Search

Search Results

• 1931. [Article] Investigation of the structural influence on the properties of functional inorganic oxides

  While properties are extremely important from an application point of view, it is crucial to have a detailed understanding of the underlying structural influence. Once a concrete correlation between the ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Investigation of the structural influence on the properties of functional inorganic oxides Author: Laurita-Plankis, Geneva While properties are extremely important from an application point of view, it is crucial to have a detailed understanding of the underlying structural influence. Once a concrete correlation between the structure and the observed property is established, rational design of novel materials with optimized properties can be realized. These optimized materials lead to advancements in technology in a variety of applications, including new building materials, faster electronic devices, and more efficient catalysts. This dissertation examines the structural influence on the observed properties in a series of metal oxide materials for electronic and energy applications. A series of pyrochlores Ag[subscript 1-nx]M[superscript n][subscript x]SbO₃ (M = Na⁺, K⁺, Tl⁺, and Cd²⁺) has been studied to evaluate the structural influence on the samples' photocatalytic activity. A complete solid solution between the anion-deficient pyrochlore Ag₂Sb₂O₆ and the ideal pyrochlore Cd₂Sb₂O₇ has been synthesized through the standard solid state ceramic method. Each composition has been characterized by various different techniques, including powder X-ray diffraction, optical spectroscopy, electron paramagnetic resonance and ¹²¹Sb Mössbauer spectroscopy. Computational methods based on density functional theory complement this investigation. Photocatalytic activity has been studied, and transport properties have been measured on pellets densified by spark plasma sintering. The analysis of the data collected from these various techniques enables a comprehensive characterization of the complete solid solution and revealed an anomalous behavior in the Cd-rich end of the solid solution, which has been proposed to arise from a possible radical O⁻ species in small concentrations. Polycrystalline samples of the pyrochlore series Ag[subscript 1-nx]M[superscript n][subscript x]SbO₃ (M = Na⁺, K⁺ and Tl[superscript +/3+]) have been structurally analyzed through total scattering techniques and evaluated for photocatalytic activity. The upper limits of x obtained are 0.08 for Na, 0.16 for K, and 0.17 for Tl. The Ag⁺ cation occupies a site with inversion symmetry on a 3-fold axis. When the smaller Na⁺ cation substitutes for Ag⁺, it is displaced by about 0.6 Å perpendicular to the 3-fold axis to achieve shorter Na-O bond distances. When the larger Tl⁺ cation substitutes for Ag⁺, it is displaced by about 1.14 Å along the 3-fold axis and achieves an environment typical of a lone pair cation. Some of the Tl³⁺ from the precursor remains unreduced, leading to a formula of Ag₀.₇₇Tl⁺₀.₁₃Tl³⁺₀.₀₄SbO₃.₀₄. The position of the K⁺ dopant was effectively modeled assuming that K⁺ occupied the same site as Ag⁺. The expansion of the lattice caused by substitution of the larger K⁺ and Tl⁺ cations results in longer Ag-O bond lengths, which would reduce the overlap of the Ag 4d and O 2p orbitals that compose the valence band maximum. Substitution of the smaller Na⁺ results in a decrease in the Ag-O bond distance, thus increasing the overlap of the Ag 4d and O 2p orbitals. An increase in the photocatalytic activity has been observed for the nominal composition Ag₀.₈Na₀.₂SbO₃ made through solid state synthesis, and this is attributed to both the slight decrease in the band gap and the increase in pore dimensions compared to the parent compound AgSbO₃. The structural transitions in Cd₂Nb₂O[subscript 7-x]S[subscript x] (x = 0, 0.25, 0.5, and 0.7) have been studied to determine the origin of ferroelectricity in pyrochlore oxides. For x = 0, 0.25, and 0.5 peak splitting indicative of a transition to orthorhombic symmetry is observed below the transition temperature. In the x = 0.7 sample, the evolution of new peaks suggest a cubic space group is retained below the phase transition accompanied by a loss of the face-centering symmetry. The observed lowering of symmetry may be responsible for the transition into a ferroelectric phase, and may be driven by a strong displacement of both the Nb and Cd from the high- to low-symmetry structures. The S content may drive the stability if different ferroelectric phases, as no trend was observed with increasing content in the ferroelectric Curie temperatures of the samples. The structure of the hollandites A[subscript x]Ru₄O₈ (A = K⁺, Rb⁺) has been studied through total scattering techniques upon cation exchange with Na⁺ on the A-site to evaluate the effect on the quasi-one dimensional (Q1D) nature of these materials. It is observed that the A-site of the hollandite structure is not fully occupied when A = K⁺, Rb⁺, and full A-site occupancy is achieved after ion exchange with NaNO₃. All samples exhibit Pauli paramagnetism, and this is primarily due to a large low temperature range of metallic conduction. The double chains of edge-shared RuO₆ octahedra and corner shared double chains found in the channel of the hollandite structure promotes two conduction mechanisms: ρ∥ (intra-chain metallic) and ρ⊥ (inter-chain hopping). The coexistence of ρ∥ and ρ⊥ gives rise to metallic conductivity below T[subscript max] (suppressed hopping at lower temperature) and semiconductivity above T[subscript max] (intra-chain mean free path becomes smaller than the inter-chain hopping distance), exhibiting the Q1D conduction at lower temperatures. The inter-chain distance is larger in the Rb-containing samples, and consequently the region dominated by intra-chain metallic conduction increases, along with an increase in T[subscript max]. Title: Investigation of the structural influence on the properties of functional inorganic oxides Author: Laurita-Plankis, Geneva While properties are extremely important from an application point of view, it is crucial to have a detailed understanding of the underlying structural influence. Once a concrete correlation between the structure and the observed property is established, rational design of novel materials with optimized properties can be realized. These optimized materials lead to advancements in technology in a variety of applications, including new building materials, faster electronic devices, and more efficient catalysts. This dissertation examines the structural influence on the observed properties in a series of metal oxide materials for electronic and energy applications. A series of pyrochlores Ag[subscript 1-nx]M[superscript n][subscript x]SbO₃ (M = Na⁺, K⁺, Tl⁺, and Cd²⁺) has been studied to evaluate the structural influence on the samples' photocatalytic activity. A complete solid solution between the anion-deficient pyrochlore Ag₂Sb₂O₆ and the ideal pyrochlore Cd₂Sb₂O₇ has been synthesized through the standard solid state ceramic method. Each composition has been characterized by various different techniques, including powder X-ray diffraction, optical spectroscopy, electron paramagnetic resonance and ¹²¹Sb Mössbauer spectroscopy. Computational methods based on density functional theory complement this investigation. Photocatalytic activity has been studied, and transport properties have been measured on pellets densified by spark plasma sintering. The analysis of the data collected from these various techniques enables a comprehensive characterization of the complete solid solution and revealed an anomalous behavior in the Cd-rich end of the solid solution, which has been proposed to arise from a possible radical O⁻ species in small concentrations. Polycrystalline samples of the pyrochlore series Ag[subscript 1-nx]M[superscript n][subscript x]SbO₃ (M = Na⁺, K⁺ and Tl[superscript +/3+]) have been structurally analyzed through total scattering techniques and evaluated for photocatalytic activity. The upper limits of x obtained are 0.08 for Na, 0.16 for K, and 0.17 for Tl. The Ag⁺ cation occupies a site with inversion symmetry on a 3-fold axis. When the smaller Na⁺ cation substitutes for Ag⁺, it is displaced by about 0.6 Å perpendicular to the 3-fold axis to achieve shorter Na-O bond distances. When the larger Tl⁺ cation substitutes for Ag⁺, it is displaced by about 1.14 Å along the 3-fold axis and achieves an environment typical of a lone pair cation. Some of the Tl³⁺ from the precursor remains unreduced, leading to a formula of Ag₀.₇₇Tl⁺₀.₁₃Tl³⁺₀.₀₄SbO₃.₀₄. The position of the K⁺ dopant was effectively modeled assuming that K⁺ occupied the same site as Ag⁺. The expansion of the lattice caused by substitution of the larger K⁺ and Tl⁺ cations results in longer Ag-O bond lengths, which would reduce the overlap of the Ag 4d and O 2p orbitals that compose the valence band maximum. Substitution of the smaller Na⁺ results in a decrease in the Ag-O bond distance, thus increasing the overlap of the Ag 4d and O 2p orbitals. An increase in the photocatalytic activity has been observed for the nominal composition Ag₀.₈Na₀.₂SbO₃ made through solid state synthesis, and this is attributed to both the slight decrease in the band gap and the increase in pore dimensions compared to the parent compound AgSbO₃. The structural transitions in Cd₂Nb₂O[subscript 7-x]S[subscript x] (x = 0, 0.25, 0.5, and 0.7) have been studied to determine the origin of ferroelectricity in pyrochlore oxides. For x = 0, 0.25, and 0.5 peak splitting indicative of a transition to orthorhombic symmetry is observed below the transition temperature. In the x = 0.7 sample, the evolution of new peaks suggest a cubic space group is retained below the phase transition accompanied by a loss of the face-centering symmetry. The observed lowering of symmetry may be responsible for the transition into a ferroelectric phase, and may be driven by a strong displacement of both the Nb and Cd from the high- to low-symmetry structures. The S content may drive the stability if different ferroelectric phases, as no trend was observed with increasing content in the ferroelectric Curie temperatures of the samples. The structure of the hollandites A[subscript x]Ru₄O₈ (A = K⁺, Rb⁺) has been studied through total scattering techniques upon cation exchange with Na⁺ on the A-site to evaluate the effect on the quasi-one dimensional (Q1D) nature of these materials. It is observed that the A-site of the hollandite structure is not fully occupied when A = K⁺, Rb⁺, and full A-site occupancy is achieved after ion exchange with NaNO₃. All samples exhibit Pauli paramagnetism, and this is primarily due to a large low temperature range of metallic conduction. The double chains of edge-shared RuO₆ octahedra and corner shared double chains found in the channel of the hollandite structure promotes two conduction mechanisms: ρ∥ (intra-chain metallic) and ρ⊥ (inter-chain hopping). The coexistence of ρ∥ and ρ⊥ gives rise to metallic conductivity below T[subscript max] (suppressed hopping at lower temperature) and semiconductivity above T[subscript max] (intra-chain mean free path becomes smaller than the inter-chain hopping distance), exhibiting the Q1D conduction at lower temperatures. The inter-chain distance is larger in the Rb-containing samples, and consequently the region dominated by intra-chain metallic conduction increases, along with an increase in T[subscript max]. Close

• 1932. [Article] Lower Snake River Compensation Plan; Oregon Spring Chinook Salmon Harvest Monitoring - 2016 Annual Progress Report

  Abstract -- The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River spring Chinook hatchery programs are components of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP), funded through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Lower Snake River Compensation Plan; Oregon Spring Chinook Salmon Harvest Monitoring - 2016 Annual Progress Report Abstract -- The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River spring Chinook hatchery programs are components of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP), funded through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), developed to mitigate for wild fish production lost as a result of construction of the four lower Snake River dams. Hatchery Chinook and steelhead smolts in the Snake River basin are produced at LSRCP hatcheries in Washington, Idaho and Oregon. Subsequent adult returns are meant to provide tribal and recreational (sport) fisheries and, in some cases, enhance natural spawner numbers. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) initiated the Imnaha and Grande Ronde spring Chinook hatchery program in 1982 under the LSRCP. Subsequent program management has been coordinated between ODFW, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), and the Nez Perce Tribe (NPT). The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River hatchery programs are comprised of five components, each with smolt acclimation and adult collection facilities located on the Imnaha River, upper Grande Ronde River, Lookingglass and Catherine Creeks, and the Lostine River. The Lostine River program interacts with natural production within the broader Wallowa-Lostine population unit. Other hatchery program components are discrete to specific populations indicated. The Lookingglass Creek portion of the program focuses on reintroduction of spring Chinook to that stream and targets the release of 250,000 smolts, annually. Each of the four remaining program components integrates natural-origin fish returning to each respective tributary into production. Smolt release goals, developed to meet LSRCP mitigation responsibilities; include 490,000 for the Imnaha, 250,000 for the Lostine and upper Grande Ronde rivers, and 150,000 for Catherine Creek. Fisheries that target returns to the Imnaha and Grande Ronde hatchery programs are guided by Fishery Management and Evaluation Plans (FMEP), approved by NOAA fisheries under limit 4 of the final 4(d) rule of the Endangered Species Act (ODFW 2011, ODFW and WDFW 2012). The objective of the FMEP is to provide recreational fishing opportunities and related benefits derived from harvest of Imnaha and Grande Ronde basin hatchery-origin spring Chinook salmon in Oregon and Washington in a manner that supports the continued survival and future recovery of natural-origin Chinook salmon. Each respective FMEP utilizes a management framework for harvest of adipose-clipped, hatchery-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon using abundance-based sliding scales to set annual fishery impacts. Fisheries are prescribed maximum impact rates for both direct and incidental mortality of natural-origin adult salmon in sport and tribal fisheries. Impacts are assessed for each population in relation to critical and minimum abundance thresholds (MAT) as described by the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT 2007). Population designations for the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins are listed in Table 1, and are based upon an analysis of Chinook salmon life history traits, distribution, abundance, and productivity, and geographical and ecological characteristics of the landscape within the Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon ESU (McElhany et al. 2000). The abundance-based harvest rate schedule for Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basin fisheries to be shared by all fishing entities in the basin as described in Table 2. Harvest is not considered when hatchery run size does not exceed the number of adults identified for broodstock and supplementation needs as described by sliding scale management plans set for each population’s hatchery program. Surplus is generally defined as the adult hatchery run projection less hatchery adults needed for broodstock. This approach limits sport harvest during years when wild fish runs are below MAT and hatchery fish runs are of similar size. In addition, near the lower end of the harvest rate scale, fisheries are not implemented until the allowable hatchery fish harvest exceeds 20 fish due to potential to over harvest within a single week. Fishery impacts to listed Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon are assessed on a collective basis (i.e., the sum of recreational and tribal fisheries) by NOAA fisheries. However, the coordination of impact amongst states and tribes is a key component of executing conservation-based fisheries in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins. Co-managers within each basin have developed, and implement annually, an impact sharing agreement that is described in Table 3. Within each fishery scenario, this agreement provides tribal fisheries more of the natural-origin impacts to reflect the non-selective nature of traditional fishing techniques. Recreational fisheries are provided a larger portion of the hatchery harvest such that all available impacts (hatchery and natural collectively) are shared equally (Table 3). Recreational fisheries administered by the states limit harvest (retention) of spring/summer Chinook hatchery-origin salmon with a clipped adipose fin (as evidenced by a healed scar). All salmon with an intact adipose fin (natural-origin) must be released back to the water. Therefore, incidental mortality impacts occur from catch and release of unclipped Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon in fisheries targeting adipose-clipped hatchery Chinook salmon, and/or from the illegal retention of unclipped fish. It is generally assumed throughout the Columbia River Basin that the mortality rate resulting from the catch and release of salmon in fisheries is 10%. However, for Lookingglass Creek comanagers, with concurrence from NOAA fisheries, assume a slightly lower rate of 7.5% (ODFW and WDFW 2012). As stated in the FMEP, fisheries are adjusted or terminated when the total ESA take limit identified in Table 2 and 3 has been reached. Therefore, once fisheries are initiated regular monitoring is required to ensure consistency with co-manager agreements and FMEP requirements. The objective of this LSRCP project was to conduct statistical creel surveys to determine spring Chinook and steelhead ESA impact levels, harvest and release rates, and to inform decisions regarding fishery status in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins in 2016. In this report, we describe creel surveys conducted and estimates of angler effort, catch, and harvest. In addition we compare these estimates in relation to estimates of natural and hatchery-origin returns to each population to assess consistency with prescribed impacts under FMEP guidelines. Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP) ODFW Title: Lower Snake River Compensation Plan; Oregon Spring Chinook Salmon Harvest Monitoring - 2016 Annual Progress Report Abstract -- The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River spring Chinook hatchery programs are components of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP), funded through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), developed to mitigate for wild fish production lost as a result of construction of the four lower Snake River dams. Hatchery Chinook and steelhead smolts in the Snake River basin are produced at LSRCP hatcheries in Washington, Idaho and Oregon. Subsequent adult returns are meant to provide tribal and recreational (sport) fisheries and, in some cases, enhance natural spawner numbers. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) initiated the Imnaha and Grande Ronde spring Chinook hatchery program in 1982 under the LSRCP. Subsequent program management has been coordinated between ODFW, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), and the Nez Perce Tribe (NPT). The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River hatchery programs are comprised of five components, each with smolt acclimation and adult collection facilities located on the Imnaha River, upper Grande Ronde River, Lookingglass and Catherine Creeks, and the Lostine River. The Lostine River program interacts with natural production within the broader Wallowa-Lostine population unit. Other hatchery program components are discrete to specific populations indicated. The Lookingglass Creek portion of the program focuses on reintroduction of spring Chinook to that stream and targets the release of 250,000 smolts, annually. Each of the four remaining program components integrates natural-origin fish returning to each respective tributary into production. Smolt release goals, developed to meet LSRCP mitigation responsibilities; include 490,000 for the Imnaha, 250,000 for the Lostine and upper Grande Ronde rivers, and 150,000 for Catherine Creek. Fisheries that target returns to the Imnaha and Grande Ronde hatchery programs are guided by Fishery Management and Evaluation Plans (FMEP), approved by NOAA fisheries under limit 4 of the final 4(d) rule of the Endangered Species Act (ODFW 2011, ODFW and WDFW 2012). The objective of the FMEP is to provide recreational fishing opportunities and related benefits derived from harvest of Imnaha and Grande Ronde basin hatchery-origin spring Chinook salmon in Oregon and Washington in a manner that supports the continued survival and future recovery of natural-origin Chinook salmon. Each respective FMEP utilizes a management framework for harvest of adipose-clipped, hatchery-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon using abundance-based sliding scales to set annual fishery impacts. Fisheries are prescribed maximum impact rates for both direct and incidental mortality of natural-origin adult salmon in sport and tribal fisheries. Impacts are assessed for each population in relation to critical and minimum abundance thresholds (MAT) as described by the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT 2007). Population designations for the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins are listed in Table 1, and are based upon an analysis of Chinook salmon life history traits, distribution, abundance, and productivity, and geographical and ecological characteristics of the landscape within the Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon ESU (McElhany et al. 2000). The abundance-based harvest rate schedule for Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basin fisheries to be shared by all fishing entities in the basin as described in Table 2. Harvest is not considered when hatchery run size does not exceed the number of adults identified for broodstock and supplementation needs as described by sliding scale management plans set for each population’s hatchery program. Surplus is generally defined as the adult hatchery run projection less hatchery adults needed for broodstock. This approach limits sport harvest during years when wild fish runs are below MAT and hatchery fish runs are of similar size. In addition, near the lower end of the harvest rate scale, fisheries are not implemented until the allowable hatchery fish harvest exceeds 20 fish due to potential to over harvest within a single week. Fishery impacts to listed Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon are assessed on a collective basis (i.e., the sum of recreational and tribal fisheries) by NOAA fisheries. However, the coordination of impact amongst states and tribes is a key component of executing conservation-based fisheries in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins. Co-managers within each basin have developed, and implement annually, an impact sharing agreement that is described in Table 3. Within each fishery scenario, this agreement provides tribal fisheries more of the natural-origin impacts to reflect the non-selective nature of traditional fishing techniques. Recreational fisheries are provided a larger portion of the hatchery harvest such that all available impacts (hatchery and natural collectively) are shared equally (Table 3). Recreational fisheries administered by the states limit harvest (retention) of spring/summer Chinook hatchery-origin salmon with a clipped adipose fin (as evidenced by a healed scar). All salmon with an intact adipose fin (natural-origin) must be released back to the water. Therefore, incidental mortality impacts occur from catch and release of unclipped Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon in fisheries targeting adipose-clipped hatchery Chinook salmon, and/or from the illegal retention of unclipped fish. It is generally assumed throughout the Columbia River Basin that the mortality rate resulting from the catch and release of salmon in fisheries is 10%. However, for Lookingglass Creek comanagers, with concurrence from NOAA fisheries, assume a slightly lower rate of 7.5% (ODFW and WDFW 2012). As stated in the FMEP, fisheries are adjusted or terminated when the total ESA take limit identified in Table 2 and 3 has been reached. Therefore, once fisheries are initiated regular monitoring is required to ensure consistency with co-manager agreements and FMEP requirements. The objective of this LSRCP project was to conduct statistical creel surveys to determine spring Chinook and steelhead ESA impact levels, harvest and release rates, and to inform decisions regarding fishery status in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins in 2016. In this report, we describe creel surveys conducted and estimates of angler effort, catch, and harvest. In addition we compare these estimates in relation to estimates of natural and hatchery-origin returns to each population to assess consistency with prescribed impacts under FMEP guidelines. Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP) ODFW Close

• 1933. [Article] Lower Snake River Compensation Plan; Oregon Spring Chinook Salmon Harvest Monitoring - 2015 Annual Progress Report

  Abstract -- The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River spring Chinook hatchery programs are components of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP), funded through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Lower Snake River Compensation Plan; Oregon Spring Chinook Salmon Harvest Monitoring - 2015 Annual Progress Report Abstract -- The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River spring Chinook hatchery programs are components of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP), funded through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), developed to mitigate for wild fish production lost as a result of construction of the four lower Snake River dams. Hatchery Chinook and steelhead smolts in the Snake River basin are produced at LSRCP hatcheries in Washington, Idaho and Oregon. Subsequent adult returns are meant to provide tribal and recreational (sport) fisheries and, in some cases, enhance natural spawner numbers. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) initiated the Imnaha and Grande Ronde spring Chinook hatchery program in 1982 under the LSRCP. Subsequent program management has been coordinated between ODFW, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), and the Nez Perce Tribe (NPT). The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River hatchery programs are comprised of five components, each with smolt acclimation and adult collection facilities located on the Imnaha River, upper Grande Ronde River, Lookingglass and Catherine Creeks, and the Lostine River. The Lostine River program interacts with natural production within the broader Wallowa-Lostine population unit. Other hatchery program components are discrete to specific populations indicated. The Lookingglass Creek portion of the program focuses on reintroduction of spring Chinook to that stream and targets the release of 250,000 smolts. Each of the four remaining program components integrates natural-origin fish returning to each respective tributary into production. Smolt release goals, developed to meet LSRCP mitigation responsibilities; include 490,000 for the Imnaha, 250,000 for the Lostine and upper Grande Ronde rivers, and 150,000 for Catherine Creek. Fisheries that target returns to the Imnaha and Grande Ronde hatchery programs are guided by Fishery Management and Evaluation Plans (FMEP), approved by NOAA fisheries under limit 4 of the final 4(d) rule of the Endangered Species Act (ODFW 2011, ODFW and WDFW 2012). The objective of the FMEP is to provide recreational fishing opportunities and related benefits derived from harvest of Imnaha and Grande Ronde basin hatchery-origin spring Chinook salmon in Oregon and Washington in a manner that supports the continued survival and future recovery of natural-origin Chinook salmon. Each respective FMEP utilizes a management framework for harvest of adipose-clipped, hatchery-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon using abundance-based sliding scales to set annual fishery impacts. Fisheries are prescribed maximum impact rates for both direct and incidental mortality of natural-origin adult salmon in sport and tribal fisheries. Impacts are assessed for each population in relation to critical and minimum abundance thresholds (MAT) as described by the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT 2007). Population designations for the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins are listed in Table 1, and are based upon an analysis of Chinook salmon life history traits, distribution, abundance, and productivity, and geographical and ecological characteristics of the landscape within the Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon ESU (McElhany et al. 2000). The abundance-based harvest rate schedule for Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basin fisheries to be shared by all fishing entities in the basin is described in Table 2. Harvest is not considered when hatchery run size does not exceed the number of adults identified for broodstock and supplementation needs as described by sliding scale management plans set for each population’s hatchery program. Surplus is generally defined as the adult hatchery run projection less hatchery adults needed for broodstock. This approach limits sport harvest during years when wild fish runs are below MAT and hatchery fish runs are of similar size. In addition, near the lower end of the harvest rate scale, fisheries are not implemented until the allowable hatchery fish harvest exceeds 20 fish due to potential to over harvest within a single week. Fishery impacts to listed Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon are assessed on a collective basis (i.e., the sum of recreational and tribal fisheries) by NOAA fisheries. However, the coordination of impact amongst states and tribes is a key component of executing conservation-based fisheries in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins. Co-managers within each basin have developed, and implement annually, an impact sharing agreement that is described in Table 3. Within each fishery scenario, this agreement provides tribal fisheries more of the natural-origin impacts to reflect the non-selective nature of traditional fishing techniques. Recreational fisheries are provided a larger portion of the hatchery harvest such that all available impacts (hatchery and natural collectively) are shared equally (Table 3). Recreational fisheries administered by the states limit harvest (retention) of spring/summer Chinook hatchery-origin salmon with a clipped adipose fin (as evidenced by a healed scar). All salmon with an intact adipose fin (natural-origin) must be released back to the water. Therefore, incidental mortality impacts occur from catch and release of unclipped Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon in fisheries targeting adipose-clipped hatchery Chinook salmon, and/or from the illegal retention of unclipped fish. It is generally assumed throughout the Columbia River Basin that the mortality rate resulting from the catch and release of salmon in fisheries is 10%. However, for Lookingglass Creek comanagers, with concurrence from NOAA fisheries, assume a slightly lower rate of 7.5% (ODFW and WDFW 2012). As stated in the FMEP, fisheries are adjusted or terminated when the total ESA take limit identified in Table 2 and 3 has been reached. Therefore, once fisheries are initiated regular monitoring is required to ensure consistency with co-manager agreements and FMEP requirements. The objective of this LSRCP project was to conduct statistical creel surveys to determine spring Chinook and steelhead ESA impact levels, harvest and release rates, and to inform decisions regarding fishery status in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins in 2015. In this report, we describe creel surveys conducted and estimates of angler effort, catch, and harvest. In addition we compare these estimates in relation to estimates of natural and hatchery-origin returns to each population to assess consistency with prescribed impacts under FMEP guidelines. Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP) ODFW Title: Lower Snake River Compensation Plan; Oregon Spring Chinook Salmon Harvest Monitoring - 2015 Annual Progress Report Abstract -- The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River spring Chinook hatchery programs are components of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP), funded through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), developed to mitigate for wild fish production lost as a result of construction of the four lower Snake River dams. Hatchery Chinook and steelhead smolts in the Snake River basin are produced at LSRCP hatcheries in Washington, Idaho and Oregon. Subsequent adult returns are meant to provide tribal and recreational (sport) fisheries and, in some cases, enhance natural spawner numbers. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) initiated the Imnaha and Grande Ronde spring Chinook hatchery program in 1982 under the LSRCP. Subsequent program management has been coordinated between ODFW, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), and the Nez Perce Tribe (NPT). The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River hatchery programs are comprised of five components, each with smolt acclimation and adult collection facilities located on the Imnaha River, upper Grande Ronde River, Lookingglass and Catherine Creeks, and the Lostine River. The Lostine River program interacts with natural production within the broader Wallowa-Lostine population unit. Other hatchery program components are discrete to specific populations indicated. The Lookingglass Creek portion of the program focuses on reintroduction of spring Chinook to that stream and targets the release of 250,000 smolts. Each of the four remaining program components integrates natural-origin fish returning to each respective tributary into production. Smolt release goals, developed to meet LSRCP mitigation responsibilities; include 490,000 for the Imnaha, 250,000 for the Lostine and upper Grande Ronde rivers, and 150,000 for Catherine Creek. Fisheries that target returns to the Imnaha and Grande Ronde hatchery programs are guided by Fishery Management and Evaluation Plans (FMEP), approved by NOAA fisheries under limit 4 of the final 4(d) rule of the Endangered Species Act (ODFW 2011, ODFW and WDFW 2012). The objective of the FMEP is to provide recreational fishing opportunities and related benefits derived from harvest of Imnaha and Grande Ronde basin hatchery-origin spring Chinook salmon in Oregon and Washington in a manner that supports the continued survival and future recovery of natural-origin Chinook salmon. Each respective FMEP utilizes a management framework for harvest of adipose-clipped, hatchery-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon using abundance-based sliding scales to set annual fishery impacts. Fisheries are prescribed maximum impact rates for both direct and incidental mortality of natural-origin adult salmon in sport and tribal fisheries. Impacts are assessed for each population in relation to critical and minimum abundance thresholds (MAT) as described by the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT 2007). Population designations for the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins are listed in Table 1, and are based upon an analysis of Chinook salmon life history traits, distribution, abundance, and productivity, and geographical and ecological characteristics of the landscape within the Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon ESU (McElhany et al. 2000). The abundance-based harvest rate schedule for Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basin fisheries to be shared by all fishing entities in the basin is described in Table 2. Harvest is not considered when hatchery run size does not exceed the number of adults identified for broodstock and supplementation needs as described by sliding scale management plans set for each population’s hatchery program. Surplus is generally defined as the adult hatchery run projection less hatchery adults needed for broodstock. This approach limits sport harvest during years when wild fish runs are below MAT and hatchery fish runs are of similar size. In addition, near the lower end of the harvest rate scale, fisheries are not implemented until the allowable hatchery fish harvest exceeds 20 fish due to potential to over harvest within a single week. Fishery impacts to listed Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon are assessed on a collective basis (i.e., the sum of recreational and tribal fisheries) by NOAA fisheries. However, the coordination of impact amongst states and tribes is a key component of executing conservation-based fisheries in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins. Co-managers within each basin have developed, and implement annually, an impact sharing agreement that is described in Table 3. Within each fishery scenario, this agreement provides tribal fisheries more of the natural-origin impacts to reflect the non-selective nature of traditional fishing techniques. Recreational fisheries are provided a larger portion of the hatchery harvest such that all available impacts (hatchery and natural collectively) are shared equally (Table 3). Recreational fisheries administered by the states limit harvest (retention) of spring/summer Chinook hatchery-origin salmon with a clipped adipose fin (as evidenced by a healed scar). All salmon with an intact adipose fin (natural-origin) must be released back to the water. Therefore, incidental mortality impacts occur from catch and release of unclipped Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon in fisheries targeting adipose-clipped hatchery Chinook salmon, and/or from the illegal retention of unclipped fish. It is generally assumed throughout the Columbia River Basin that the mortality rate resulting from the catch and release of salmon in fisheries is 10%. However, for Lookingglass Creek comanagers, with concurrence from NOAA fisheries, assume a slightly lower rate of 7.5% (ODFW and WDFW 2012). As stated in the FMEP, fisheries are adjusted or terminated when the total ESA take limit identified in Table 2 and 3 has been reached. Therefore, once fisheries are initiated regular monitoring is required to ensure consistency with co-manager agreements and FMEP requirements. The objective of this LSRCP project was to conduct statistical creel surveys to determine spring Chinook and steelhead ESA impact levels, harvest and release rates, and to inform decisions regarding fishery status in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins in 2015. In this report, we describe creel surveys conducted and estimates of angler effort, catch, and harvest. In addition we compare these estimates in relation to estimates of natural and hatchery-origin returns to each population to assess consistency with prescribed impacts under FMEP guidelines. Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP) ODFW Close

• 1934. [Article] Lower Snake River Compensation Plan; Oregon Spring Chinook Salmon Harvest Monitoring - 2014 Annual Progress Report

  Abstract -- The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River spring Chinook hatchery programs are components of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP), funded through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Lower Snake River Compensation Plan; Oregon Spring Chinook Salmon Harvest Monitoring - 2014 Annual Progress Report Abstract -- The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River spring Chinook hatchery programs are components of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP), funded through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), developed to mitigate for wild fish production lost as a result of construction of the four lower Snake River dams. Hatchery Chinook and steelhead smolts in the Snake River basin are produced at LSRCP hatcheries in Washington, Idaho and Oregon. Subsequent adult returns are meant to provide tribal and recreational (sport) fisheries and, in some cases, enhance natural spawner numbers. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife initiated the Imnaha and Grande Ronde spring Chinook hatchery program in 1982 under the LSRCP. Subsequent program management has been coordinated between ODFW, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), and Nez Perce Tribe (NPT). The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River hatchery programs are comprised of five components, each with smolt acclimation and adult collection facilities located on the Imnaha River, upper Grande Ronde River, Lookingglass and Catherine Creeks, and the Lostine River. The Lostine River program interacts with natural production within the broader Wallowa-Lostine population unit. Other hatchery program components are discrete to specific populations indicated. The Lookingglass Creek portion of the program focuses on reintroduction of spring Chinook to that stream and targets the release of 250,000 smolts originating from the Catherine Creek population. Each of the four remaining program components integrates natural-origin fish returning to each respective tributary into production. Smolt release goals, developed to meet LSRCP mitigation responsibilities, include 490,000 for the Imnaha, 250,000 for the Lostine and upper Grande Ronde rivers, and 150,000 for Catherine Creek. Fisheries that target returns to the Imnaha and Grande Ronde hatchery programs are guided by Fishery Management and Evaluation Plans (FMEP), approved by NOAA fisheries under limit 4 of the final 4(d) rule of the Endangered Species Act (ODFW 2011, ODFW and WDFW 2012). The objective of the FMEP is to provide recreational fishing opportunities and related benefits derived from harvest of Imnaha and Grande Ronde basin hatchery-origin spring Chinook salmon in Oregon and Washington in a manner that supports the continued survival and future recovery of natural-origin Chinook salmon. Each respective FMEP utilizes a management framework for harvest of adipose-clipped, hatchery-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon using abundance-based sliding scales to set annual fishery impacts. Fisheries are prescribed maximum impact rates for both direct and incidental mortality of natural-origin adult salmon in sport and tribal fisheries. Impacts are assessed for each population in relation to critical and minimum abundance thresholds (MAT) as described by the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT 2007). Population designations for the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins are listed in Table 1, and are based upon an analysis of Chinook salmon life history traits, distribution, abundance, and productivity, and geographical and ecological characteristics of the landscape within the Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon ESU (McElhany et al. 2000). The abundance-based harvest rate schedule for Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basin fisheries to be shared by all fishing entities in the basin is described in Table 2. Harvest is not considered when hatchery run size does not exceed the number of adults identified for broodstock and supplementation needs as described by sliding scale management plans set for each population’s hatchery program. Surplus is generally defined as the adult hatchery run projection less hatchery adults needed for broodstock. This approach limits sport harvest during years when wild fish runs are below MAT and hatchery fish runs are of similar size. In addition, near the lower end of the harvest rate scale, fisheries are not implemented until the allowable hatchery fish harvest exceeds 20 fish due to potential to over harvest within a single week. Fishery impacts to listed Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon are assessed on a collective basis (i.e., the sum of recreational and tribal fisheries) by NOAA fisheries. However, the coordination of impact amongst states and tribes is a key component of executing conservation-based fisheries in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins. Co-managers within each basin have developed, and implement annually, an impact sharing agreement that is described in Table 3. Within each fishery scenario, this agreement provides tribal fisheries more of the natural-origin impacts to reflect the non-selective nature of traditional fishing techniques. Recreational fisheries are provided a larger portion of the hatchery harvest such that all available impacts (hatchery and natural collectively) are shared equally (Table 3). Recreational fisheries administered by the states limit harvest (retention) of spring/summer Chinook hatchery-origin salmon with a clipped adipose fin (as evidenced by a healed scar). All salmon with an intact adipose fin (natural-origin) must be released back to the water. Therefore, incidental mortality impacts occur from catch and release of unclipped Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon in fisheries targeting adipose-clipped hatchery Chinook salmon, and/or from the illegal retention of unclipped fish. It is generally assumed throughout the Columbia River Basin that the mortality rate resulting from the catch and release of salmon in fisheries is 10%. However, for Lookingglass Creek comanagers, with concurrence from NOAA fisheries, assume a slightly lower rate of 7.5% (ODFW and WDFW 2012). As stated in the FMEP, fisheries are adjusted or terminated when the total ESA take limit identified in Table 2 and 3 has been reached. Therefore, once fisheries are initiated regular monitoring is required to ensure consistency with co-manager agreements and FMEP requirements. The objective of this LSRCP project was to conduct statistical creel surveys to determine spring Chinook and steelhead ESA impact levels, harvest and release rates, and to inform decisions regarding fishery status in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins in 2014. In this report, we describe creel surveys conducted and estimates of angler effort, catch, and harvest. In addition we compare these estimates in relation to estimates of natural and hatchery-origin returns to each population to assess consistency with prescribed impacts under FMEP guidelines. Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP) ODFW Title: Lower Snake River Compensation Plan; Oregon Spring Chinook Salmon Harvest Monitoring - 2014 Annual Progress Report Abstract -- The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River spring Chinook hatchery programs are components of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP), funded through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), developed to mitigate for wild fish production lost as a result of construction of the four lower Snake River dams. Hatchery Chinook and steelhead smolts in the Snake River basin are produced at LSRCP hatcheries in Washington, Idaho and Oregon. Subsequent adult returns are meant to provide tribal and recreational (sport) fisheries and, in some cases, enhance natural spawner numbers. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife initiated the Imnaha and Grande Ronde spring Chinook hatchery program in 1982 under the LSRCP. Subsequent program management has been coordinated between ODFW, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), and Nez Perce Tribe (NPT). The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River hatchery programs are comprised of five components, each with smolt acclimation and adult collection facilities located on the Imnaha River, upper Grande Ronde River, Lookingglass and Catherine Creeks, and the Lostine River. The Lostine River program interacts with natural production within the broader Wallowa-Lostine population unit. Other hatchery program components are discrete to specific populations indicated. The Lookingglass Creek portion of the program focuses on reintroduction of spring Chinook to that stream and targets the release of 250,000 smolts originating from the Catherine Creek population. Each of the four remaining program components integrates natural-origin fish returning to each respective tributary into production. Smolt release goals, developed to meet LSRCP mitigation responsibilities, include 490,000 for the Imnaha, 250,000 for the Lostine and upper Grande Ronde rivers, and 150,000 for Catherine Creek. Fisheries that target returns to the Imnaha and Grande Ronde hatchery programs are guided by Fishery Management and Evaluation Plans (FMEP), approved by NOAA fisheries under limit 4 of the final 4(d) rule of the Endangered Species Act (ODFW 2011, ODFW and WDFW 2012). The objective of the FMEP is to provide recreational fishing opportunities and related benefits derived from harvest of Imnaha and Grande Ronde basin hatchery-origin spring Chinook salmon in Oregon and Washington in a manner that supports the continued survival and future recovery of natural-origin Chinook salmon. Each respective FMEP utilizes a management framework for harvest of adipose-clipped, hatchery-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon using abundance-based sliding scales to set annual fishery impacts. Fisheries are prescribed maximum impact rates for both direct and incidental mortality of natural-origin adult salmon in sport and tribal fisheries. Impacts are assessed for each population in relation to critical and minimum abundance thresholds (MAT) as described by the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT 2007). Population designations for the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins are listed in Table 1, and are based upon an analysis of Chinook salmon life history traits, distribution, abundance, and productivity, and geographical and ecological characteristics of the landscape within the Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon ESU (McElhany et al. 2000). The abundance-based harvest rate schedule for Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basin fisheries to be shared by all fishing entities in the basin is described in Table 2. Harvest is not considered when hatchery run size does not exceed the number of adults identified for broodstock and supplementation needs as described by sliding scale management plans set for each population’s hatchery program. Surplus is generally defined as the adult hatchery run projection less hatchery adults needed for broodstock. This approach limits sport harvest during years when wild fish runs are below MAT and hatchery fish runs are of similar size. In addition, near the lower end of the harvest rate scale, fisheries are not implemented until the allowable hatchery fish harvest exceeds 20 fish due to potential to over harvest within a single week. Fishery impacts to listed Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon are assessed on a collective basis (i.e., the sum of recreational and tribal fisheries) by NOAA fisheries. However, the coordination of impact amongst states and tribes is a key component of executing conservation-based fisheries in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins. Co-managers within each basin have developed, and implement annually, an impact sharing agreement that is described in Table 3. Within each fishery scenario, this agreement provides tribal fisheries more of the natural-origin impacts to reflect the non-selective nature of traditional fishing techniques. Recreational fisheries are provided a larger portion of the hatchery harvest such that all available impacts (hatchery and natural collectively) are shared equally (Table 3). Recreational fisheries administered by the states limit harvest (retention) of spring/summer Chinook hatchery-origin salmon with a clipped adipose fin (as evidenced by a healed scar). All salmon with an intact adipose fin (natural-origin) must be released back to the water. Therefore, incidental mortality impacts occur from catch and release of unclipped Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon in fisheries targeting adipose-clipped hatchery Chinook salmon, and/or from the illegal retention of unclipped fish. It is generally assumed throughout the Columbia River Basin that the mortality rate resulting from the catch and release of salmon in fisheries is 10%. However, for Lookingglass Creek comanagers, with concurrence from NOAA fisheries, assume a slightly lower rate of 7.5% (ODFW and WDFW 2012). As stated in the FMEP, fisheries are adjusted or terminated when the total ESA take limit identified in Table 2 and 3 has been reached. Therefore, once fisheries are initiated regular monitoring is required to ensure consistency with co-manager agreements and FMEP requirements. The objective of this LSRCP project was to conduct statistical creel surveys to determine spring Chinook and steelhead ESA impact levels, harvest and release rates, and to inform decisions regarding fishery status in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins in 2014. In this report, we describe creel surveys conducted and estimates of angler effort, catch, and harvest. In addition we compare these estimates in relation to estimates of natural and hatchery-origin returns to each population to assess consistency with prescribed impacts under FMEP guidelines. Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP) ODFW Close

• 1935. [Article] Lower Snake River Compensation Plan; Oregon Spring Chinook Salmon Harvest Monitoring - 2013 Annual Progress Report

  Abstract -- The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River spring Chinook hatchery programs are components of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP), funded through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Lower Snake River Compensation Plan; Oregon Spring Chinook Salmon Harvest Monitoring - 2013 Annual Progress Report Abstract -- The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River spring Chinook hatchery programs are components of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP), funded through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), developed to mitigate for wild fish production lost as a result of construction of four lower Snake River dams. Hatchery Chinook and steelhead smolts in the Snake River basin are produced at LSRCP hatcheries in Washington, Idaho and Oregon. Subsequent adult returns are meant to provide tribal and recreational (sport) fisheries and, in some cases, enhance natural spawner numbers. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife initiated the Imnaha and Grande Ronde spring Chinook hatchery program in 1982 under the LSRCP. Subsequent program management has been coordinated between ODFW, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) and Nez Perce Tribe (NPT). The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River hatchery programs are comprised of five components, each with smolt acclimation and adult collection facilities located on the Imnaha River, upper Grande Ronde River, Lookingglass and Catherine Creeks, and the Lostine River. The Lostine River program interacts with natural production within the broader Wallowa-Lostine population unit. Other hatchery program components are discrete to specific populations indicated. The Lookingglass Creek portion of the program focuses on reintroduction of spring Chinook to that stream and targets the release of 250,000 smolts originating from the Catherine Creek population. Each of the four remaining program components integrates natural-origin fish returning to each respective tributary into production. Smolt release goals, developed to meet LSRCP mitigation responsibilities, include 490,000 for the Imnaha, 250,000 for the Lostine and upper Grande Ronde rivers, and 150,000 for Catherine Creek. Fisheries that target returns to the Imnaha and Grande Ronde hatchery programs are guided by Fishery Management and Evaluation Plans (FMEP), approved by NOAA fisheries under limit 4 of the final 4(d) rule of the Endangered Species Act (ODFW 2011, ODFW and WDFW 2012). The objective of the FMEP is to provide recreational fishing opportunities and related benefits derived from harvest of Imnaha and Grande Ronde basin hatchery-origin spring Chinook salmon in Oregon and Washington in a manner that supports the continued survival and future recovery of natural-origin Chinook salmon. Each respective FMEP utilizes a management framework for harvest of adipose-clipped, hatchery-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon using abundance-based sliding scales to set annual fishery impacts. Fisheries are prescribed maximum impact rates for both direct and incidental mortality of natural-origin adult salmon in sport and tribal fisheries. Impacts are assessed for each population in relation to critical and minimum abundance thresholds (MAT) as described by the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT 2007). Population designations for the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins are listed in Table 1, and are based upon an analysis of Chinook salmon life history traits, distribution, abundance, and productivity, and geographical and ecological characteristics of the landscape within the Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon ESU (McElhany et al. 2000). The abundance-based harvest rate schedule for Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basin fisheries to be shared by all fishing entities in the basin is described in Table 2. Harvest is not considered when hatchery run size does not exceed the number of adults identified for broodstock and supplementation needs as described by sliding scale management plans set for each population’s hatchery program. Surplus is generally defined as adult hatchery run projection less hatchery adults needed for broodstock. This approach limits sport harvest during years when wild fish runs are below MAT and hatchery fish runs are of similar size. In addition, near the lower end of the harvest rate scale, fisheries are not implemented until allowable hatchery fish harvest exceeds 20 fish due to potential to over harvest within a single week. Fishery impacts to listed Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon are assessed on a collective basis (i.e., the sum of recreational and tribal fisheries) by NOAA fisheries. However, the coordination of impact amongst states and tribes is a key component of executing conservation-based fisheries in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins. Co-managers within each basin have developed, and implement annually, an impact sharing agreement that is described in Table 3. Within each fishery scenario, this agreement provides tribal fisheries more of the natural-origin impacts to reflect the non-selective nature of traditional fishing techniques. Recreational fisheries are provided more of the hatchery harvest such that all available impacts (hatchery and natural collectively) are shared equally (Table 3). Recreational fisheries administered by the states limit harvest (retention) of spring/summer Chinook hatchery-origin salmon with a clipped adipose fin (as evidenced by a healed scar). All salmon with an intact adipose fin (natural-origin) must be released back to the water. Therefore, incidental mortality impacts occur from catch and release of unclipped Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon in fisheries targeting adipose-clipped hatchery Chinook salmon, and/or from the illegal retention of unclipped fish. It is generally assumed throughout the Columbia River Basin that the mortality rate resulting from the catch and release of salmon in fisheries is 10%. However, for Lookingglass Creek comanagers, with concurrence from NOAA fisheries, assume a slightly lower rate of 7.5% (ODFW and WDFW 2012). As stated in the FMEP, fisheries are adjusted or terminated when the total ESA take limit identified in Table 2 and 3 has been reached. Therefore, once fisheries are initiated regular monitoring is required to ensure consistency with co-manager agreements and FMEP requirements. The objective of this LSRCP project was to conduct statistical creel surveys determine spring Chinook and steelhead ESA impact levels, harvest and release rates, and to inform decisions regarding fishery status in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins in 2013. In this report, we describe creel surveys conducted and estimates of angler effort, catch, and harvest. In addition we compare these estimates in relation to post-season preliminary estimates of natural and hatchery-origin returns to each population to assess consistency with prescribed impacts under FMEP guidelines. Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP) ODFW Title: Lower Snake River Compensation Plan; Oregon Spring Chinook Salmon Harvest Monitoring - 2013 Annual Progress Report Abstract -- The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River spring Chinook hatchery programs are components of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP), funded through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), developed to mitigate for wild fish production lost as a result of construction of four lower Snake River dams. Hatchery Chinook and steelhead smolts in the Snake River basin are produced at LSRCP hatcheries in Washington, Idaho and Oregon. Subsequent adult returns are meant to provide tribal and recreational (sport) fisheries and, in some cases, enhance natural spawner numbers. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife initiated the Imnaha and Grande Ronde spring Chinook hatchery program in 1982 under the LSRCP. Subsequent program management has been coordinated between ODFW, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) and Nez Perce Tribe (NPT). The Imnaha and Grande Ronde River hatchery programs are comprised of five components, each with smolt acclimation and adult collection facilities located on the Imnaha River, upper Grande Ronde River, Lookingglass and Catherine Creeks, and the Lostine River. The Lostine River program interacts with natural production within the broader Wallowa-Lostine population unit. Other hatchery program components are discrete to specific populations indicated. The Lookingglass Creek portion of the program focuses on reintroduction of spring Chinook to that stream and targets the release of 250,000 smolts originating from the Catherine Creek population. Each of the four remaining program components integrates natural-origin fish returning to each respective tributary into production. Smolt release goals, developed to meet LSRCP mitigation responsibilities, include 490,000 for the Imnaha, 250,000 for the Lostine and upper Grande Ronde rivers, and 150,000 for Catherine Creek. Fisheries that target returns to the Imnaha and Grande Ronde hatchery programs are guided by Fishery Management and Evaluation Plans (FMEP), approved by NOAA fisheries under limit 4 of the final 4(d) rule of the Endangered Species Act (ODFW 2011, ODFW and WDFW 2012). The objective of the FMEP is to provide recreational fishing opportunities and related benefits derived from harvest of Imnaha and Grande Ronde basin hatchery-origin spring Chinook salmon in Oregon and Washington in a manner that supports the continued survival and future recovery of natural-origin Chinook salmon. Each respective FMEP utilizes a management framework for harvest of adipose-clipped, hatchery-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon using abundance-based sliding scales to set annual fishery impacts. Fisheries are prescribed maximum impact rates for both direct and incidental mortality of natural-origin adult salmon in sport and tribal fisheries. Impacts are assessed for each population in relation to critical and minimum abundance thresholds (MAT) as described by the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT 2007). Population designations for the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins are listed in Table 1, and are based upon an analysis of Chinook salmon life history traits, distribution, abundance, and productivity, and geographical and ecological characteristics of the landscape within the Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon ESU (McElhany et al. 2000). The abundance-based harvest rate schedule for Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basin fisheries to be shared by all fishing entities in the basin is described in Table 2. Harvest is not considered when hatchery run size does not exceed the number of adults identified for broodstock and supplementation needs as described by sliding scale management plans set for each population’s hatchery program. Surplus is generally defined as adult hatchery run projection less hatchery adults needed for broodstock. This approach limits sport harvest during years when wild fish runs are below MAT and hatchery fish runs are of similar size. In addition, near the lower end of the harvest rate scale, fisheries are not implemented until allowable hatchery fish harvest exceeds 20 fish due to potential to over harvest within a single week. Fishery impacts to listed Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon are assessed on a collective basis (i.e., the sum of recreational and tribal fisheries) by NOAA fisheries. However, the coordination of impact amongst states and tribes is a key component of executing conservation-based fisheries in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins. Co-managers within each basin have developed, and implement annually, an impact sharing agreement that is described in Table 3. Within each fishery scenario, this agreement provides tribal fisheries more of the natural-origin impacts to reflect the non-selective nature of traditional fishing techniques. Recreational fisheries are provided more of the hatchery harvest such that all available impacts (hatchery and natural collectively) are shared equally (Table 3). Recreational fisheries administered by the states limit harvest (retention) of spring/summer Chinook hatchery-origin salmon with a clipped adipose fin (as evidenced by a healed scar). All salmon with an intact adipose fin (natural-origin) must be released back to the water. Therefore, incidental mortality impacts occur from catch and release of unclipped Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon in fisheries targeting adipose-clipped hatchery Chinook salmon, and/or from the illegal retention of unclipped fish. It is generally assumed throughout the Columbia River Basin that the mortality rate resulting from the catch and release of salmon in fisheries is 10%. However, for Lookingglass Creek comanagers, with concurrence from NOAA fisheries, assume a slightly lower rate of 7.5% (ODFW and WDFW 2012). As stated in the FMEP, fisheries are adjusted or terminated when the total ESA take limit identified in Table 2 and 3 has been reached. Therefore, once fisheries are initiated regular monitoring is required to ensure consistency with co-manager agreements and FMEP requirements. The objective of this LSRCP project was to conduct statistical creel surveys determine spring Chinook and steelhead ESA impact levels, harvest and release rates, and to inform decisions regarding fishery status in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basins in 2013. In this report, we describe creel surveys conducted and estimates of angler effort, catch, and harvest. In addition we compare these estimates in relation to post-season preliminary estimates of natural and hatchery-origin returns to each population to assess consistency with prescribed impacts under FMEP guidelines. Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP) ODFW Close

• 1936. [Article] Recovery of Wild Coho Salmon In Salmon River Basin, 2008-2010 Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2011-10

  Abstract -- Hatcheries have been a centerpiece of salmon management in the Pacific Northwest for more than a century but recent evidence of adverse interactions between hatchery and naturally-produced ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Recovery of Wild Coho Salmon In Salmon River Basin, 2008-2010 Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2011-10 Abstract -- Hatcheries have been a centerpiece of salmon management in the Pacific Northwest for more than a century but recent evidence of adverse interactions between hatchery and naturally-produced salmon have resulted in substantial changes in many hatchery programs. In 2007 the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife terminated a 30-year artificial propagation program for coho salmon in the Salmon River basin after a status assessment concluded that wild population viability was threatened by hatchery effects on salmon productivity (Chilcote et al. 2005). Hatchery-reared coho comprised 50-100% of the naturally spawning population in recent years. Low productivity was reflected in a low spawner to recruit ratio, and life-stage specific survival was lower than that of nearby populations. The temporal distribution of adult spawning in the basin was truncated and peaked 1.5 months earlier relative to the pre-hatchery period and adjacent coastal populations. The cessation of hatchery releases into Salmon River not only removed the primary factor believed to limit productivity of the local population, it also constituted a rare management experiment to test whether a naturally-spawning population can recover from a prolonged period of low abundance after interactions with hatchery-produced coho salmon are eliminated. This report summarizes the results of coho population studies at Salmon River for the first three years after the hatchery program was discontinued. The study in Salmon River is timely because ecological interactions between hatchery and wild fish have been implicated in the reduced survival and decreased productivity of wild coho and other salmonid populations (Nickelson 2003, Buhle et al. 2009, Chilcote et al. 2011). Recent studies involving a diversity of salmonid species and watersheds have shown a negative relationship between hatchery spawner abundance and wild population productivity regardless of the duration of hatchery influence (Chilcote et al. 2011). Yet neither the mechanisms of these productivity declines nor their potential reversibility have been investigated. Recent management changes at Salmon River provide an opportunity to experimentally evaluate coho salmon survival and productivity following the elimination of a decades-long hatchery program. The results will provide new insights into the reversibility of hatchery effects and the rate, mechanisms, and trajectory of response by a naturally spawning coho salmon population. Hatchery programs have been shown to change the timing and distribution of naturally spawning adults, but ecological and genetic influences on the spatial structure and life history diversity of juvenile populations are poorly understood. Conventional understanding of the life history of juvenile coho has presumed a relatively fixed pattern of rearing and migration. However, recent studies have found much greater variation in juvenile life history and habitat-use patterns than previously expected (Miller and Sadro 2003, Koski 2009), including evidence that estuaries may play a prominent role in the life histories of some coho salmon populations. A recent study in the Salmon River basin found considerable diversity in the life histories of juvenile Chinook salmon, including extended rearing by fry and other subyearling migrants within the complex network of natural and restored estuarine wetlands (Bottom et al. 2005). Unfortunately, interpretation of juvenile life history variations at Salmon River was confounded by the Chinook hatchery program, which has concentrated spawning activity in the lower river near the hatchery and may directly influence juvenile migration and rearing patterns. Discontinuation of the coho hatchery program at Salmon River provides an opportunity to quantify changes in juvenile life history following the elimination of all hatchery-fish interactions with the naturally spawning population. Such responses may provide important insights into the mechanisms of hatchery influence on wild salmon productivity and population resilience. Our research integrates adult and juvenile life stages, examines linkages to physical habitat conditions in fresh water and the estuary, and describes variability between juvenile performance and adult returns. It also monitors the coho salmon population across habitat types and life history stages to identify population responses at a landscape scale. We will determine productivity and survival at each salmon life stage and monitor the response of the adult population following the cessation of the coho salmon hatchery program. From these indicators, we will determine the potential resiliency of the coho salmon population, and evaluate the biological benefits or tradeoffs of returning the ecosystem to natural salmon production. Our study design encompasses four population phases: (1) pre-hatchery conditions (Mullen 1979), (2) dominance by hatchery-reared spawners (2008), (3) first generation naturally produced juveniles (2009-2011), and (4) second generation naturally produced juveniles (starting in 2012). This research will validate assumptions about factors limiting coho recovery and determine whether recovery actions have been effective. Here, we report on findings from 2008-2010 to address four principal objectives: 1. Quantify life stage specific survival and recruits per spawner ratio of the coho salmon population before and after hatchery coho salmon are removed from Salmon River. 2. Assess whether the Salmon River coho population is limited by capacity and complexity of stream habitat. 3. Describe the diversity of juvenile and adult life histories of coho salmon in the Salmon River basin, and estimate the relative contributions of various juvenile life histories to adult returns. 4. Determine seasonal use of the Salmon River estuary and its tidally-inundated wetlands by juvenile coho salmon. The field sampling that supported the study on coho salmon also captured Chinook salmon and steelhead and cutthroat trout during routine sampling in the watershed and estuary. This report emphasizes coho salmon results, but also summarizes catch, distribution, and migration data for other salmonids to compare densities and abundances in freshwater and the estuary. Additional results for Chinook, steelhead, and cutthroat are presented in Appendix A. See Stein et al. (2011) for more detailed information on life history diversity, migration patterns, habitat use, and abundance of cutthroat trout. Title: Recovery of Wild Coho Salmon In Salmon River Basin, 2008-2010 Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2011-10 Abstract -- Hatcheries have been a centerpiece of salmon management in the Pacific Northwest for more than a century but recent evidence of adverse interactions between hatchery and naturally-produced salmon have resulted in substantial changes in many hatchery programs. In 2007 the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife terminated a 30-year artificial propagation program for coho salmon in the Salmon River basin after a status assessment concluded that wild population viability was threatened by hatchery effects on salmon productivity (Chilcote et al. 2005). Hatchery-reared coho comprised 50-100% of the naturally spawning population in recent years. Low productivity was reflected in a low spawner to recruit ratio, and life-stage specific survival was lower than that of nearby populations. The temporal distribution of adult spawning in the basin was truncated and peaked 1.5 months earlier relative to the pre-hatchery period and adjacent coastal populations. The cessation of hatchery releases into Salmon River not only removed the primary factor believed to limit productivity of the local population, it also constituted a rare management experiment to test whether a naturally-spawning population can recover from a prolonged period of low abundance after interactions with hatchery-produced coho salmon are eliminated. This report summarizes the results of coho population studies at Salmon River for the first three years after the hatchery program was discontinued. The study in Salmon River is timely because ecological interactions between hatchery and wild fish have been implicated in the reduced survival and decreased productivity of wild coho and other salmonid populations (Nickelson 2003, Buhle et al. 2009, Chilcote et al. 2011). Recent studies involving a diversity of salmonid species and watersheds have shown a negative relationship between hatchery spawner abundance and wild population productivity regardless of the duration of hatchery influence (Chilcote et al. 2011). Yet neither the mechanisms of these productivity declines nor their potential reversibility have been investigated. Recent management changes at Salmon River provide an opportunity to experimentally evaluate coho salmon survival and productivity following the elimination of a decades-long hatchery program. The results will provide new insights into the reversibility of hatchery effects and the rate, mechanisms, and trajectory of response by a naturally spawning coho salmon population. Hatchery programs have been shown to change the timing and distribution of naturally spawning adults, but ecological and genetic influences on the spatial structure and life history diversity of juvenile populations are poorly understood. Conventional understanding of the life history of juvenile coho has presumed a relatively fixed pattern of rearing and migration. However, recent studies have found much greater variation in juvenile life history and habitat-use patterns than previously expected (Miller and Sadro 2003, Koski 2009), including evidence that estuaries may play a prominent role in the life histories of some coho salmon populations. A recent study in the Salmon River basin found considerable diversity in the life histories of juvenile Chinook salmon, including extended rearing by fry and other subyearling migrants within the complex network of natural and restored estuarine wetlands (Bottom et al. 2005). Unfortunately, interpretation of juvenile life history variations at Salmon River was confounded by the Chinook hatchery program, which has concentrated spawning activity in the lower river near the hatchery and may directly influence juvenile migration and rearing patterns. Discontinuation of the coho hatchery program at Salmon River provides an opportunity to quantify changes in juvenile life history following the elimination of all hatchery-fish interactions with the naturally spawning population. Such responses may provide important insights into the mechanisms of hatchery influence on wild salmon productivity and population resilience. Our research integrates adult and juvenile life stages, examines linkages to physical habitat conditions in fresh water and the estuary, and describes variability between juvenile performance and adult returns. It also monitors the coho salmon population across habitat types and life history stages to identify population responses at a landscape scale. We will determine productivity and survival at each salmon life stage and monitor the response of the adult population following the cessation of the coho salmon hatchery program. From these indicators, we will determine the potential resiliency of the coho salmon population, and evaluate the biological benefits or tradeoffs of returning the ecosystem to natural salmon production. Our study design encompasses four population phases: (1) pre-hatchery conditions (Mullen 1979), (2) dominance by hatchery-reared spawners (2008), (3) first generation naturally produced juveniles (2009-2011), and (4) second generation naturally produced juveniles (starting in 2012). This research will validate assumptions about factors limiting coho recovery and determine whether recovery actions have been effective. Here, we report on findings from 2008-2010 to address four principal objectives: 1. Quantify life stage specific survival and recruits per spawner ratio of the coho salmon population before and after hatchery coho salmon are removed from Salmon River. 2. Assess whether the Salmon River coho population is limited by capacity and complexity of stream habitat. 3. Describe the diversity of juvenile and adult life histories of coho salmon in the Salmon River basin, and estimate the relative contributions of various juvenile life histories to adult returns. 4. Determine seasonal use of the Salmon River estuary and its tidally-inundated wetlands by juvenile coho salmon. The field sampling that supported the study on coho salmon also captured Chinook salmon and steelhead and cutthroat trout during routine sampling in the watershed and estuary. This report emphasizes coho salmon results, but also summarizes catch, distribution, and migration data for other salmonids to compare densities and abundances in freshwater and the estuary. Additional results for Chinook, steelhead, and cutthroat are presented in Appendix A. See Stein et al. (2011) for more detailed information on life history diversity, migration patterns, habitat use, and abundance of cutthroat trout. Close

• 1937. [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

• 1938. [Article] Comparative wintering ecology of two subspecies of sandhill crane : informing conservation planning in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta region of California

  California's Central Valley agricultural landscapes provide several important wintering regions for Pacific Flyway sandhill crane (Grus canadensis) populations; however, the value of those regions is being ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Comparative wintering ecology of two subspecies of sandhill crane : informing conservation planning in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta region of California Author: Ivey, Gary L. California's Central Valley agricultural landscapes provide several important wintering regions for Pacific Flyway sandhill crane (Grus canadensis) populations; however, the value of those regions is being compromised by urban expansion, other developments, and conversions to incompatible crop types. Greater (G. c. tabida) and lesser sandhill cranes (G. c. canadensis) both have special conservation status in California; the greater is listed as threatened and the lesser as a bird species of conservation concern by the state. However, basic information about their wintering ecology has been lacking to design biologically sound conservation strategies to maintain their wintering habitats. My study of sandhill cranes focused on one major Central Valley wintering region, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta). I compared daily movements and winter site fidelity between the two sandhill crane subspecies, evaluated the timing of crane arrival and departure from the region, assessed foraging habitat choices, measured abundance and distribution in the Delta, documented the characteristics of roost sites, and developed habitat conservation models and decision tools for managers to facilitate habitat conservation and management. Both crane subspecies showed strong fidelity to my Delta study area. Foraging flights from roost sites were shorter for greaters than lesser (1.2 ± 0.4 km vs. 3.1 ± 0.1 km, respectively) and consequently, mean size of 95% fixed kernel winter home ranges was an order of magnitude smaller for greaters (1.9 ± 0.4 km² vs.21.9 ± 1.9 km², respectively). The strong site fidelity of greaters to roost complexes within landscapes in the Delta indicates that conservation planning targeted at maintaining and managing for adequate food resources around traditional roost sites can be effective for meeting sandhill crane habitat needs, while the scale of conservation differs by subspecies. I recommend that conservation planning actions consider all habitats within 5 km of a crane roost as a sandhill crane conservation "ecosystem unit." This radius encompasses 95% and 69% of the flights from roosts to foraging location (commuting flights) made by greaters and lessers, respectively. For lessers, a conservation radius of 10 km would encompass 90% of the commuting flights. Management, mitigation, acquisition, easement, planning, and farm subsidy programs intended to benefit cranes will be most effective when applied at these scales. Within these radii, conservation and management of wintering habitats should include creating both new roost and feeding areas to ensure high chances of successful use. Sandhill cranes used major crops and habitat types available in the landscapes surrounding their roost sites and focused most of their foraging in grain crops. They generally avoided dry corn stubble, selected dry rice stubble early in the season, and rarely used dry wild rice stubble. Tilled fields were also usually avoided but were occasionally used shortly after tillage. Mulched corn ranked high in comparison to other corn treatments while mulched rice use was used similarly to dry rice stubble. Both subspecies often highly favored cropland habitats when they were initially flooded. Cranes were attracted to new plantings of pasture and winter wheat. One important difference between the subspecies was that lessers used alfalfa which was generally avoided by greaters. Dry corn stubble was avoided while dry rice stubble was favored early in winter. If wildlife managers want to encourage winter field use by cranes they could provide incentives for favorable practices such as production of grain crops, reduction or delaying tillage and flooding of grain fields, provision of irrigations to some crop types, and increasing the practice of mulching of corn stubble. Of the 69 crane night roosts I identified, 35 were flooded cropland sites and 34 were wetland sites. I found that both larger individual roost sites and larger complexes of roost sites supported larger peak numbers of cranes. Water depth used by roosting cranes averaged 10 cm (range 3-21 cm, mode 7 cm) and was similar between subspecies. Roosting cranes avoided sites that were regularly hunted or had high densities (i.e., > 1 blind/5 ha) of hunting blinds. Roost site design and management should consider providing and maintaining large roost complexes (100 - 1000 ha) ideally in close proximity (< 5 km) to other roost sites, with large individual sites (> 5 ha) of mostly level topography, dominated by shallow water (5-10 cm depths). The fact that cranes readily use undisturbed flooded cropland sites makes this a viable option for creation of roost habitat. Because hunting disturbance can limit crane use of roost sites I suggest these two uses should not be considered compatible. However, if the management objective of an area includes waterfowl hunting, limiting hunting at low blind densities (i.e., < 1 blind/60 ha) and restricting hunting to early morning may be viable options for creating a crane-compatible waterfowl hunt program. Radio-marked sandhill cranes arrived in the Delta beginning 3 October, most arrived in mid-October, and the last radio-marked sandhill crane arrived on 10 December. Departure dates ranged from 15 January to 13 March. Mean arrival and departure dates were similar between subspecies. From mid-December through early-February in 2007-2008, the Delta population ranged from 20,000 to 27,000 sandhill cranes. Abundance varied at the main roost sites during winter, likely because sandhill cranes responded to changes in water and foraging habitat conditions. Sandhill cranes used an area of approximately 1,500 km² for foraging. Estimated peak abundance in the Delta was more than half the total number counted on recent Pacific Flyway midwinter surveys, indicating the Delta region is a key area for efforts in conservation and recovery of wintering sandhill cranes in California. Based on arrival dates, flooding of sandhill crane roost sites should be staggered with some sites flooded in early September and most sites flooded by early October. Maintaining flooding of at least some roost sites through mid-March would provide essential roosting habitat until most birds have departed the Delta region on spring migration. Not all 5-km radius ecosystem units are equal in their value to greater sandhill cranes, and the relative foraging value of a particular parcel within an ecosystem unit depends on the numbers of cranes using the focal roost site, the habitat choices they make, and the probability that they will fly to a particular parcel. Additionally, some ecosystem units overlap, and in these overlap zones, the probability of crane use is higher, because of additive effects. To provide a tool to allow managers to further refine management plans, I developed a model which allows more specific focus of crane conservation, mitigation and habitat management, using what my study revealed about greater sandhill cranes. This model considers the abundance of greaters at individual roost sites and the probability that they would fly to a given location. Sites closer to roosts had a higher probability of crane use. I calculated the probability that greaters would fly to a parcel within concentric 1-km intervals as a product of the proportion of commuting flights of individuals that reached that interval, and the proportion of all commuting flights that reached that interval. Within crane ecosystem units, it is important to protect the existing habitat from further loss and optimize foraging conditions for cranes. I provide a decision matrix to assist with plans to enhance existing crane landscapes, create new crane habitat areas or mitigate habitat losses. This matrix provides a framework for decision-making regarding enhancing sandhill crane foraging and roost site habitats. Wildlife managers could employ a variety of tools to conserve and manage crane habitats, including fee title acquisitions, private conservation easements, and specific cropland management actions to maintain crane-compatible conditions and high food values for cranes (possibly including providing unharvested food plots). My study has demonstrated that most cranes use a relatively small landscape surrounding their traditional roost sites and that they favor certain crops and post-harvest crop management practices for foraging. However, we need a better understanding of the actual carrying capacity for cranes in these crane management zones to ensure that managers can maintain these sites for cranes in the future. Title: Comparative wintering ecology of two subspecies of sandhill crane : informing conservation planning in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta region of California Author: Ivey, Gary L. California's Central Valley agricultural landscapes provide several important wintering regions for Pacific Flyway sandhill crane (Grus canadensis) populations; however, the value of those regions is being compromised by urban expansion, other developments, and conversions to incompatible crop types. Greater (G. c. tabida) and lesser sandhill cranes (G. c. canadensis) both have special conservation status in California; the greater is listed as threatened and the lesser as a bird species of conservation concern by the state. However, basic information about their wintering ecology has been lacking to design biologically sound conservation strategies to maintain their wintering habitats. My study of sandhill cranes focused on one major Central Valley wintering region, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta). I compared daily movements and winter site fidelity between the two sandhill crane subspecies, evaluated the timing of crane arrival and departure from the region, assessed foraging habitat choices, measured abundance and distribution in the Delta, documented the characteristics of roost sites, and developed habitat conservation models and decision tools for managers to facilitate habitat conservation and management. Both crane subspecies showed strong fidelity to my Delta study area. Foraging flights from roost sites were shorter for greaters than lesser (1.2 ± 0.4 km vs. 3.1 ± 0.1 km, respectively) and consequently, mean size of 95% fixed kernel winter home ranges was an order of magnitude smaller for greaters (1.9 ± 0.4 km² vs.21.9 ± 1.9 km², respectively). The strong site fidelity of greaters to roost complexes within landscapes in the Delta indicates that conservation planning targeted at maintaining and managing for adequate food resources around traditional roost sites can be effective for meeting sandhill crane habitat needs, while the scale of conservation differs by subspecies. I recommend that conservation planning actions consider all habitats within 5 km of a crane roost as a sandhill crane conservation "ecosystem unit." This radius encompasses 95% and 69% of the flights from roosts to foraging location (commuting flights) made by greaters and lessers, respectively. For lessers, a conservation radius of 10 km would encompass 90% of the commuting flights. Management, mitigation, acquisition, easement, planning, and farm subsidy programs intended to benefit cranes will be most effective when applied at these scales. Within these radii, conservation and management of wintering habitats should include creating both new roost and feeding areas to ensure high chances of successful use. Sandhill cranes used major crops and habitat types available in the landscapes surrounding their roost sites and focused most of their foraging in grain crops. They generally avoided dry corn stubble, selected dry rice stubble early in the season, and rarely used dry wild rice stubble. Tilled fields were also usually avoided but were occasionally used shortly after tillage. Mulched corn ranked high in comparison to other corn treatments while mulched rice use was used similarly to dry rice stubble. Both subspecies often highly favored cropland habitats when they were initially flooded. Cranes were attracted to new plantings of pasture and winter wheat. One important difference between the subspecies was that lessers used alfalfa which was generally avoided by greaters. Dry corn stubble was avoided while dry rice stubble was favored early in winter. If wildlife managers want to encourage winter field use by cranes they could provide incentives for favorable practices such as production of grain crops, reduction or delaying tillage and flooding of grain fields, provision of irrigations to some crop types, and increasing the practice of mulching of corn stubble. Of the 69 crane night roosts I identified, 35 were flooded cropland sites and 34 were wetland sites. I found that both larger individual roost sites and larger complexes of roost sites supported larger peak numbers of cranes. Water depth used by roosting cranes averaged 10 cm (range 3-21 cm, mode 7 cm) and was similar between subspecies. Roosting cranes avoided sites that were regularly hunted or had high densities (i.e., > 1 blind/5 ha) of hunting blinds. Roost site design and management should consider providing and maintaining large roost complexes (100 - 1000 ha) ideally in close proximity (< 5 km) to other roost sites, with large individual sites (> 5 ha) of mostly level topography, dominated by shallow water (5-10 cm depths). The fact that cranes readily use undisturbed flooded cropland sites makes this a viable option for creation of roost habitat. Because hunting disturbance can limit crane use of roost sites I suggest these two uses should not be considered compatible. However, if the management objective of an area includes waterfowl hunting, limiting hunting at low blind densities (i.e., < 1 blind/60 ha) and restricting hunting to early morning may be viable options for creating a crane-compatible waterfowl hunt program. Radio-marked sandhill cranes arrived in the Delta beginning 3 October, most arrived in mid-October, and the last radio-marked sandhill crane arrived on 10 December. Departure dates ranged from 15 January to 13 March. Mean arrival and departure dates were similar between subspecies. From mid-December through early-February in 2007-2008, the Delta population ranged from 20,000 to 27,000 sandhill cranes. Abundance varied at the main roost sites during winter, likely because sandhill cranes responded to changes in water and foraging habitat conditions. Sandhill cranes used an area of approximately 1,500 km² for foraging. Estimated peak abundance in the Delta was more than half the total number counted on recent Pacific Flyway midwinter surveys, indicating the Delta region is a key area for efforts in conservation and recovery of wintering sandhill cranes in California. Based on arrival dates, flooding of sandhill crane roost sites should be staggered with some sites flooded in early September and most sites flooded by early October. Maintaining flooding of at least some roost sites through mid-March would provide essential roosting habitat until most birds have departed the Delta region on spring migration. Not all 5-km radius ecosystem units are equal in their value to greater sandhill cranes, and the relative foraging value of a particular parcel within an ecosystem unit depends on the numbers of cranes using the focal roost site, the habitat choices they make, and the probability that they will fly to a particular parcel. Additionally, some ecosystem units overlap, and in these overlap zones, the probability of crane use is higher, because of additive effects. To provide a tool to allow managers to further refine management plans, I developed a model which allows more specific focus of crane conservation, mitigation and habitat management, using what my study revealed about greater sandhill cranes. This model considers the abundance of greaters at individual roost sites and the probability that they would fly to a given location. Sites closer to roosts had a higher probability of crane use. I calculated the probability that greaters would fly to a parcel within concentric 1-km intervals as a product of the proportion of commuting flights of individuals that reached that interval, and the proportion of all commuting flights that reached that interval. Within crane ecosystem units, it is important to protect the existing habitat from further loss and optimize foraging conditions for cranes. I provide a decision matrix to assist with plans to enhance existing crane landscapes, create new crane habitat areas or mitigate habitat losses. This matrix provides a framework for decision-making regarding enhancing sandhill crane foraging and roost site habitats. Wildlife managers could employ a variety of tools to conserve and manage crane habitats, including fee title acquisitions, private conservation easements, and specific cropland management actions to maintain crane-compatible conditions and high food values for cranes (possibly including providing unharvested food plots). My study has demonstrated that most cranes use a relatively small landscape surrounding their traditional roost sites and that they favor certain crops and post-harvest crop management practices for foraging. However, we need a better understanding of the actual carrying capacity for cranes in these crane management zones to ensure that managers can maintain these sites for cranes in the future. Close

• 1939. [Image] Defining and evaluating recovery of OCN coho salmon stocks : implications for rebuilding stocks under the Oregon Plan : summary of a workshop organized by the Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team, August 4-5, 1999

  	"December 10, 1999."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Defining and evaluating recovery of OCN coho salmon stocks : implications for rebuilding stocks under the Oregon Plan : summary of a workshop organized by the Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team, August 4-5, 1999 Author: Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (Or.) Year: 1999, 2005 "December 10, 1999." Title: Defining and evaluating recovery of OCN coho salmon stocks : implications for rebuilding stocks under the Oregon Plan : summary of a workshop organized by the Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team, August 4-5, 1999 Author: Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (Or.) Year: 1999, 2005 "December 10, 1999." Close

• 1940. [Image] Preparation plan for the Klamath River management plan and environmental impact statement

  	"October 2001"; "This planning effort is being undertaken because the current recreation plan is outdated, almost 20 years old . . . At the conclusion of this planning effort there will be one [Environmental ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Preparation plan for the Klamath River management plan and environmental impact statement Author: United States. Bureau of Land Management. Klamath Falls Resource Area Office Year: 2001, 2005 "October 2001"; "This planning effort is being undertaken because the current recreation plan is outdated, almost 20 years old . . . At the conclusion of this planning effort there will be one [Environmental Impact Statement] and management plan that will guide and coordinate all land management activities along the river. This EIS could amend both the BLM Redding (Califonia) and the Klamath Falls (Oregon) Resource Management Plans."- Introduction.; This document appears to be a planning document to organize the process of completing later documents, including the Draft Upper Klamath River management plan environmental impact statement and resource management plan amendments (2003) which can be found at http://klamathwaterlib.oit.edu/cgi-bin/viewer.exe?CISOROOT=/WaterLibContent&CISOPTR=110 Title: Preparation plan for the Klamath River management plan and environmental impact statement Author: United States. Bureau of Land Management. Klamath Falls Resource Area Office Year: 2001, 2005 "October 2001"; "This planning effort is being undertaken because the current recreation plan is outdated, almost 20 years old . . . At the conclusion of this planning effort there will be one [Environmental Impact Statement] and management plan that will guide and coordinate all land management activities along the river. This EIS could amend both the BLM Redding (Califonia) and the Klamath Falls (Oregon) Resource Management Plans."- Introduction.; This document appears to be a planning document to organize the process of completing later documents, including the Draft Upper Klamath River management plan environmental impact statement and resource management plan amendments (2003) which can be found at http://klamathwaterlib.oit.edu/cgi-bin/viewer.exe?CISOROOT=/WaterLibContent&CISOPTR=110 Close