGHTS 1c5 loss of water rights through non-use 7.SONSERVATION 1c8 encouraging efficient water use 8.xINDING WATER RIGHTS 1d1 determining if you have a water right 9.°ATER DISTRIBUTION AND ENFORCEMENT 1d2 watermasters and field staff protecting rights and resources 10.«EGION OFFICES AND WATERMASTER DISTRICTS 1d4 11.xEES 1d6 APPENDIX A 1d7 other development permits WATER RIGHTS IN OREGON Title: Water rights in Oregon : an introduction to Oregon's water laws and water rights system Author: Oregon. Water Resources Dept. Year: 2004, 2005 CONTENTS THE WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT 1c "To serve the public by practicing and promoting wise long-term water management. " 1.¨REGON WATER LAWS 22 water management in Oregon 2.°ATER PROTECTIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 262011 managing water appropriations 3.¨BTAINING NEW WATER RIGHTS 185 gaining authorization to use water 4.¨THER WATER RIGHTS 197 authorization for water use 5.­RANSFERRING WATER RIGHTS 1c1 existing rights for new uses 6.SANCELLING WATER RIGHTS 1c5 loss of water rights through non-use 7.SONSERVATION 1c8 encouraging efficient water use 8.xINDING WATER RIGHTS 1d1 determining if you have a water right 9.°ATER DISTRIBUTION AND ENFORCEMENT 1d2 watermasters and field staff protecting rights and resources 10.«EGION OFFICES AND WATERMASTER DISTRICTS 1d4 11.xEES 1d6 APPENDIX A 1d7 other development permits WATER RIGHTS IN OREGON Close

• 78. [Image] 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

  	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 Citation Abstract Copy 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. 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. Close

• 79. [Image] Resolving the Klamath

  	"October 1999"; Cover title
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Resolving the Klamath Year: 1999, 2004 "October 1999"; Cover title Title: Resolving the Klamath Year: 1999, 2004 "October 1999"; Cover title Close

• 80. [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 Citation Abstract Copy 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. 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. Close

• 81. [Image] Klamath Basin Emergency Operation and Maintenance Refund Act of 2001: report (to accompany H.R. 2828)

  	8 p.; "September 17, 2002"; Mr. Bingaman submitted the following report to accompany H.R. 2828
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath Basin Emergency Operation and Maintenance Refund Act of 2001: report (to accompany H.R. 2828) Author: United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Year: 2002, 2006 8 p.; "September 17, 2002"; Mr. Bingaman submitted the following report to accompany H.R. 2828 Title: Klamath Basin Emergency Operation and Maintenance Refund Act of 2001: report (to accompany H.R. 2828) Author: United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Year: 2002, 2006 8 p.; "September 17, 2002"; Mr. Bingaman submitted the following report to accompany H.R. 2828 Close

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

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

• 83. [Image] The Water Report - Watershed assessments: the Upper Klamath Basin process

  	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 Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Water Report - Watershed assessments: the Upper Klamath Basin process 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/ Title: The Water Report - Watershed assessments: the Upper Klamath Basin process 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/ Close

• 84. [Image] A strategy for achieving healthy watersheds in Oregon

  	"January 2001."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: A strategy for achieving healthy watersheds in Oregon Author: Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Year: 2001, 2004 "January 2001." Title: A strategy for achieving healthy watersheds in Oregon Author: Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Year: 2001, 2004 "January 2001." Close

• 85. [Image] A review of scientific information on issues related to the use and management of water resources in the Pacific Northwest

  	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 Citation Abstract Copy 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. 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. Close

• 86. [Image] Water quality monitoring : technical guide book

  	"July 1999."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Water quality monitoring : technical guide book Author: Oregon. Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board Year: 1999, 2005, 2004 "July 1999." Title: Water quality monitoring : technical guide book Author: Oregon. Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board Year: 1999, 2005, 2004 "July 1999." Close

• 87. [Image] Macroecology, paleoecology, and ecological integrity of terrestrial species and communities of the interior Columbia River basin and northern portions of the Klamath and Great Basins

  	This report presents information on biogeography and broad-scale ecology (macroecology) of selected fungi, lichens, bryophytes, vascular plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates of the interior Columbia ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Macroecology, paleoecology, and ecological integrity of terrestrial species and communities of the interior Columbia River basin and northern portions of the Klamath and Great Basins Author: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station; U.S.Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management. Year: 1998, 2006, 2005 This report presents information on biogeography and broad-scale ecology (macroecology) of selected fungi, lichens, bryophytes, vascular plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates of the interior Columbia River basin and adjacent areas. Rare plants include many endemics associated with local conditions. Potential plant and invertebrate bioindicators are identified. Species ecological functions differ among communities and variously affect ecosystem diversity and productivity. Species of alpine and subalpine communities are identified that may be at risk from climate change. Maps of terrestrial ecological integrity are presented. Keywords: Macroecology, paleoecology, ecological integrity, terrestrial communities, ecosystems, wildlife, fungi, lichens, bryophytes, vascular plants, invertebrates, arthropods, mollusks, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, endemism, interior Columbia River basin, Klamath Basin, Great Basin. Title: Macroecology, paleoecology, and ecological integrity of terrestrial species and communities of the interior Columbia River basin and northern portions of the Klamath and Great Basins Author: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station; U.S.Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management. Year: 1998, 2006, 2005 This report presents information on biogeography and broad-scale ecology (macroecology) of selected fungi, lichens, bryophytes, vascular plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates of the interior Columbia River basin and adjacent areas. Rare plants include many endemics associated with local conditions. Potential plant and invertebrate bioindicators are identified. Species ecological functions differ among communities and variously affect ecosystem diversity and productivity. Species of alpine and subalpine communities are identified that may be at risk from climate change. Maps of terrestrial ecological integrity are presented. Keywords: Macroecology, paleoecology, ecological integrity, terrestrial communities, ecosystems, wildlife, fungi, lichens, bryophytes, vascular plants, invertebrates, arthropods, mollusks, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, endemism, interior Columbia River basin, Klamath Basin, Great Basin. Close

• 88. [Image] The Endangered Species Act and the National Research Council's interim judgment in Klamath Basin

  	The controversial 2001 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service water allocation decision in the Klamath Basin has been portrayed as an example of scientific guesswork operating under a flawed Endangered Species ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Endangered Species Act and the National Research Council's interim judgment in Klamath Basin Author: Cooperman, Michael S. ; Markle, Douglas F. Year: 2002, 2005 The controversial 2001 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service water allocation decision in the Klamath Basin has been portrayed as an example of scientific guesswork operating under a flawed Endangered Species Act. This conclusion has been based on an interim National Research Council report, quickly prepared in late fall, 2001. We have reviewed several iterations of the NRC Interim Report as well as all Biological Opinions and management documents related to Klamath Basin suckers and provide an overview. The 2001 Biological Opinion and the Interim Report illustrate the lack of consensus typical of scientists in the early stages of exploring a complex system. Unfortunately, the decision created hardship for a small group of people and the lack of scientific consensus has politicized the debate. Politicians have assumed that the Interim Report has primacy in the scientific debate when, in fact, its speedy construction contributed to multiple errors that detract from its scientific usefulness. The NRC Interim Report has, instead, primarily served to deflect debate away from the needs of listed fishes to one about shortcomings in the Endangered Species Act. Although the process of science has been served by both the 2001 Biological Opinion and the Interim Report, both have shortcomings, and we see no justification for either side labeling the other's decisions or conclusions as "not sound science." Title: The Endangered Species Act and the National Research Council's interim judgment in Klamath Basin Author: Cooperman, Michael S. ; Markle, Douglas F. Year: 2002, 2005 The controversial 2001 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service water allocation decision in the Klamath Basin has been portrayed as an example of scientific guesswork operating under a flawed Endangered Species Act. This conclusion has been based on an interim National Research Council report, quickly prepared in late fall, 2001. We have reviewed several iterations of the NRC Interim Report as well as all Biological Opinions and management documents related to Klamath Basin suckers and provide an overview. The 2001 Biological Opinion and the Interim Report illustrate the lack of consensus typical of scientists in the early stages of exploring a complex system. Unfortunately, the decision created hardship for a small group of people and the lack of scientific consensus has politicized the debate. Politicians have assumed that the Interim Report has primacy in the scientific debate when, in fact, its speedy construction contributed to multiple errors that detract from its scientific usefulness. The NRC Interim Report has, instead, primarily served to deflect debate away from the needs of listed fishes to one about shortcomings in the Endangered Species Act. Although the process of science has been served by both the 2001 Biological Opinion and the Interim Report, both have shortcomings, and we see no justification for either side labeling the other's decisions or conclusions as "not sound science." Close

• 89. [Image] The Klamath Project at 100 : conserving our resources, preserving our heritage

  	The Klamath Project at 100: Conserving our Resources, Preserving our Heritage 1905- 2005: The First Century of Water for the Klamath Project Grain Truck, Lower Klamath Lake, 2004 Prepared by Dan Keppen, ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Klamath Project at 100 : conserving our resources, preserving our heritage Author: Keppen, Dan Year: 2004, 2005 The Klamath Project at 100: Conserving our Resources, Preserving our Heritage 1905- 2005: The First Century of Water for the Klamath Project Grain Truck, Lower Klamath Lake, 2004 Prepared by Dan Keppen, Executive Director Klamath Water Users Association December 2004 1 1 1 1 1 ) 1 1 ) 1 1 1 I 1 I I I 003E00042195 .... rrj R13E ^ ^ T ^ I l* IILLER DIVERSION DAM MILLER CREEK AND LOST RIVER CHANNEL L. ^ ^ IMPROVEMENTS — FEATURES: Hydrography Canal Drain Dike ) ( Tunnel )—( Flume ) - - ( Siphon Pipeline Drop 9 Pumping Plant Q Irrigation District Pumping Plant H Private Utility Powerplant ik Project Headquarters Project Land Lea3 « Area MAJOR WATER DISTRICTS: Ady Dist. Improv. Co. Enterprise I. D. Horsefly I. D. Klamath Drain. Dist. Klamath I. D. Langell Valley I. D. Malin ID. Midland Dist. Improv. Co. P Canal Mutual Water Co. Pine Grove I. D. Pioneer Dist. Improv. Co. Plevna Dist. Improv. Co. Poe Valley Improv. Dist. Shasta View I. D. Sunnyside I. D. Tulelake I. D. Van Brimmer Ditch Co. Westside Improv. Dist. KLAMATH PROJECT Oregon - California N 0 12 3 4 5 Miles Background of Klamath Water Users Association The original Klamath Water Users Association was organized on March 4, 1905 under Oregon statute and capitalized in the amount of $ 2,000,000. That Association was created by local farmers, livestock producers, businessmen, bankers, attorneys, and community leaders interested in seeing the Klamath Reclamation Project constructed with the least amount of cost and for the lasting benefit of the entire Klamath community. Working in cooperation with Reclamation the stockholders of the Association contracted with the U. S. Secretary of the Interior to assume the responsibility of payment to the United States the cost of the Klamath Project irrigation works on November 3, 1905. The Association was active in bringing in lands to be served by the Project and addressing water right matters of those lands. By the 1950' s much of the construction costs of the project had been reimbursed to the United States, and irrigation districts assumed the contractual obligations for maintaining and operating the Project. The current Klamath Water Users Association ( KWUA) has its origins in the Klamath Water Users Protective Association, bylaws adopted June 22, 1953, organized to address water right and electrical power issues for Klamath Basin irrigators. The Protective Association reformed itself March 16,1993 with amended bylaws, and incorporated in 1994 as the modern Klamath Water Users Association. The KWUA represents private rural and suburban irrigation districts and ditch companies within the Klamath Project, along with private irrigation interests outside the Project in both Oregon and California in the Upper Klamath Basin. The KWUA is governed by an eleven-person board of directors elected from supporting irrigation districts, private irrigation interests, and the business community. The KWUA now represents over 5,000 water users on 1,400 family farms. Klamath Association KWUA's mission statement: To preserve, protect and defend the water and power rights of the landowners of the Klamath Basin while promoting wise management of ecosystem resources. r Table of Contents Page Executive Summary 4 Introduction 5 Overview 7 Pioneers 9 The Reclamation Act 10 The Klamath Basin Calls in the United States Government 10 Construction Begins 11 Homesteaders 13 The Klamath River Compact 15 The Klamath Project's Finishing Touches 18 New Demands 19 r Sucker Listings 20 Coho Salmon Listing 21 Problems on the East Side 22 2001 Curtailment 24 The Farmers Fight Back 26 Enter President Bush 27 Vindication: The National Research Council Steps In 28 The Assault on the Klamath Project Intensifies 29 Vindication, Part II 32 " We hate to say we told you so, but...." 33 The Klamath Project Regulatory Regime: 3 Years After the Curtailment. 34 Proactive Efforts of Upper Basin Landowners 36 Sucker Recovery Planning 36 On- the- Ground Actions 36 Environmental Water Bank 38 EQIP Funding in Klamath Basin 39 Recognition at Last 39 50 Years After the Compact - Back to the Watershed- Wide Approach 40 BOR Study on Pre- Project Flow Conditions on Upper Klamath River 40 Conclusion - The Future 41 Notes 44 Photo Credits 47 " " Executive Summary r The Klamath Project in 2005 marks its 100- year anniversary. This report summarizes the original formation of the Project, describes the enthusiastic response of the local community to the federal water project, and steps through the development of the Project in ensuing decades. The story of the pioneers, early settlers, and homesteaders who helped settle the area - veterans of both world wars - provides a sense of the character possessed by local farmers and ranchers, who had to rely on similar traits to keep their community alive when irrigation supplies were curtailed in 2001. And it explains a very important dynamic of the region, especially in recent years, where local water users are attempting to proactively address water supply challenges while at the same time trying to stave off a furious round of attacks launched by environmental activists. The immediate future remains uncertain for Klamath Project irrigators, but their marked propensity for adapting to change will keep local farmers and ranchers in business for another 100 years. In order to deal with the uncertain water situation, and facing higher power costs in 2006, the 21st century Klamath Project irrigator is adapting, by developing new market niches for products, creating innovative approaches to energy use, conserving and marketing water, and developing habitat for fish and wildlife. The same abilities shown by pioneers and veteran homesteaders beginning over a century ago to carve out new communities from the wilderness will now be employed to conserve resources and preserve their remarkable and uniquely American heritage. r A load of produce from the Klamath Fair, October 1907. • - r r The Klamath Project at 100: Conserving our Resources, Preserving our Heritage " We desire to impress upon your mind the fact that 99% of the people in the Klamath Basin are a unit, and are clamoring for the assistance which might be rendered by the Government under the Reclamation Act. " 1905 Petition from Basin residents to the Secretary of the Interior " The vision of the Klamath Basin as a place for human habitation must include agriculture, and an agricultural sector of sufficient size to be economically viable. This place ought to have an urban center and a scattering of pleasant small towns - and in between green fields with dancing water from irrigation works." Klamath Falls Herald & News Editorial June 20, 2004 " Agriculture plays a vital role in this state } s economy. An economic issue is one thing, for the farmers who need the resource, need the water, to be able to make a living. There fs another piece to this that ys much larger for all Oregon, and that is a cultural issue. The people here are very, very important to the future of this state. " Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski, At the A Canal Fish Screen, Klamath Falls, Oregon. April 17, 2003 Introduction The year 2005 marks the one hundred- year birthday of one of the oldest federal water projects in the western United States - the Klamath Irrigation Project. As was painfully made evident in 2001, when Klamath Project supplies were curtailed for the first time in 95 years, the local community and its economy are interwoven with the health of this irrigation project. One hundred years after overwhelming national policy supported its construction, the Klamath Project continues to play a critical role in the local community. " The Klamath Project started out as a good thing, and it remains a good thing", said Tulelake farmer Rob Crawford. " When the Project was created, Klamath Basin people were meeting a national call by doing what they were supposed to do - settle the West. Today, our efforts focus on preserving our heritage, while conserving our resources." r r - r r rr At the beginning of the last century, when the local community learned that the Klamath Project would be developed, an " incredible celebration" ensued, said Paul Simmons, an attorney for the Klamath Water Users Association. " The people of the Klamath Basin basically posed a proposal to the federal government," said Simmons. " They told the government,' if you will be the plumber and the banker, we can do something good for the country.'" The federal government did just that by constructing the irrigation project. Local growers repaid the construction costs in the ensuing decades. Today, thousands of people - family farmers and ranchers, their employees, and agriculture- related businesses - make their living directly from farming and ranching in the Klamath Project. In turn, their activities support the communities of Malin, Merrill, Midland, Bonanza, Tulelake, Newell, and Klamath Falls. And, equally important, their efforts yield high- quality safe food for the country and the world. The last century has been one of massive transformation, vitality, shining hope, and deep despair for the farmers and ranchers served by the Klamath Project. The core reason for the creation of the Klamath Project - to develop water supplies and storage for irrigation uses - has been diminished as new competing demands, intended to satisfy Endangered Species Act ( ESA) and tribal trust conditions, have come on line. As a result, after perceived ESA and tribal trust obligations are met, Klamath Project irrigators and national wildlife refuges essentially get the remaining water. Because very little carryover storage is provided by Klamath Project reservoirs, the farmers now find themselves becoming increasingly reliant on incoming flows to the reservoirs, rather than the stored water that was originally developed to provide them with a reliable summertime irrigation supply. In essence, because of new laws and policies developed in the recent past, the original purpose of the Klamath Project has been somewhat lost in the shuffle. This became glaringly obvious in 2001, when for the first time in 95 years, water supplies to the Klamath Project from Upper Klamath Lake were curtailed before the irrigation season had even begun, to meet conditions set by federal fishery agencies to purportedly prevent harm to three fish species. Three and one- half years after Klamath Irrigation Project ( Project) water deliveries were terminated by the federal government, local water users are attempting to proactively address water supply challenges while at the same time trying to stave off a furious round of attacks launched by environmental activists. Project irrigators - who farm on lands straddling the California- Oregon state line - remain apprehensive about the future certainty of water n supplies. However, the strong traits shown by the original Klamath Project settlers - self-independence, creativity, a sense of community - are still apparent, one hundred years later. Without these characteristics, the tragic events of 2001 might have become nothing more than n passing headlines in the local newspaper. Instead, a galvanized community grabbed national media and political attention by forcing the rest of the country to see that things had gone too far. r r Now, Klamath Project irrigators are preparing for the next 100 years. In order to deal with the uncertain water situation, and facing higher power costs in 2006, the 21st century Klamath Project irrigator is adapting, by developing new market niches for his products, creating innovative approaches to energy use, conserving and marketing water, developing habitat for fish and wildlife, and improving the symbiotic relationship he has with neighboring national wildlife refuges. The same abilities shown by pioneers and veteran homesteaders to carve out new communities from the wilderness will now be employed to conserve resources and preserve their remarkable and uniquely American heritage. Overview The irrigable lands of the Klamath Project ( Project) are in south- central Oregon ( 62 percent) and north- central California ( 38 percent). Two main sources supply water for the Project: Upper Klamath Lake and the Klamath River on the Klamath system; and Clear Lake Reservoir, Gerber Reservoir, and Lost River on the Lost River system, are in a closed basin. The total drainage area for the Klamath Project, including the Lost River and the Klamath River watershed above Keno, Oregon is approximately 5,700 square miles. Currently, approximately 225,000 acres, many previously submerged, have been transformed into productive farmland. The crops grown within the Klamath Project area consist of grain, hay, pasture, silage, mint, potatoes, onions, other vegetables, alfalfa, strawberry rootstock, and horseradish. This list of crops represents the majority of planted acreage within the Klamath Project over the last 40 to 50 years. The cropping pattern has varied from year to year, but the overall planted acreage has remained consistent. The Bureau of Reclamation operates Clear Lake Dam, Gerber Dam, and the Lost River Diversion Dam. The Link River Dam is operated by the Pacific Power and Light Company in accordance with Project needs, or more recently also as directed by federal agencies. The Tulelake Irrigation District operates the Anderson- Rose Dam, and the Langell Valley Irrigation District operates the Malone and Miller Diversion Dams. The various irrigation districts operate the canals and pumping plants. The original Klamath Project plan included construction of facilities to divert and distribute water for irrigation of basin lands, including reclamation of Tule and Lower Klamath Lakes, and control of floods in the area. The development of the stored water provided by the Klamath Project allowed for the controlled, beneficial use of water in the Upper Basin. Currently, late summer and fall flows in the Lower Klamath River are augmented with stored water that would not be there, but for the Project. Under pre- Project conditions, natural controls existed below both Upper Klamath Lake and Lake Ewauna which stabilized lake levels except during critical droughts. Those controls were natural reefs of hard earth material in the channel and other channel constrictions. Under these pre- Project conditions, the Klamath River flowed into the Lower Klamath Lake area. A 1906 map titled " Topographic and Drainage Map, Upper and Lower Klamath Project" shows the invert of the Klamath Strait approximately the same level as the Klamath River channel bottom near Keno. In addition, the Lost River terminated at Tule Lake. These flows flooded approximately 183,000 acres within Lower Klamath and Tule Lake. In general, under pre- Project conditions, Klamath River flows downstream of Keno likely occurred after a certain water level was reached in the Klamath River and Lower Klamath Lake. An engineer speaking in the early days of the Project observed that adequate Klamath Project water supplies were not a worry. Rather - something that would be inconceivable today - dealing with too much water was more of a concern at the time: " It contains an irrigation problem, an evaporation problem, a run- off problem, any one of which is difficult in itself but all of which together form a most perplexing whole," said the engineer. " In nearly all reclamation projects water has to be conserved. In this project there is more than enough and the question of disposing of it becomes an important part." 1906 Map of Pre- Project Area r • r r r Pioneers Irrigation development began in areas now served by the Klamath Project in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Various landowners and entrepreneurs utilized water of the Klamath River and its tributaries, and undertook a wide range of visionary activities. Prime farmland, exposed around the edges of old historic Tule Lake as early as 1846 stimulated early settlers' interest in irrigation. Similarly, early settlers beginning in the early 1860s relied on " naturally irrigated" greases and forage in the Lower Klamath area for pasture and hay. The first irrigation ditch was dug by George Nurse and Joseph Conger in the bottom of Linkville Canyon in 1868. In 1878, this ditch was expanded and incorporated into the Linkville Water Ditch Company. Early pioneers Steele and Ankeny pursued a canal to deliver water to land between Klamath Falls and Merrill. Ultimately, the canal system was replaced by the A Canal and its distribution system which, operated by Klamath Irrigation District, continues to serve Project land to this day. t Adams Cut, July 18,1906. Diversion for irrigation of additional agricultural lands in the area now comprising the Klamath Project was initiated in 1882 with construction of an irrigation ditch by the Van Brimmer brothers to the land from White Lake, which was fed by the Klamath River. Private interests further developed this project by constructing the Adams Canal in 1886, which was supplied also from White Lake. Frank Adams, with assistance from the Van Brimmer r rr rr r Brothers, cut a canal through tule roots using hay- knives and a derrick, in order to improve diversion from White Lake. This canal ultimately extended to a length of 22 miles. By 1903, approximately 13,000 acres were irrigated by private interests, with the canal system in progress to deliver much more. After the 1905 authorization of the Klamath Project ( see below), many water rights were acquired to facilitate, and for the benefit of, the Klamath Project enterprise, and other agreements were made with other water right- holders. The Project utilized, extended, expanded and/ or improved previously existing systems, and included construction of other facilities. The Reclamation Act In 1902 Congress enacted the Reclamation Act, which encouraged the settlement of lands in the western states and the development of agricultural economies to feed the nation. The 1902 Act provided for federal financing of irrigation works, with the construction costs to be repaid over time by project water users. In addition, public lands were made available for homesteaders who accepted the responsibility to undertake improvements and pay the water charges. Both the Oregon and California legislatures also enacted laws making state- owned land available for use in the Klamath Project. The Klamath Basin Calls in the United States Government In 1903, the Reclamation Service conducted investigations that led in 1904 to the first withdrawal of land by the Secretary of the Interior for developing a federal irrigation project. J. B. Lippincott, a supervising engineer from Los Angeles - who also played a key role in the City of Los Angeles' securement of Owens Valley water supplies - personally toured the Klamath Basin in June of 1904. l Although private irrigation projects were moving forward by the turn of the century, and some large- scale projects were being planned, most local citizens saw great value in a federally authorized and supported project. In 1905, local residents sent numerous petitions to Washington, D. C. requesting government irrigation assistance. By this time, a private corporation had given notion of its plans to develop water for what would ultimately become virtually the entire Klamath Project. Ironically, after Owens Valley agricultural water rights were secured by the City of Los Angeles, many of the displaced farmers moved to the Klamath Basin for the " reliable" water supplies of the Klamath Project. On their way north, they passed the first Reclamation Project in the West - the Newlands Project, near Reno, Nevada. 10 r r r r r r r " We desire to impress upon your mind the fact that 99% of the people in the Klamath Basin are a unit, and are clamoring for the assistance which might be rendered by the Government under the Reclamation Act," stated one petitioner. In November 1904, F. H. Newell, Chief Engineer of the federal Reclamation Service, told a large audience of enthusiastic farmers in Klamath Falls that, in his judgment, they had " a great irrigation project". Early in 1905, California and Oregon had ceded certain rights in the Upper and Lower Klamath Lakes and Tule Lake to the United States. On May 1, 1904, a board of engineers made a report that served as the basis for authorization of the Project. Congress authorized the use of lands and water in accordance with the State Acts of February 1905. The Secretary of the Interior authorized development of the Project on May 15, 1905, under provisions of the Reclamation Act of 1902. Construction Begins The Interior Secretary's 1905 authorization provided for project works to drain and reclaim lake bed lands of the Lower Klamath and Tule Lakes, to store waters of the Klamath and Lost Rivers, to divert irrigation supplies, and to control flooding of the reclaimed lands. The states of Oregon and California ceded then- submerged land to the federal government for the specific purpose of having the land drained and reclaimed for irrigation use by homesteaders. The Oregon Legislature also authorized the raising and lowering of Upper Klamath Lake in connection with the Project, and allowed the use of the bed of Upper Klamath Lake for storage of water for irrigation. Construction began on the Project in 1906 with the building of the main " A" Canal. Water was first made available May 22, 1907, to the lands now known as the Main Division. 1907 Completion of the A Canal Headgates 11 r r r r r This initial construction was followed by the completion of Clear Lake Dam in 1910, the Lost River Diversion Dam and many of the distribution structures in 1912, and the Lower Lost River Diversion Dam in 1921. ( In 1970, a public dedication at the Lower Lost River Diversion Dam officially changed the name of the structure to Anderson- Rose Dam.) Constructing Clear Lake Dam, September 1909. Large stone in self- dumping car. A contract executed February 24, 1917, between the California- Oregon Power Company ( now the Pacific Power and Light Company) and the United States authorized the company to construct Link River Dam for the benefit of the Project and for the company's use, and also extended to the water users of the Klamath Project certain preferential power rates. The dam was completed in 1921. The contract was amended and further extended for a 50- year period on April 16, 1956. The Malone Diversion Dam on the Lost River was built in 1923 to divert water to Langell Valley. The Gerber Dam on Miller Creek was completed in 1925, and the Miller Diversion Dam was built in 1924 to divert water released from Gerber Dam. In the Great Depression, continued settlement and leasing and distribution construction resulted in a significant increase, between 1930 and 1939 of the acres receiving water directly from Project facilities. The project work undertaken during this period included the enlargement of the Lost River Diversion Channel. In 1940, construction was begun on Pumping Plant D and the Tule Lake Tunnel. By 1942, these facilities, as well as the P- Canal were completed. In 1943, the Ady pumping plant was placed in operation, and in the next two years, the Straits Drain and pumps were constructed and installed and began operation. 12 r r Homesteaders The story of the homesteaders is a source of great pride in the Klamath Project. As Tule Lake receded according to plan, the lake bottom became suitable for cultivation. The land that ultimately became homesteads was under jurisdiction of the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation ( Reclamation). Homesteading and developing more productive agricultural land was the goal of the reclamation project that " reclaimed" the beds of Tule Lake and Lower Klamath Lake to expose more arable land. After Tule Lake was dewatered, a large area of public land became available for agriculture. The government would lease this land to settlers, and in fact leased as much as 50,000 acres in Tule Lake in the 1920s. Over time, most of this land was homesteaded. In 1917,180 people applied for the 37 homestead parcels the Reclamation made available on the drained wetlands and lake beds. Between 1922 and 1937 there were five more homestead offerings and hundreds of homesteaders settled in on the fertile soil of the drained lake bed. Then, World War II curtailed the homesteading process. » rri.. . r i* Ul. r- Xio. 1 wi sat Mi M MM ttw DCCA rru. ilon _ ji « _ jra .... r. r tk. M r « i t » a-. . « *^ J •* 4. MM r* T RTMtNT Or THE X ,. . tie*. . ..< L. » ii tatwJ l u i » T « 11 r ( » T « rnr » ) xfc. ir « « . •" « » ^> « • inS| « Ut !•• « . • TTDHOII. ,.> , ^% laMitk r » u. « . orumtm. _ JBKS!*! « r._: iit_ » « « » i.. bwrlac n i M la t&. MttaJOMI ( 1* nat.. J « a>. aa4 tk* a. t* JKLaUMftULJatiLJlJrt.. . . . . W l t a . is a- S.- ..- M « ri « ia*. t u . ar tka ar. ra* al « » ot af i t kav* a » « . > n » M < aatrr. • M M MMtMl. MMM t . aa n » tn4 » r ua « « . o. rol - • M it. » • « i WMM .. 1927 Homesteader Affidavit In three drawings held in 1946, 1948 and 1949, a total of 216 World War II veterans were awarded homesteads on farmland in the Tule Lake Basin, as a thank you from a grateful nation. The number of applicants was far greater than the number of available homesteads. Veterans and the community gathered to watch the names drawn from a pickle jar. Farm homesteads and crop- producing land were the goals of reclamation, and the Tule Lake Basin became a showcase for reclamation work. 13 " When I arrived to see my homestead there was nothing there, just an expanse of opportunity," recalls Carman. " No roads, no houses, no trees, just bare ground. I then pitched my tent in the corner of my homestead." My wife Eleanor was expecting our second child, but could not join me until later. A tent was not acceptable living quarters for a young woman, a small child and another baby on the way." The settlers formed organizations, elected a school board, and went about creating a society. " When I began my new life as a Tulelake homesteader there were approximately 300 homesteaders, most of them with families," said Carman. " We united and began to build schools, churches and a hospital in Klamath Falls. We started a community. We were living the American dream and our dream was achieved by hard work and dedication, and I must say we could never have done this without our wives." Homesteaders: Robinsons in 2001 Remember Days Gone By r - The Klamath River Compact The Klamath River Compact ( Compact) is a law of both Oregon and California, consented to by and Act of Congress. In the following decade, a variety of concerns and issues led to the passage of the Compact in 1957. These included: • Differing positions regarding the extent of development that could occur under Klamath Project water rights; 15 • • The related issue of priority of Klamath Project and overall Upper Klamath Basin irrigation development as against other uses, especially generation of hydro- electric power on the mainstem Klamath River; and • Concerns over potential future out- of- basin water exports. The development of the Compact was closely tied to an application for a water right filed by the California Oregon Power Company ( Copco) in 1951. This application anticipated using water at a proposed hydroelectric project on the Klamath River known as " Big Bend No. 2." In turn, this dispute folded in past dealings, agreements and opinions related to the operation of Link River Dam on Upper Klamath Lake. The agreements made between Copco and the Bureau of Reclamation at the time of construction of Link River Dam around 1920 had been controversial. Upper Klamath Basin irrigation interests had three primary concerns: 1. Power development, as an incident of the Project's reclamation purpose, should be undertaken only by the United States; 2. That the agreements threatened Klamath Project water supplies; and 3. The agreements were inconsistent with state legislation authorizing use of Upper Klamath Lake by the United States for storage or reclamation purposes. In 1951, Copco filed an application with the Oregon Hydroelectric Commission ( OHC) for a water right for the proposed Big Bend No. 2 hydroelectric facility. The OHC at that time had authority and jurisdiction over issuance of water rights for hydropower facilities. Copco at the time of filing took the position that water was available for appropriation and Copco was entitled to a right, senior in priority, to any future Upper Klamath Basin irrigation that was not then actually developed. J. C. Boyle Dam on the Klamath River. — 16 r r • A. To facilitate and promote the orderly, integrated and comprehensive development, use, conservation and control thereof for various purposes, including, among others: the use of water for domestic purposes; the development of lands by irrigation and other means; the protection and enhancement offish, wildlife, and recreational resources; the use of water for industrial purposes and hydroelectric power production; and the use and control of water for navigation and flood prevention. B. To further intergovernmental cooperation and comity with respect to these resources and programs for their use and development and to remove causes of present and future controversies by providing ( l) for equitable distribution and use of water among the two states and the Federal Government, ( 2) for preferential rights to the use of water after the effective date of this compact for the anticipated ultimate requirements for domestic and irrigation purposes in the Upper Klamath River Basin in Oregon and California, and ( 3) for prescribed relationships between beneficial uses of water as a practicable means of accomplishing such distribution and Copco's application to the OHC, and its parallel application to the Federal Power Commission ( FPC) for a license under the Federal Power Act, were contested and opposed by the Department of the Interior and various agricultural and irrigation interests. The OHC did not act on Copco's application until 1956. The States of California and Oregon appointed commissioners to negotiate an interstate Compact. At the same time, Reclamation and local water users were negotiating a new agreement with Copco for operation of Link River Dam. It appeared that such an agreement might be concluded prior to enactment by the States of a Compact. The draft Copco contract was brought before the Compact negotiating commissioners, who sought to ensure consistency with the Compact being developed. During the course of several meetings of the Compact commissioners, terms were developed which resulted in conditions in the FPC license, the water right certificate, and a new contract for Copco's operating of Link River Dam. After preparation of various drafts, negotiation of the Compact was concluded and the legislatures of Oregon, California, as well as the United States Congress, acted in 1957. The major purposes of this compact are, with respect to the water resources of the Klamath River Basin: The Compact recognized water rights for then- existing and future needs in the Klamath Project service area. It also established a system of priority for new water rights under which Upper Basin irrigation ( up to a specified number of acres) had superior rights over water for power generation, fish or wildlife, or recreation. 17 r r r r r In short, the Klamath Compact provided guidelines to lead the competing interests of the Klamath River watershed towards a more harmonious future. For the next 40 years, the intent of the Compact was essentially fulfilled, until the early 1990s, when new pressures to address endangered fish and tribal trust demands resulted in the reemergence of fractionalized conflict into the Upper Basin. Although it had been seen as a resolution for future disputes, the Compact has been interpreted not to override the Endangered Species Act or tribal trust water rights. The Klamath Project's Finishing Touches r Through the 1950s, Reclamation envisioned continued development of the Project that would have doubled its current size by including Butte Valley, California and other areas. The plans were not implemented and the Project acreage has not significantly increased since the end of the 1940s. In the following decades, the delivery system has been improved, bottlenecks eliminated, and relatively small areas have both been brought under irrigation and converted to commercial or residential development. By 1960, due in part to improvements made on Tule Lake dikes, the M Canal, the Lost River Diversion Channel, and installation of new canals in the southern portion of the Tulelake Irrigation District ( TID) service area and the Miller Hill Pumping Plant, the Project provided irrigation service to nearly 216,000 acres. Tulelake, California In the 1960' s, improvements and expansion of certain facilities led to the formation of Klamath Basin Improvement District. The Stukel and Poe Valley Pumping Plants were constructed and the Miller Hill Pumping Plant enlarged. The D, F and G- Canals were also 18 r enlarged. These facilities provided more reliable service to certain lands and also added land to the area that could receive water from Project works. In the 1970' s, Shasta View Irrigation District and Reclamation entered a $ 3.2 million contract for installation of a pressure irrigation system to replace the previous gravity- fed system. The 1972 Project history reported, ".. . the Project provided irrigation and drainage service to 223,661 acres," while the total harvested acreage "... was 193,160, down 2,329 acres from 1971." Also in the 1970' s, the Straits Drain was enlarged. Because of the Klamath Project's design and the interrelated nature of water use within it, including the use of return flows by farmers and the refuge, Project efficiency is very high. A recent assessment of Klamath Project water use efficiency2 implies that a sophisticated seasonal pattern of water use has evolved in the Klamath Project. One must understand that the Klamath Project has developed into a highly effective, highly interconnected form of water management. According to the 1998 Davids study ( see footnote), effective efficiency for the overall Project is 93 percent, making the Klamath Project one of the most efficient in the country3. New Demands For eighty years, Klamath Project irrigation supplies proved sufficient to meet the needs of the area's burgeoning farming and ranching communities. Although there were years where Mother Nature and Klamath Project storage capacity proved insufficient to meet full irrigation demands, the local community managed to stretch thin supplies and make things work. That all changed in the early 1990s, when steadily more restrictive government agency decisions made to meet Endangered Species Act ( ESA) goals began to steadily chip away at the stored water supply originally developed for irrigation. Two sucker species were listed ( 1988) as endangered and coho salmon were listed ( 1997) as threatened under the ESA. Since then, biological opinions rendered by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( for the suckers) and NOAA Fisheries ( for the coho), have increasingly emphasized the reallocation of Project water as the sole means of avoiding jeopardizing these fish. Klamath Project " operations plans" based on these biological opinions also factor in tribal trust obligations, although the nature and extent of such obligations is undefined. 2 " Klamath Project Historical Water Use Analysis", Davids Engineering for U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, October 1998. 3 For example, Tulelake Irrigation District irrigates 62,000 acres of farmland. In the 1990s, the district diverted an average of 131,000 acre- feet of water. Each year, an average of 80,000 acre- feet was pumped out of the district. Consumptive use within the district is considerably less than the amount of water diverted. The reason is the difference from the return flow from other districts and the reuse of water within the Project. 19 r Sucker Listings In the past twelve years, political and regulatory demands have affected activities at the Klamath Project. In 1988, the short nose sucker and the Lost River sucker, two species that live in Upper Klamath Lake, were designated as endangered under the ESA. Biological opinions issued by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) in 1992 and 1994 concerning operation of the Klamath Project identified actions to avoid jeopardy to suckers. When the suckers were listed, there had been no mention whatsoever of reservoir elevations as a factor affecting sucker populations. These operation elevations were adopted by Reclamation. The reservoir elevations pertaining to Upper Klamath Lake generally allowed the Project to operate for its intended purposes. However, the United States District Court of Oregon found that the reservoir elevations pertaining to Clear Lake and Gerber Reservoirs to be arbitrary and capricious, and they were invalidated in a succession of decisions4. The most compelling and prominent reason why the federal government justified listing the two sucker species as " endangered" in 1988 was an apparent abrupt downturn in both populations during the mid- 1980s. To support the decision to list the suckers, the USFWS believed the only significant remaining populations were in Upper Klamath Lake. We now know that the assumptions by the USFWS were in error and the assumed sucker population crisis never materialized. In fact, shortly after listing of the species, the populations demonstrated dramatic increases5. r Just prior to the listing of the suckers in 1988, a sport snag fishery was allowed. Before 1969, the fishery was largely unregulated with no harvest limit; in 1969 a generous bag limit of 10 fish per angler was imposed. During the early to mid- 1980s, despite the belief that the numbers offish were in a state of rapid decline, the State of Oregon still allowed the sport snag fishery. Ultimately, because of increased focus on the status of the sucker populations, Oregon eliminated the fishery in 1987. Some fisheries experts believe that if the USFWS would have properly assessed the known impacts on the suckers caused by the snag fishery and the benefits from ceasing the fishery, it very likely could have affected the ultimate listing decision. " Simply stated, the largely unregulated snag fishery slaughtered the sucker populations," said Dave Vogel, with Natural Resource Scientists, Inc. " Since the fishery was eliminated in 1987, the two sucker populations dramatically rebounded. The threat was removed and the populations increased ten- fold." 4 Bennett v Spear, 520 U. S. 154 ( 1997); 5 F. Jupp. 2d 887 ( D. Or. 1998); Bennett v. Badgely, No. 93- 6075- HO ( April 13, 1999, June 11, 1999). 5 Vogel, David, 2004. Testimony Before the Committee on Resources ( Subcommittee on Water and Power), United States House of Representatives. Oversight Field Hearing on The Endangered Species Act 30 Years Later: The Klamath Project. 20 At the time of the listings in 1988, the Klamath Project was not identified as having known adverse affects on the sucker populations, yet four years after the listing, using limited or no empirical data, the USFWS turned to the Klamath Project as their singular focus. Paradoxically, since the early 1990s, despite new beneficial empirical evidence on the improving status of the species and lack of relationship with Klamath Project operations, the USFWS became ever more centered on Project operations and increased restrictions on irrigators instead of paying attention to more obvious, fundamental problems for the species. This circumstance caused tremendous expense in dollars and time by diverting resources away from other known factors affecting the species. Coho Salmon Listing r A similar circumstance occurred with NOAA Fisheries during and after the coho salmon listing in the lower basin in the late 1990s. It cited the reasons to list coho salmon, excluding Klamath Project operations as a significant factor affecting the species. There are many other documented factors that have affected salmon runs in the Klamath River6. The USFWS in the 1980s described the most important eight factors as " most frequently referred to with regard to recent population declines" of anadromous fish in the Klamath River. Those factors are: " • Over fishing • Logging • Trinity River transbasin diversion Irrigation diversions in lower Klamath tributaries • 1964 flood • 1976- 1977 drought • Sea lion predation • Brown trout predation. However, shortly following the listing, and with no supporting data, NOAA Fisheries chose to center its attention on the Klamath Project as the principal factor affecting coho salmon. In its biological opinions, NOAA Fisheries opined that much higher than historic flow levels, released from the stored water of the Klamath Project, would be needed to protect coho salmon downstream of Iron Gate Dam. Iron Gate Dam is located forty miles away and coho are generally found further downstream and in tributaries. 7 In essence, both agencies adopted a single- minded approach of focusing on Klamath Project operations to artificially create high reservoir levels and high reservoir releases. This puzzling, similar sequence of events has yet to be explained by agency officials. 6 KWUA biologists compiled a comprehensive listing of those factors in March 1997. 7 Vogel, David, 2004. Testimony Before the Committee on Resources ( Subcommittee on Water and Power), United States House of Representatives. Oversight Field Hearing on The Endangered Species Act 30 Years Later: The Klamath Project. 21 r " ~ Commercial harvests of salmon intensified with the development of canning technology. By the early 20th century, habitat destruction combined with commercial harvests had resulted in serious salmon depletion on the Klamath River. Cobb ( 1930) estimated that the peak of the Klamath River salmon runs occurred in 1912, Snyder ( 1931) observed " in 1912 three [ canneries] operated on or near the estuary and the river was heavily fished, no limit being placed on the activities of anyone". Problems on the East Side Irrigation districts on the east side of the Klamath Project felt the first impacts from increased regulatory focus on lake levels in the early 1990s. Langell Valley Irrigation District ( LVID) and Horsefly Irrigation District ( HID) receive water from Clear Lake and Gerber reservoirs. Historically, stored water was released from these two reservoirs beginning about April 15 and ending about October 15 each year. These reservoirs are not large, but they provide the essential water supply to an otherwise arid area. In an average year, Clear Lake releases about 36,000 acre- feet of irrigation water, and Gerber releases about 40,000 acre- feet. Clear Lake Reservoir contains populations of both endangered sucker species, and Gerber reservoir hosts one of the species. ESA-" threatened" bald eagles are also known to inhabit the Klamath Project area. In 1991, at the request of the USFWS, Reclamation initiated ESA consultation to assess the impact of the long- term operation of the Klamath Project on the suckers and the bald eagle. In the next year, three biological opinions were rendered by USFWS that imposed minimum levels in Clear Lake to purportedly protect the sucker populations. As a result of the minimum lake levels imposed by the draft biological opinions, and the water lost to evaporation before the USFWS allowed any water releases, the Districts were not able to make their normal irrigation releases during the 1992 water year. Neither district received its first seasonal water delivery until May 15, 1992, a full four weeks later than normal. By 22 r " that date, 12,000 acre- feet of the water that had been stored in Clear Lake in March 1992 had evaporated, an amount that represents about 60% of LVID's total yearly withdrawal from Clear Lake Reservoir. As a result of the minimum lake levels and the evaporation losses, only 2,148 acres of the 16,800 irrigable acres within the LVID received any Klamath Project water at all. The lack of water reduced both acreage farmed and per- acre yields that year. As a result of reduced yields, farm properties lost up to 70% of their assessed values in 1992. The lack of water also hurt the region's cattle ranching operations, because some ranchers could not produce pasture for their cattle. Water users who could afford the extra expense purchased feed to sustain their herds. Others had to cut back substantially on their herds or sell their cattle. Wildlife also suffered as a result of the decision to impose minimum surface levels in the reservoirs. Because the Lost River obtains most of its water from releases from Clear Lake Dam and return flows from agricultural operations, the water levels in the Lost River and its tributaries were exceedingly low in 1992. As a direct result, wildlife relying on Lost River water, including deer, sandhill cranes, hawks, turtles, frogs, ducks, and more, were all noticeably scarce that year. On July 22, 1992, USFWS finally issued its final biological opinion on the long- term operations of the Klamath Project. While the 1992 opinion conceded that " little" was known about Gerber Reservoir's shortnose sucker population, the opinion reported " good numbers" of these fish and noted that the Gerber sucker population appeared to be successfully reproducing, despite the lowered lake levels of the early 1990s. Despite this undisputed evidence, the 1992 biological opinion concluded that continuing to operate the Project, including Clear Lake and Gerber reservoirs, in its historic manner was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of both sucker fish species. Reclamation accepted the USFWS recommendations for continued adherence to minimum lake levels, prompting the Districts and two of the individual farmers to sue the federal agencies. Even after the federal district court entered judgment invalidating the jeopardy conclusions, USFWS defied this judgment, and the districts were forced to bring several additional motions to enforce the Court's rulings. At each stage of the legal proceedings, the districts prevailed, based largely on the fact that USFWS had no scientific evidence to justify its actions. When the United States Supreme Court considered the Districts' case against the USFWS, the Court described the purpose of the ESA's science requirement as follows: The obvious purpose of the requirement that each agency " use the best available scientific and commercial data available" is to ensure that the ESA not be implemented haphazardly, on the basis of speculation or surmise. While this no doubt serves to advance the ESA's overall goal -., of species preservation, we think it readily apparent that another objective ( if not indeed the 23 primary one) is to avoid needless economic dislocation produced by agency officials zealously but unintelligently pursuing their environmental objectives. Now, ten years later, HID and LVID enjoy positive relationships with USFWS and Reclamation. However, the problems they suffered in the early 1990s were a harbinger of things to come for other Klamath Project irrigators shortly after the turn of the new century. 2001 Curtailment The net result of increasing restrictions on other Klamath Project water users was fully realized on April 6, 2001, when Reclamation announced its water allocation for the Project after U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries officials finalized the biological opinions ( BOs) for project operations in a critically dry year. Based on those regulatory actions, Reclamation announced that - for the first time in Project's 95- year history - no water would be available from Upper Klamath Lake to supply Project irrigators. No water for most farmers April 6, 2001 Local Headlines The resulting impacts to the local community were immediate and far- reaching. Even with a later release of a small percentage of needed water over a 30- day period in July and August, thousands of acres of valuable farmland were left without water. In addition to harming those property owners, managers, and workers, also imparted an economic " ripple" effect through the broader community. The wildlife benefits provided by those farms - particularly the food provided for area waterfowl - were also lost with the water. 24 Kliewer Family in Dry Fields South of Klamath Falls - 2001 The local farming community is still reeling from the April 6, 2001 decision, and severe business losses echoed the hardship endured by farmers and farm employees. As farmers and laborers attempted to deal with the loss of jobs, a year's income, and in some cases the land itself, referrals for mental health counseling increased dramatically. The Tulelake school district lost around 50 students after farm families sold their land and moved on. Students were under stress, understandably confused as to why three species of fish were more important than their lifelong homes. Tragically, one Hispanic family had started out as field workers, and after a lifetime of piecework under the sun had saved enough to buy their own farm. They lost everything as a direct result of the irrigation cutofi . Veteran homesteaders, who fifty years ago were promised reliable water, felt betrayed by the same government, who chose to provide water to fish instead of farmers in 2001. " I want the government to honor the contract that promised me and my heirs water rights forever," said Jess Prosser, a World War II veteran and Tulelake homesteader, in 2001, after water supplies were cut. " This land is our life. Farmers and fish have survived previous drought years when the farmers voluntarily cut back on water consumption. The Klamath Project was designed to withstand drought conditions, and right now there is more than ample water for agriculture and fish. The government took 100% of the water for fish, disregarding farmers, ranchers, families and numerous other species of wildlife in the Klamath Basin. This is a man- made disaster. This will be the end of a way of life and an entire community." 1 " Calamity in Klamath", Blake Hurst. The American Enterprise magazine. October / November 2002, pp 28- 29. 25 Cemeteries Went Dry in 2001 The Farmers Fight Back The local community did not take the decision lying down. Employing the ingenuity and perseverance that allowed them to successfully create brand new communities over the past century, local farmers, ranchers, elected officials and business leaders organized a " bucket brigade" to dramatize their plight, drawing nearly 20,000 sympathizers to the streets of Klamath Falls. A web site and cell phone calling tree were set up, and farmers, who only a year before were working their fields, suddenly became knowledgeable about the media. Civil disobedience, in the form of peaceful protests at the A Canal headgates, drew television crews from throughout the Pacific Northwest. The 2001 Klamath Basin crisis became the topic of front- page coverage and sympathetic editorials in publications like Time magazine, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times. Time Magazine Captures Rob Crawford & Family, Summer 2001. In part because of the tremendous media and political attention generated by the local community, a congressional field hearing was held in the summer of 2001 at the Klamath County fairgrounds, which drew the largest audience to ever attend such a hearing in the nation's history. Much of the focus was on the decision- making and processes that led to the fishery agencies' recommendation to curtail irrigation supplies. 26 In 2001, a desperate community essentially was looked in the eye and told, " sorry, we know it may hurt, but ' the science' is compelling and requires you to go without water." This was wrong, literally, and as a matter of policy. For whatever reason, the agencies had become too close to, and too much a part of, the side- taking that had come to dominate issues surrounding the Klamath Project. For this reason alone, outside review was needed. Nearly 20,000 marchers support the Klamath Bucket Brigade, May 2001. Prayer / protest at the A Canal headgates, 2001. Elected officials - from county commissioners and supervisors, to state representatives and senators, to U. S. Senators and Representatives, continued the fight, and ultimately, later in 2001, the U. S. Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton, directed the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an independent peer- review of the agency decision to curtail irrigation supplies. Also, in early 2002, President Bush himself took a personal interest in the plight of the Klamath Project irrigator. Enter President Bush In January 2002, just months after the federal government curtailed Klamath Project irrigation deliveries for the first time in 97 years, Sen. Gordon Smith and Rep. Greg Walden met the president in southern California, boarded Air Force One, and took a slight detour over the Basin on their way to a Portland high school where the Mr. Bush was to deliver a speech. On the flight north, the president was briefed on the 2001 Klamath water crisis. When he entered the gymnasium at Park Rose High School, he opened his speech up with a pledge to help both the farmers and the fish of the Klamath Basin. 27 Compassion: George W. Bush Meets and Greets Klamath Basin Residents in Redmond, Oregon, 2003. In the ensuing two years, President Bush has followed through with his pledge by establishing a Klamath Basin cabinet- level working group, promoting sound and independent peer-reviewed science, and making funding of Klamath River water and environmental projects a priority. Enacted and requested Bush Administration funding in the Klamath River watershed for fiscal years 2003- 2005 exceeds $ 260 million dollars, according to a federal government summary. This includes $ 105 million proposed by the administration for Klamath Basin federal funding in the Fiscal Year 2005 budget. Vindication: The National Research Council Steps In The Klamath Water Users Association and others in the community in 2001 strongly advocated for an independent peer review of the 2001 fishery agency biological opinions, the underlying science, and the related overall scientific process. In early 2002, an interim report from the National Research Council ( NRC) Committee on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath Basin was released. This represented a critical step towards ensuring proper assessment and maintenance of healthy fish populations. The panel successfully completed an objective, unbiased initial review of the information used by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) and NOAA Fisheries to formulate the agencies' two 2001 Biological Opinions ( BOs). The interim NRC report concluded that there was insufficient scientific evidence used by USFWS and NOAA Fisheries in 2001 to support changing the recent historical water operations of the Klamath Project. Specifically, the NRC interim report concluded that higher or lower than recent historical lake levels or Klamath 28 rr r rrr r r r River flows were not scientifically justified based on the available information used by the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries. Despite varying interpretations of the data used by the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries in the BOs, it is especially noteworthy that the NRC panel achieved consensus on the Interim Report's conclusions for not just one, but both BOs. The report's conclusions were adequately supported by the available evidence and analyses used by USFWS and NOAA Fisheries. It was particularly evident that the NRC Committee report was fair and impartial, essential attributes that were sorely lacking in Klamath basin issues to date. The Assault on the Klamath Project Intensifies The release of the NRC Committee's interim report in early 2002 unleashed a barrage of criticism from environmental activists and their allies in academia and government agencies. Two Oregon State University professors, supporters of the high lake level requirements that contributed to the 2001 water curtailment, submitted a formal " rebuttal" of the interim report to a fisheries journal. The " rebuttal" ( so labeled when transmitted by its authors) and other media developments caused the Klamath Project community to fear that the NRC work would be diluted. The local community simply did not have the resources or the networks of contacts to continually counter the anti- Klamath Project messages that were being sent to the public and policymakers, primarily by outside environmental activist organizations. The NRC Committee's interim report triggered what grew to be an extraordinary, and obviously coordinated, attack on the Klamath Project by these interests. Media outlets seemingly relish a good western fight, and many uncritically reprinted a good deal of information that was not fair to Klamath Basin irrigators. The scrutiny on the Klamath Project and the Bush Administration's reliance on the NRC interim report intensified further that fall, when 33,000 salmon died on the lower Klamath River. Immediately after the unfortunate die- off, vocal critics of Project operations and Bush Administration environmental policy used the event to renew attacks on irrigated agriculture in the Klamath Basin. Even though the fish die- off occurred 200 miles downstream from the Project, at a location below the confluence of the main stem Klamath River and the Trinity River, traditional advocates for higher river flows quickly assigned blame to Klamath Project farmers and ranchers. Some of these same interests and others in the environmental community even attempted to directly link the fish die- off to alleged political maneuvering orchestrated by senior policy officials in the Bush Administration. As a result, presidential hopeful Senator John Kerry called on the U. S. Interior Department's Inspector General to look into whether " political pressure from the White House is intimidating staff and influencing policy" in Klamath River management decisions. Interior Department Inspector General Earl Devaney's report - released in March 2004- found " no evidence of political influence affecting the decisions pertaining to the water in the Klamath Project." 29 r r r r r r Eugene Register- Guard Why the salmon died: Pattern points to Bush administration policies A Register- Guard Editorial A 2002 Editorial Headline Between 2002- 2004, the fish die- off was effectively spun by Klamath Project critics to drive a dizzying array of attacks aimed at the Bush Administration and federal agencies responsible for Klamath Project management. Well- coordinated media coverage surrounding several acts of litigation and proposed federal legislation in the two years since the fish die- off have effectively imprinted the environmentalists' message in the minds of many: • " Fish need water"; • " Klamath Project farmers were denied water in 2001 and no fish died in the Klamath River"; • " Klamath Project farmers received full supplies in 2002, and 33,000 salmon died in the river"; • " The Bush Administration sacrificed fish for the benefit of farmers." The claims discussed above are just a few of the more prominent arguments that Klamath Project critics have employed to justify a series of actions undertaken in the wake of the public release of the interim NRC Committee report, including the following: • Federal legislation that would finalize a controversial and flawed draft Klamath River flow report. • Unsuccessful federal legislation that would restrict the ability of local lease land farmers to grow row crops. • Litigation ( PCFFA v. USBR) that, if successful, would have likely shut down Klamath Project operations in 2003. • Public protests staged by tribal members and environmentalists in Klamath Falls in 2002 and in Sacramento in 2003. 30 Listing of the Klamath River as the third most endangered waterway in the country by American Rivers, a Washington, D. C. - based activist group. An unsuccessful lawsuit filed by environmental groups against NOAA Fisheries to hasten the potential ESA listing of the green sturgeon. The release of an Oregon Natural Resources Council ( ONRC) report, which contends that voluntary buyouts of willing sellers within the Project " remain the most politically responsible, socially just, and economically viable method" to address power and ecological challenges. A subsequent letter sent by ONRC to Project landowners, tempting them with the promise of a buyout that would provide them with 2 '/ z times the fair market value of their land. Numerous editorials, journal articles and magazine stories that clearly accept the arguments made by Project critics. However, others did not jump so quickly on to the " blame game bandwagon." During late summer and early fall of 2002, Dave Vogel, a fisheries biologist with 28 years of experience, conducted a field investigation to assess water temperatures in the main stem Klamath River. - Vogel noted that main stem water temperatures in the Klamath River were measured hourly just prior to and during the fall- run Chinook salmon migration season. He found that water temperatures in the upper Klarnath River downstream of Iron Gate Dam during September 2002 were unsuitable for adult salmon, a finding that was similar to that of previous studies. As expected, a normal seasonal cooling trend at the end of September and early October provided the moderating influence lowering Klamath River temperatures to tolerable levels for salmon. Vogel also found that large numbers of salmon entered the lower Klamath River earlier than usual and were exposed to two dramatic and uncharacteristic cooling and warming conditions causing disease outbreak from warm water and crowded conditions. The combination of these factors was chronically and cumulatively stressful to fish and is probably the most plausible reason for the fish die- off. " In my opinion, the best available scientific data and information indicate that the continued operation and maintenance of historical flows at Iron Gate Dam will not jeopardize coho salmon," said Vogel in March 2003. " Furthermore, in my opinion the operations of Iron Gate Dam during the summer and fall of 2002 did not cause and could not have prevented the fish die- off in the lower Klarnath River." Unfortunately, scant media coverage was afforded to Vogel's findings. Outside of the Upper Basin, the press made no mention of the fact that, despite the die- off, the numbers of fish returning to Iron Gate hatchery on the Klamath River were the third highest in 40 years. The media also largely ignored a similar finding made in October 2003 by the National Research Council Committee on Endangered and Threatened Fish in the Klamath Basin. In its final report, the Committee failed to find a linkage between the operation of the Klamath Project and the fish die- off, and questioned whether changes federal project operations at the time would have prevented it. Clearly, the hard working landowners of the Upper Klamath Basin have been on the receiving end of a cruel and long- distance war being waged by environmental activists who assert that the federal water project - representing only 2 percent of the total land base of the Klamath River watershed, and consuming only 3- 4 percent of the average annual flows to the Pacific Ocean - is somehow responsible for all of the environmental woes of the river system. These advocates are intent on portraying the Klamath Basin as a poster child to help fuel outside efforts that are focused on litigating, legislating and publicly condemning the local community for doing what it has done for 98 of the last 99 years - irrigating farm and ranch land. r r r r These interests know that federal water projects are an easy target of litigation, since federal environmental and clean water laws govern project operations. The lawsuits are often aimed at federal entities - such as the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation and fishery agencies - which, on the surface, give the appearance that the environmental plaintiffs are simply interested in correcting errors made by some non- descript governmental agency. The true intended target of these actions, however, ultimately becomes the landowners and water users who fall under the management jurisdiction of the federal agencies. It is the farmers and ranchers that pay the price of litigation through altered management practices, increased uncertainty, and escalating legal expenses to defend their interests. For the most part, the potentially damaging effects these actions could cause family farmers and ranchers have been deflected. However, local water users are concerned that permanent Klamath River policy will be influenced by misinformation in the future. Vindication, Part II After an 18- month barrage of anti- Klamath Project attacks in the media and courtrooms, the long- awaited final report from the National Research Council ( NRC) Committee on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath Basin was released in October 2003. The final NRC report is important to local farmers and ranchers for several key reasons: 1. The report clearly indicated that recovery of endangered suckers and threatened coho salmon in the Klamath Basin cannot be achieved by actions that are exclusively or primarily focused on operation of the Klamath Project. 2. The committee also reconfirmed its findings from the earlier interim report that found no evidence of a causal connection between Upper Klamath Lake water levels and sucker health, or that higher flows on the Klamath River mainstem help coho salmon. 3. The NRC committee did not accept arguments that the operation of the Klamath Project caused the 2002 fish die- off or that changes in the operation of the Project at p the time would have prevented it. 32 r ~ r r Despite the final conclusions, some environmentalists and many in the media continue to maintain the sensational but unsupported position that the Klamath Project was responsible for the 2002 fish mortality that occurred over 200 miles from the Klamath Project. The final NRC report was consistent with what Upper Basin interests have been saying for years: the Klamath Project cannot solely bear the burden for species recovery in this basin. A watershed- wide approach to species recovery - one that addresses all the stressors to fish - is essential to improving the environment and saving the local economy. Local water users shared the NRC report's vision that increased knowledge, improved management, and cohesive community action would promote recovery of the fishes. At the same time, they remained extremely concerned that the " business as usual" approach - regulation of the Klamath Project - would remain the dominant aspect of ESA biological opinions and advocacy of Project opponents. For reasons now clearly evident, the irrigators' original recommendation for an outside technical review of the ESA activities in the Klamath basin by an objective group such as the r National Academy of Sciences back in 1993 ( KWUA 1993) was an important first step. The benefits of an ESA peer review are obvious after reading the NRC's final report. " We are beginning to see signs of progress with ESA activities in the basin," said Dave Vogel, nearly one year after the release of the final NRC Committee report. " However, alarmingly, there are some individuals within the agencies that are in a state of denial over the findings and conclusions of the NRC's report. Despite the NRC's final report, the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries still have too much focus on the Klamath Project and not enough emphasis on a watershed- wide approach." Other experts agree. " We found that the prevailing scientific sentiment in the basin-' More water is better for fish'- was the wrong approach," NRC Committee member Jeffrey Mount told California Farmer magazine in December 2003, two months after the final NRC report was released. " We hate to say we told you so, but...." It is very important to note that many of the most pertinent findings, conclusions, and r recommendations of the NRC Klamath Committee were not new to the USFWS or NOAA Fisheries. Dave Vogel elaborated on this in testimony he provided to the House Resources Committee at a field hearing held in Klamath Falls in June 2004. " The NRC final report advocates a watershed approach, peer review, greater stakeholder involvement, oversight of agency actions, focus on factors other than the Klamath Project 33 r operations, reduction of resource conflicts, and incorporation of the principles of adaptive management toward species recovery," said Vogel. " Over the past decade, local water users and their allies forwarded much of the same and similar technical findings and recommendations to those two agencies, but were mainly ignored. Additionally, the NRC's major conclusion that there is insufficient scientific justification for high reservoir levels and high instream flows was always prominent in water users' technical comments on the agencies' biological opinions during the past decade." r " The NRC Klamath Committee's final report was an outstanding effort and the product must serve as a catalyst to advance balanced natural resource management in the basin," Vogel said. " If federal agencies meaningfully incorporate many of the NRC's principal findings, conclusions, and recommendations, we fully expect positive results to the species recovery and reduced resource conflicts. We should use the momentum of the NRC's final report to guide recovery efforts and watershed improvements. However, if the agencies do not take this pro- active approach, we could again return to the disaster that transpired in 2001." • Dr. Mount agrees. r " For too long, Klamath managers have relied on fixing their problems by turning only one knob- the knob of raising and lowering water levels in Upper Klamath Lake and the river," said Mount, a University of California professor. " They need to take new approaches that support multiple populations offish and healthy ecosystems throughout the watershed," he said. The Klamath Project Regulatory Regime: 3 Years After the Curtailment The U. S. Bureau of Reclamation's final 10- year Biological Assessment for Klamath Project 2002- 2012 operations properly incorporated the findings of the 2002 interim National Research Council's ( NRC) interim report, and generally captured the essence of the " watershed- wide" philosophy endorsed in the final 2003 NRC report. Unfortunately, the fishery agency biological opinions ( BOs) do not. Despite the so- called ecosystem approach to species recovery advocated by the USFWS and NMFS, their actions in the Klamath basin over the past decade amply demonstrates that the exact opposite took place. They focused on: 1) a single- species approach; and 2) Klamath Project operations. The USFWS opinion continues to perpetuate the questionable assumption that lake level management is the principle mechanism affecting sucker survival in Upper Klamath Lake ( UKL). The NOAA Fisheries jeopardy decision similarly continues to place high emphasis on downstream flows. The stored water developed for Klamath Project farmers continues to be reallocated to meet the artificial demands set by agency biologists. 34 r The combined - and apparently, unanticipated - impacts placed on the Upper Basin community from the application of the two opinions are unacceptable. On June 25th, 2003, local irrigators were told by Reclamation officials that UKL diversions to the Project would be shut down for a minimum of 5 days - in the middle of the growing season. By day's end, reason prevailed: the agencies backed off their initial request9 and instead, Reclamation notified farmers to continue their efforts to reduce diversions from the lake. This was driven by one apparent agency mission: to avoid dropping UKL one inch below a lake level requirement established by the USFWS. Rancher Gary Wright learns that the Klamath Project would be shut down in the middle of the irrigation season, June 25, 2003. Common sense prevailed, and later in the day, Reclamation rescinded its earlier decision. In addition to the continued uncertainty irrigators face, the opinions are generating new, unanticipated impacts to the community. In the past 40 to 50 years, while the cropping pattern in the Klamath Project has varied from year to year, the overall planted acreage has remained consistent. On the other hand, the 2002- 2012 biological opinion created by NOAA Fisheries for coho salmon established the river flow schedule and an " environmental water bank" - which ratchets up to 100,000 acre- feet in 2005, regardless of actual hydrologic conditions - that is the primary source of new demand for water in the Klamath River watershed. The result: stored water that has flowed to farms, ranches and the refuges for nearly 100 years is now sent downstream at such high levels, that groundwater pumped from the Lost River basin is being used to supplement the resulting " coho salmon demand" in the Klamath River. 9 Improved coordination between USFWS managers and their Reclamation counterparts in Klamath Falls and Sacramento was one important reason for the positive corrective action that was taken. 35 It is not the farmers who have imposed new water demands that, in essence, have made groundwater the default supplemental supply to the Klamath Project. It is the opinions of agency fishery biologists who have fundamentally altered how this century- old water project operates, and who have apparently failed to anticipate the resulting impacts to the community. While Reclamation in 2002 sharply disagreed with the findings of both fishery agency biological opinions, it is not yet clear how consultation will be reinitiated to create a new operations plan. Proactive Efforts of Upper Basin Landowners Since the early 1990s, and particularly in the new millennium, local water users - both within the Klamath Project and those who farm in upstream areas north of Upper Klamath Lake - have taken proactive steps to protect and enhance water supplies, enhance the environment, r and stabilize the agricultural economy. Farmers and ranchers in the Klamath Project have consistently supported restoration actions to improve habitat for the basin's fish and wildlife species. Sucker Recovery Planning KWUA in 1993 published the Initial Ecosystem Restoration Plan - the first ecosystem- based, scientifically valid planning document on Klamath Basin restoration. The plan placed particular emphasis on real, on- the- ground projects to recover endangered species. It was widely recognized as a meaningful assessment of necessary restoration activities. KWUA in 2001 reiterated its previous call with the release of a report entitled Protecting the Beneficial Uses of Upper Klamath Lake: A Plan to Accelerate Recovery of the Lost River and Shortnose Suckers. The 2001 report provided timelines and budgets for dozens of projects that could provide real benefits. Regrettably, until the past three years, there has been failure to effectively implement most of the on- the- ground activities proposed by KWUA. On- the- Ground Actions Local agricultural and business leaders have dedicated thousands of volunteer hours and have spent millions of dollars in the past ten years to participate in processes associated with environmental restoration, Klamath Basin water rights adjudication, dispute resolution, drought- proofing, and water supply enhancement. Most impressive, however, is the multitude of actions undertaken on- the- ground: • Local efforts to assist National Wildlife Refuges ( e. g. " Walking Wetlands") • Ecosystem Enhancement and Sucker Recovery Efforts in the Upper Basin • Fish Passage Improvement Projects • Wildlife Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Efforts • Local Efforts to Improve Water Quality 36 • Power Resource Development • Efforts to Improve Klamath Project Water Supply Reliability and Water Use Efficiency Many of these efforts were driven by an initial desire to implement meaningful restoration actions intended to provide some sort of mitigation " credit" that could be applied towards reducing the burden carried by Klamath Project irrigators to " protect" threatened and endangered fish species. For many years, that credit was not recognized. For example, Federal agencies or non- profit conservation groups have acquired over 25,000 acres of farmland in the Upper Klamath Basin for habitat purposes. Each time the agencies sought additional land, they promised that each acquisition would provide environmental benefits, reducing pressure on the Klamath Project's family farmers and ranchers. Those promises have not materialized, and Project irrigation water still remains the sole regulatory tool used to address federal ESA objectives for endangered suckers and threatened coho salmon in the Klamath River watershed. • TEAMWORK A broad range of partners include U. S. Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Reclamation. CalOre Wetlands. Tulelake Growers Association, Audubon Society. Tulelake Irrigation District, California Waterfowl Association. University of California. Ducks Unlimited. Klamath Water Users Association. USDA NRCS. Leaseland Advisory Council, and numerous volunteer organizations. A page from the " Refuge" section of the tule- Iake. com website. Environmental Water Bank KWUA in early March 2003 announced it would support, and assist the Department of Interior in the implementation of, a Klamath Project Pilot Environmental Water Bank in 2003 to provide over 50,000 acre- feet of additional water for environmental purposes. Reclamation's 10- year Biological Assessment ( BA) developed in February 2002 proposed an environmental water bank through which willing buyers and sellers will provide additional water supplies for fish and wildlife purposes and to enhance tribal trust resources. The 2002- 2012 biological opinion created by NOAA Fisheries for coho salmon firmly established the river flow schedule and the water bank - which ratchets up to 100,000 acre- feet in 2005, regardless of actual hydrologic conditions - that is the primary source of new demand for water in the Klamath River watershed. 37 The coho biological opinion's rigid water bank schedule, which steps up the magnitude of the bank for the first four years, regardless of actual hydrology, is difficult to justify. This type of water bank does not reflect the intent of either the proposal put forth by KWUA in 2002 ( see below), or the original USBR biological assessment, which proposed implementation of a water bank in drier years, not every year. Water users committed to pursue developing a water bank with Reclamation in January 2002. At that time, KWUA was asked by Reclamation to develop a Project- wide water bank to assist with meeting environmental water demands in drier years. KWUA's Water Bank and Supply Enhancement Committee held over 30 meetings in 2002- 03 to develop the 65- page report/ proposal for a long- term water bank, which differs substantially from the pilot water bank proposed by Reclamation this past year. Certainty of water supplies is a key principle imbedded in KWUA's long- term water bank proposal. Local water users insist that, in exchange for voluntary participation in a Project water bank - which would be used to " fund" environmental water needs - 100% of the irrigation demand for remaining Project acreage will be satisfied, season- long. Water users further believe that the water bank cannot be viewed as a stand- alone element. While Reclamation's 2003 and 2004 pilot programs did not closely resemble KWUA's vision for a long- term bank, water users are hopeful that Reclamation and Interior will look to the irrigators' document to complete its 10- year water bank proposal. EQIP Funding in Klamath Basin The federal government in 2003 released $ 7 million in conservation funding to the Klamath Basin. This sum represents a portion of the $ 50 million in funding earmarked for the Basin in the 2002 Farm Bill under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program ( EQIP). KWUA was instrumental in securing these provisions during Farm Bill negotiations. In 2004, Interior Secretary Norton included another $ 12 million for this program in the president's 2005 budget request. The funds provided cost- share payments to farmers and ranchers to employ water conservation measures. Over 800 Klamath Basin landowners have applied to participate in this program, despite the requirement that they pay 25% of the costs. This shows remarkable commitment by local irrigators to do the right thing, despite the fact that many of these landowners are still recovering from the financial impacts of the 2001 water curtailment. Recognition at Last In the past year, local irrigators have finally begun to get the recognition - if not the actual regulatory relief- they deserve for their proactive efforts. To wit: • KWUA was awarded the 2003 " Leadership in Conservation" award by the Oregon Department of Agriculture; • KWUA in 2004 was honored on the steps of the Oregon state capitol for " exemplifying the spirit" of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds; 38 Tulelake Irrigation District in January 2004 received the F. Gordon Johnston award for its innovative canal lining project completed near Newell; and U. S. Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman and NRCS chief Bruce Knight in 2004 recognized local rancher Mike Byrne for his leadership in conservation. NRCS Chief Bruce Knight ( left) with 2004 Excellence in Conservation Award winner Mike Byrne. It is clear that local irrigators have not been idle in the past ten years. Their efforts to improve their environment are all the more impressive when one considers that the uncertainty and difficulty associated with keeping their farming operations profitable have not diminished. Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski, Congressman Greg Walden and KWUA Executive Director Dan Keppen at the new A Canal Headgates, April 2003. 39 50 Years After the Compact - Back to the Watershed- Wide Approach Klamath Project water users in October 2004 enthusiastically greeted the announcement that the states of California and Oregon and the Bush Administration had signed the historic " Klamath River Watershed Coordination Agreement". The agreement - signed by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski, and four of President Bush's cabinet level secretaries - underscored the commitment of these parties to solve the fisheries challenges of the Klamath River on a watershed - wide basis. The state- federal Klamath agreement reflects the philosophy embedded in both the Klamath River Basin Compact and the 2003 NRC Klamath report, which confirmed that Klamath Basin issues must be dealt with in an integrated and comprehensive way for a lasting solution of the challenges facing the basin. The NRC committee report makes clear that merely closing the spigot on the Klamath Project will not solve the problems facing Klamath Basin fisheries, and that strategy obviously was disastrous for farming and ranching communities. The coordination agreement recognizes that message and promotes a unified effort that many water users believe is much needed. An important part of this agreement is that it supports the Conservation Implementation Program ( CIP), a work in progress proposed by federal agencies to coordinate management actions in the Klamath River watershed. The CIP would meld a scientific advisory body, local communities, and resource agencies to identify, coordinate and resolve the Basin's critical water quality, water quantity and fish and wildlife restoration challenges. KWUA is working with other producer groups and local government to develop guidelines that make the CIP workable and acceptable to Klamath Basin communities. USBR Study on Pre- Project Flow Conditions on Upper Klamath River Reclamation in late 2004 finalized a draft study intended to provide a glimpse at how the Klamath River might have looked before the Klamath Project was built. The report shows that- especially in drier years - historic flows in the Klamath River near Keno, Oregon dwindled to a mere trickle. The report provides compelling evidence that supports claims made by local residents for decades - the stored water provided by the Klamath Project may actually provide more flows downriver than what would have flowed before the Project was built. This is primarily due to the developed storage and the fact that farmlands that were once under water now use less water than what was historically lost to consumptive and evaporative use of the former marshes. 40 Ufric; lfftid Kur , Jhm% tr Excerpt from Draft BOR Flow Study 41 Conclusion - The Future To solve the problems of the Klamath River watershed, we need a coordinated management program that spans two states in a watershed that is characterized by a strong federal presence. Competition among stakeholder groups - including four tribes, agricultural water users, and countless environmental groups - is fierce. In order to be successful, we need to better understand the real state of the watershed by developing the facts and best possible information to make the best possible decisions. Collaborations need to replace ideological advocacies; watershed wide approaches need to replace regionalism; and honest exchanges of information need to displace environmental sensationalism. A June 20, 2004 editorial published by the Klamath Falls Herald & News provides an apt glimpse of what the future might bring to the Klamath irrigation community and how the Klamath Water Users Association will address that future: Recently, the Klamath Water Users Association got an award for not using water, which is not a contradiction in terms at all. It's a matter of doing what has to be done to keep farming and ranching alive in the Klamath Basin. The award was from the state of Oregon and recognized the water users' efforts in behalf of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. It was presented to the group in a ceremony on the steps of the Capitol with leaders such as Gov. Ted Kulongoski and the Democratic and Republican leaders of the Legislature participating. The award recognizes a welter of actions in the Basin, some using federal and state dollars and some not, many aimed at making agricultural operations more efficient water users. Some have given agriculture interests heartache, such as the conversion of farmlands to wetlands - the water users cite 24,000 acres in the past decade, equal to more than a tenth of the Klamath Reclamation Project. Nevertheless, it's clear that farmers and ranchers have recognized their predicament given the pressure of the Endangered Species Act and competition for water from Indian tribes upstream and down. Agriculture is in the midst of a struggle that could take decades yet to play out, and its defenders are determined that they will survive. This is a longer- term version of the creativity they showed in 2001, when, faced with imminent ruin, they responded with skill and imagination in a political protest that brought national attention and saved Basin agriculture to fight another day. The vision of the Klamath Basin as a place for human habitation must include agriculture, and an agricultural sector of sufficient size to be economically viable. This place ought to have an urban center and a scattering of pleasant small towns - and in between green fields with dancing water from irrigation works. ~ 42 Whatever alternate vision exists involves blowing away towns such as Merrill Malin and Tulelake and shriveling the city ofKlamath Falls. It involves throwing lots of people off the land, and itfs not acceptable. This is not the first such award, and won't be the last. It is a signal of a widening recognition in Oregon and the nation that farmers and ranchers will do good things here to make sure that they can continue in their necessary and honorable work. The Klamath Water Users Association, with the talents and support of the community, will continue to address the resource needs of its constituency in a proactive and creative manner. The KWUA has shown itself to be steadfast and able in protecting water users while being receptive to innovative and reasonable solutions. Our irrigating communities, through the continued efforts of the KWUA, will always be persistent and adaptable representatives of our American heritage. The " future".. . bring it on, we can handle it. r Father and daughter ride to the headgates, summer 2001. 43 Notes Information sources used in the preceding report sections are further described below. Overview The source for much of this information comes from the Klamath Water Users Association 2003 Water Bank report. Pioneers The Department of the Interior, United States Reclamation Service 1913 report entitled " History of the Klamath Project. Oregon- California. From May 1, 1903 to December 13, 1912", written by I. S. Voorhees, contains detailed accounting of early irrigation works in the Upper Klamath Basin. Paul Simmons of Somach Simmons and Dunn also made significant contributions based on research he and his staff conducted on behalf of Klamath Project water users in the State of Oregon Klamath River adjudication process. The Klamath Basin Calls in the United States Government *— The Voorhees document, noted above, details this issue. Construction Begins The source for much of this information comes from the Klamath Water Users Association 2003 Water Bank report, the Voorhees report, and the affidavit and testimony of Rebecca Meta Bunse, who in 2004 prepared a detailed historic summary of Klamath Project development on behalf of Klamath Project irrigators for the Klamath River adjudication process. ( Reference No. 003E00040050, before the Office of Administrative Hearings, State of Oregon, for the Water Resources Department). Paul Simmons of Somach Simmons and Dunn also made significant contributions based on research he and his staff conducted on behalf of Klamath Project water users in the State of Oregon Klamath River adjudication process. The Bureau of Reclamation Klamath Basin Area Office also provided factual data on the Klamath Project. Homesteaders The Journal of the Modoc County Historical Society, No. 18- 1996, focuses exclusively on twentieth century development of the Tule Lake area. Betty Lou Byrne- Shirely's " The Reclamation of Tule Lake" and the February 1947 Reclamation Era article " Gold Mine in the Sky", both included in the Modoc County historical journal, served as sources for the homesteader information. Quotes made by Dave Carman, a World War II veteran Tule Lake homesteader, were pulled from his testimony submitted at a House Resources Committee field hearing in Klamath Falls in June 2004. The Klamath River Compact The source for much of this information regarding development of the Compact comes from the affidavit and testimony of Stephen R. Wee, who in 2004 prepared a detailed historic summary of Klamath Project water rights and related issues on behalf of Klamath Project irrigators for the Klamath River adjudication process. ( Reference No. 003E00040049, before the Office of Administrative 44 - r Hearings, State of Oregon, for the Water Resources Department). The conclusion of this section contains the actual purposes of the Compact, as identified in Article I of that document. The Klamath Project's Finishing Touches The source for much of this information comes from the Klamath Water Users Association 2003 Water Bank report, the Voorhees report, and the affidavit and testimony of Rebecca Meta Bunse, who in 2004 prepared a detailed historic summary of Klamath Project development on behalf of Klamath Project irrigators for the Klamath River adjudication process. ( Reference No. 003E00040050, before the Office of Administrative Hearings, State of Oregon, for the Water Resources Department). Paul Simmons of Somach Simmons and Dunn also made significant contributions based on research he and his staff conducted on behalf of Klamath Project water users in the State of Oregon Klamath River adjudication process. New Demands Legal documents prepared by the Klamath Water Users Association attorney - Paul Simmons, of Somach, Simmons & Dunn - provide much of the background information regarding the steadily increasing regulations faced by Project irrigators, starting in the 1990s. Specifically, the plaintiffs' memorandum of points and authorities in support of motion for preliminary injunction ( Kandra et al v. United States of America) was relied upon. Also, David Vogel's testimony before the U. S. House of Representatives Committee on Resources oversight field hearing in June 2004 provides an excellent treatise on the real reasons for the decline of suckers in the Upper Klamath Basin. The Klamath Water Users Association previously developed the section that assesses stressors to coho salmon during the 1990s. Problems on the East Side This section derives from an excellent letter ( dated July 28, 2004) prepared by Best Best & Krieger on behalf of Horsefly Irrigation District and Langell Valley Irrigation District. The letter was submitted to the U. S. House of Representatives Resources Committee in connection with a congressional field hearing held in Klamath Falls in July 2004. 2001 Curtailment Of the numerous media accounts of the 2001 water cutoff, I believe Blake Hurst's piece " Calamity in Klamath", which originally was published in The American Enterprise magazine in late 2002, is the best. I have borrowed liberally from Mr. Hurst, particularly his assessment of the impacts to the community of Tulelake, California. Jess Prosser's comments were originally printed in Range Magazine in 2001. The Farmers Fight Back The comments regarding the " desperate community" were pulled from an outstanding paper presented by Paul Simmons at the American Bar Association Environmental Section Fall 2004 Meeting. 45 Enter President Bush I was in the audience when President Bush made his speech in Portland. After the president's speech, I met Congressman Greg Walden for the first time; he conveyed to me some of the details of the president's flight over the Klamath Basin earlier in the day. Vindication: The National Research Council Steps In This section was derived from press statements developed by KWUA in early 2002. The Assault on the Klamath Project Intensifies Most of this section derives from personal experience, and the latter part was pulled directly from an opinion piece I was asked to write for a Boise, Idaho newspaper at the request of Idaho water users who were also being attacked by some of the same activists engaged in Klamath issues. Vindication, Part II / " We hate to say we told you so, but...." Much of this information originates in Dave Vogel's written testimony that he submitted to the House Resources Committee in June 2004. After more than a decade of professional and sometimes, personal criticism by agency and tribal biologists, the final NRC Report perhaps vindicated Dave Vogel more than anyone else. The Klamath Project Regulatory Regime: 3 Years After the Curtailment This section was written based on personal experience of the author. Proactive Efforts of Upper Basin Landowners We refer you to www. kwua. org and a 45- page document entitled Summary of Recent and Proposed Environmental Restoration and Water Conservation Efforts Undertaken by Klamath Water Users and Basin Landowners for further information on this topic. 50 Years After the Compact - Back to the Watershed- Wide Approach This perspective comes from KWUA assessments and press releases. USBR Study on Pre- Project Flow Conditions on Upper Klamath River The USBR study is incredibly important, because, for the first time, it provides a numerical modeling assessment of the conditions that likely existed on the Upper Klamath River before Europeans settled the area. Prior to this effort, assertions that flow conditions in the river were likely lower than the present could only be backed up by anecdotal ( albeit accurate) reports and incomplete flow studies. Conclusion - The Future The June 20, 2004 Herald & News editorial on recent water user efforts provided a fitting ending to this report, which is further enhanced by language developed by Steve Kandra, 2004- 05 KWUA President. 46 Lower Klamath Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California Photo Credits 1. Cover photo - courtesy of Jacqui Krizo. 2. Map of Klamath Project - courtesy of Bureau of Reclamation. 3. " A load of produce from the Klamath Fair, October 1907" - courtesy of Tulelake- Butte Valley _ Fair, Museum of Local History ( TBVF Museum). 4. " 1906 Map of Pre- Project Area" - courtesy of Oregon Water Resources Department. 5. " Adams Cut, July 18, 1906" - courtesy of Tulelake - Butte Valley Fair, Museum of Local History. 6. " 1907 Completion of the A Canal Headgates" - courtesy of U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. 7. " Constructing Clear Lake Dam, September, 1909" - courtesy of TBVF Museum. 8. " 1927 Homesteader Affidavit" - courtesy of Somach, Simmons and Dunn 9. " Farm Lottery Article, Life Magazine" - courtesy of Bureau of Reclamation. 10. " The Sign Says it AH" - courtesy of U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. 11. " Homesteaders: Robinsons in 2001 Remember Days Gone By" - courtesy of Anders Tomlinson 12. J. C. Boyle Dam on the Klamath River - courtesy of PacifiCorp. 13. " Tulelake, California" - courtesy of Rob Crawford r l4. " Del Norte Salmon Cannery" - courtesy of Anders Tomlinson 15. " April 6, 2004 Headlines" - courtesy of Anders Tomlinson 16. " Kliewer Family in Dry Fields South of Klamath Falls" - courtesy of Anders Tomlinson 17. " Cemeteries went Dry in 2001" - courtesy of Rob Crawford 18. " Time Magazine Captures Rob Crawford & Family" - courtesy of Rob Crawford 19. Klamath Bucket Brigade - courtesy of Klamath Relief Fund. 20. Prayer / Protest at Headgates - courtesy of Klamath Relief Fund. 21. President Bush Photo courtesy of Rob Crawford _ 22. Tulelake Rancher Gary Wright, June 2003 - courtesy of Pat Ratliff 23. Walking Wetlands photo - courtesy of Anders Tomlinson. 24. Bruce Knight and Mike Byrne - courtesy of U. S. Department of Agriculture 25. Gov. Kulongoski, Rep. Walden, and Dan Keppen at the A Canal, 2003 - Courtesy of Pat Ratliff 26. Undepleted Natural Flow of the Upper Klamath River - U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. 27. " Father and Daughter Ride to the Headgates" - courtesy of Rob Crawford 28. " Lower Klamath Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California" - courtesy of Scott Harding Photography r — 47 Title: The Klamath Project at 100 : conserving our resources, preserving our heritage Author: Keppen, Dan Year: 2004, 2005 The Klamath Project at 100: Conserving our Resources, Preserving our Heritage 1905- 2005: The First Century of Water for the Klamath Project Grain Truck, Lower Klamath Lake, 2004 Prepared by Dan Keppen, Executive Director Klamath Water Users Association December 2004 1 1 1 1 1 ) 1 1 ) 1 1 1 I 1 I I I 003E00042195 .... rrj R13E ^ ^ T ^ I l* IILLER DIVERSION DAM MILLER CREEK AND LOST RIVER CHANNEL L. ^ ^ IMPROVEMENTS — FEATURES: Hydrography Canal Drain Dike ) ( Tunnel )—( Flume ) - - ( Siphon Pipeline Drop 9 Pumping Plant Q Irrigation District Pumping Plant H Private Utility Powerplant ik Project Headquarters Project Land Lea3 « Area MAJOR WATER DISTRICTS: Ady Dist. Improv. Co. Enterprise I. D. Horsefly I. D. Klamath Drain. Dist. Klamath I. D. Langell Valley I. D. Malin ID. Midland Dist. Improv. Co. P Canal Mutual Water Co. Pine Grove I. D. Pioneer Dist. Improv. Co. Plevna Dist. Improv. Co. Poe Valley Improv. Dist. Shasta View I. D. Sunnyside I. D. Tulelake I. D. Van Brimmer Ditch Co. Westside Improv. Dist. KLAMATH PROJECT Oregon - California N 0 12 3 4 5 Miles Background of Klamath Water Users Association The original Klamath Water Users Association was organized on March 4, 1905 under Oregon statute and capitalized in the amount of $ 2,000,000. That Association was created by local farmers, livestock producers, businessmen, bankers, attorneys, and community leaders interested in seeing the Klamath Reclamation Project constructed with the least amount of cost and for the lasting benefit of the entire Klamath community. Working in cooperation with Reclamation the stockholders of the Association contracted with the U. S. Secretary of the Interior to assume the responsibility of payment to the United States the cost of the Klamath Project irrigation works on November 3, 1905. The Association was active in bringing in lands to be served by the Project and addressing water right matters of those lands. By the 1950' s much of the construction costs of the project had been reimbursed to the United States, and irrigation districts assumed the contractual obligations for maintaining and operating the Project. The current Klamath Water Users Association ( KWUA) has its origins in the Klamath Water Users Protective Association, bylaws adopted June 22, 1953, organized to address water right and electrical power issues for Klamath Basin irrigators. The Protective Association reformed itself March 16,1993 with amended bylaws, and incorporated in 1994 as the modern Klamath Water Users Association. The KWUA represents private rural and suburban irrigation districts and ditch companies within the Klamath Project, along with private irrigation interests outside the Project in both Oregon and California in the Upper Klamath Basin. The KWUA is governed by an eleven-person board of directors elected from supporting irrigation districts, private irrigation interests, and the business community. The KWUA now represents over 5,000 water users on 1,400 family farms. Klamath Association KWUA's mission statement: To preserve, protect and defend the water and power rights of the landowners of the Klamath Basin while promoting wise management of ecosystem resources. r Table of Contents Page Executive Summary 4 Introduction 5 Overview 7 Pioneers 9 The Reclamation Act 10 The Klamath Basin Calls in the United States Government 10 Construction Begins 11 Homesteaders 13 The Klamath River Compact 15 The Klamath Project's Finishing Touches 18 New Demands 19 r Sucker Listings 20 Coho Salmon Listing 21 Problems on the East Side 22 2001 Curtailment 24 The Farmers Fight Back 26 Enter President Bush 27 Vindication: The National Research Council Steps In 28 The Assault on the Klamath Project Intensifies 29 Vindication, Part II 32 " We hate to say we told you so, but...." 33 The Klamath Project Regulatory Regime: 3 Years After the Curtailment. 34 Proactive Efforts of Upper Basin Landowners 36 Sucker Recovery Planning 36 On- the- Ground Actions 36 Environmental Water Bank 38 EQIP Funding in Klamath Basin 39 Recognition at Last 39 50 Years After the Compact - Back to the Watershed- Wide Approach 40 BOR Study on Pre- Project Flow Conditions on Upper Klamath River 40 Conclusion - The Future 41 Notes 44 Photo Credits 47 " " Executive Summary r The Klamath Project in 2005 marks its 100- year anniversary. This report summarizes the original formation of the Project, describes the enthusiastic response of the local community to the federal water project, and steps through the development of the Project in ensuing decades. The story of the pioneers, early settlers, and homesteaders who helped settle the area - veterans of both world wars - provides a sense of the character possessed by local farmers and ranchers, who had to rely on similar traits to keep their community alive when irrigation supplies were curtailed in 2001. And it explains a very important dynamic of the region, especially in recent years, where local water users are attempting to proactively address water supply challenges while at the same time trying to stave off a furious round of attacks launched by environmental activists. The immediate future remains uncertain for Klamath Project irrigators, but their marked propensity for adapting to change will keep local farmers and ranchers in business for another 100 years. In order to deal with the uncertain water situation, and facing higher power costs in 2006, the 21st century Klamath Project irrigator is adapting, by developing new market niches for products, creating innovative approaches to energy use, conserving and marketing water, and developing habitat for fish and wildlife. The same abilities shown by pioneers and veteran homesteaders beginning over a century ago to carve out new communities from the wilderness will now be employed to conserve resources and preserve their remarkable and uniquely American heritage. r A load of produce from the Klamath Fair, October 1907. • - r r The Klamath Project at 100: Conserving our Resources, Preserving our Heritage " We desire to impress upon your mind the fact that 99% of the people in the Klamath Basin are a unit, and are clamoring for the assistance which might be rendered by the Government under the Reclamation Act. " 1905 Petition from Basin residents to the Secretary of the Interior " The vision of the Klamath Basin as a place for human habitation must include agriculture, and an agricultural sector of sufficient size to be economically viable. This place ought to have an urban center and a scattering of pleasant small towns - and in between green fields with dancing water from irrigation works." Klamath Falls Herald & News Editorial June 20, 2004 " Agriculture plays a vital role in this state } s economy. An economic issue is one thing, for the farmers who need the resource, need the water, to be able to make a living. There fs another piece to this that ys much larger for all Oregon, and that is a cultural issue. The people here are very, very important to the future of this state. " Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski, At the A Canal Fish Screen, Klamath Falls, Oregon. April 17, 2003 Introduction The year 2005 marks the one hundred- year birthday of one of the oldest federal water projects in the western United States - the Klamath Irrigation Project. As was painfully made evident in 2001, when Klamath Project supplies were curtailed for the first time in 95 years, the local community and its economy are interwoven with the health of this irrigation project. One hundred years after overwhelming national policy supported its construction, the Klamath Project continues to play a critical role in the local community. " The Klamath Project started out as a good thing, and it remains a good thing", said Tulelake farmer Rob Crawford. " When the Project was created, Klamath Basin people were meeting a national call by doing what they were supposed to do - settle the West. Today, our efforts focus on preserving our heritage, while conserving our resources." r r - r r rr At the beginning of the last century, when the local community learned that the Klamath Project would be developed, an " incredible celebration" ensued, said Paul Simmons, an attorney for the Klamath Water Users Association. " The people of the Klamath Basin basically posed a proposal to the federal government," said Simmons. " They told the government,' if you will be the plumber and the banker, we can do something good for the country.'" The federal government did just that by constructing the irrigation project. Local growers repaid the construction costs in the ensuing decades. Today, thousands of people - family farmers and ranchers, their employees, and agriculture- related businesses - make their living directly from farming and ranching in the Klamath Project. In turn, their activities support the communities of Malin, Merrill, Midland, Bonanza, Tulelake, Newell, and Klamath Falls. And, equally important, their efforts yield high- quality safe food for the country and the world. The last century has been one of massive transformation, vitality, shining hope, and deep despair for the farmers and ranchers served by the Klamath Project. The core reason for the creation of the Klamath Project - to develop water supplies and storage for irrigation uses - has been diminished as new competing demands, intended to satisfy Endangered Species Act ( ESA) and tribal trust conditions, have come on line. As a result, after perceived ESA and tribal trust obligations are met, Klamath Project irrigators and national wildlife refuges essentially get the remaining water. Because very little carryover storage is provided by Klamath Project reservoirs, the farmers now find themselves becoming increasingly reliant on incoming flows to the reservoirs, rather than the stored water that was originally developed to provide them with a reliable summertime irrigation supply. In essence, because of new laws and policies developed in the recent past, the original purpose of the Klamath Project has been somewhat lost in the shuffle. This became glaringly obvious in 2001, when for the first time in 95 years, water supplies to the Klamath Project from Upper Klamath Lake were curtailed before the irrigation season had even begun, to meet conditions set by federal fishery agencies to purportedly prevent harm to three fish species. Three and one- half years after Klamath Irrigation Project ( Project) water deliveries were terminated by the federal government, local water users are attempting to proactively address water supply challenges while at the same time trying to stave off a furious round of attacks launched by environmental activists. Project irrigators - who farm on lands straddling the California- Oregon state line - remain apprehensive about the future certainty of water n supplies. However, the strong traits shown by the original Klamath Project settlers - self-independence, creativity, a sense of community - are still apparent, one hundred years later. Without these characteristics, the tragic events of 2001 might have become nothing more than n passing headlines in the local newspaper. Instead, a galvanized community grabbed national media and political attention by forcing the rest of the country to see that things had gone too far. r r Now, Klamath Project irrigators are preparing for the next 100 years. In order to deal with the uncertain water situation, and facing higher power costs in 2006, the 21st century Klamath Project irrigator is adapting, by developing new market niches for his products, creating innovative approaches to energy use, conserving and marketing water, developing habitat for fish and wildlife, and improving the symbiotic relationship he has with neighboring national wildlife refuges. The same abilities shown by pioneers and veteran homesteaders to carve out new communities from the wilderness will now be employed to conserve resources and preserve their remarkable and uniquely American heritage. Overview The irrigable lands of the Klamath Project ( Project) are in south- central Oregon ( 62 percent) and north- central California ( 38 percent). Two main sources supply water for the Project: Upper Klamath Lake and the Klamath River on the Klamath system; and Clear Lake Reservoir, Gerber Reservoir, and Lost River on the Lost River system, are in a closed basin. The total drainage area for the Klamath Project, including the Lost River and the Klamath River watershed above Keno, Oregon is approximately 5,700 square miles. Currently, approximately 225,000 acres, many previously submerged, have been transformed into productive farmland. The crops grown within the Klamath Project area consist of grain, hay, pasture, silage, mint, potatoes, onions, other vegetables, alfalfa, strawberry rootstock, and horseradish. This list of crops represents the majority of planted acreage within the Klamath Project over the last 40 to 50 years. The cropping pattern has varied from year to year, but the overall planted acreage has remained consistent. The Bureau of Reclamation operates Clear Lake Dam, Gerber Dam, and the Lost River Diversion Dam. The Link River Dam is operated by the Pacific Power and Light Company in accordance with Project needs, or more recently also as directed by federal agencies. The Tulelake Irrigation District operates the Anderson- Rose Dam, and the Langell Valley Irrigation District operates the Malone and Miller Diversion Dams. The various irrigation districts operate the canals and pumping plants. The original Klamath Project plan included construction of facilities to divert and distribute water for irrigation of basin lands, including reclamation of Tule and Lower Klamath Lakes, and control of floods in the area. The development of the stored water provided by the Klamath Project allowed for the controlled, beneficial use of water in the Upper Basin. Currently, late summer and fall flows in the Lower Klamath River are augmented with stored water that would not be there, but for the Project. Under pre- Project conditions, natural controls existed below both Upper Klamath Lake and Lake Ewauna which stabilized lake levels except during critical droughts. Those controls were natural reefs of hard earth material in the channel and other channel constrictions. Under these pre- Project conditions, the Klamath River flowed into the Lower Klamath Lake area. A 1906 map titled " Topographic and Drainage Map, Upper and Lower Klamath Project" shows the invert of the Klamath Strait approximately the same level as the Klamath River channel bottom near Keno. In addition, the Lost River terminated at Tule Lake. These flows flooded approximately 183,000 acres within Lower Klamath and Tule Lake. In general, under pre- Project conditions, Klamath River flows downstream of Keno likely occurred after a certain water level was reached in the Klamath River and Lower Klamath Lake. An engineer speaking in the early days of the Project observed that adequate Klamath Project water supplies were not a worry. Rather - something that would be inconceivable today - dealing with too much water was more of a concern at the time: " It contains an irrigation problem, an evaporation problem, a run- off problem, any one of which is difficult in itself but all of which together form a most perplexing whole," said the engineer. " In nearly all reclamation projects water has to be conserved. In this project there is more than enough and the question of disposing of it becomes an important part." 1906 Map of Pre- Project Area r • r r r Pioneers Irrigation development began in areas now served by the Klamath Project in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Various landowners and entrepreneurs utilized water of the Klamath River and its tributaries, and undertook a wide range of visionary activities. Prime farmland, exposed around the edges of old historic Tule Lake as early as 1846 stimulated early settlers' interest in irrigation. Similarly, early settlers beginning in the early 1860s relied on " naturally irrigated" greases and forage in the Lower Klamath area for pasture and hay. The first irrigation ditch was dug by George Nurse and Joseph Conger in the bottom of Linkville Canyon in 1868. In 1878, this ditch was expanded and incorporated into the Linkville Water Ditch Company. Early pioneers Steele and Ankeny pursued a canal to deliver water to land between Klamath Falls and Merrill. Ultimately, the canal system was replaced by the A Canal and its distribution system which, operated by Klamath Irrigation District, continues to serve Project land to this day. t Adams Cut, July 18,1906. Diversion for irrigation of additional agricultural lands in the area now comprising the Klamath Project was initiated in 1882 with construction of an irrigation ditch by the Van Brimmer brothers to the land from White Lake, which was fed by the Klamath River. Private interests further developed this project by constructing the Adams Canal in 1886, which was supplied also from White Lake. Frank Adams, with assistance from the Van Brimmer r rr rr r Brothers, cut a canal through tule roots using hay- knives and a derrick, in order to improve diversion from White Lake. This canal ultimately extended to a length of 22 miles. By 1903, approximately 13,000 acres were irrigated by private interests, with the canal system in progress to deliver much more. After the 1905 authorization of the Klamath Project ( see below), many water rights were acquired to facilitate, and for the benefit of, the Klamath Project enterprise, and other agreements were made with other water right- holders. The Project utilized, extended, expanded and/ or improved previously existing systems, and included construction of other facilities. The Reclamation Act In 1902 Congress enacted the Reclamation Act, which encouraged the settlement of lands in the western states and the development of agricultural economies to feed the nation. The 1902 Act provided for federal financing of irrigation works, with the construction costs to be repaid over time by project water users. In addition, public lands were made available for homesteaders who accepted the responsibility to undertake improvements and pay the water charges. Both the Oregon and California legislatures also enacted laws making state- owned land available for use in the Klamath Project. The Klamath Basin Calls in the United States Government In 1903, the Reclamation Service conducted investigations that led in 1904 to the first withdrawal of land by the Secretary of the Interior for developing a federal irrigation project. J. B. Lippincott, a supervising engineer from Los Angeles - who also played a key role in the City of Los Angeles' securement of Owens Valley water supplies - personally toured the Klamath Basin in June of 1904. l Although private irrigation projects were moving forward by the turn of the century, and some large- scale projects were being planned, most local citizens saw great value in a federally authorized and supported project. In 1905, local residents sent numerous petitions to Washington, D. C. requesting government irrigation assistance. By this time, a private corporation had given notion of its plans to develop water for what would ultimately become virtually the entire Klamath Project. Ironically, after Owens Valley agricultural water rights were secured by the City of Los Angeles, many of the displaced farmers moved to the Klamath Basin for the " reliable" water supplies of the Klamath Project. On their way north, they passed the first Reclamation Project in the West - the Newlands Project, near Reno, Nevada. 10 r r r r r r r " We desire to impress upon your mind the fact that 99% of the people in the Klamath Basin are a unit, and are clamoring for the assistance which might be rendered by the Government under the Reclamation Act," stated one petitioner. In November 1904, F. H. Newell, Chief Engineer of the federal Reclamation Service, told a large audience of enthusiastic farmers in Klamath Falls that, in his judgment, they had " a great irrigation project". Early in 1905, California and Oregon had ceded certain rights in the Upper and Lower Klamath Lakes and Tule Lake to the United States. On May 1, 1904, a board of engineers made a report that served as the basis for authorization of the Project. Congress authorized the use of lands and water in accordance with the State Acts of February 1905. The Secretary of the Interior authorized development of the Project on May 15, 1905, under provisions of the Reclamation Act of 1902. Construction Begins The Interior Secretary's 1905 authorization provided for project works to drain and reclaim lake bed lands of the Lower Klamath and Tule Lakes, to store waters of the Klamath and Lost Rivers, to divert irrigation supplies, and to control flooding of the reclaimed lands. The states of Oregon and California ceded then- submerged land to the federal government for the specific purpose of having the land drained and reclaimed for irrigation use by homesteaders. The Oregon Legislature also authorized the raising and lowering of Upper Klamath Lake in connection with the Project, and allowed the use of the bed of Upper Klamath Lake for storage of water for irrigation. Construction began on the Project in 1906 with the building of the main " A" Canal. Water was first made available May 22, 1907, to the lands now known as the Main Division. 1907 Completion of the A Canal Headgates 11 r r r r r This initial construction was followed by the completion of Clear Lake Dam in 1910, the Lost River Diversion Dam and many of the distribution structures in 1912, and the Lower Lost River Diversion Dam in 1921. ( In 1970, a public dedication at the Lower Lost River Diversion Dam officially changed the name of the structure to Anderson- Rose Dam.) Constructing Clear Lake Dam, September 1909. Large stone in self- dumping car. A contract executed February 24, 1917, between the California- Oregon Power Company ( now the Pacific Power and Light Company) and the United States authorized the company to construct Link River Dam for the benefit of the Project and for the company's use, and also extended to the water users of the Klamath Project certain preferential power rates. The dam was completed in 1921. The contract was amended and further extended for a 50- year period on April 16, 1956. The Malone Diversion Dam on the Lost River was built in 1923 to divert water to Langell Valley. The Gerber Dam on Miller Creek was completed in 1925, and the Miller Diversion Dam was built in 1924 to divert water released from Gerber Dam. In the Great Depression, continued settlement and leasing and distribution construction resulted in a significant increase, between 1930 and 1939 of the acres receiving water directly from Project facilities. The project work undertaken during this period included the enlargement of the Lost River Diversion Channel. In 1940, construction was begun on Pumping Plant D and the Tule Lake Tunnel. By 1942, these facilities, as well as the P- Canal were completed. In 1943, the Ady pumping plant was placed in operation, and in the next two years, the Straits Drain and pumps were constructed and installed and began operation. 12 r r Homesteaders The story of the homesteaders is a source of great pride in the Klamath Project. As Tule Lake receded according to plan, the lake bottom became suitable for cultivation. The land that ultimately became homesteads was under jurisdiction of the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation ( Reclamation). Homesteading and developing more productive agricultural land was the goal of the reclamation project that " reclaimed" the beds of Tule Lake and Lower Klamath Lake to expose more arable land. After Tule Lake was dewatered, a large area of public land became available for agriculture. The government would lease this land to settlers, and in fact leased as much as 50,000 acres in Tule Lake in the 1920s. Over time, most of this land was homesteaded. In 1917,180 people applied for the 37 homestead parcels the Reclamation made available on the drained wetlands and lake beds. Between 1922 and 1937 there were five more homestead offerings and hundreds of homesteaders settled in on the fertile soil of the drained lake bed. Then, World War II curtailed the homesteading process. » rri.. . r i* Ul. r- Xio. 1 wi sat Mi M MM ttw DCCA rru. ilon _ ji « _ jra .... r. r tk. M r « i t » a-. . « *^ J •* 4. MM r* T RTMtNT Or THE X ,. . tie*. . ..< L. » ii tatwJ l u i » T « 11 r ( » T « rnr » ) xfc. ir « « . •" « » ^> « • inS| « Ut !•• « . • TTDHOII. ,.> , ^% laMitk r » u. « . orumtm. _ JBKS!*! « r._: iit_ » « « » i.. bwrlac n i M la t&. MttaJOMI ( 1* nat.. J « a>. aa4 tk* a. t* JKLaUMftULJatiLJlJrt.. . . . . W l t a . is a- S.- ..- M « ri « ia*. t u . ar tka ar. ra* al « » ot af i t kav* a » « . > n » M < aatrr. • M M MMtMl. MMM t . aa n » tn4 » r ua « « . o. rol - • M it. » • « i WMM .. 1927 Homesteader Affidavit In three drawings held in 1946, 1948 and 1949, a total of 216 World War II veterans were awarded homesteads on farmland in the Tule Lake Basin, as a thank you from a grateful nation. The number of applicants was far greater than the number of available homesteads. Veterans and the community gathered to watch the names drawn from a pickle jar. Farm homesteads and crop- producing land were the goals of reclamation, and the Tule Lake Basin became a showcase for reclamation work. 13 " When I arrived to see my homestead there was nothing there, just an expanse of opportunity," recalls Carman. " No roads, no houses, no trees, just bare ground. I then pitched my tent in the corner of my homestead." My wife Eleanor was expecting our second child, but could not join me until later. A tent was not acceptable living quarters for a young woman, a small child and another baby on the way." The settlers formed organizations, elected a school board, and went about creating a society. " When I began my new life as a Tulelake homesteader there were approximately 300 homesteaders, most of them with families," said Carman. " We united and began to build schools, churches and a hospital in Klamath Falls. We started a community. We were living the American dream and our dream was achieved by hard work and dedication, and I must say we could never have done this without our wives." Homesteaders: Robinsons in 2001 Remember Days Gone By r - The Klamath River Compact The Klamath River Compact ( Compact) is a law of both Oregon and California, consented to by and Act of Congress. In the following decade, a variety of concerns and issues led to the passage of the Compact in 1957. These included: • Differing positions regarding the extent of development that could occur under Klamath Project water rights; 15 • • The related issue of priority of Klamath Project and overall Upper Klamath Basin irrigation development as against other uses, especially generation of hydro- electric power on the mainstem Klamath River; and • Concerns over potential future out- of- basin water exports. The development of the Compact was closely tied to an application for a water right filed by the California Oregon Power Company ( Copco) in 1951. This application anticipated using water at a proposed hydroelectric project on the Klamath River known as " Big Bend No. 2." In turn, this dispute folded in past dealings, agreements and opinions related to the operation of Link River Dam on Upper Klamath Lake. The agreements made between Copco and the Bureau of Reclamation at the time of construction of Link River Dam around 1920 had been controversial. Upper Klamath Basin irrigation interests had three primary concerns: 1. Power development, as an incident of the Project's reclamation purpose, should be undertaken only by the United States; 2. That the agreements threatened Klamath Project water supplies; and 3. The agreements were inconsistent with state legislation authorizing use of Upper Klamath Lake by the United States for storage or reclamation purposes. In 1951, Copco filed an application with the Oregon Hydroelectric Commission ( OHC) for a water right for the proposed Big Bend No. 2 hydroelectric facility. The OHC at that time had authority and jurisdiction over issuance of water rights for hydropower facilities. Copco at the time of filing took the position that water was available for appropriation and Copco was entitled to a right, senior in priority, to any future Upper Klamath Basin irrigation that was not then actually developed. J. C. Boyle Dam on the Klamath River. — 16 r r • A. To facilitate and promote the orderly, integrated and comprehensive development, use, conservation and control thereof for various purposes, including, among others: the use of water for domestic purposes; the development of lands by irrigation and other means; the protection and enhancement offish, wildlife, and recreational resources; the use of water for industrial purposes and hydroelectric power production; and the use and control of water for navigation and flood prevention. B. To further intergovernmental cooperation and comity with respect to these resources and programs for their use and development and to remove causes of present and future controversies by providing ( l) for equitable distribution and use of water among the two states and the Federal Government, ( 2) for preferential rights to the use of water after the effective date of this compact for the anticipated ultimate requirements for domestic and irrigation purposes in the Upper Klamath River Basin in Oregon and California, and ( 3) for prescribed relationships between beneficial uses of water as a practicable means of accomplishing such distribution and Copco's application to the OHC, and its parallel application to the Federal Power Commission ( FPC) for a license under the Federal Power Act, were contested and opposed by the Department of the Interior and various agricultural and irrigation interests. The OHC did not act on Copco's application until 1956. The States of California and Oregon appointed commissioners to negotiate an interstate Compact. At the same time, Reclamation and local water users were negotiating a new agreement with Copco for operation of Link River Dam. It appeared that such an agreement might be concluded prior to enactment by the States of a Compact. The draft Copco contract was brought before the Compact negotiating commissioners, who sought to ensure consistency with the Compact being developed. During the course of several meetings of the Compact commissioners, terms were developed which resulted in conditions in the FPC license, the water right certificate, and a new contract for Copco's operating of Link River Dam. After preparation of various drafts, negotiation of the Compact was concluded and the legislatures of Oregon, California, as well as the United States Congress, acted in 1957. The major purposes of this compact are, with respect to the water resources of the Klamath River Basin: The Compact recognized water rights for then- existing and future needs in the Klamath Project service area. It also established a system of priority for new water rights under which Upper Basin irrigation ( up to a specified number of acres) had superior rights over water for power generation, fish or wildlife, or recreation. 17 r r r r r In short, the Klamath Compact provided guidelines to lead the competing interests of the Klamath River watershed towards a more harmonious future. For the next 40 years, the intent of the Compact was essentially fulfilled, until the early 1990s, when new pressures to address endangered fish and tribal trust demands resulted in the reemergence of fractionalized conflict into the Upper Basin. Although it had been seen as a resolution for future disputes, the Compact has been interpreted not to override the Endangered Species Act or tribal trust water rights. The Klamath Project's Finishing Touches r Through the 1950s, Reclamation envisioned continued development of the Project that would have doubled its current size by including Butte Valley, California and other areas. The plans were not implemented and the Project acreage has not significantly increased since the end of the 1940s. In the following decades, the delivery system has been improved, bottlenecks eliminated, and relatively small areas have both been brought under irrigation and converted to commercial or residential development. By 1960, due in part to improvements made on Tule Lake dikes, the M Canal, the Lost River Diversion Channel, and installation of new canals in the southern portion of the Tulelake Irrigation District ( TID) service area and the Miller Hill Pumping Plant, the Project provided irrigation service to nearly 216,000 acres. Tulelake, California In the 1960' s, improvements and expansion of certain facilities led to the formation of Klamath Basin Improvement District. The Stukel and Poe Valley Pumping Plants were constructed and the Miller Hill Pumping Plant enlarged. The D, F and G- Canals were also 18 r enlarged. These facilities provided more reliable service to certain lands and also added land to the area that could receive water from Project works. In the 1970' s, Shasta View Irrigation District and Reclamation entered a $ 3.2 million contract for installation of a pressure irrigation system to replace the previous gravity- fed system. The 1972 Project history reported, ".. . the Project provided irrigation and drainage service to 223,661 acres," while the total harvested acreage "... was 193,160, down 2,329 acres from 1971." Also in the 1970' s, the Straits Drain was enlarged. Because of the Klamath Project's design and the interrelated nature of water use within it, including the use of return flows by farmers and the refuge, Project efficiency is very high. A recent assessment of Klamath Project water use efficiency2 implies that a sophisticated seasonal pattern of water use has evolved in the Klamath Project. One must understand that the Klamath Project has developed into a highly effective, highly interconnected form of water management. According to the 1998 Davids study ( see footnote), effective efficiency for the overall Project is 93 percent, making the Klamath Project one of the most efficient in the country3. New Demands For eighty years, Klamath Project irrigation supplies proved sufficient to meet the needs of the area's burgeoning farming and ranching communities. Although there were years where Mother Nature and Klamath Project storage capacity proved insufficient to meet full irrigation demands, the local community managed to stretch thin supplies and make things work. That all changed in the early 1990s, when steadily more restrictive government agency decisions made to meet Endangered Species Act ( ESA) goals began to steadily chip away at the stored water supply originally developed for irrigation. Two sucker species were listed ( 1988) as endangered and coho salmon were listed ( 1997) as threatened under the ESA. Since then, biological opinions rendered by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( for the suckers) and NOAA Fisheries ( for the coho), have increasingly emphasized the reallocation of Project water as the sole means of avoiding jeopardizing these fish. Klamath Project " operations plans" based on these biological opinions also factor in tribal trust obligations, although the nature and extent of such obligations is undefined. 2 " Klamath Project Historical Water Use Analysis", Davids Engineering for U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, October 1998. 3 For example, Tulelake Irrigation District irrigates 62,000 acres of farmland. In the 1990s, the district diverted an average of 131,000 acre- feet of water. Each year, an average of 80,000 acre- feet was pumped out of the district. Consumptive use within the district is considerably less than the amount of water diverted. The reason is the difference from the return flow from other districts and the reuse of water within the Project. 19 r Sucker Listings In the past twelve years, political and regulatory demands have affected activities at the Klamath Project. In 1988, the short nose sucker and the Lost River sucker, two species that live in Upper Klamath Lake, were designated as endangered under the ESA. Biological opinions issued by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) in 1992 and 1994 concerning operation of the Klamath Project identified actions to avoid jeopardy to suckers. When the suckers were listed, there had been no mention whatsoever of reservoir elevations as a factor affecting sucker populations. These operation elevations were adopted by Reclamation. The reservoir elevations pertaining to Upper Klamath Lake generally allowed the Project to operate for its intended purposes. However, the United States District Court of Oregon found that the reservoir elevations pertaining to Clear Lake and Gerber Reservoirs to be arbitrary and capricious, and they were invalidated in a succession of decisions4. The most compelling and prominent reason why the federal government justified listing the two sucker species as " endangered" in 1988 was an apparent abrupt downturn in both populations during the mid- 1980s. To support the decision to list the suckers, the USFWS believed the only significant remaining populations were in Upper Klamath Lake. We now know that the assumptions by the USFWS were in error and the assumed sucker population crisis never materialized. In fact, shortly after listing of the species, the populations demonstrated dramatic increases5. r Just prior to the listing of the suckers in 1988, a sport snag fishery was allowed. Before 1969, the fishery was largely unregulated with no harvest limit; in 1969 a generous bag limit of 10 fish per angler was imposed. During the early to mid- 1980s, despite the belief that the numbers offish were in a state of rapid decline, the State of Oregon still allowed the sport snag fishery. Ultimately, because of increased focus on the status of the sucker populations, Oregon eliminated the fishery in 1987. Some fisheries experts believe that if the USFWS would have properly assessed the known impacts on the suckers caused by the snag fishery and the benefits from ceasing the fishery, it very likely could have affected the ultimate listing decision. " Simply stated, the largely unregulated snag fishery slaughtered the sucker populations," said Dave Vogel, with Natural Resource Scientists, Inc. " Since the fishery was eliminated in 1987, the two sucker populations dramatically rebounded. The threat was removed and the populations increased ten- fold." 4 Bennett v Spear, 520 U. S. 154 ( 1997); 5 F. Jupp. 2d 887 ( D. Or. 1998); Bennett v. Badgely, No. 93- 6075- HO ( April 13, 1999, June 11, 1999). 5 Vogel, David, 2004. Testimony Before the Committee on Resources ( Subcommittee on Water and Power), United States House of Representatives. Oversight Field Hearing on The Endangered Species Act 30 Years Later: The Klamath Project. 20 At the time of the listings in 1988, the Klamath Project was not identified as having known adverse affects on the sucker populations, yet four years after the listing, using limited or no empirical data, the USFWS turned to the Klamath Project as their singular focus. Paradoxically, since the early 1990s, despite new beneficial empirical evidence on the improving status of the species and lack of relationship with Klamath Project operations, the USFWS became ever more centered on Project operations and increased restrictions on irrigators instead of paying attention to more obvious, fundamental problems for the species. This circumstance caused tremendous expense in dollars and time by diverting resources away from other known factors affecting the species. Coho Salmon Listing r A similar circumstance occurred with NOAA Fisheries during and after the coho salmon listing in the lower basin in the late 1990s. It cited the reasons to list coho salmon, excluding Klamath Project operations as a significant factor affecting the species. There are many other documented factors that have affected salmon runs in the Klamath River6. The USFWS in the 1980s described the most important eight factors as " most frequently referred to with regard to recent population declines" of anadromous fish in the Klamath River. Those factors are: " • Over fishing • Logging • Trinity River transbasin diversion Irrigation diversions in lower Klamath tributaries • 1964 flood • 1976- 1977 drought • Sea lion predation • Brown trout predation. However, shortly following the listing, and with no supporting data, NOAA Fisheries chose to center its attention on the Klamath Project as the principal factor affecting coho salmon. In its biological opinions, NOAA Fisheries opined that much higher than historic flow levels, released from the stored water of the Klamath Project, would be needed to protect coho salmon downstream of Iron Gate Dam. Iron Gate Dam is located forty miles away and coho are generally found further downstream and in tributaries. 7 In essence, both agencies adopted a single- minded approach of focusing on Klamath Project operations to artificially create high reservoir levels and high reservoir releases. This puzzling, similar sequence of events has yet to be explained by agency officials. 6 KWUA biologists compiled a comprehensive listing of those factors in March 1997. 7 Vogel, David, 2004. Testimony Before the Committee on Resources ( Subcommittee on Water and Power), United States House of Representatives. Oversight Field Hearing on The Endangered Species Act 30 Years Later: The Klamath Project. 21 r " ~ Commercial harvests of salmon intensified with the development of canning technology. By the early 20th century, habitat destruction combined with commercial harvests had resulted in serious salmon depletion on the Klamath River. Cobb ( 1930) estimated that the peak of the Klamath River salmon runs occurred in 1912, Snyder ( 1931) observed " in 1912 three [ canneries] operated on or near the estuary and the river was heavily fished, no limit being placed on the activities of anyone". Problems on the East Side Irrigation districts on the east side of the Klamath Project felt the first impacts from increased regulatory focus on lake levels in the early 1990s. Langell Valley Irrigation District ( LVID) and Horsefly Irrigation District ( HID) receive water from Clear Lake and Gerber reservoirs. Historically, stored water was released from these two reservoirs beginning about April 15 and ending about October 15 each year. These reservoirs are not large, but they provide the essential water supply to an otherwise arid area. In an average year, Clear Lake releases about 36,000 acre- feet of irrigation water, and Gerber releases about 40,000 acre- feet. Clear Lake Reservoir contains populations of both endangered sucker species, and Gerber reservoir hosts one of the species. ESA-" threatened" bald eagles are also known to inhabit the Klamath Project area. In 1991, at the request of the USFWS, Reclamation initiated ESA consultation to assess the impact of the long- term operation of the Klamath Project on the suckers and the bald eagle. In the next year, three biological opinions were rendered by USFWS that imposed minimum levels in Clear Lake to purportedly protect the sucker populations. As a result of the minimum lake levels imposed by the draft biological opinions, and the water lost to evaporation before the USFWS allowed any water releases, the Districts were not able to make their normal irrigation releases during the 1992 water year. Neither district received its first seasonal water delivery until May 15, 1992, a full four weeks later than normal. By 22 r " that date, 12,000 acre- feet of the water that had been stored in Clear Lake in March 1992 had evaporated, an amount that represents about 60% of LVID's total yearly withdrawal from Clear Lake Reservoir. As a result of the minimum lake levels and the evaporation losses, only 2,148 acres of the 16,800 irrigable acres within the LVID received any Klamath Project water at all. The lack of water reduced both acreage farmed and per- acre yields that year. As a result of reduced yields, farm properties lost up to 70% of their assessed values in 1992. The lack of water also hurt the region's cattle ranching operations, because some ranchers could not produce pasture for their cattle. Water users who could afford the extra expense purchased feed to sustain their herds. Others had to cut back substantially on their herds or sell their cattle. Wildlife also suffered as a result of the decision to impose minimum surface levels in the reservoirs. Because the Lost River obtains most of its water from releases from Clear Lake Dam and return flows from agricultural operations, the water levels in the Lost River and its tributaries were exceedingly low in 1992. As a direct result, wildlife relying on Lost River water, including deer, sandhill cranes, hawks, turtles, frogs, ducks, and more, were all noticeably scarce that year. On July 22, 1992, USFWS finally issued its final biological opinion on the long- term operations of the Klamath Project. While the 1992 opinion conceded that " little" was known about Gerber Reservoir's shortnose sucker population, the opinion reported " good numbers" of these fish and noted that the Gerber sucker population appeared to be successfully reproducing, despite the lowered lake levels of the early 1990s. Despite this undisputed evidence, the 1992 biological opinion concluded that continuing to operate the Project, including Clear Lake and Gerber reservoirs, in its historic manner was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of both sucker fish species. Reclamation accepted the USFWS recommendations for continued adherence to minimum lake levels, prompting the Districts and two of the individual farmers to sue the federal agencies. Even after the federal district court entered judgment invalidating the jeopardy conclusions, USFWS defied this judgment, and the districts were forced to bring several additional motions to enforce the Court's rulings. At each stage of the legal proceedings, the districts prevailed, based largely on the fact that USFWS had no scientific evidence to justify its actions. When the United States Supreme Court considered the Districts' case against the USFWS, the Court described the purpose of the ESA's science requirement as follows: The obvious purpose of the requirement that each agency " use the best available scientific and commercial data available" is to ensure that the ESA not be implemented haphazardly, on the basis of speculation or surmise. While this no doubt serves to advance the ESA's overall goal -., of species preservation, we think it readily apparent that another objective ( if not indeed the 23 primary one) is to avoid needless economic dislocation produced by agency officials zealously but unintelligently pursuing their environmental objectives. Now, ten years later, HID and LVID enjoy positive relationships with USFWS and Reclamation. However, the problems they suffered in the early 1990s were a harbinger of things to come for other Klamath Project irrigators shortly after the turn of the new century. 2001 Curtailment The net result of increasing restrictions on other Klamath Project water users was fully realized on April 6, 2001, when Reclamation announced its water allocation for the Project after U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries officials finalized the biological opinions ( BOs) for project operations in a critically dry year. Based on those regulatory actions, Reclamation announced that - for the first time in Project's 95- year history - no water would be available from Upper Klamath Lake to supply Project irrigators. No water for most farmers April 6, 2001 Local Headlines The resulting impacts to the local community were immediate and far- reaching. Even with a later release of a small percentage of needed water over a 30- day period in July and August, thousands of acres of valuable farmland were left without water. In addition to harming those property owners, managers, and workers, also imparted an economic " ripple" effect through the broader community. The wildlife benefits provided by those farms - particularly the food provided for area waterfowl - were also lost with the water. 24 Kliewer Family in Dry Fields South of Klamath Falls - 2001 The local farming community is still reeling from the April 6, 2001 decision, and severe business losses echoed the hardship endured by farmers and farm employees. As farmers and laborers attempted to deal with the loss of jobs, a year's income, and in some cases the land itself, referrals for mental health counseling increased dramatically. The Tulelake school district lost around 50 students after farm families sold their land and moved on. Students were under stress, understandably confused as to why three species of fish were more important than their lifelong homes. Tragically, one Hispanic family had started out as field workers, and after a lifetime of piecework under the sun had saved enough to buy their own farm. They lost everything as a direct result of the irrigation cutofi . Veteran homesteaders, who fifty years ago were promised reliable water, felt betrayed by the same government, who chose to provide water to fish instead of farmers in 2001. " I want the government to honor the contract that promised me and my heirs water rights forever," said Jess Prosser, a World War II veteran and Tulelake homesteader, in 2001, after water supplies were cut. " This land is our life. Farmers and fish have survived previous drought years when the farmers voluntarily cut back on water consumption. The Klamath Project was designed to withstand drought conditions, and right now there is more than ample water for agriculture and fish. The government took 100% of the water for fish, disregarding farmers, ranchers, families and numerous other species of wildlife in the Klamath Basin. This is a man- made disaster. This will be the end of a way of life and an entire community." 1 " Calamity in Klamath", Blake Hurst. The American Enterprise magazine. October / November 2002, pp 28- 29. 25 Cemeteries Went Dry in 2001 The Farmers Fight Back The local community did not take the decision lying down. Employing the ingenuity and perseverance that allowed them to successfully create brand new communities over the past century, local farmers, ranchers, elected officials and business leaders organized a " bucket brigade" to dramatize their plight, drawing nearly 20,000 sympathizers to the streets of Klamath Falls. A web site and cell phone calling tree were set up, and farmers, who only a year before were working their fields, suddenly became knowledgeable about the media. Civil disobedience, in the form of peaceful protests at the A Canal headgates, drew television crews from throughout the Pacific Northwest. The 2001 Klamath Basin crisis became the topic of front- page coverage and sympathetic editorials in publications like Time magazine, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times. Time Magazine Captures Rob Crawford & Family, Summer 2001. In part because of the tremendous media and political attention generated by the local community, a congressional field hearing was held in the summer of 2001 at the Klamath County fairgrounds, which drew the largest audience to ever attend such a hearing in the nation's history. Much of the focus was on the decision- making and processes that led to the fishery agencies' recommendation to curtail irrigation supplies. 26 In 2001, a desperate community essentially was looked in the eye and told, " sorry, we know it may hurt, but ' the science' is compelling and requires you to go without water." This was wrong, literally, and as a matter of policy. For whatever reason, the agencies had become too close to, and too much a part of, the side- taking that had come to dominate issues surrounding the Klamath Project. For this reason alone, outside review was needed. Nearly 20,000 marchers support the Klamath Bucket Brigade, May 2001. Prayer / protest at the A Canal headgates, 2001. Elected officials - from county commissioners and supervisors, to state representatives and senators, to U. S. Senators and Representatives, continued the fight, and ultimately, later in 2001, the U. S. Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton, directed the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an independent peer- review of the agency decision to curtail irrigation supplies. Also, in early 2002, President Bush himself took a personal interest in the plight of the Klamath Project irrigator. Enter President Bush In January 2002, just months after the federal government curtailed Klamath Project irrigation deliveries for the first time in 97 years, Sen. Gordon Smith and Rep. Greg Walden met the president in southern California, boarded Air Force One, and took a slight detour over the Basin on their way to a Portland high school where the Mr. Bush was to deliver a speech. On the flight north, the president was briefed on the 2001 Klamath water crisis. When he entered the gymnasium at Park Rose High School, he opened his speech up with a pledge to help both the farmers and the fish of the Klamath Basin. 27 Compassion: George W. Bush Meets and Greets Klamath Basin Residents in Redmond, Oregon, 2003. In the ensuing two years, President Bush has followed through with his pledge by establishing a Klamath Basin cabinet- level working group, promoting sound and independent peer-reviewed science, and making funding of Klamath River water and environmental projects a priority. Enacted and requested Bush Administration funding in the Klamath River watershed for fiscal years 2003- 2005 exceeds $ 260 million dollars, according to a federal government summary. This includes $ 105 million proposed by the administration for Klamath Basin federal funding in the Fiscal Year 2005 budget. Vindication: The National Research Council Steps In The Klamath Water Users Association and others in the community in 2001 strongly advocated for an independent peer review of the 2001 fishery agency biological opinions, the underlying science, and the related overall scientific process. In early 2002, an interim report from the National Research Council ( NRC) Committee on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath Basin was released. This represented a critical step towards ensuring proper assessment and maintenance of healthy fish populations. The panel successfully completed an objective, unbiased initial review of the information used by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) and NOAA Fisheries to formulate the agencies' two 2001 Biological Opinions ( BOs). The interim NRC report concluded that there was insufficient scientific evidence used by USFWS and NOAA Fisheries in 2001 to support changing the recent historical water operations of the Klamath Project. Specifically, the NRC interim report concluded that higher or lower than recent historical lake levels or Klamath 28 rr r rrr r r r River flows were not scientifically justified based on the available information used by the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries. Despite varying interpretations of the data used by the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries in the BOs, it is especially noteworthy that the NRC panel achieved consensus on the Interim Report's conclusions for not just one, but both BOs. The report's conclusions were adequately supported by the available evidence and analyses used by USFWS and NOAA Fisheries. It was particularly evident that the NRC Committee report was fair and impartial, essential attributes that were sorely lacking in Klamath basin issues to date. The Assault on the Klamath Project Intensifies The release of the NRC Committee's interim report in early 2002 unleashed a barrage of criticism from environmental activists and their allies in academia and government agencies. Two Oregon State University professors, supporters of the high lake level requirements that contributed to the 2001 water curtailment, submitted a formal " rebuttal" of the interim report to a fisheries journal. The " rebuttal" ( so labeled when transmitted by its authors) and other media developments caused the Klamath Project community to fear that the NRC work would be diluted. The local community simply did not have the resources or the networks of contacts to continually counter the anti- Klamath Project messages that were being sent to the public and policymakers, primarily by outside environmental activist organizations. The NRC Committee's interim report triggered what grew to be an extraordinary, and obviously coordinated, attack on the Klamath Project by these interests. Media outlets seemingly relish a good western fight, and many uncritically reprinted a good deal of information that was not fair to Klamath Basin irrigators. The scrutiny on the Klamath Project and the Bush Administration's reliance on the NRC interim report intensified further that fall, when 33,000 salmon died on the lower Klamath River. Immediately after the unfortunate die- off, vocal critics of Project operations and Bush Administration environmental policy used the event to renew attacks on irrigated agriculture in the Klamath Basin. Even though the fish die- off occurred 200 miles downstream from the Project, at a location below the confluence of the main stem Klamath River and the Trinity River, traditional advocates for higher river flows quickly assigned blame to Klamath Project farmers and ranchers. Some of these same interests and others in the environmental community even attempted to directly link the fish die- off to alleged political maneuvering orchestrated by senior policy officials in the Bush Administration. As a result, presidential hopeful Senator John Kerry called on the U. S. Interior Department's Inspector General to look into whether " political pressure from the White House is intimidating staff and influencing policy" in Klamath River management decisions. Interior Department Inspector General Earl Devaney's report - released in March 2004- found " no evidence of political influence affecting the decisions pertaining to the water in the Klamath Project." 29 r r r r r r Eugene Register- Guard Why the salmon died: Pattern points to Bush administration policies A Register- Guard Editorial A 2002 Editorial Headline Between 2002- 2004, the fish die- off was effectively spun by Klamath Project critics to drive a dizzying array of attacks aimed at the Bush Administration and federal agencies responsible for Klamath Project management. Well- coordinated media coverage surrounding several acts of litigation and proposed federal legislation in the two years since the fish die- off have effectively imprinted the environmentalists' message in the minds of many: • " Fish need water"; • " Klamath Project farmers were denied water in 2001 and no fish died in the Klamath River"; • " Klamath Project farmers received full supplies in 2002, and 33,000 salmon died in the river"; • " The Bush Administration sacrificed fish for the benefit of farmers." The claims discussed above are just a few of the more prominent arguments that Klamath Project critics have employed to justify a series of actions undertaken in the wake of the public release of the interim NRC Committee report, including the following: • Federal legislation that would finalize a controversial and flawed draft Klamath River flow report. • Unsuccessful federal legislation that would restrict the ability of local lease land farmers to grow row crops. • Litigation ( PCFFA v. USBR) that, if successful, would have likely shut down Klamath Project operations in 2003. • Public protests staged by tribal members and environmentalists in Klamath Falls in 2002 and in Sacramento in 2003. 30 Listing of the Klamath River as the third most endangered waterway in the country by American Rivers, a Washington, D. C. - based activist group. An unsuccessful lawsuit filed by environmental groups against NOAA Fisheries to hasten the potential ESA listing of the green sturgeon. The release of an Oregon Natural Resources Council ( ONRC) report, which contends that voluntary buyouts of willing sellers within the Project " remain the most politically responsible, socially just, and economically viable method" to address power and ecological challenges. A subsequent letter sent by ONRC to Project landowners, tempting them with the promise of a buyout that would provide them with 2 '/ z times the fair market value of their land. Numerous editorials, journal articles and magazine stories that clearly accept the arguments made by Project critics. However, others did not jump so quickly on to the " blame game bandwagon." During late summer and early fall of 2002, Dave Vogel, a fisheries biologist with 28 years of experience, conducted a field investigation to assess water temperatures in the main stem Klamath River. - Vogel noted that main stem water temperatures in the Klamath River were measured hourly just prior to and during the fall- run Chinook salmon migration season. He found that water temperatures in the upper Klarnath River downstream of Iron Gate Dam during September 2002 were unsuitable for adult salmon, a finding that was similar to that of previous studies. As expected, a normal seasonal cooling trend at the end of September and early October provided the moderating influence lowering Klamath River temperatures to tolerable levels for salmon. Vogel also found that large numbers of salmon entered the lower Klamath River earlier than usual and were exposed to two dramatic and uncharacteristic cooling and warming conditions causing disease outbreak from warm water and crowded conditions. The combination of these factors was chronically and cumulatively stressful to fish and is probably the most plausible reason for the fish die- off. " In my opinion, the best available scientific data and information indicate that the continued operation and maintenance of historical flows at Iron Gate Dam will not jeopardize coho salmon," said Vogel in March 2003. " Furthermore, in my opinion the operations of Iron Gate Dam during the summer and fall of 2002 did not cause and could not have prevented the fish die- off in the lower Klarnath River." Unfortunately, scant media coverage was afforded to Vogel's findings. Outside of the Upper Basin, the press made no mention of the fact that, despite the die- off, the numbers of fish returning to Iron Gate hatchery on the Klamath River were the third highest in 40 years. The media also largely ignored a similar finding made in October 2003 by the National Research Council Committee on Endangered and Threatened Fish in the Klamath Basin. In its final report, the Committee failed to find a linkage between the operation of the Klamath Project and the fish die- off, and questioned whether changes federal project operations at the time would have prevented it. Clearly, the hard working landowners of the Upper Klamath Basin have been on the receiving end of a cruel and long- distance war being waged by environmental activists who assert that the federal water project - representing only 2 percent of the total land base of the Klamath River watershed, and consuming only 3- 4 percent of the average annual flows to the Pacific Ocean - is somehow responsible for all of the environmental woes of the river system. These advocates are intent on portraying the Klamath Basin as a poster child to help fuel outside efforts that are focused on litigating, legislating and publicly condemning the local community for doing what it has done for 98 of the last 99 years - irrigating farm and ranch land. r r r r These interests know that federal water projects are an easy target of litigation, since federal environmental and clean water laws govern project operations. The lawsuits are often aimed at federal entities - such as the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation and fishery agencies - which, on the surface, give the appearance that the environmental plaintiffs are simply interested in correcting errors made by some non- descript governmental agency. The true intended target of these actions, however, ultimately becomes the landowners and water users who fall under the management jurisdiction of the federal agencies. It is the farmers and ranchers that pay the price of litigation through altered management practices, increased uncertainty, and escalating legal expenses to defend their interests. For the most part, the potentially damaging effects these actions could cause family farmers and ranchers have been deflected. However, local water users are concerned that permanent Klamath River policy will be influenced by misinformation in the future. Vindication, Part II After an 18- month barrage of anti- Klamath Project attacks in the media and courtrooms, the long- awaited final report from the National Research Council ( NRC) Committee on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath Basin was released in October 2003. The final NRC report is important to local farmers and ranchers for several key reasons: 1. The report clearly indicated that recovery of endangered suckers and threatened coho salmon in the Klamath Basin cannot be achieved by actions that are exclusively or primarily focused on operation of the Klamath Project. 2. The committee also reconfirmed its findings from the earlier interim report that found no evidence of a causal connection between Upper Klamath Lake water levels and sucker health, or that higher flows on the Klamath River mainstem help coho salmon. 3. The NRC committee did not accept arguments that the operation of the Klamath Project caused the 2002 fish die- off or that changes in the operation of the Project at p the time would have prevented it. 32 r ~ r r Despite the final conclusions, some environmentalists and many in the media continue to maintain the sensational but unsupported position that the Klamath Project was responsible for the 2002 fish mortality that occurred over 200 miles from the Klamath Project. The final NRC report was consistent with what Upper Basin interests have been saying for years: the Klamath Project cannot solely bear the burden for species recovery in this basin. A watershed- wide approach to species recovery - one that addresses all the stressors to fish - is essential to improving the environment and saving the local economy. Local water users shared the NRC report's vision that increased knowledge, improved management, and cohesive community action would promote recovery of the fishes. At the same time, they remained extremely concerned that the " business as usual" approach - regulation of the Klamath Project - would remain the dominant aspect of ESA biological opinions and advocacy of Project opponents. For reasons now clearly evident, the irrigators' original recommendation for an outside technical review of the ESA activities in the Klamath basin by an objective group such as the r National Academy of Sciences back in 1993 ( KWUA 1993) was an important first step. The benefits of an ESA peer review are obvious after reading the NRC's final report. " We are beginning to see signs of progress with ESA activities in the basin," said Dave Vogel, nearly one year after the release of the final NRC Committee report. " However, alarmingly, there are some individuals within the agencies that are in a state of denial over the findings and conclusions of the NRC's report. Despite the NRC's final report, the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries still have too much focus on the Klamath Project and not enough emphasis on a watershed- wide approach." Other experts agree. " We found that the prevailing scientific sentiment in the basin-' More water is better for fish'- was the wrong approach," NRC Committee member Jeffrey Mount told California Farmer magazine in December 2003, two months after the final NRC report was released. " We hate to say we told you so, but...." It is very important to note that many of the most pertinent findings, conclusions, and r recommendations of the NRC Klamath Committee were not new to the USFWS or NOAA Fisheries. Dave Vogel elaborated on this in testimony he provided to the House Resources Committee at a field hearing held in Klamath Falls in June 2004. " The NRC final report advocates a watershed approach, peer review, greater stakeholder involvement, oversight of agency actions, focus on factors other than the Klamath Project 33 r operations, reduction of resource conflicts, and incorporation of the principles of adaptive management toward species recovery," said Vogel. " Over the past decade, local water users and their allies forwarded much of the same and similar technical findings and recommendations to those two agencies, but were mainly ignored. Additionally, the NRC's major conclusion that there is insufficient scientific justification for high reservoir levels and high instream flows was always prominent in water users' technical comments on the agencies' biological opinions during the past decade." r " The NRC Klamath Committee's final report was an outstanding effort and the product must serve as a catalyst to advance balanced natural resource management in the basin," Vogel said. " If federal agencies meaningfully incorporate many of the NRC's principal findings, conclusions, and recommendations, we fully expect positive results to the species recovery and reduced resource conflicts. We should use the momentum of the NRC's final report to guide recovery efforts and watershed improvements. However, if the agencies do not take this pro- active approach, we could again return to the disaster that transpired in 2001." • Dr. Mount agrees. r " For too long, Klamath managers have relied on fixing their problems by turning only one knob- the knob of raising and lowering water levels in Upper Klamath Lake and the river," said Mount, a University of California professor. " They need to take new approaches that support multiple populations offish and healthy ecosystems throughout the watershed," he said. The Klamath Project Regulatory Regime: 3 Years After the Curtailment The U. S. Bureau of Reclamation's final 10- year Biological Assessment for Klamath Project 2002- 2012 operations properly incorporated the findings of the 2002 interim National Research Council's ( NRC) interim report, and generally captured the essence of the " watershed- wide" philosophy endorsed in the final 2003 NRC report. Unfortunately, the fishery agency biological opinions ( BOs) do not. Despite the so- called ecosystem approach to species recovery advocated by the USFWS and NMFS, their actions in the Klamath basin over the past decade amply demonstrates that the exact opposite took place. They focused on: 1) a single- species approach; and 2) Klamath Project operations. The USFWS opinion continues to perpetuate the questionable assumption that lake level management is the principle mechanism affecting sucker survival in Upper Klamath Lake ( UKL). The NOAA Fisheries jeopardy decision similarly continues to place high emphasis on downstream flows. The stored water developed for Klamath Project farmers continues to be reallocated to meet the artificial demands set by agency biologists. 34 r The combined - and apparently, unanticipated - impacts placed on the Upper Basin community from the application of the two opinions are unacceptable. On June 25th, 2003, local irrigators were told by Reclamation officials that UKL diversions to the Project would be shut down for a minimum of 5 days - in the middle of the growing season. By day's end, reason prevailed: the agencies backed off their initial request9 and instead, Reclamation notified farmers to continue their efforts to reduce diversions from the lake. This was driven by one apparent agency mission: to avoid dropping UKL one inch below a lake level requirement established by the USFWS. Rancher Gary Wright learns that the Klamath Project would be shut down in the middle of the irrigation season, June 25, 2003. Common sense prevailed, and later in the day, Reclamation rescinded its earlier decision. In addition to the continued uncertainty irrigators face, the opinions are generating new, unanticipated impacts to the community. In the past 40 to 50 years, while the cropping pattern in the Klamath Project has varied from year to year, the overall planted acreage has remained consistent. On the other hand, the 2002- 2012 biological opinion created by NOAA Fisheries for coho salmon established the river flow schedule and an " environmental water bank" - which ratchets up to 100,000 acre- feet in 2005, regardless of actual hydrologic conditions - that is the primary source of new demand for water in the Klamath River watershed. The result: stored water that has flowed to farms, ranches and the refuges for nearly 100 years is now sent downstream at such high levels, that groundwater pumped from the Lost River basin is being used to supplement the resulting " coho salmon demand" in the Klamath River. 9 Improved coordination between USFWS managers and their Reclamation counterparts in Klamath Falls and Sacramento was one important reason for the positive corrective action that was taken. 35 It is not the farmers who have imposed new water demands that, in essence, have made groundwater the default supplemental supply to the Klamath Project. It is the opinions of agency fishery biologists who have fundamentally altered how this century- old water project operates, and who have apparently failed to anticipate the resulting impacts to the community. While Reclamation in 2002 sharply disagreed with the findings of both fishery agency biological opinions, it is not yet clear how consultation will be reinitiated to create a new operations plan. Proactive Efforts of Upper Basin Landowners Since the early 1990s, and particularly in the new millennium, local water users - both within the Klamath Project and those who farm in upstream areas north of Upper Klamath Lake - have taken proactive steps to protect and enhance water supplies, enhance the environment, r and stabilize the agricultural economy. Farmers and ranchers in the Klamath Project have consistently supported restoration actions to improve habitat for the basin's fish and wildlife species. Sucker Recovery Planning KWUA in 1993 published the Initial Ecosystem Restoration Plan - the first ecosystem- based, scientifically valid planning document on Klamath Basin restoration. The plan placed particular emphasis on real, on- the- ground projects to recover endangered species. It was widely recognized as a meaningful assessment of necessary restoration activities. KWUA in 2001 reiterated its previous call with the release of a report entitled Protecting the Beneficial Uses of Upper Klamath Lake: A Plan to Accelerate Recovery of the Lost River and Shortnose Suckers. The 2001 report provided timelines and budgets for dozens of projects that could provide real benefits. Regrettably, until the past three years, there has been failure to effectively implement most of the on- the- ground activities proposed by KWUA. On- the- Ground Actions Local agricultural and business leaders have dedicated thousands of volunteer hours and have spent millions of dollars in the past ten years to participate in processes associated with environmental restoration, Klamath Basin water rights adjudication, dispute resolution, drought- proofing, and water supply enhancement. Most impressive, however, is the multitude of actions undertaken on- the- ground: • Local efforts to assist National Wildlife Refuges ( e. g. " Walking Wetlands") • Ecosystem Enhancement and Sucker Recovery Efforts in the Upper Basin • Fish Passage Improvement Projects • Wildlife Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Efforts • Local Efforts to Improve Water Quality 36 • Power Resource Development • Efforts to Improve Klamath Project Water Supply Reliability and Water Use Efficiency Many of these efforts were driven by an initial desire to implement meaningful restoration actions intended to provide some sort of mitigation " credit" that could be applied towards reducing the burden carried by Klamath Project irrigators to " protect" threatened and endangered fish species. For many years, that credit was not recognized. For example, Federal agencies or non- profit conservation groups have acquired over 25,000 acres of farmland in the Upper Klamath Basin for habitat purposes. Each time the agencies sought additional land, they promised that each acquisition would provide environmental benefits, reducing pressure on the Klamath Project's family farmers and ranchers. Those promises have not materialized, and Project irrigation water still remains the sole regulatory tool used to address federal ESA objectives for endangered suckers and threatened coho salmon in the Klamath River watershed. • TEAMWORK A broad range of partners include U. S. Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Reclamation. CalOre Wetlands. Tulelake Growers Association, Audubon Society. Tulelake Irrigation District, California Waterfowl Association. University of California. Ducks Unlimited. Klamath Water Users Association. USDA NRCS. Leaseland Advisory Council, and numerous volunteer organizations. A page from the " Refuge" section of the tule- Iake. com website. Environmental Water Bank KWUA in early March 2003 announced it would support, and assist the Department of Interior in the implementation of, a Klamath Project Pilot Environmental Water Bank in 2003 to provide over 50,000 acre- feet of additional water for environmental purposes. Reclamation's 10- year Biological Assessment ( BA) developed in February 2002 proposed an environmental water bank through which willing buyers and sellers will provide additional water supplies for fish and wildlife purposes and to enhance tribal trust resources. The 2002- 2012 biological opinion created by NOAA Fisheries for coho salmon firmly established the river flow schedule and the water bank - which ratchets up to 100,000 acre- feet in 2005, regardless of actual hydrologic conditions - that is the primary source of new demand for water in the Klamath River watershed. 37 The coho biological opinion's rigid water bank schedule, which steps up the magnitude of the bank for the first four years, regardless of actual hydrology, is difficult to justify. This type of water bank does not reflect the intent of either the proposal put forth by KWUA in 2002 ( see below), or the original USBR biological assessment, which proposed implementation of a water bank in drier years, not every year. Water users committed to pursue developing a water bank with Reclamation in January 2002. At that time, KWUA was asked by Reclamation to develop a Project- wide water bank to assist with meeting environmental water demands in drier years. KWUA's Water Bank and Supply Enhancement Committee held over 30 meetings in 2002- 03 to develop the 65- page report/ proposal for a long- term water bank, which differs substantially from the pilot water bank proposed by Reclamation this past year. Certainty of water supplies is a key principle imbedded in KWUA's long- term water bank proposal. Local water users insist that, in exchange for voluntary participation in a Project water bank - which would be used to " fund" environmental water needs - 100% of the irrigation demand for remaining Project acreage will be satisfied, season- long. Water users further believe that the water bank cannot be viewed as a stand- alone element. While Reclamation's 2003 and 2004 pilot programs did not closely resemble KWUA's vision for a long- term bank, water users are hopeful that Reclamation and Interior will look to the irrigators' document to complete its 10- year water bank proposal. EQIP Funding in Klamath Basin The federal government in 2003 released $ 7 million in conservation funding to the Klamath Basin. This sum represents a portion of the $ 50 million in funding earmarked for the Basin in the 2002 Farm Bill under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program ( EQIP). KWUA was instrumental in securing these provisions during Farm Bill negotiations. In 2004, Interior Secretary Norton included another $ 12 million for this program in the president's 2005 budget request. The funds provided cost- share payments to farmers and ranchers to employ water conservation measures. Over 800 Klamath Basin landowners have applied to participate in this program, despite the requirement that they pay 25% of the costs. This shows remarkable commitment by local irrigators to do the right thing, despite the fact that many of these landowners are still recovering from the financial impacts of the 2001 water curtailment. Recognition at Last In the past year, local irrigators have finally begun to get the recognition - if not the actual regulatory relief- they deserve for their proactive efforts. To wit: • KWUA was awarded the 2003 " Leadership in Conservation" award by the Oregon Department of Agriculture; • KWUA in 2004 was honored on the steps of the Oregon state capitol for " exemplifying the spirit" of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds; 38 Tulelake Irrigation District in January 2004 received the F. Gordon Johnston award for its innovative canal lining project completed near Newell; and U. S. Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman and NRCS chief Bruce Knight in 2004 recognized local rancher Mike Byrne for his leadership in conservation. NRCS Chief Bruce Knight ( left) with 2004 Excellence in Conservation Award winner Mike Byrne. It is clear that local irrigators have not been idle in the past ten years. Their efforts to improve their environment are all the more impressive when one considers that the uncertainty and difficulty associated with keeping their farming operations profitable have not diminished. Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski, Congressman Greg Walden and KWUA Executive Director Dan Keppen at the new A Canal Headgates, April 2003. 39 50 Years After the Compact - Back to the Watershed- Wide Approach Klamath Project water users in October 2004 enthusiastically greeted the announcement that the states of California and Oregon and the Bush Administration had signed the historic " Klamath River Watershed Coordination Agreement". The agreement - signed by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski, and four of President Bush's cabinet level secretaries - underscored the commitment of these parties to solve the fisheries challenges of the Klamath River on a watershed - wide basis. The state- federal Klamath agreement reflects the philosophy embedded in both the Klamath River Basin Compact and the 2003 NRC Klamath report, which confirmed that Klamath Basin issues must be dealt with in an integrated and comprehensive way for a lasting solution of the challenges facing the basin. The NRC committee report makes clear that merely closing the spigot on the Klamath Project will not solve the problems facing Klamath Basin fisheries, and that strategy obviously was disastrous for farming and ranching communities. The coordination agreement recognizes that message and promotes a unified effort that many water users believe is much needed. An important part of this agreement is that it supports the Conservation Implementation Program ( CIP), a work in progress proposed by federal agencies to coordinate management actions in the Klamath River watershed. The CIP would meld a scientific advisory body, local communities, and resource agencies to identify, coordinate and resolve the Basin's critical water quality, water quantity and fish and wildlife restoration challenges. KWUA is working with other producer groups and local government to develop guidelines that make the CIP workable and acceptable to Klamath Basin communities. USBR Study on Pre- Project Flow Conditions on Upper Klamath River Reclamation in late 2004 finalized a draft study intended to provide a glimpse at how the Klamath River might have looked before the Klamath Project was built. The report shows that- especially in drier years - historic flows in the Klamath River near Keno, Oregon dwindled to a mere trickle. The report provides compelling evidence that supports claims made by local residents for decades - the stored water provided by the Klamath Project may actually provide more flows downriver than what would have flowed before the Project was built. This is primarily due to the developed storage and the fact that farmlands that were once under water now use less water than what was historically lost to consumptive and evaporative use of the former marshes. 40 Ufric; lfftid Kur , Jhm% tr Excerpt from Draft BOR Flow Study 41 Conclusion - The Future To solve the problems of the Klamath River watershed, we need a coordinated management program that spans two states in a watershed that is characterized by a strong federal presence. Competition among stakeholder groups - including four tribes, agricultural water users, and countless environmental groups - is fierce. In order to be successful, we need to better understand the real state of the watershed by developing the facts and best possible information to make the best possible decisions. Collaborations need to replace ideological advocacies; watershed wide approaches need to replace regionalism; and honest exchanges of information need to displace environmental sensationalism. A June 20, 2004 editorial published by the Klamath Falls Herald & News provides an apt glimpse of what the future might bring to the Klamath irrigation community and how the Klamath Water Users Association will address that future: Recently, the Klamath Water Users Association got an award for not using water, which is not a contradiction in terms at all. It's a matter of doing what has to be done to keep farming and ranching alive in the Klamath Basin. The award was from the state of Oregon and recognized the water users' efforts in behalf of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. It was presented to the group in a ceremony on the steps of the Capitol with leaders such as Gov. Ted Kulongoski and the Democratic and Republican leaders of the Legislature participating. The award recognizes a welter of actions in the Basin, some using federal and state dollars and some not, many aimed at making agricultural operations more efficient water users. Some have given agriculture interests heartache, such as the conversion of farmlands to wetlands - the water users cite 24,000 acres in the past decade, equal to more than a tenth of the Klamath Reclamation Project. Nevertheless, it's clear that farmers and ranchers have recognized their predicament given the pressure of the Endangered Species Act and competition for water from Indian tribes upstream and down. Agriculture is in the midst of a struggle that could take decades yet to play out, and its defenders are determined that they will survive. This is a longer- term version of the creativity they showed in 2001, when, faced with imminent ruin, they responded with skill and imagination in a political protest that brought national attention and saved Basin agriculture to fight another day. The vision of the Klamath Basin as a place for human habitation must include agriculture, and an agricultural sector of sufficient size to be economically viable. This place ought to have an urban center and a scattering of pleasant small towns - and in between green fields with dancing water from irrigation works. ~ 42 Whatever alternate vision exists involves blowing away towns such as Merrill Malin and Tulelake and shriveling the city ofKlamath Falls. It involves throwing lots of people off the land, and itfs not acceptable. This is not the first such award, and won't be the last. It is a signal of a widening recognition in Oregon and the nation that farmers and ranchers will do good things here to make sure that they can continue in their necessary and honorable work. The Klamath Water Users Association, with the talents and support of the community, will continue to address the resource needs of its constituency in a proactive and creative manner. The KWUA has shown itself to be steadfast and able in protecting water users while being receptive to innovative and reasonable solutions. Our irrigating communities, through the continued efforts of the KWUA, will always be persistent and adaptable representatives of our American heritage. The " future".. . bring it on, we can handle it. r Father and daughter ride to the headgates, summer 2001. 43 Notes Information sources used in the preceding report sections are further described below. Overview The source for much of this information comes from the Klamath Water Users Association 2003 Water Bank report. Pioneers The Department of the Interior, United States Reclamation Service 1913 report entitled " History of the Klamath Project. Oregon- California. From May 1, 1903 to December 13, 1912", written by I. S. Voorhees, contains detailed accounting of early irrigation works in the Upper Klamath Basin. Paul Simmons of Somach Simmons and Dunn also made significant contributions based on research he and his staff conducted on behalf of Klamath Project water users in the State of Oregon Klamath River adjudication process. The Klamath Basin Calls in the United States Government *— The Voorhees document, noted above, details this issue. Construction Begins The source for much of this information comes from the Klamath Water Users Association 2003 Water Bank report, the Voorhees report, and the affidavit and testimony of Rebecca Meta Bunse, who in 2004 prepared a detailed historic summary of Klamath Project development on behalf of Klamath Project irrigators for the Klamath River adjudication process. ( Reference No. 003E00040050, before the Office of Administrative Hearings, State of Oregon, for the Water Resources Department). Paul Simmons of Somach Simmons and Dunn also made significant contributions based on research he and his staff conducted on behalf of Klamath Project water users in the State of Oregon Klamath River adjudication process. The Bureau of Reclamation Klamath Basin Area Office also provided factual data on the Klamath Project. Homesteaders The Journal of the Modoc County Historical Society, No. 18- 1996, focuses exclusively on twentieth century development of the Tule Lake area. Betty Lou Byrne- Shirely's " The Reclamation of Tule Lake" and the February 1947 Reclamation Era article " Gold Mine in the Sky", both included in the Modoc County historical journal, served as sources for the homesteader information. Quotes made by Dave Carman, a World War II veteran Tule Lake homesteader, were pulled from his testimony submitted at a House Resources Committee field hearing in Klamath Falls in June 2004. The Klamath River Compact The source for much of this information regarding development of the Compact comes from the affidavit and testimony of Stephen R. Wee, who in 2004 prepared a detailed historic summary of Klamath Project water rights and related issues on behalf of Klamath Project irrigators for the Klamath River adjudication process. ( Reference No. 003E00040049, before the Office of Administrative 44 - r Hearings, State of Oregon, for the Water Resources Department). The conclusion of this section contains the actual purposes of the Compact, as identified in Article I of that document. The Klamath Project's Finishing Touches The source for much of this information comes from the Klamath Water Users Association 2003 Water Bank report, the Voorhees report, and the affidavit and testimony of Rebecca Meta Bunse, who in 2004 prepared a detailed historic summary of Klamath Project development on behalf of Klamath Project irrigators for the Klamath River adjudication process. ( Reference No. 003E00040050, before the Office of Administrative Hearings, State of Oregon, for the Water Resources Department). Paul Simmons of Somach Simmons and Dunn also made significant contributions based on research he and his staff conducted on behalf of Klamath Project water users in the State of Oregon Klamath River adjudication process. New Demands Legal documents prepared by the Klamath Water Users Association attorney - Paul Simmons, of Somach, Simmons & Dunn - provide much of the background information regarding the steadily increasing regulations faced by Project irrigators, starting in the 1990s. Specifically, the plaintiffs' memorandum of points and authorities in support of motion for preliminary injunction ( Kandra et al v. United States of America) was relied upon. Also, David Vogel's testimony before the U. S. House of Representatives Committee on Resources oversight field hearing in June 2004 provides an excellent treatise on the real reasons for the decline of suckers in the Upper Klamath Basin. The Klamath Water Users Association previously developed the section that assesses stressors to coho salmon during the 1990s. Problems on the East Side This section derives from an excellent letter ( dated July 28, 2004) prepared by Best Best & Krieger on behalf of Horsefly Irrigation District and Langell Valley Irrigation District. The letter was submitted to the U. S. House of Representatives Resources Committee in connection with a congressional field hearing held in Klamath Falls in July 2004. 2001 Curtailment Of the numerous media accounts of the 2001 water cutoff, I believe Blake Hurst's piece " Calamity in Klamath", which originally was published in The American Enterprise magazine in late 2002, is the best. I have borrowed liberally from Mr. Hurst, particularly his assessment of the impacts to the community of Tulelake, California. Jess Prosser's comments were originally printed in Range Magazine in 2001. The Farmers Fight Back The comments regarding the " desperate community" were pulled from an outstanding paper presented by Paul Simmons at the American Bar Association Environmental Section Fall 2004 Meeting. 45 Enter President Bush I was in the audience when President Bush made his speech in Portland. After the president's speech, I met Congressman Greg Walden for the first time; he conveyed to me some of the details of the president's flight over the Klamath Basin earlier in the day. Vindication: The National Research Council Steps In This section was derived from press statements developed by KWUA in early 2002. The Assault on the Klamath Project Intensifies Most of this section derives from personal experience, and the latter part was pulled directly from an opinion piece I was asked to write for a Boise, Idaho newspaper at the request of Idaho water users who were also being attacked by some of the same activists engaged in Klamath issues. Vindication, Part II / " We hate to say we told you so, but...." Much of this information originates in Dave Vogel's written testimony that he submitted to the House Resources Committee in June 2004. After more than a decade of professional and sometimes, personal criticism by agency and tribal biologists, the final NRC Report perhaps vindicated Dave Vogel more than anyone else. The Klamath Project Regulatory Regime: 3 Years After the Curtailment This section was written based on personal experience of the author. Proactive Efforts of Upper Basin Landowners We refer you to www. kwua. org and a 45- page document entitled Summary of Recent and Proposed Environmental Restoration and Water Conservation Efforts Undertaken by Klamath Water Users and Basin Landowners for further information on this topic. 50 Years After the Compact - Back to the Watershed- Wide Approach This perspective comes from KWUA assessments and press releases. USBR Study on Pre- Project Flow Conditions on Upper Klamath River The USBR study is incredibly important, because, for the first time, it provides a numerical modeling assessment of the conditions that likely existed on the Upper Klamath River before Europeans settled the area. Prior to this effort, assertions that flow conditions in the river were likely lower than the present could only be backed up by anecdotal ( albeit accurate) reports and incomplete flow studies. Conclusion - The Future The June 20, 2004 Herald & News editorial on recent water user efforts provided a fitting ending to this report, which is further enhanced by language developed by Steve Kandra, 2004- 05 KWUA President. 46 Lower Klamath Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California Photo Credits 1. Cover photo - courtesy of Jacqui Krizo. 2. Map of Klamath Project - courtesy of Bureau of Reclamation. 3. " A load of produce from the Klamath Fair, October 1907" - courtesy of Tulelake- Butte Valley _ Fair, Museum of Local History ( TBVF Museum). 4. " 1906 Map of Pre- Project Area" - courtesy of Oregon Water Resources Department. 5. " Adams Cut, July 18, 1906" - courtesy of Tulelake - Butte Valley Fair, Museum of Local History. 6. " 1907 Completion of the A Canal Headgates" - courtesy of U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. 7. " Constructing Clear Lake Dam, September, 1909" - courtesy of TBVF Museum. 8. " 1927 Homesteader Affidavit" - courtesy of Somach, Simmons and Dunn 9. " Farm Lottery Article, Life Magazine" - courtesy of Bureau of Reclamation. 10. " The Sign Says it AH" - courtesy of U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. 11. " Homesteaders: Robinsons in 2001 Remember Days Gone By" - courtesy of Anders Tomlinson 12. J. C. Boyle Dam on the Klamath River - courtesy of PacifiCorp. 13. " Tulelake, California" - courtesy of Rob Crawford r l4. " Del Norte Salmon Cannery" - courtesy of Anders Tomlinson 15. " April 6, 2004 Headlines" - courtesy of Anders Tomlinson 16. " Kliewer Family in Dry Fields South of Klamath Falls" - courtesy of Anders Tomlinson 17. " Cemeteries went Dry in 2001" - courtesy of Rob Crawford 18. " Time Magazine Captures Rob Crawford & Family" - courtesy of Rob Crawford 19. Klamath Bucket Brigade - courtesy of Klamath Relief Fund. 20. Prayer / Protest at Headgates - courtesy of Klamath Relief Fund. 21. President Bush Photo courtesy of Rob Crawford _ 22. Tulelake Rancher Gary Wright, June 2003 - courtesy of Pat Ratliff 23. Walking Wetlands photo - courtesy of Anders Tomlinson. 24. Bruce Knight and Mike Byrne - courtesy of U. S. Department of Agriculture 25. Gov. Kulongoski, Rep. Walden, and Dan Keppen at the A Canal, 2003 - Courtesy of Pat Ratliff 26. Undepleted Natural Flow of the Upper Klamath River - U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. 27. " Father and Daughter Ride to the Headgates" - courtesy of Rob Crawford 28. " Lower Klamath Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California" - courtesy of Scott Harding Photography r — 47 Close

• 90. [Image] Final supplemental environmental impact statement: for clarification of language in the 1994 record of decision for the Northwest Forest Plan; national forests and Bureau of Land Management districts within the range of the northern spotted owl: proposal to amend wording about the aquatic conservation strategy

  	Abstract The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior propose limited changes to language about how to demonstrate that projects follow the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, part of the Northwest Forest ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Final supplemental environmental impact statement: for clarification of language in the 1994 record of decision for the Northwest Forest Plan; national forests and Bureau of Land Management districts within the range of the northern spotted owl: proposal to amend wording about the aquatic conservation strategy Author: United States. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service; United States. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Managemen Year: 2003, 2006, 2005 Abstract The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior propose limited changes to language about how to demonstrate that projects follow the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, part of the Northwest Forest Plan. Projects needed to achieve Northwest Forest Plan goals have been delayed or stopped due to misapplication of certain passages in the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. The agencies are responding to the underlying need for increased agency success planning and implementing projects, to the extent that the current wording has hindered the agencies ability to follow Northwest Forest Plan principles and achieve its goals. The goals of the Northwest Forest Plan cannot be achieved without project implementation. Three alternatives are considered in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, No Action, the Proposed Action, and Alternative A. No Action would not change existing language within the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. The Proposed Action and Alternative A would make l Title: Final supplemental environmental impact statement: for clarification of language in the 1994 record of decision for the Northwest Forest Plan; national forests and Bureau of Land Management districts within the range of the northern spotted owl: proposal to amend wording about the aquatic conservation strategy Author: United States. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service; United States. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Managemen Year: 2003, 2006, 2005 Abstract The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior propose limited changes to language about how to demonstrate that projects follow the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, part of the Northwest Forest Plan. Projects needed to achieve Northwest Forest Plan goals have been delayed or stopped due to misapplication of certain passages in the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. The agencies are responding to the underlying need for increased agency success planning and implementing projects, to the extent that the current wording has hindered the agencies ability to follow Northwest Forest Plan principles and achieve its goals. The goals of the Northwest Forest Plan cannot be achieved without project implementation. Three alternatives are considered in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, No Action, the Proposed Action, and Alternative A. No Action would not change existing language within the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. The Proposed Action and Alternative A would make l Close

• 91. [Image] Federal Register - Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions

  	We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (the Services), announce a final policy for the evaluation of conservation efforts when making listing decisions ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Federal Register - Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions Year: 2003, 2008, 2005 We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (the Services), announce a final policy for the evaluation of conservation efforts when making listing decisions (PECE) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). While the Act requires us to take into account all conservation efforts being made to protect a species, the policy identifies criteria we will use in determining whether formalized conservation efforts that have yet to be implemented or to show effectiveness contribute to making listing a species as threatened or endangered unnecessary. The policy applies to conservation efforts identified in conservation agreements, conservation plans, management plans, or similar documents developed by Federal agencies, State and local governments, Tribal governments, businesses, organizations, and individuals Title: Federal Register - Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions Year: 2003, 2008, 2005 We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (the Services), announce a final policy for the evaluation of conservation efforts when making listing decisions (PECE) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). While the Act requires us to take into account all conservation efforts being made to protect a species, the policy identifies criteria we will use in determining whether formalized conservation efforts that have yet to be implemented or to show effectiveness contribute to making listing a species as threatened or endangered unnecessary. The policy applies to conservation efforts identified in conservation agreements, conservation plans, management plans, or similar documents developed by Federal agencies, State and local governments, Tribal governments, businesses, organizations, and individuals Close

• 92. [Image] Improving salmon passage: draft, the Lower Snake River juvenile salmon migration feasibility report/environmental impact statement

  	The purpose of this summary report is to provide an overview of the findings developed for the Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Study. For more detailed information, the reader should ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Improving salmon passage: draft, the Lower Snake River juvenile salmon migration feasibility report/environmental impact statement Year: 1999, 2004 The purpose of this summary report is to provide an overview of the findings developed for the Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Study. For more detailed information, the reader should refer to the Draft Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement and attached appendices. The genesis of this study is the National Marine Fisheries Service's 1995 Biological Opinion for the Reinitiation of Consultation on 1994-1998 Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System and Juvenile Transportation Program in 1995 and Future Years (95 Biological Opinion). While the focus of this study is the relationship between the four dams on the lower Snake River and their effects on juvenile fish traveling toward the ocean, the implications of the study are broader. The Draft Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement includes the best available information on the biological effectiveness, engineering, economic effects, and other environmental effects associated with the four specific alternatives. It does not, however, include a recommendation or identify a preferred alternative. This will give the public and other agencies an opportunity to review and understand this information and provide input before a preferred alternative is selected. At the same time, this will allow the region to consider the Habitat, Hatcheries, Harvest, and Hydropower Working Paper on salmon recovery by the Federal Caucus. Information from this process will be fully examined to determine how it may influence decisions on actions for the lower Snake River. Title: Improving salmon passage: draft, the Lower Snake River juvenile salmon migration feasibility report/environmental impact statement Year: 1999, 2004 The purpose of this summary report is to provide an overview of the findings developed for the Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Study. For more detailed information, the reader should refer to the Draft Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement and attached appendices. The genesis of this study is the National Marine Fisheries Service's 1995 Biological Opinion for the Reinitiation of Consultation on 1994-1998 Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System and Juvenile Transportation Program in 1995 and Future Years (95 Biological Opinion). While the focus of this study is the relationship between the four dams on the lower Snake River and their effects on juvenile fish traveling toward the ocean, the implications of the study are broader. The Draft Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement includes the best available information on the biological effectiveness, engineering, economic effects, and other environmental effects associated with the four specific alternatives. It does not, however, include a recommendation or identify a preferred alternative. This will give the public and other agencies an opportunity to review and understand this information and provide input before a preferred alternative is selected. At the same time, this will allow the region to consider the Habitat, Hatcheries, Harvest, and Hydropower Working Paper on salmon recovery by the Federal Caucus. Information from this process will be fully examined to determine how it may influence decisions on actions for the lower Snake River. Close

• 93. [Image] Klamath River basin : reclamation met its water bank obligations, but information provided to water bank stakeholders could be improved

  	"March 2005." ; "GAO-05-283."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath River basin : reclamation met its water bank obligations, but information provided to water bank stakeholders could be improved Author: United States. Government Accountability Office Year: 2005 "March 2005." ; "GAO-05-283." Title: Klamath River basin : reclamation met its water bank obligations, but information provided to water bank stakeholders could be improved Author: United States. Government Accountability Office Year: 2005 "March 2005." ; "GAO-05-283." Close

• 94. [Image] Energy pricing and irrigated agriculture in the Upper Klamath Basin

  	Title from Web page (viewed on October 12, 2004).; "July 2004." ; Includes bibliographical references.
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Energy pricing and irrigated agriculture in the Upper Klamath Basin Author: Jaeger, William K. (William Kenneth) Year: 2004, 2008, 2005 Title from Web page (viewed on October 12, 2004).; "July 2004." ; Includes bibliographical references. Title: Energy pricing and irrigated agriculture in the Upper Klamath Basin Author: Jaeger, William K. (William Kenneth) Year: 2004, 2008, 2005 Title from Web page (viewed on October 12, 2004).; "July 2004." ; Includes bibliographical references. Close

• 95. [Image] Western water supply : hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Eighth Congress, second session, to receive testimony regarding water supply issues in the arid West, March 9, 2004

  	CONTENTS STATEMENTS Page American Farm Bureau Federation 26963 Bell, Craig, Executive Director, Western States Water Council 26945 Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico 2691 Gaibler, Floyd, ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Western water supply : hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Eighth Congress, second session, to receive testimony regarding water supply issues in the arid West, March 9, 2004 Author: United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Year: 2004, 2005 CONTENTS STATEMENTS Page American Farm Bureau Federation 26963 Bell, Craig, Executive Director, Western States Water Council 26945 Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico 2691 Gaibler, Floyd, Deputy Undersecretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, Department of Agriculture 26932 Grisoli, Brigadier General William T., Commander, Northwestern Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 26918 Hall, Tex G., President, National Congress of American Indians, and Chair man, Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation 26950 Raley, Bennett, Assistant Secretary, Department of the Interior 2695 Uccellini, Dr. Louis, Director, National Centers for Environmental Prediction, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 26926 APPENDIX Responses to additional questions 2620 67 Title: Western water supply : hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Eighth Congress, second session, to receive testimony regarding water supply issues in the arid West, March 9, 2004 Author: United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Year: 2004, 2005 CONTENTS STATEMENTS Page American Farm Bureau Federation 26963 Bell, Craig, Executive Director, Western States Water Council 26945 Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico 2691 Gaibler, Floyd, Deputy Undersecretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, Department of Agriculture 26932 Grisoli, Brigadier General William T., Commander, Northwestern Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 26918 Hall, Tex G., President, National Congress of American Indians, and Chair man, Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation 26950 Raley, Bennett, Assistant Secretary, Department of the Interior 2695 Uccellini, Dr. Louis, Director, National Centers for Environmental Prediction, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 26926 APPENDIX Responses to additional questions 2620 67 Close

• 96. [Image] 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

  	iii; 99p.; "Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources"; Distributed to some depository libraries in microfiche
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy 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 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 Close

• 97. [Image] Guidance for evaluating and recommending temperature regimes to protect fish

  	Abstract. Procedures are presented for evaluating temperature regimes for fish. Although examples pertain to spring chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), the principles apply to other species. Basic ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Guidance for evaluating and recommending temperature regimes to protect fish Author: Armour, Carl L. Year: 1991, 2005 Abstract. Procedures are presented for evaluating temperature regimes for fish. Although examples pertain to spring chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), the principles apply to other species. Basic temperature tolerance relationships for fish are explained and three options are described for comparing alternative temperature regimes. The options are to base comparisons on experimental temperature tolerance results, suitability of a simulated temperature regime for key life stages, or population statistics and predicted responses to simulated temperatures. Key words: Chinook salmon, water temperature, alternative temperature regimes. Title: Guidance for evaluating and recommending temperature regimes to protect fish Author: Armour, Carl L. Year: 1991, 2005 Abstract. Procedures are presented for evaluating temperature regimes for fish. Although examples pertain to spring chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), the principles apply to other species. Basic temperature tolerance relationships for fish are explained and three options are described for comparing alternative temperature regimes. The options are to base comparisons on experimental temperature tolerance results, suitability of a simulated temperature regime for key life stages, or population statistics and predicted responses to simulated temperatures. Key words: Chinook salmon, water temperature, alternative temperature regimes. Close

• 98. [Image] Western water resource issues

  	CRS issue brief; "Updated May 19, 2005."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Western water resource issues Author: Cody, Betsy A.; Sheikh, Pervaze A. Year: 2005 CRS issue brief; "Updated May 19, 2005." Title: Western water resource issues Author: Cody, Betsy A.; Sheikh, Pervaze A. Year: 2005 CRS issue brief; "Updated May 19, 2005." Close

• 99. [Image] An examination of the Klamath Basin crisis : restructuring the discourse within an identity-based framework

  	Thesis (B.A.) -- Whitman College, 2002; Includes bibliographical references (leaves 79-83)
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: An examination of the Klamath Basin crisis : restructuring the discourse within an identity-based framework Author: Dornsife, Alison M. Year: 2002, 2005, 2004 Thesis (B.A.) -- Whitman College, 2002; Includes bibliographical references (leaves 79-83) Title: An examination of the Klamath Basin crisis : restructuring the discourse within an identity-based framework Author: Dornsife, Alison M. Year: 2002, 2005, 2004 Thesis (B.A.) -- Whitman College, 2002; Includes bibliographical references (leaves 79-83) Close

• 100. [Image] Farming practices and water quality in the Upper Klamath Basin : final report to the California State Water Resources Control Board : 205j program

  	Summary The Upper Klamath Basin (UKB) is a high desert region straddling the California-Oregon border east of the Cascade Range. Irrigation and other agricultural practices in the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation's ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Farming practices and water quality in the Upper Klamath Basin : final report to the California State Water Resources Control Board : 205j program Author: Danosky, Earl; Kaffka, Stephen Year: 2002, 2007, 2006 Summary The Upper Klamath Basin (UKB) is a high desert region straddling the California-Oregon border east of the Cascade Range. Irrigation and other agricultural practices in the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation's Klamath Project may result in impaired surface water quality, reducing its use for wildlife and fish in important national wildlife refuges that receive drainage water from farms, and in the Klamath River. By 2004, a system of total maximum daily loads (TMDL) for nutrients must be established for the Klamath River. To investigate the relationships among agricultural practices and surface water quality in the Upper Klamath Basin, a two year reconnaissance survey of surface water and agricultural tile drain locations, focusing on nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations and mass transfers was conducted. Data was collected at 18 surface locations and 10 tile drain locations. Triplicate samples were taken every ten days during the growing season (April through October) and one or two times a month during the remainder of the months, depending on opportunity. No samples were taken from tile drains during the winter months because there was no irrigation and drainage during that period. Water samples were analyzed for phosphorus (total P, soluble reactive P, total filterable P, and particulate P) and nitrogen (total N, soluble N, Soluble organic N, total filterable N, particulate N, and ammonia N), temperature, pH and electrical conductivity, a measure of salinity or total dissolved solids. Analyses of data, including data quality, estimates of the transfer of nutrients in surface waters in the region, and hypotheses about the relationship between agriculture and water quality are reported. 1. The salt and nutrient content of surface waters increases nearly threefold as water moves through the watershed from the Lost River and J canal diversion to the Klamath Straits Drain. Mean ECW levels in input waters at the J canal diversion were approximately 250 \iS cm1, while water sampled at the D pump increased to 600 ^S cm"1 on average over the sample period. By the time water reenters the Klamath River, salt concentrations have increased to approximately 700 jaS cm1. 2. The ECW values observed in subsurface tile drains were higher on average than in input waters and surface waters elsewhere in the region, especially in the Lease Lands area of the Tulelake Irrigation District (TID). ECW values averaged approximately 2,500 ^S cm"1 . Recycling irrigation water through soils in the TID increases the salinity of the water, especially by the time it reaches and is reused in the Lease Lands area of the Tulelake National Wildlife Refuge (TLNWR). Soils in this part of the Klamath Project area are naturally high in salt. 3. Water temperatures in agricultural subsurface tile drains were significantly lower than surface water temperatures during the growing season when tile drains were active. pH values in tile drains were lower than surface water values. The temperature and pH of tile drains does not influence surface water values. 1. 4. For total phosphorus (TP) input waters at the J canal irrigation diversion for the TED averaged approximately 0.27 mg L1 for the two years reported. Water leaving the Tulelake Sumps at the D pump increases to 0.33 mg L1. Water leaving the Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge (LKNWR) sampled at the start of the Klamath Straits Drain, averaged 0.33 mg L1, similar to those at the D pump. TP increased further to 0.40 mg L"1 a the end of the Klamath Straits Drain. The overall increase in P concentration in surface waters was much less than for salt, suggesting that processes other than simple enrichment are occurring, particularly those associated with the exchange of sedimentary P and aquatic plant species. TN increases from 2.3 mg L"1 to 4.0 mg L1 over the same pathway. Atomic ratios (TN:TP) of surface water samples remain constant at approximately 10:1 throughout the system, suggesting that the amount of sediment and other small particulate matter in surface waters affects the values observed. The amount of sediment is influenced in part by the agitation of surface water as it passes through pumps and over weirs. 5. The average seasonal TP value in tile drains beneath farm fields is approximately 0.34 mg L"1 . While average total P values in subsurface tile drains were not different from those found at the D pump and the LKNWR outlet, the range in values was great (0.1 to 0.8 mg L1). Similarly, high NO3 -N values were observed at times in tile drains. Very high values in tile drains lead to the inference that some fertilizer N and P is lost in drainage water, combined with nutrients derived from decaying soil organic matter. The amount estimated as lost is much less than the amount of surplus fertilizer P applied and the amount of P surmised to be mineralized from decaying soil organic matter. P from fertilizer and decaying organic matter appears to be accumulating in soils and lake sediments in the region. 6. Ammonia N concentrations are at or below the limit of detection in subsurface agricultural tile lines and one to two orders of magnitude below the values observed in surface soils. Un ionized ammonia increases with temperature. Values above 0.25 mg L1 were observed in late summer at several locations. 7. Some leaching of soluble salts and nutrients is unavoidable when crops are irrigated. P fertilizer is applied at rates higher than crop removal, while fertilizer n is applied at rates less than crop removal. Reduced fertilizer use can help bring P inputs and outputs into balance and may reduce further any avoidable losses of P. This objective should be the subject of an agronomic research program in the region. 8. Surface waters entering the TDD, the TLNWR, and the LKNWR are already enriched with N and P. It seems unlikely that reducing N and P losses from farming in the TID, if possible, would influence surface water quality sufficiently to make them significantly less eutrophic. For P, the hypothesized threshold concentration limiting algae growth in fresh waters is 5 to 25 times smaller than the values observed in waters entering the TID for irrigation use. The addition of 1. nutrients from agriculture probably does not influence significantly surface water quality in the region. Wetland sediments, large amounts of organic matter in soils, and water introduced for irrigation contain essentially unlimited amounts of nutrients for aquatic plant growth. It is not clear how this circumstance could be changed under any reasonable time frame, if ever. 9. Using a TMDL approach may not result in reduced amounts of nutrients returned to the Klamath River because wetlands and farming practices in the southern portion of the Klamath Project result in the net removal of nutrients from the waters diverted for irrigation on a yearly basis, compared to allowing the same amount of water simply to flow down the river unused. Because of large errors of estimation for the amounts of water transferred, combined with smaller errors associated with estimating nutrient concentrations in water samples, and with year to year climate variation, TMDLs may not be an effective or efficient means of reducing nutrients in return flows to the Klamath River. Rational confidence limits for TMDLs may have to be too broad to be effective. Recycling of some drainage water for irrigation would reduce the amount of nutrients returned to the river more effectively than implementing a TMDL program. Title: Farming practices and water quality in the Upper Klamath Basin : final report to the California State Water Resources Control Board : 205j program Author: Danosky, Earl; Kaffka, Stephen Year: 2002, 2007, 2006 Summary The Upper Klamath Basin (UKB) is a high desert region straddling the California-Oregon border east of the Cascade Range. Irrigation and other agricultural practices in the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation's Klamath Project may result in impaired surface water quality, reducing its use for wildlife and fish in important national wildlife refuges that receive drainage water from farms, and in the Klamath River. By 2004, a system of total maximum daily loads (TMDL) for nutrients must be established for the Klamath River. To investigate the relationships among agricultural practices and surface water quality in the Upper Klamath Basin, a two year reconnaissance survey of surface water and agricultural tile drain locations, focusing on nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations and mass transfers was conducted. Data was collected at 18 surface locations and 10 tile drain locations. Triplicate samples were taken every ten days during the growing season (April through October) and one or two times a month during the remainder of the months, depending on opportunity. No samples were taken from tile drains during the winter months because there was no irrigation and drainage during that period. Water samples were analyzed for phosphorus (total P, soluble reactive P, total filterable P, and particulate P) and nitrogen (total N, soluble N, Soluble organic N, total filterable N, particulate N, and ammonia N), temperature, pH and electrical conductivity, a measure of salinity or total dissolved solids. Analyses of data, including data quality, estimates of the transfer of nutrients in surface waters in the region, and hypotheses about the relationship between agriculture and water quality are reported. 1. The salt and nutrient content of surface waters increases nearly threefold as water moves through the watershed from the Lost River and J canal diversion to the Klamath Straits Drain. Mean ECW levels in input waters at the J canal diversion were approximately 250 \iS cm1, while water sampled at the D pump increased to 600 ^S cm"1 on average over the sample period. By the time water reenters the Klamath River, salt concentrations have increased to approximately 700 jaS cm1. 2. The ECW values observed in subsurface tile drains were higher on average than in input waters and surface waters elsewhere in the region, especially in the Lease Lands area of the Tulelake Irrigation District (TID). ECW values averaged approximately 2,500 ^S cm"1 . Recycling irrigation water through soils in the TID increases the salinity of the water, especially by the time it reaches and is reused in the Lease Lands area of the Tulelake National Wildlife Refuge (TLNWR). Soils in this part of the Klamath Project area are naturally high in salt. 3. Water temperatures in agricultural subsurface tile drains were significantly lower than surface water temperatures during the growing season when tile drains were active. pH values in tile drains were lower than surface water values. The temperature and pH of tile drains does not influence surface water values. 1. 4. For total phosphorus (TP) input waters at the J canal irrigation diversion for the TED averaged approximately 0.27 mg L1 for the two years reported. Water leaving the Tulelake Sumps at the D pump increases to 0.33 mg L1. Water leaving the Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge (LKNWR) sampled at the start of the Klamath Straits Drain, averaged 0.33 mg L1, similar to those at the D pump. TP increased further to 0.40 mg L"1 a the end of the Klamath Straits Drain. The overall increase in P concentration in surface waters was much less than for salt, suggesting that processes other than simple enrichment are occurring, particularly those associated with the exchange of sedimentary P and aquatic plant species. TN increases from 2.3 mg L"1 to 4.0 mg L1 over the same pathway. Atomic ratios (TN:TP) of surface water samples remain constant at approximately 10:1 throughout the system, suggesting that the amount of sediment and other small particulate matter in surface waters affects the values observed. The amount of sediment is influenced in part by the agitation of surface water as it passes through pumps and over weirs. 5. The average seasonal TP value in tile drains beneath farm fields is approximately 0.34 mg L"1 . While average total P values in subsurface tile drains were not different from those found at the D pump and the LKNWR outlet, the range in values was great (0.1 to 0.8 mg L1). Similarly, high NO3 -N values were observed at times in tile drains. Very high values in tile drains lead to the inference that some fertilizer N and P is lost in drainage water, combined with nutrients derived from decaying soil organic matter. The amount estimated as lost is much less than the amount of surplus fertilizer P applied and the amount of P surmised to be mineralized from decaying soil organic matter. P from fertilizer and decaying organic matter appears to be accumulating in soils and lake sediments in the region. 6. Ammonia N concentrations are at or below the limit of detection in subsurface agricultural tile lines and one to two orders of magnitude below the values observed in surface soils. Un ionized ammonia increases with temperature. Values above 0.25 mg L1 were observed in late summer at several locations. 7. Some leaching of soluble salts and nutrients is unavoidable when crops are irrigated. P fertilizer is applied at rates higher than crop removal, while fertilizer n is applied at rates less than crop removal. Reduced fertilizer use can help bring P inputs and outputs into balance and may reduce further any avoidable losses of P. This objective should be the subject of an agronomic research program in the region. 8. Surface waters entering the TDD, the TLNWR, and the LKNWR are already enriched with N and P. It seems unlikely that reducing N and P losses from farming in the TID, if possible, would influence surface water quality sufficiently to make them significantly less eutrophic. For P, the hypothesized threshold concentration limiting algae growth in fresh waters is 5 to 25 times smaller than the values observed in waters entering the TID for irrigation use. The addition of 1. nutrients from agriculture probably does not influence significantly surface water quality in the region. Wetland sediments, large amounts of organic matter in soils, and water introduced for irrigation contain essentially unlimited amounts of nutrients for aquatic plant growth. It is not clear how this circumstance could be changed under any reasonable time frame, if ever. 9. Using a TMDL approach may not result in reduced amounts of nutrients returned to the Klamath River because wetlands and farming practices in the southern portion of the Klamath Project result in the net removal of nutrients from the waters diverted for irrigation on a yearly basis, compared to allowing the same amount of water simply to flow down the river unused. Because of large errors of estimation for the amounts of water transferred, combined with smaller errors associated with estimating nutrient concentrations in water samples, and with year to year climate variation, TMDLs may not be an effective or efficient means of reducing nutrients in return flows to the Klamath River. Rational confidence limits for TMDLs may have to be too broad to be effective. Recycling of some drainage water for irrigation would reduce the amount of nutrients returned to the river more effectively than implementing a TMDL program. Close