Search

Search Results

• 201. [Article] Lower Coast Fork Willamette River Watershed Assessment

  Abstract -- This watershed assessment of the lower Coast Fork Willamette (from the confluence with the Row River downstream to the confluence with the Middle Fork Willamette River) includes chapters on ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Lower Coast Fork Willamette River Watershed Assessment Abstract -- This watershed assessment of the lower Coast Fork Willamette (from the confluence with the Row River downstream to the confluence with the Middle Fork Willamette River) includes chapters on land ownership; history and geology; hydrology and water use; channel habitat types; riparian zone conditions; wetland types, distribution and functions; sediment sources; water quality; stream channel modifications; fish populations and habitat; references; and numerous tables and charts. Existing information was supplemented by a Council-sponsored stream habitat inventory in some areas. The associated maps are in a separate pdf file. 87 pp. Title: Lower Coast Fork Willamette River Watershed Assessment Abstract -- This watershed assessment of the lower Coast Fork Willamette (from the confluence with the Row River downstream to the confluence with the Middle Fork Willamette River) includes chapters on land ownership; history and geology; hydrology and water use; channel habitat types; riparian zone conditions; wetland types, distribution and functions; sediment sources; water quality; stream channel modifications; fish populations and habitat; references; and numerous tables and charts. Existing information was supplemented by a Council-sponsored stream habitat inventory in some areas. The associated maps are in a separate pdf file. 87 pp. Close

• 202. [Article] Coos - Coquille Basin Estuarine Wetland Protection and Restoration Project, OWEB#99-803, 99-420

  Abstract -- This document describes a large and complex restoration project, beginning with an executive summary, and moving into site descriptions and background on the problems that instigated the project. ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coos - Coquille Basin Estuarine Wetland Protection and Restoration Project, OWEB#99-803, 99-420 Abstract -- This document describes a large and complex restoration project, beginning with an executive summary, and moving into site descriptions and background on the problems that instigated the project. Further chapters cover a list of volunteers and participants, materials and methods used, results, evaluation of results, and final accounting. The 14 appendices, in a separate document, contain aerial photos and topo maps of each site. 37 pp. Title: Coos - Coquille Basin Estuarine Wetland Protection and Restoration Project, OWEB#99-803, 99-420 Abstract -- This document describes a large and complex restoration project, beginning with an executive summary, and moving into site descriptions and background on the problems that instigated the project. Further chapters cover a list of volunteers and participants, materials and methods used, results, evaluation of results, and final accounting. The 14 appendices, in a separate document, contain aerial photos and topo maps of each site. 37 pp. Close

• 203. [Article] Bakeoven (Deschutes) Watershed Assessment, 2005

  Abstract -- The headwaters of the Bakeoven Watershed are located in the Shaniko area in southern Wasco County, east of the Deschutes River at elevations just above 3,200 feet. Bakeoven Creek flows to the ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Bakeoven (Deschutes) Watershed Assessment, 2005 Abstract -- The headwaters of the Bakeoven Watershed are located in the Shaniko area in southern Wasco County, east of the Deschutes River at elevations just above 3,200 feet. Bakeoven Creek flows to the Deschutes River at Maupin City Park. Chapters include historic conditions, stream channels, fish and fish habitat, hydrology, riparian conditions, wetlands, road network, water quality, wildlife and wildlife habitat, economic impacts of conservation, summary of issues and recommendations, Bakeoven Action Plan, watershed council goals and objectives, glossary, and references. Numerous tables, figures, and maps summarize data collections. 97 pp. Title: Bakeoven (Deschutes) Watershed Assessment, 2005 Abstract -- The headwaters of the Bakeoven Watershed are located in the Shaniko area in southern Wasco County, east of the Deschutes River at elevations just above 3,200 feet. Bakeoven Creek flows to the Deschutes River at Maupin City Park. Chapters include historic conditions, stream channels, fish and fish habitat, hydrology, riparian conditions, wetlands, road network, water quality, wildlife and wildlife habitat, economic impacts of conservation, summary of issues and recommendations, Bakeoven Action Plan, watershed council goals and objectives, glossary, and references. Numerous tables, figures, and maps summarize data collections. 97 pp. Close

• 204. [Article] ODFW Wildlife Linkages Datasets

  Abstract -- Two GIS datasets are contained in this record: The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, under the Oregon Wildlife Movement Strategy and in partnership with other government agencies, has ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: ODFW Wildlife Linkages Datasets Abstract -- Two GIS datasets are contained in this record: The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, under the Oregon Wildlife Movement Strategy and in partnership with other government agencies, has worked to produce this dataset of wildlife linkages, which are key movement areas for wildlife, emphasizing areas that cross paved roads. The primary goal of this dataset and its related attributes are to address the question: "Where is the best place on the landscape to provide for animal movement needs that are essential to life history function?" Title: ODFW Wildlife Linkages Datasets Abstract -- Two GIS datasets are contained in this record: The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, under the Oregon Wildlife Movement Strategy and in partnership with other government agencies, has worked to produce this dataset of wildlife linkages, which are key movement areas for wildlife, emphasizing areas that cross paved roads. The primary goal of this dataset and its related attributes are to address the question: "Where is the best place on the landscape to provide for animal movement needs that are essential to life history function?" Close

• 205. [Article] Bull Trout Habitat Distribution

  Abstract -- Oregon Resident Fish Habitat Distribution. These data describe areas of suitable habitat believed to be used currently or historically by wild, natural, and/or hatchery fish populations. The ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Bull Trout Habitat Distribution Abstract -- Oregon Resident Fish Habitat Distribution. These data describe areas of suitable habitat believed to be used currently or historically by wild, natural, and/or hatchery fish populations. The term "currently" is defined as within the past five reproductive cycles. Historical habitat includes suitable habitat that fish no longer access and will not access in the foreseeable future without human intervention. This information is based on sampling, the best professional opinion of Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife or other natural resources agency staff biologists or modeling (see the fhdBasis field). Due to natural variations in run size, water conditions, or other environmental factors, some habitats identified may not be used annually. These data comply with the Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution Data Standard that was adopted by the Oregon Geographic Information Council in February 2011. The Standard document can be found at: http://gis.oregon.gov/DAS/EISPD/GEO/standards/docs/OregonFishHabitatDistributionDataStandardv2.pdf Historical habitat distribution data are within the scope of the standard and are identified via the habitat use (fhdUseType) attribute. Historical habitats are only identified outside of currently accessible habitat and are not comprehensive. Key features of the Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution Data include: species, run, life history, habitat use, origin, production, the basis for each record, originator name, originator entity and reference. Habitat distribution data are mapped at a 1:24,000 scale statewide and are based on the were originally developed against the Pacific Northwest Framework Hydrography dataset. The data are made available as GIS files in both shapefile and ESRI geodatabase format. The data were developed over an extensive time period ranging from 1996 to 2014. Data were migrated to the National Hydrography Dataset in 2014. The attached geodatabase includes distribution for Bull trout only. Note: Bull Trout habitat distribution for the upper Clackamas basin have not yet been added to this dataset. Title: Bull Trout Habitat Distribution Abstract -- Oregon Resident Fish Habitat Distribution. These data describe areas of suitable habitat believed to be used currently or historically by wild, natural, and/or hatchery fish populations. The term "currently" is defined as within the past five reproductive cycles. Historical habitat includes suitable habitat that fish no longer access and will not access in the foreseeable future without human intervention. This information is based on sampling, the best professional opinion of Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife or other natural resources agency staff biologists or modeling (see the fhdBasis field). Due to natural variations in run size, water conditions, or other environmental factors, some habitats identified may not be used annually. These data comply with the Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution Data Standard that was adopted by the Oregon Geographic Information Council in February 2011. The Standard document can be found at: http://gis.oregon.gov/DAS/EISPD/GEO/standards/docs/OregonFishHabitatDistributionDataStandardv2.pdf Historical habitat distribution data are within the scope of the standard and are identified via the habitat use (fhdUseType) attribute. Historical habitats are only identified outside of currently accessible habitat and are not comprehensive. Key features of the Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution Data include: species, run, life history, habitat use, origin, production, the basis for each record, originator name, originator entity and reference. Habitat distribution data are mapped at a 1:24,000 scale statewide and are based on the were originally developed against the Pacific Northwest Framework Hydrography dataset. The data are made available as GIS files in both shapefile and ESRI geodatabase format. The data were developed over an extensive time period ranging from 1996 to 2014. Data were migrated to the National Hydrography Dataset in 2014. The attached geodatabase includes distribution for Bull trout only. Note: Bull Trout habitat distribution for the upper Clackamas basin have not yet been added to this dataset. Close

• 206. [Article] Oregon Conservation Strategy Habitats

  Abstract -- This dataset represents the extent and distribution of the habitats prioritized within the Oregon Conservation Strategy. Strategy Habitats are identified by ecoregion, and as such are only ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Oregon Conservation Strategy Habitats Abstract -- This dataset represents the extent and distribution of the habitats prioritized within the Oregon Conservation Strategy. Strategy Habitats are identified by ecoregion, and as such are only mapped within their associated Strategy Ecoregions (see http://oregonconservationstrategy.org/strategy-habitats/ for more information on all Strategy Habitats). The list of Strategy Habitats is: Aspen Woodlands, Coastal Dunes, Estuaries, Flowing Water and Riparian Habitats, Grasslands, Late Successional Mixed Conifer Forest, Natural Lakes, Oak Woodlands, Ponderosa Pine Woodlands, Sagebrush Habitats, and Wetlands. Title: Oregon Conservation Strategy Habitats Abstract -- This dataset represents the extent and distribution of the habitats prioritized within the Oregon Conservation Strategy. Strategy Habitats are identified by ecoregion, and as such are only mapped within their associated Strategy Ecoregions (see http://oregonconservationstrategy.org/strategy-habitats/ for more information on all Strategy Habitats). The list of Strategy Habitats is: Aspen Woodlands, Coastal Dunes, Estuaries, Flowing Water and Riparian Habitats, Grasslands, Late Successional Mixed Conifer Forest, Natural Lakes, Oak Woodlands, Ponderosa Pine Woodlands, Sagebrush Habitats, and Wetlands. Close

• 207. [Article] ODFW Conservation Opportunity Areas

  Abstract -- Conservation Opportunity Areas were developed for the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy to help identify priority areas for conservation actions that directly benefit wildlife and ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: ODFW Conservation Opportunity Areas Abstract -- Conservation Opportunity Areas were developed for the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy to help identify priority areas for conservation actions that directly benefit wildlife and habitats. Title: ODFW Conservation Opportunity Areas Abstract -- Conservation Opportunity Areas were developed for the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy to help identify priority areas for conservation actions that directly benefit wildlife and habitats. Close

• 208. [Article] OWEB Grant Number 208-2084 Project Completion Report - PUR Monitoring

  Abstract -- While it is assumed that habitat enhancement and fish passage improvements increase fish production, there is little empirical data to support that claim in the Umpqua Basin. The Umpqua District ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: OWEB Grant Number 208-2084 Project Completion Report - PUR Monitoring Abstract -- While it is assumed that habitat enhancement and fish passage improvements increase fish production, there is little empirical data to support that claim in the Umpqua Basin. The Umpqua District has used smolt traps in the past to both establish a baseline record and to attempt to determine any response to habitat enhancement (Brush, Hinkle, and Big Tom Folley Creeks). Brush Creek and Big Tom Folley were originally chosen as monitoring sites since they are similar in characteristics, and Brush was originally the treatment stream for restoration projects while Big Tom Folley was used as the control until later projects occurred. Currently, there are PUR habitat enhancement projects scheduled to take place within the Little Wolf Creek and Wolf Creek basins. In order to gain more insight as to whether restoration efforts improve fish populations and address limiting factors, baseline and post treatment surveys will be needed. Restoration that is planned in Wolf and Little Wolf Creeks in 2008 and 2009 provides a unique opportunity to examine stream and fish responses to log-only and boulder-only instream placements. Pre-treatment data exists on these streams for smolt outmigration, summer habitat, spawning adults, summer seeding, channel cross-sections and temperature. ODFW has been collecting smolt out-migration data at five sites in the Upper Umpqua and Elk Creek watersheds almost continuously for 15 years to monitor yearly trends and to calculate over-winter survival rates of coho and steelhead. This OWEB grant will add to this baseline data and provide funding to continue past monitoring and add new monitoring components. Continuous smolt trap data from Brush, Big Tom Folley, and Hinkle Creeks is important to future efforts to monitor watershed health. Extensive habitat enhancement and fish inventories have been completed within the Hinkle Creek, Brush Creek and Big Tom Folley Creek basins. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Umpqua Watershed District joined with the Partnership for the Umpqua Rivers (PUR) in an effort to continue ongoing juvenile monitoring within the Umpqua Basin. Since little is known about stream-specific limiting factors and fish production response to various habitat restoration treatments such as log or boulder placement, these long term data sets will help to understand the fish response aspect related to or resulting from habitat restoration projects. Title: OWEB Grant Number 208-2084 Project Completion Report - PUR Monitoring Abstract -- While it is assumed that habitat enhancement and fish passage improvements increase fish production, there is little empirical data to support that claim in the Umpqua Basin. The Umpqua District has used smolt traps in the past to both establish a baseline record and to attempt to determine any response to habitat enhancement (Brush, Hinkle, and Big Tom Folley Creeks). Brush Creek and Big Tom Folley were originally chosen as monitoring sites since they are similar in characteristics, and Brush was originally the treatment stream for restoration projects while Big Tom Folley was used as the control until later projects occurred. Currently, there are PUR habitat enhancement projects scheduled to take place within the Little Wolf Creek and Wolf Creek basins. In order to gain more insight as to whether restoration efforts improve fish populations and address limiting factors, baseline and post treatment surveys will be needed. Restoration that is planned in Wolf and Little Wolf Creeks in 2008 and 2009 provides a unique opportunity to examine stream and fish responses to log-only and boulder-only instream placements. Pre-treatment data exists on these streams for smolt outmigration, summer habitat, spawning adults, summer seeding, channel cross-sections and temperature. ODFW has been collecting smolt out-migration data at five sites in the Upper Umpqua and Elk Creek watersheds almost continuously for 15 years to monitor yearly trends and to calculate over-winter survival rates of coho and steelhead. This OWEB grant will add to this baseline data and provide funding to continue past monitoring and add new monitoring components. Continuous smolt trap data from Brush, Big Tom Folley, and Hinkle Creeks is important to future efforts to monitor watershed health. Extensive habitat enhancement and fish inventories have been completed within the Hinkle Creek, Brush Creek and Big Tom Folley Creek basins. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Umpqua Watershed District joined with the Partnership for the Umpqua Rivers (PUR) in an effort to continue ongoing juvenile monitoring within the Umpqua Basin. Since little is known about stream-specific limiting factors and fish production response to various habitat restoration treatments such as log or boulder placement, these long term data sets will help to understand the fish response aspect related to or resulting from habitat restoration projects. Close

• 209. [Article] ODFW Sage Grouse Core Areas

  Abstract -- Core Area Approach to Habitat Mitigation for Greater Sage-Grouse in Oregon: The goal of these recommendations is to protect essential habitats to meet habitat and population objectives identified ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: ODFW Sage Grouse Core Areas Abstract -- Core Area Approach to Habitat Mitigation for Greater Sage-Grouse in Oregon: The goal of these recommendations is to protect essential habitats to meet habitat and population objectives identified in this Plan. The objective of these recommendations is to avoid, minimize, or mitigate for impacts on sage-grouse habitats from energy development, its associated infrastructure or other industrial/commercial developments. The rapid increase in energy development across the West in recent years has initiated a landscape approach to wildlife conservation, referred to as core areas (Doherty et al. 2011). The landscape approach prioritizes habitats based on measures that assess sage-grouse population and habitat relative abundance, and provides protection for a minimum of 75% of the population. The remaining 25% of the population area would be available for development with some level of stipulations and regulations, but likely at a reduced level. The strength of this approach is that it uses biological information to identify core areas with the objective of protecting the most important breeding areas. It also enables managers, at the landscape scale, to map and analyze the risks and necessary conservation measures for each core area. The limitation of this approach is that it focuses on breeding abundances. For sage-grouse the relative abundance data is drawn from spring lek counts of males. Thus, habitat conservation measures may be biased towards breeding and nesting only. Lek data have limitations as well including: variable sampling effort both spatially and temporally and detection probabilities have not been estimated for ground or aerial counts. Notwithstanding, these are the best data available for mapping sage-grouse distributions. Because the method outlined by Doherty et al. (2011) focuses on breeding habitats and ODFWs lek data is prone to variable sampling, an additional and complementary method was used to approximate seasonal use ranges, referred to as connectivity corridors. Using a home range estimator local and seasonal connectivity corridors were estimated. Thus, it is important to clarify some definitions about the mapping approach in Oregon. This document refers to Doherty's "core areas" (i.e., 25, 50, 75, 100%) as lek density strata. Lek density 25-75% polygons and the intersection of 100% strata and local connectivity polygons collectively define a "core area." Title: ODFW Sage Grouse Core Areas Abstract -- Core Area Approach to Habitat Mitigation for Greater Sage-Grouse in Oregon: The goal of these recommendations is to protect essential habitats to meet habitat and population objectives identified in this Plan. The objective of these recommendations is to avoid, minimize, or mitigate for impacts on sage-grouse habitats from energy development, its associated infrastructure or other industrial/commercial developments. The rapid increase in energy development across the West in recent years has initiated a landscape approach to wildlife conservation, referred to as core areas (Doherty et al. 2011). The landscape approach prioritizes habitats based on measures that assess sage-grouse population and habitat relative abundance, and provides protection for a minimum of 75% of the population. The remaining 25% of the population area would be available for development with some level of stipulations and regulations, but likely at a reduced level. The strength of this approach is that it uses biological information to identify core areas with the objective of protecting the most important breeding areas. It also enables managers, at the landscape scale, to map and analyze the risks and necessary conservation measures for each core area. The limitation of this approach is that it focuses on breeding abundances. For sage-grouse the relative abundance data is drawn from spring lek counts of males. Thus, habitat conservation measures may be biased towards breeding and nesting only. Lek data have limitations as well including: variable sampling effort both spatially and temporally and detection probabilities have not been estimated for ground or aerial counts. Notwithstanding, these are the best data available for mapping sage-grouse distributions. Because the method outlined by Doherty et al. (2011) focuses on breeding habitats and ODFWs lek data is prone to variable sampling, an additional and complementary method was used to approximate seasonal use ranges, referred to as connectivity corridors. Using a home range estimator local and seasonal connectivity corridors were estimated. Thus, it is important to clarify some definitions about the mapping approach in Oregon. This document refers to Doherty's "core areas" (i.e., 25, 50, 75, 100%) as lek density strata. Lek density 25-75% polygons and the intersection of 100% strata and local connectivity polygons collectively define a "core area." Close

• 210. [Article] Habitat Data; South Fork Floras Creek

  Abstract -- Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) habitat data for South Fork Floras Creek.

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Habitat Data; South Fork Floras Creek Abstract -- Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) habitat data for South Fork Floras Creek. Title: Habitat Data; South Fork Floras Creek Abstract -- Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) habitat data for South Fork Floras Creek. Close

• 211. [Article] Habitat Surveys; Saunders Creek, Lower Rogue River

  Abstract -- Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) habitat survey for Saunders Creek (Lower Rogue River).

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Habitat Surveys; Saunders Creek, Lower Rogue River Abstract -- Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) habitat survey for Saunders Creek (Lower Rogue River). Title: Habitat Surveys; Saunders Creek, Lower Rogue River Abstract -- Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) habitat survey for Saunders Creek (Lower Rogue River). Close

• 212. [Article] Habitat Surveys; Butte Creek and Morton Creek, New River Watershed

  Abstract -- Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) habitat surveys for Butte Creek and Morton Creek, New River watershed.

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Habitat Surveys; Butte Creek and Morton Creek, New River Watershed Abstract -- Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) habitat surveys for Butte Creek and Morton Creek, New River watershed. Title: Habitat Surveys; Butte Creek and Morton Creek, New River Watershed Abstract -- Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) habitat surveys for Butte Creek and Morton Creek, New River watershed. Close

• 213. [Article] ODFW Sage Grouse Action Areas

  Abstract -- A review of the Department’s Core Area and Conservation Opportunity maps was utilized to identify Action Areas that share common threats to sage-grouse. These Action Areas will help to focus ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: ODFW Sage Grouse Action Areas Abstract -- A review of the Department’s Core Area and Conservation Opportunity maps was utilized to identify Action Areas that share common threats to sage-grouse. These Action Areas will help to focus efforts for future habitat management actions and/or mitigation needs. Each Local Implementation Team (LIT) identified multiple Action Areas within their districts. The descriptions of threats and issues for each Action Area can be found in the meeting minutes for each LIT on ODFW’s website. Title: ODFW Sage Grouse Action Areas Abstract -- A review of the Department’s Core Area and Conservation Opportunity maps was utilized to identify Action Areas that share common threats to sage-grouse. These Action Areas will help to focus efforts for future habitat management actions and/or mitigation needs. Each Local Implementation Team (LIT) identified multiple Action Areas within their districts. The descriptions of threats and issues for each Action Area can be found in the meeting minutes for each LIT on ODFW’s website. Close

• 214. [Article] Luckiamute Rapid Bio-Assessment

  Abstract -- The 2011 Rapid Bio-Assessment inventory of the Luckiamute Watershed was a replicate inventory that attempted to target the most productive salmonid habitats in the basin. This was the fourth ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Luckiamute Rapid Bio-Assessment Abstract -- The 2011 Rapid Bio-Assessment inventory of the Luckiamute Watershed was a replicate inventory that attempted to target the most productive salmonid habitats in the basin. This was the fourth consecutive inventory in the basin designed to describe the distribution and relative abundance of coho, cutthroat trout and winter steelhead. The entire basin (214 stream miles) was inventoried in 2008 utilizing the RBA protocol which included many miles of dysfunctional aquatic habitats that currently exhibit deep channel entrenchment, elevated summer temperature profiles and provided limited summer production potential. Survey efforts were reduced to 96.6 stream miles in 2009 and covered only the highest quality habitat reaches. Surveys were further refined in 2010 to a subset of the highest quality habitats (90.2 stream miles) and reduced again in 2011 to 84.6 stream miles. Some streams in the basin were also surveyed in 2002 and 2003 in a separate effort funded by Boise Cascade, the previous owner of the current Forest Capital holdings. These included Beaver, Boulder, Clayton, Cougar, Miller, Pedee, Ritner, Sheythe, West Fork Luckiamute, Wolf, and approximately 7 miles of the upper Luckiamute mainstem. Results and comparisons to those surveys are included below in the Site Specific observations. The intent of the RBA inventory was to gather information on the status of juvenile salmonid summer distributions and summer rearing densities. The inventory consisted of extensive snorkel surveys that began at the mouth of each stream and continued to the end of significant salmonid rearing potential (not to the end of cutthroat distribution). These surveys will be used to develop a base line for understanding how juvenile salmonids are currently utilizing habitats within the basin during summer flow regimes. Replicates of this inventory in high priority stream reaches (streams exhibiting residual system function) will be critical for identifying trends in the distribution and abundance of juvenile coho, steelhead and cutthroat in response to watershed restoration and management. The Rapid Bio-Assessment (RBA) survey method was designed to sub-sample 20 percent of the pool habitats using a Rapid Assay technique that could cover large distances and succeed in describing the current distribution of juvenile salmonids in all of the surveyed streams and their tributaries. Beaver dam frequency was also recorded. Title: Luckiamute Rapid Bio-Assessment Abstract -- The 2011 Rapid Bio-Assessment inventory of the Luckiamute Watershed was a replicate inventory that attempted to target the most productive salmonid habitats in the basin. This was the fourth consecutive inventory in the basin designed to describe the distribution and relative abundance of coho, cutthroat trout and winter steelhead. The entire basin (214 stream miles) was inventoried in 2008 utilizing the RBA protocol which included many miles of dysfunctional aquatic habitats that currently exhibit deep channel entrenchment, elevated summer temperature profiles and provided limited summer production potential. Survey efforts were reduced to 96.6 stream miles in 2009 and covered only the highest quality habitat reaches. Surveys were further refined in 2010 to a subset of the highest quality habitats (90.2 stream miles) and reduced again in 2011 to 84.6 stream miles. Some streams in the basin were also surveyed in 2002 and 2003 in a separate effort funded by Boise Cascade, the previous owner of the current Forest Capital holdings. These included Beaver, Boulder, Clayton, Cougar, Miller, Pedee, Ritner, Sheythe, West Fork Luckiamute, Wolf, and approximately 7 miles of the upper Luckiamute mainstem. Results and comparisons to those surveys are included below in the Site Specific observations. The intent of the RBA inventory was to gather information on the status of juvenile salmonid summer distributions and summer rearing densities. The inventory consisted of extensive snorkel surveys that began at the mouth of each stream and continued to the end of significant salmonid rearing potential (not to the end of cutthroat distribution). These surveys will be used to develop a base line for understanding how juvenile salmonids are currently utilizing habitats within the basin during summer flow regimes. Replicates of this inventory in high priority stream reaches (streams exhibiting residual system function) will be critical for identifying trends in the distribution and abundance of juvenile coho, steelhead and cutthroat in response to watershed restoration and management. The Rapid Bio-Assessment (RBA) survey method was designed to sub-sample 20 percent of the pool habitats using a Rapid Assay technique that could cover large distances and succeed in describing the current distribution of juvenile salmonids in all of the surveyed streams and their tributaries. Beaver dam frequency was also recorded. Close

• 215. [Article] Oregon Resident Fish Habitat Distribution (NHD format)

  Abstract -- Oregon Resident Fish Habitat Distribution. These data describe areas of suitable habitat believed to be used currently or historically by wild, natural, and/or hatchery fish populations. The ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Oregon Resident Fish Habitat Distribution (NHD format) Abstract -- Oregon Resident Fish Habitat Distribution. These data describe areas of suitable habitat believed to be used currently or historically by wild, natural, and/or hatchery fish populations. The term "currently" is defined as within the past five reproductive cycles. Historical habitat includes suitable habitat that fish no longer access and will not access in the foreseeable future without human intervention. This information is based on sampling, the best professional opinion of Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife or other natural resources agency staff biologists or modeling (see the fhdBasis field). Due to natural variations in run size, water conditions, or other environmental factors, some habitats identified may not be used annually. These data comply with the Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution Data Standard that was adopted by the Oregon Geographic Information Council in February 2011. The Standard document can be found at: http://gis.oregon.gov/DAS/EISPD/GEO/standards/docs/OregonFishHabitatDistributionDataStandardv2.pdf Historical habitat distribution data are within the scope of the standard and are identified via the habitat use (fhdUseType) attribute. Historical habitats are only identified outside of currently accessible habitat and are not comprehensive. Key features of the Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution Data include: species, run, life history, habitat use, origin, production, the basis for each record, originator name, originator entity and reference. Habitat distribution data are mapped at a 1:24,000 scale statewide and are based on the were originally developed against the Pacific Northwest Framework Hydrography dataset. The data are made available as GIS files in both shapefile and ESRI geodatabase format. The data were developed over an extensive time period ranging from 1996 to 2014. Data were migrated to the National Hydrography Dataset in 2014. The attached geodatabase includes distribution for: Coastal Cutthroat trout, Bull trout, Redband trout, Rainbow trout, Westslope Cutthroat trout, Lahontan Cutthroat trout and Western Brook Lamprey. Data for Coastal Cutthroat trout, Rainbow trout and Western Brook Lamprey are not comprehensive. Title: Oregon Resident Fish Habitat Distribution (NHD format) Abstract -- Oregon Resident Fish Habitat Distribution. These data describe areas of suitable habitat believed to be used currently or historically by wild, natural, and/or hatchery fish populations. The term "currently" is defined as within the past five reproductive cycles. Historical habitat includes suitable habitat that fish no longer access and will not access in the foreseeable future without human intervention. This information is based on sampling, the best professional opinion of Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife or other natural resources agency staff biologists or modeling (see the fhdBasis field). Due to natural variations in run size, water conditions, or other environmental factors, some habitats identified may not be used annually. These data comply with the Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution Data Standard that was adopted by the Oregon Geographic Information Council in February 2011. The Standard document can be found at: http://gis.oregon.gov/DAS/EISPD/GEO/standards/docs/OregonFishHabitatDistributionDataStandardv2.pdf Historical habitat distribution data are within the scope of the standard and are identified via the habitat use (fhdUseType) attribute. Historical habitats are only identified outside of currently accessible habitat and are not comprehensive. Key features of the Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution Data include: species, run, life history, habitat use, origin, production, the basis for each record, originator name, originator entity and reference. Habitat distribution data are mapped at a 1:24,000 scale statewide and are based on the were originally developed against the Pacific Northwest Framework Hydrography dataset. The data are made available as GIS files in both shapefile and ESRI geodatabase format. The data were developed over an extensive time period ranging from 1996 to 2014. Data were migrated to the National Hydrography Dataset in 2014. The attached geodatabase includes distribution for: Coastal Cutthroat trout, Bull trout, Redband trout, Rainbow trout, Westslope Cutthroat trout, Lahontan Cutthroat trout and Western Brook Lamprey. Data for Coastal Cutthroat trout, Rainbow trout and Western Brook Lamprey are not comprehensive. Close

• 216. [Article] 2012-2014 Elk Flats Fish Data

  Abstract -- The Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST) completed three years of post-implementation effectiveness monitoring at Elk Flats. The project goal was to create high quality tidal off ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: 2012-2014 Elk Flats Fish Data Abstract -- The Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST) completed three years of post-implementation effectiveness monitoring at Elk Flats. The project goal was to create high quality tidal off channel habitat on the lower Ecola Creek mainstem. Monitoring of the project site included fish community, vegetation, and water quality. Results provide quantitative and qualitative evaluation of project success. CREST biologists completed the monitoring for this project following published standardized protocols. Four species of fish were observed in the created channel during the years sampled; Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii), Pacific staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus), and threespine stickleback (Gasterosteidae aculeatus). Overall threespine stickleback were the most abundantly caught. Title: 2012-2014 Elk Flats Fish Data Abstract -- The Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST) completed three years of post-implementation effectiveness monitoring at Elk Flats. The project goal was to create high quality tidal off channel habitat on the lower Ecola Creek mainstem. Monitoring of the project site included fish community, vegetation, and water quality. Results provide quantitative and qualitative evaluation of project success. CREST biologists completed the monitoring for this project following published standardized protocols. Four species of fish were observed in the created channel during the years sampled; Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii), Pacific staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus), and threespine stickleback (Gasterosteidae aculeatus). Overall threespine stickleback were the most abundantly caught. Close

• 217. [Article] Oregon South Coast Estuaries: Hunter Creek, Pistol River, Chetco River, & Winchuck River Tidal Wetlands Assessment (2012-2015)

  Abstract -- Although tidal wetlands on the Oregon South Coast are limited in extent, they may be particularly valuable for a variety of wetland functions. This assessment combines the Brophy (2007) and ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Oregon South Coast Estuaries: Hunter Creek, Pistol River, Chetco River, & Winchuck River Tidal Wetlands Assessment (2012-2015) Abstract -- Although tidal wetlands on the Oregon South Coast are limited in extent, they may be particularly valuable for a variety of wetland functions. This assessment combines the Brophy (2007) and Adamus (2005) approaches to quantify the extent and causes of habitat loss and hydrogeomorphic changes in tidal wetlands of four Oregon South Coast Estuaries. The potential for restoring critical habitat and wetland functions is ranked using Ecological Prioritization Criteria (Brophy, 2007), while indicators of function, risk, and integrity are evaluated using scoring models from the Adamus (2005) Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Rapid Assessment Method. The extent of inundation (head of tide) during King Tide conditions was observed and documented by staff and volunteers. Field measurements of salinity concentrations and stratification during high and low flow were tabulated. The historic aerial photo record was examined to detect channel migration, floodplain re-vegetation, and human-caused alterations. Related studies were combined with these observations to provide a summary of estuary hydrology, sedimentation, and channel stability related to wetland establishment and loss in each of the four estuaries. Ecological priority scores (Brophy, 2007) varied with wetland size, tidal channel condition, connectivity, and diversity of vegetation classes. Wetlands were categorized as restoration or conservation types, and priority ranks for wetlands were depicted on orthophoto base maps. Tidal wetlands and nearby floodplain wetlands in a variety of geomorphic settings were surveyed using the HGM protocol, including one “reference” and one restoration site . The HGM survey scores 55 indicators, including botanical transects, used to rank wetland functions (calculated by indicator scoring models). Risks to wetlands include human disturbances in close proximity to the wetlands and floodplains, resulting from the narrow valley floors in this tectonically active region. Wetland integrity is threatened by a surprising large proportion of non-native species in the botanical transects, 40%. Wetland indicators that scored low, and could be restored or enhanced, are discussed in a restoration considerations narrative. Wetland descriptions include lists of plant species, grouped by wetland status, native/non-native, and perennial/annual persistence. In addition to the HGM scores, an analysis of cover and diversity of all plant species in plots, off-transect species diversity, and waterfowl food distribution was completed using a wetland vegetation database developed for the Oregon South Coast. Title: Oregon South Coast Estuaries: Hunter Creek, Pistol River, Chetco River, & Winchuck River Tidal Wetlands Assessment (2012-2015) Abstract -- Although tidal wetlands on the Oregon South Coast are limited in extent, they may be particularly valuable for a variety of wetland functions. This assessment combines the Brophy (2007) and Adamus (2005) approaches to quantify the extent and causes of habitat loss and hydrogeomorphic changes in tidal wetlands of four Oregon South Coast Estuaries. The potential for restoring critical habitat and wetland functions is ranked using Ecological Prioritization Criteria (Brophy, 2007), while indicators of function, risk, and integrity are evaluated using scoring models from the Adamus (2005) Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Rapid Assessment Method. The extent of inundation (head of tide) during King Tide conditions was observed and documented by staff and volunteers. Field measurements of salinity concentrations and stratification during high and low flow were tabulated. The historic aerial photo record was examined to detect channel migration, floodplain re-vegetation, and human-caused alterations. Related studies were combined with these observations to provide a summary of estuary hydrology, sedimentation, and channel stability related to wetland establishment and loss in each of the four estuaries. Ecological priority scores (Brophy, 2007) varied with wetland size, tidal channel condition, connectivity, and diversity of vegetation classes. Wetlands were categorized as restoration or conservation types, and priority ranks for wetlands were depicted on orthophoto base maps. Tidal wetlands and nearby floodplain wetlands in a variety of geomorphic settings were surveyed using the HGM protocol, including one “reference” and one restoration site . The HGM survey scores 55 indicators, including botanical transects, used to rank wetland functions (calculated by indicator scoring models). Risks to wetlands include human disturbances in close proximity to the wetlands and floodplains, resulting from the narrow valley floors in this tectonically active region. Wetland integrity is threatened by a surprising large proportion of non-native species in the botanical transects, 40%. Wetland indicators that scored low, and could be restored or enhanced, are discussed in a restoration considerations narrative. Wetland descriptions include lists of plant species, grouped by wetland status, native/non-native, and perennial/annual persistence. In addition to the HGM scores, an analysis of cover and diversity of all plant species in plots, off-transect species diversity, and waterfowl food distribution was completed using a wetland vegetation database developed for the Oregon South Coast. Close

• 218. [Article] Morton Creek AIP Report-2008 & 2012

  Abstract -- In 2009 the Curry Soil and Water Conservation District (District), the South Coast Watershed Council (Council), and their partners, undertook a channel relocation project on lower Morton Creek ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Morton Creek AIP Report-2008 & 2012 Abstract -- In 2009 the Curry Soil and Water Conservation District (District), the South Coast Watershed Council (Council), and their partners, undertook a channel relocation project on lower Morton Creek that replaced 0.5 miles of ditched stream channel with 0.6 miles of newly constructed, designed stream channel. To evaluate the effectiveness of the project the District and Council conducted pre and post stream habitat surveys using the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW) Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) protocol. This report is a comparison of the results of those surveys. Title: Morton Creek AIP Report-2008 & 2012 Abstract -- In 2009 the Curry Soil and Water Conservation District (District), the South Coast Watershed Council (Council), and their partners, undertook a channel relocation project on lower Morton Creek that replaced 0.5 miles of ditched stream channel with 0.6 miles of newly constructed, designed stream channel. To evaluate the effectiveness of the project the District and Council conducted pre and post stream habitat surveys using the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW) Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) protocol. This report is a comparison of the results of those surveys. Close

• 219. [Article] Butte Creek AIP Report 2008 & 2012

  Abstract -- In 2009 the Curry Soil and Water Conservation District (District), the South Coast Watershed Council (Council), and their partners, undertook a channel relocation project on lower Morton Creek ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Butte Creek AIP Report 2008 & 2012 Abstract -- In 2009 the Curry Soil and Water Conservation District (District), the South Coast Watershed Council (Council), and their partners, undertook a channel relocation project on lower Morton Creek that replaced 0.5 miles of ditched stream channel with 0.6 miles of newly constructed, designed stream channel. To evaluate the effectiveness of the project the District and Council conducted pre and post stream habitat surveys using the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW) Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) protocol. This report is a comparison of the results of those surveys. Title: Butte Creek AIP Report 2008 & 2012 Abstract -- In 2009 the Curry Soil and Water Conservation District (District), the South Coast Watershed Council (Council), and their partners, undertook a channel relocation project on lower Morton Creek that replaced 0.5 miles of ditched stream channel with 0.6 miles of newly constructed, designed stream channel. To evaluate the effectiveness of the project the District and Council conducted pre and post stream habitat surveys using the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW) Aquatic Inventory Project (AIP) protocol. This report is a comparison of the results of those surveys. Close

• 220. [Article] Elk-Sixes Hoop Trap Results 2012-2014

  Abstract -- The report summarizes juvenile outmigration sampling conducted between 2012 and 2014 on two tributaries in the lower Elk River watershed and two tributaries in the lower Sixes River watersh...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Elk-Sixes Hoop Trap Results 2012-2014 Abstract -- The report summarizes juvenile outmigration sampling conducted between 2012 and 2014 on two tributaries in the lower Elk River watershed and two tributaries in the lower Sixes River watershed. Title: Elk-Sixes Hoop Trap Results 2012-2014 Abstract -- The report summarizes juvenile outmigration sampling conducted between 2012 and 2014 on two tributaries in the lower Elk River watershed and two tributaries in the lower Sixes River watershed. Close

• 221. [Article] Oregon Conservation Strategy Ecoregions

  Abstract -- Oregon Conservation Strategy ecoregion boundaries are maintained by the Oregon Department of Fish and WIldlife (ODFW), and are used as a geographic organization within the Strategy to prioritize ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Oregon Conservation Strategy Ecoregions Abstract -- Oregon Conservation Strategy ecoregion boundaries are maintained by the Oregon Department of Fish and WIldlife (ODFW), and are used as a geographic organization within the Strategy to prioritize Strategy Species, Habitats, limiting factors, and recommended approaches. All ecoregions except the Nearshore ecoregion are provided from the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC) March, 2010 ecoregion dataset (which is originally based on US EPA Level III Ecoregions). The Nearshore ecoregion, including the Coast Range/Nearshore boundary, were provided from the Oregon State Boundary dataset, provided via the Oregon GEO Spatial Data Library (with credit provided to BLM). Juristidictional boundaries were used to ensure all of Oregon is divided into appropriate ecoregions, as defined in the revised Oregon Conservation Strategy, and clipped at the Oregon state line. All ecoregion boundaryes are presented at a coarse scale representation , in particular the Nearshore ecoregion, which by definition includes some portions of estuaries and the entire inter-tidal, (or splash) zone. Title: Oregon Conservation Strategy Ecoregions Abstract -- Oregon Conservation Strategy ecoregion boundaries are maintained by the Oregon Department of Fish and WIldlife (ODFW), and are used as a geographic organization within the Strategy to prioritize Strategy Species, Habitats, limiting factors, and recommended approaches. All ecoregions except the Nearshore ecoregion are provided from the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC) March, 2010 ecoregion dataset (which is originally based on US EPA Level III Ecoregions). The Nearshore ecoregion, including the Coast Range/Nearshore boundary, were provided from the Oregon State Boundary dataset, provided via the Oregon GEO Spatial Data Library (with credit provided to BLM). Juristidictional boundaries were used to ensure all of Oregon is divided into appropriate ecoregions, as defined in the revised Oregon Conservation Strategy, and clipped at the Oregon state line. All ecoregion boundaryes are presented at a coarse scale representation , in particular the Nearshore ecoregion, which by definition includes some portions of estuaries and the entire inter-tidal, (or splash) zone. Close

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

  	Abstract Everest, Fred H.; Stouder, Deanna J.; Kakoyannis, Christina; Houston, Laurie; Stankey, George; Kline, Jeffery; Alig, Ralph. 2004. A review of scientific information ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: A review of scientific information on issues related to the use and management of water resources in the Pacific Northwest Year: 2004 Abstract Everest, Fred H.; Stouder, Deanna J.; Kakoyannis, Christina; Houston, Laurie; Stankey, George; Kline, Jeffery; Alig, Ralph. 2004. A review of scientific information on issues related to the use and management of water resources in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-595. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 128 p. Fresh water is a valuable and essential commodity in the Pacific Northwest States, specifically Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and one provided abundantly by forested watersheds in the region. The maintenance and growth of industrial, municipal, agricultural, and recreational activities in the region are dependent on adequate and sustainable supplies of fresh water from surface and ground-water sources. Future development, especially in the semiarid intermountain area, depends on the conservation and expansion of the region's water resource. This synthesis reviews the state of our knowledge and condition of water resources in the Pacific Northwest. Keywords: Water distribution, flow regimes, water demand, conflicts, tools, water use. Title: A review of scientific information on issues related to the use and management of water resources in the Pacific Northwest Year: 2004 Abstract Everest, Fred H.; Stouder, Deanna J.; Kakoyannis, Christina; Houston, Laurie; Stankey, George; Kline, Jeffery; Alig, Ralph. 2004. A review of scientific information on issues related to the use and management of water resources in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-595. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 128 p. Fresh water is a valuable and essential commodity in the Pacific Northwest States, specifically Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and one provided abundantly by forested watersheds in the region. The maintenance and growth of industrial, municipal, agricultural, and recreational activities in the region are dependent on adequate and sustainable supplies of fresh water from surface and ground-water sources. Future development, especially in the semiarid intermountain area, depends on the conservation and expansion of the region's water resource. This synthesis reviews the state of our knowledge and condition of water resources in the Pacific Northwest. Keywords: Water distribution, flow regimes, water demand, conflicts, tools, water use. Close

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 227. [Image] The Endangered Species Act and its impact on agricultural producers: hearing before the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research of the Committee on Agriculture, House of representatives, One Hundred Eighth Congress, second session, July 26, 2004, Greely, CO.

  	CONTENTS Lucas, Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma, opening statement .................................................................................... 1 Musgrave, ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Endangered Species Act and its impact on agricultural producers: hearing before the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research of the Committee on Agriculture, House of representatives, One Hundred Eighth Congress, second session, July 26, 2004, Greely, CO. Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Agriculture. Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research. Year: 2004, 2005 CONTENTS Lucas, Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma, opening statement .................................................................................... 1 Musgrave, Hon. Marilyn N., a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, opening statement........................................................................... 2 Witnesses Foutz, Alan, president, Colorado Farm Bureau, Centennial, CO ........................ 10 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 George, Russell, executive director, Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Denver, CO............................................................................................. 4 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 Palmer, William, executive director, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO ........................................................................................................ 16 Prepared statement.......................................................................................... 60 Sims, James T., executive director, Western Business Roundtable, Golden, CO.......................................................................................................................... 13 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 Stetson, Jean, co-chairman, Endangered Species Committee, Colorado Cattlemen, Craig, CO..................................................................................................... 7 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 Submitted Material Weege, Merle, secretary, Ginseng Board of Wisconsin, statement...................... 65 Title: The Endangered Species Act and its impact on agricultural producers: hearing before the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research of the Committee on Agriculture, House of representatives, One Hundred Eighth Congress, second session, July 26, 2004, Greely, CO. Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Agriculture. Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research. Year: 2004, 2005 CONTENTS Lucas, Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma, opening statement .................................................................................... 1 Musgrave, Hon. Marilyn N., a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, opening statement........................................................................... 2 Witnesses Foutz, Alan, president, Colorado Farm Bureau, Centennial, CO ........................ 10 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 George, Russell, executive director, Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Denver, CO............................................................................................. 4 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 Palmer, William, executive director, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO ........................................................................................................ 16 Prepared statement.......................................................................................... 60 Sims, James T., executive director, Western Business Roundtable, Golden, CO.......................................................................................................................... 13 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 Stetson, Jean, co-chairman, Endangered Species Committee, Colorado Cattlemen, Craig, CO..................................................................................................... 7 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 Submitted Material Weege, Merle, secretary, Ginseng Board of Wisconsin, statement...................... 65 Close

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

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

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

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

• 230. [Image] Surveying forest streams for fish use

  	Oregon Department of Forestry Forest Practices Section 2600 State Street Salem, OR 97310 Dl Fish 8 Wildlife Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Division P. O. Box 59 Portland, OR ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Surveying forest streams for fish use Author: Oregon. Forest Practices Section; Oregon. Habitat Conservation Division Year: 1995, 2005, 2004 Oregon Department of Forestry Forest Practices Section 2600 State Street Salem, OR 97310 Dl Fish 8 Wildlife Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Division P. O. Box 59 Portland, OR 97207 Introduction Identifying Oregon streams that contain fish is an important part in carrying out the new Water Protection Rules. These rules aim to protect areas of benefi-cial uses, such as fish. First, however, the beneficial uses present in each forest stream must be correctly identified. At present, a large number of fish- bearing streams are not identified on stream classification maps. To correct this problem, the Oregon Department of Forestry ( ODF) and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ( ODFW) must complete comprehensive surveys to identify fish use on all non- federal forest streams in Oregon. This effort will require at least 3 to 5 years and a significant financial investment. Because many streams are not accurately classified, the new rules also tempo-rarily protect streams that are likely to contain fish. Under the rules, for example, if Stream A flows into a body of water known to contain fish, it is assumed that fish also are using Stream A, up to the point that a natural barrier blocks their way farther upstream ( see OAR 629- 57- 2100: ll( b) B). Once the survey efforts are complete, this interim rule will not be needed. Coordinated efforts by public agencies, landowners, and others to complete fish- presence surveys will assure that important fisheries resources are pro-tected in the most cost- effective way. Landowners or any interested party may collect stream- classification information so that the overall survey can be completed as quickly as possible. Many private forest landowners, in cooperation with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, are now completing inventories of stream habitat conditions on their lands. In the future, these cooperative efforts may also include fish-presence surveys. This publication tells how to complete fish- presence surveys on forested streams. The guidelines cover: How to plan either " operation- specific" or " maximum upstream fish distribution" surveys The proper way to conduct surveys The proper time of year to conduct surveys Minimum efforts required in completing the surveys The legal requirements for completing the surveys How to provide information to Oregon Department of Forestry to update the stream classification maps The stream reclassification process Operation- specif ic surveys Maximum upstream distribution surveys Planning the survey There are two major types of survey: operation- specific surveys, and surveys to find the maximum upstream distribution of fish. Each type requires different planning and is conducted using different approaches. Operation- specific surveys are those to classify a stream only in the particular area of an operation. This kind of survey may not include efforts to determine the maximum upstream extent of fish use. An operation- specific survey takes minimal planning and coordination. However, it may be very inefficient in the long run because future activities in other areas of the stream may require additional surveys. An operation- specilk survey is very simple to complete. It starts at the down-stream end of the operation area and moves upstream either to the end of the operation area or to the end of fish distribution, whichever comes first. If the purpose of the survey is to prove no fish use, the surveyor must be sure to make at least the minimum effort required to find fish ( see the section on " Survey Effort" on page 10). This kind of survey is done on an entire stream reach or on multiple stream reaches rather than on a restricted portion of a stream. Often, all streams within a basin or reach are completely surveyed. In some cases, the surveys encompass entire ownerships or watersheds. The specific locations of planned operations are usually not the main factor in setting up this kind of survey but can help decide which areas to survey first. Surveys to find the maximum upstream extent of fish use may be the most efficient and cost- effective. Surveyors often cover a group of streams in one area at a time; therefore, travel time is minimized because, often, a group of streams can be easily reached by one common forest road. When travel time is less, the time spent actually completing surveys is greater. This kind of survey may require slightly more planning and coordination to assure efficiency and to minimize duplication of effort by adjacent landowners or by other public agencies, but overall this approach is more cost- effective than the operation-specific surveys. Surveying for the maximum upstream distribution of fish may take more plan-ning than an operation- specific survey, but it is still relatively simple. First, look at ODF Stream Classification Maps for the survey area to see the current extent of fish- use streams. Also note which streams are not classified at all. Next, decide where to start the survey. It may help your planning if you know the relationship between watershed basin area and fish use for your area. Contact the local ODFW office to find out whether these relationships have been established for streams in your area. The information predicts where fish use is " likely to end" and so will help you decide where to start your surveys. At this point, you also may want to consider operations that are planned for certain areas and decide to survey those areas first. After choosing a starting area, look at current road maps to find potential starting points for the survey ( see Figure 1). Look for access points ( such as road crossings) near the upper reaches of the stream. When possible, a survey should start near the highest accessible point in the watershed. If road access to the stream is limited, you may want to start the survey near the point at which the stream's classification size changes from " medium" to " small"; often this point is near the end of fish use ( see Figure 2, page 4). At the starting point, first sample upstream. If you find fish, continue the survey upstream until fish use ends. Be sure to continue sampling above the point at which fish use ends ( see " Survey Effort," page 10). If you make all the required efforts but do not find fish, then survey downstream from the original starting point until you find fish. When surveying downstream, it is important to walk on the streambank until you are ready to sample so that the water stays clear. Begin fish survey above road crossing Fish use extends at least this far Figure I . Selecting survey starting points in an area with a road crossing. Additional survey work may be required if the maximum distribution of fish seems to be affected by a road culvert. If the stream above the culvert has no fish, sample the pool immediately below the culvert. If you find fish in this pool or downstream near the culvert, the culvert is a possible barrier to fish passage. Describe the culvert and the stream on the survey form ( page 19). If you do not find fish in the pool below the culvert, continue the survey down-stream until you do see fish. Begin fish survey here \ \\ \ / I Fish use extends at least this far - - k I Figure 2. Selecting survey starting points, based on the stream- size classification, in an area without a road crossing. Surveys to find the maximum upstream distribution of fish may require sampling across several land ownerships. Be certain to get permission from other landowners before beginning the survey. Contacts with other landowners are also important to prevent a duplication of effort, because many landowners and agencies may be conducting fish- presence surveys. When figuring how many surveyors and how much time you'll need to com-plete surveys in your area, you may want to consider the Department of Forestry's experience. We found that sampling a township ( 36 square miles) required approximately 24 person- days in the Coast region, but an area the same size in the Blue Mountains required only 4 person- days. Survey methods The accuracy and reliability of survey results depend greatly on the methods used to conduct the survey. Methods range from simply looking in the stream ( visual observation) to more intensive and effective sampling with a backpack electroshocker. The method you choose depends on the availability of sam-pling equipment, the size of the stream, the flow and clarity of the water, and other factors. It is important to select a sampling method that is best for the type of survey and for the waters being sampled. If the sample method is not appropriate, the results of the survey will not be very useful. For example, just looking at a stream may tell you there are fish in it at that point, but it is not an acceptable way to find the maximum upstream extent of fish use. Surveys to show that fish are not present require more sampling and specialized equipment in order to provide reliable results. Whenever the survey uses methods other than an electroshocker, it's important to thoroughly explain on the survey report form the reasons for using the other methods. This is the simplest method; it involves only walking the stream to look for fish. It is best to wear polarized sunglasses to reduce glare from the water and to survey only when water conditions allow good visibility. It's also best to walk upstream so that you can " sneak up" on fish in pools. Fish often are near the upstream ends of pools waiting for food to drift toward them. Small fish, such as fry, often are in shallow water along the margin of the stream. Be very alert because fish usually will dart into cover when they detect any movement, especially in small headwater streams. It helps to toss bread crumbs, insects, small twigs, or bemes into the stream to entice the fish to leave cover. The visual method is best suited to small streams where pools aren't deep enough to prevent your seeing the fish. This method is also the least damaging to the fish because actual collection is not required. However, the value of survey results can be reduced by many factors such as cloudy water, surface glare on the water, overcast days ( reduced light), fish behavior, and even the surveyor's poor eyesight. For these reasons, this method is not effective for determining the maximum upstream limit of fish distribution, although it can be used to prove fish are in a certain reach of the stream. Snorkeling is a special method of visual observation that can work well in some situations. Snorkeling allows you to see underwater through a diving mask and breathing snorkel. This method can be used in larger waters where electroshockers are less successful, and it has been used to locate fry where other methods failed. Night snorkel surveys are particularly useful for observ-ing bull trout fry. Visual observation Hook and line Backpack electroshocker The hook- and- line method uses a rod and reel and relies on the feeding be-havior of the fish. In small streams, drop a baited hook into the deepest pools, where larger fish often are. Bait can include worms, single eggs, cheese, dry flies, or stream insects such as caddis larvae. Sample pools that have a lot of cover because those tend to support greater numbers of fish. As with the visual observation method, approach the pool cautiously to avoid alerting the fish. To minimize the risk of injuring or killing the fish, always use barbless hooks. The hook- and- line method can be used when conditions are not good for visual sampling; for example, when water is not clear, flow is high, or the day is overcast. This method may be the most effective for sampling some larger or deeper waters where visual and electroshocker methods can be ineffective. These waters include deep beaver ponds and large, steep streams where downstream barriers ( such as falls and very steep sections) keep fish out of the small tributaries. This method has limitations, though, depending on fish behavior and the life stage of the fish that are present. Fish may be reluctant to bite on cold days, or when the water is murky with sediment, or if the fish detect the surveyor's presence. Also, hook- and- line sampling is not effective if only fry are in the stream. This method also depends on the angling skills of the surveyor. As with the visual observation method, hook- and- line sampling may not be the best way to determine the maximum upstream distribution of fish in small streams, but often it can be used to find fish in larger waters. The most effective way to determine the upstream extent of fish is with a backpack electroshocker. Electroshocker sampling requires additional training and experience, though, to be effective and safe. A backpack electroshocker introduces an electric field into the stream that temporarily immobilizes fish. Stunned fish can be observed as they float in the water, or they can be captured in a small hand net for closer observation if necessary. As with other methods, it is best to work in an upstream direction, wear polarized glasses, and to approach the sampling site carefully to avoid alerting the fish. One person nets fish while another person operates the electroshocker. The netter should walk behind or beside the shocker to avoid alerting the fish. The electroshocker can be very effective for sampling in small streams even where brush or instream cover prevents most other sampling methods. In fact, an electroshocker is often most effective in areas with instream cover because fish usually concentrate in these locations. This method works in streams of various sizes but is less effective in larger streams and in deep pools, espe-cially large beaver ponds. Use electroshockers carefully to minimize killing fish. When properly adjusted and used, the electroshocker should stun the fish without killing them. The fish may escape if the current is set too low, but usually the surveyor will still see the fish and so be able to document fish presence. To sample effectively and minimize fish kill, set the electroshocker on the lowest practical voltage output and low- frequency currents ( low pulse rates). Before sampling, use a voltame-ter to test the electroshocker in a stream. If the voltameter is not available, it is a good idea to test the electroshocker in a stream that you know has fish before working in streams whose fish use you do not know. The test will tell you whether the equipment is working and the effects of using different settings. The surveyors' safety must be considered carefully before using this method. Electroshockers can injure or kill humans if not properly used. Surveyors should not use this method without proper training, including CPR training. Surveyors should work in crews of at least two. All surveyors should wear rubber waders and rubber gloves during stream shocking and never use dipnets with metallic handles; the nets should have wood or fiberglass handles. All members of an electroshocking crew should understand the proper operation procedures and potential dangers of this equipment. The effectiveness of electroshocker sampling depends on water conditions and on the skills of the electroshocker operator and the netter. The electroshocker method may not be so useful in high flows or in turbulent or murky water because the surveyors may not see immobilized fish. Another drawback to this method is that the electroshockers may not be widely available and can be expensive. However, with proper training and experience and under suitable survey conditions, this method is the best for accurately determining the maximum upstream extent of fish use. There may be situations where reliable results can be had by using methods not discussed here. For example, headwater beaver ponds may be effectively Other methods sampled by fishing for at least 48 hours with minnow traps baited with salmon eggs or commercial trout bait. Or, seine nets may be effective in beaver ponds or larger waters. If you are thinking about using these or other sampling methods, discuss it first with the departments of Fish and Wildlife and of Forestry. They will decide whether the proposed methods are appropriate and, if so, set the required minimum level of sample effort for the alternate method. A backpack electroshocker is the best way to get reliable information about the upstream extent of fish use or to prove a stream is m e N ( no fish use). Sur- Survey methods: vey data that document the presence of fish through other methods, such as a summary visual observation or hook- and- line, will always be used to classify streams as Type F as far up as the point of observation, even though the exact upstream extent of fish use may not be known. In some cases, methods other than an electroshocker may give reliable information about the maximum upstream distribution of fish. Examples include deep beaver ponds and large, steep streams in which barriers keep fish out of small upstream tributaries. In those cases, reliable results may be better obtained with hook- and- line sampling or with other methods. Whenever the survey is conducted by methods other than an electroshocker, the reasons for choosing the other method must be thor-oughly explained on the survey form. Timing the surveys Survey accuracy depends a lot on the time of year the survey is done and on stream conditions at that time. Since the purpose of the survey is to accurately document the presence or absence of fish, it is critical to do the survey when fish are expected to be using the upper reaches of a stream. This generally is near spawning times or soon after fry emerge, when stream flows are relatively high. A survey done during a low- flow period may not indicate the actual maximum upstream extent of fish use or accurately prove no fish use the stream. Fish may use the upper reaches of a stream for a limited time only, so fish- use surveys must be timed carefully. Surveys done at other than recommended times may not give a complete description of fish use. For example, if fish are found at other than the recommended survey times, the surveyed part of the stream can be classified as fish- bearing, but the maximum upstream extent of fish use may not be known. If fish are not found, that will not necessarily prove that the stream reach does not support fish use. Only if the survey is made at a time when fish are most likely to be there can the absence of fish be a reliable sign that no fish use that portion of the stream. Other factors can affect the reliability of the survey even if it is made at the proper time. Abnormal flows due to drought or extreme runoff could affect the distribution of fish or the sampling efficiency of the surveyor. So, it is best not only to do the sampling within the recommended time period but also when conditions are appropriate. In some cases, survey timing may not have much effect on the reliability of survey results. This could occur when factors other than seasonal flow patterns control the upstream extent of fish distribution. For example, streams that get most of their water from springs may not have seasonal flow variations, including summer flows low enough to control the upstream distribution of fish. Or, conditions other than low flow could be controlling distribution. For example, large, steep streams that have natural barriers such as falls and steep, impassable sections. In such cases, surveys taken outside the recommended time periods may yield reliable data. However, it is important to describe these conditions thoroughly on the survey forms to justify not following the recom-mended timing. See Table 1 for the recommended sampling periods for different regions of the state for normal water- flow years. Periods differ due to variations in stream flow patterns, fish species, and life- history traits of the species in the different areas. Contact the local ODFW office before sampling to find out the best time to survey the stream you are planning to sample. Table 1. General recommended time periods to sample streams, by geographic region, during nomull water- flow years. Please contact your local ODFW ofice before sampling in order to get specific timing recommendations for the stream you will be sampling. REGION of Recommended Georeaion Stream Survey Period WESTERNO REGON All Coast South Coast West Cascades Interior Siskiyou March 1 through May 3 1 EASTERONR EGON All except spring- fed April 1 East Cascades through June 30 Blue Mountains Spring- fed streams* Entire year * Spring- fed streams are streams that get most of their water Born groundwater sources and that have very minor seasonal variations in flow. Stream surveys must be done within certain time periods ( Table 1) if the purpose is to prove the stream does not contain fish or to document the maximum upstream extent of fish use. mming recommendations are based on normal water- flow years and may vary in some years. Contact the local ODFW office before sampling to get specific timing recommendations for the streams to be surveyed. Information gathered at other times of the year may be used to document fish presence but may not be reliable enough to establish upstream fish- use limits or to classify the stream as II) lpe N ( no fish use). Whenever the recommended survey timing is not used, it is important to explain the reasons on the survey form so that the data can be evaluated for reliability. ~ - ~ Survey timing: a summary Survey effort: a summary Survey effort The level of effort used to complete the survey also can affect the reliability of the survey results. If the level of effort or the amount of stream sampled is too little, it may be wrong to conclude that fish are not present. The following guidelines describe the minimum level of survey effort required to assure that the data are reliable. If the purpose of the survey is to show that no fish use the stream, the survey will be considered reliable only if it includes at least 50 yards of stream length md a minimum of six pools, each at least 1 foot deep, immediately upstream of the point at which the non- fish- bearing section begins. ( In some cases, the survey will have to cover much more than 50 yards of stream in order to also include the required six pools.) In addition, the survey must include sampling any beaver dam ponds in the upstream non- fish section. Surveyors are encouraged to exceed the minimum level of effort in order to be even more sure that fish are absent from a stream reach and that the maximum upstream extent of fish use has been found. A survey intended to show the absence of fish must sample at least 50 yards of stream distance and a minimum of six pools, each at least 1 foot deep, imme-diately upstream of the point at which fish use is believed to end. In addition, any beaver ponds upstream must be sampled as part of the survey. The require-ments for the methods used and the timing of the survey also must be met in order to document the absence of fish. Legal requirements In Oregon, the Department of Fish and Wildlife regulates the collection of fish for personal or scientific use. Generally, collection methods prohibited by the general angling regulations, such as electroshockers, traps, or nets, and collec-tions at times of the year when angling is closed will require a Scientific Collection Permit from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Scientific Collection Permits can be issued to agencies, companies, or indi-viduals. Request an application from the Fish Division of the Oregon Depart-ment of Fish and Wildlife, P. O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207; telephone ( 503) 229- 5410, extension 323. Submit the application at least 1 month before you plan to do the survey in order to be sure the permit can be issued in time. The application requests information about the collection method to be used, when and where collection will be made, and a summary of the proposed project. By law, surveyers must keep records of their collection activities and submit them to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Surveys using the visual observation method ( including snorkeling) do not require any licenses or permits because fish are not physically collected. Sampling with the hook- and- line method during open fishing seasons requires only a valid angling license. However, Oregon resident landowners and their immediate families do not need angling licenses to fish on land they own and live on. In either case, the general ahgling regulations for the stream must be followed during hook- and- line sampling unless a Scientific Collection Permit is obtained. Additional restrictions on survey efforts may apply if the stream contains species that the state or federal government lists as sensitive, threatened, or endangered species. Please contact your local ODFW office to find out whether any of these species are likely to be in streams you plan to sample. Reporting survey results Give survey data to the local ODF district office so that district Stream Classi-fication Maps can be updated. On page 19 is a blank survey report form. It asks for information about the location of the stream; the methods, timing, and effort of the survey; the physical character of the stream; observations of fish and wildlife; and the presence of natural or human- created barriers to fish passage. complete one form for each stream reach where fish were ob-served or fish use was found to end. See Figure 3 ( page 12) for descriptions of some fish species common to $ mall, forested streams; these may help to identify fish seen during surveys. Detailed instructions for completing the survey form are on pages 14 through 18. Attach to the Fish Presence Survey Form a copy of the ODF Stream ClassM-cation Map for the surveyed area or, if that is not available, a copy of the 7.5 minute USGS topographic map for the area. Note the following information on the map. ( Examples of completed survey report forms and maps are on pages 21 through 30.) The area of the stream that was actually surveyed ( including the areas without fish) as part of the survey effort. Highlight in yellow the entire stream reach surveyed ( see examples on pages 25,28, and 30). The upper limit of fish use. Note this on the map by drawing a line across the stream and writing the letter F at that point. The name of the surveyor. The date the stream was surveyed. GENUS ONCORHYNCUS - PACIFIC SALMON IOENTIFICATION FEATURES OF JUVENILES Faint parr marks. extend little. if am: below latanl line. Lures SOCKEYE w GENUS ONCORHYNCUS- TROUT IDENTIFICATIOEI FUTURES OF JUVENILES pols in dorsal Teeth on of tongue Maxillary extend past rear margin on throat W - Of eye CUTTHROAT 5 - I 0 parr marks on ridge ahead of dorsal tongue astend & st rear mark on throat Y; V margin of eye STEELHEAD- RAINBOW Few or no spots i n tail Figure 3. Identification characteristics of some juvenile salmon and trout species that may be observed in forested streams. 3. Permission to enter private forest lands should be obtained from all land-owners before the surveys are conducted. 4. Fish- presence surveys should then be made according to the guidelines given in this publication. 5. The required survey information, recorded on the Fish Presence Survey Form and maps, should be given to the local ODF district office. 6. The ODF office will give copies of the completed survey forms and maps to the local office of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 7. The Department of Forestry will review the information, usually in consul-tation with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, to determine whether the survey results are reliable. 8. Based on its assessment of data reliability, the Department of Forestry will make appropriate changes to the ODF Stream Classification Maps. 9. All affected landowners will be notified of the proposed stream classifica-tion changes, according to the notification rules ( OAR 629- 57- 2110( 2)). Instructions for completing the survey report form The following information should be reported on the Fish Presence Survey Form. These instructions are in the order that the information appears on the form. Complete one form for each stream reach or branch where fish were observed or fish use was found to end. This may require assigning codes to unnamed tributaries ( for example, " trib. a," " trib. b") so that survey data can be cross- referenced to the survey maps. Please refer to examples on pages 21 through 29. Surveyor Narne( s): The name of the person or persons responsible for con-ducting the survey and reporting the results. AgencyfCompany: The name of the agency or company that employs the surveyor ( if applicable). Landowner: The name of the landowner of the reach surveyed. Mailing Address and Phone: The address and phone number for the person responsible for the survey. Stream: The name of the stream as reported on the USGS or ODF Stream Classification Map for the area. If the stream is unnamed, report the stream as " unnamed" and list the tributary that it flows into (" Tributary to..."). Tributary to: The name of the main stream ( as reported on the USGS or ODF map) that the surveyed stream flows into. This is especially important if the surveyed stream is unnamed. Quad Map: The name of the USGS 7.5 minute topographic map that includes the reach of the stream surveyed. If the surveyed reach covers more than one quad map, report first the name of the map that shows the identified end- point of fish use and then give the other maps' names. Location: A legal description ( township, range, and section to at least the quarter section) of the location where fish use ends. Date Surveyed: The month, day, and year the fish survey was conducted. Survey Method: Check the box for the survey method used. If more than one method was used, check all that apply and note the most often used method in the comments section or in the form's margin. Survey Amount Above End of Fish Use: The length of stream reach that was surveyed immediately upstream of the identified end of fish use. Estimate ( in feet) the length surveyed, and give the number of pools sampled for fish in that section. A survey to prove the absence of fish must sample at least 50 yards of stream and at least six pools immediately upstream of the end of fish use. In addition, any upstream beaver ponds must also be sampled. Flow Level: The flow conditions at the time of the survey. Use the following categories of flow. Low: Ranges from a series of isolated pools to flowing across less than 75 percent of the average bankfull width. Moderate: Surface water is flowing across 75 to 90 percent of the average bankfull width. High: Surface water flowing across more than 90 percent of the average bankfull width. It is not recommended thatfih presence surveys be conducted at high jlows. Weather: The weather during most of the fish survey ( rainy, overcast, partly cloudy, sunny, snowy, etc.). Water Clarity: The water visibility during the survey. Use the following categories of water visibility. Clear: Visibility is good in pools, deep pools, and riffles. Moderate: Visibility is good only in riffles and shallow pools. Turbid: Visibility is poor in both riffles and pools. It is not recommended that fih presence surveys be conducted when water is turbid. Water Temperature ( optional): The temperature of the stream ( in degrees Farenheit) at the time of the survey. Fish observations Report the species and approximate size ranges of fish observed in the sur-veyed reach. Use Figure 3 ( page 12) as a guide to identifying some game fish species commonly found in small, forested streams. Use the following codes and instructions to complete this section. Species: Use the following names or codes to report fish observed during the survey. If you observe a species not listed here, such as Pacific lamprey, use its common name. Name Species Code Coho salmon Co Cutthroat trout Ct Rainbow troutfsteelhead Rb/ St Bull trout BUT Brook trout BT Unknown salmonid UnS Sizes: Report the size range of fish, in inches, by species. For example, the size range of coho observed could be reported as " 1- 4 inches." If you see several sizes of one species ( for example, some cutthroat trout in the " 1- to 2- inch range and others in the " 6- to 8- inch" range), list them separately. Aquatic wildlife The types of aquatic wildlife that may be observed include tailed frogs ( includ-ing juvenile " tadpoles"), Pacific giant salamanders, and Olympic salamanders. Species: Give the common name of the species, if known. If you don't know the species name, at least report observations by a general name such as " salamanders." Number: The number of aquatic wildlife in each species or group observed. Physical stream data Report the physical characteristics of the stream in the vicinity of the end- point of fish use. Report information separately for ( 1) the section immediately at and downstream of the end of fish use, and ( 2) the area upstream of the maximum extent of fish use. Following are specific instructions for collecting this information. Bankfull Channel Width: By eye, estimate the average width ( in feet) of the bankfull channel for the 100- foot sections above and below the end- point of fish use. The bankfull channel is the area that is scoured by water during average high flows. The edge of the bankfull channel can be identified by looking for changes in vegetation, in soils and litter characteristics, or in the shape of the bank. The bank often will abruptly change slope at the bankfull boundary. Vegetation at the boundary often changes from annual vegetation ( such as grasses) to more permanent vegetation such as trees and shrubs. Estimate the width across the channel between the edges of the bankfull level. Current Wetted Width: Visually estimate the average width ( in feet) of the channel that contains flow ( is wetted) at the time of the survey. Report the estimated averages for the 100- foot sections above and below the end of fish use. Channel Gradient: Measure the average stream gradient with a clinometer for the 100- foot sections above and below the end of fish use. me a piece of flagging at eye level on a branch or shrub, walk up or down the stream bank, and then use the clinometer to sight on the flagging while you are standing on the channel bottom. Read and report the percent gradient. ODF Stream Class Size: The stream size (" small," " medium," or " large") from the ODF Stream Classification Maps for the reaches immediately above and downstream of the end of fish use. Natural barriers This information is very important for understanding relationships between the presence of fish and the physical characteristics of the stream. Understanding these relationships can help determine where fish- presence surveys should be concentrated and help predict where fish are likely to occur if survey informa-tion is not yet available. Generally, natural barriers are permanent structures such as falls or vertical drops more than 8 to 10 feet high for salmon or steel-head or 4 feet high for trout. Log jams, drops over logs, beaver dams, or other organic structures generally are only temporary barriers to fish passage, but report them as well. If fish use ends at a natural barrier, such as a waterfall, bedrock chute or cascades, describe the conditions at the site. Include a description of: ( 1) the type of barrier, ( 2) the approximate height ( in feet), ( 3) the percentage of slope, ( 4) the length ( in feet) of the bedrock chute or cascades, and ( 5) any other conditions that may be limiting fish passage. If the potential barrier is a bedrock chute, note whether the bedrock contains pools or rough features ( such as rocks, boulders, or other breaks in the flow), or whether the water flows in an even, shallow pattern over the bedrock. Please note on the survey map the locations of any natural barriers encountered. If you encounter a natural barrier, also be sure to sample above this point because fish often are found above natural barriers. Road- crossing barriers This information also is very important for understanding relationships be-tween the presence of fish and the physical characteristics of the stream. Road-crossing barriers can alter the relationships. If fish use ends at a road- crossing barrier, such as a culvert, describe the conditions at the site. Describe the type of barrier and its measurements at the time of the survey such as ( 1) the diameter of the culvert, in inches, ( 2) the depth ( in inches) of water in the culvert, ( 3) the height ( in feet) of the jump ( drop) below the culvert or structure, ( 4) the depth ( in inches or feet) of the plunge pool below the culvert outfall, ( 5) the gradient or slope of the culvert, given as a percentage as read off a clinometer, ( 6) the length ( in feet) of the culvert, and ( 7) any other factors that could affect fish passage. Please note on the survey map the locations of any road- crossing barriers, even if they are not at the end- point of fish use. As with natural barriers, be sure also to sample above the site because fish often are found above road- crossing barriers. Other comments Any other comments or notations that you think may be pertinent to the fish survey. It helps to describe any notable habitat characteristics, for example " lots of instream wood," " very few pools in the reach," " heavy silt load in the stream." Use the reverse side of the form if necessary. FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Surveyor Name( s): Agency: Land Owner: Mailing Address: Phone: Date Surveyed: Stream: Tributary to: Quad Map: Location: T R Sec. Survey Method ( d): 0 Electroshocker 0 h & g 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) Number of Pools Flow Level ( d): 0 Low 17 Moderate High Weather: Water Temperature: Water Clarity ( d): Clear 17 Moderate 17 Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE PHYSICAL STREAM DATA If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Surveyor Name( s): . be Sorveq , 3 Troo+, FI s h G n r u l l , I*? , S.; L. Agency: N/ C I Land Owner: k! 4~ 4f, l T; M ~ C C Mailing address:?.^. sox ~ g~,\ L L I M UF~ A \ ID~ R) jC? suo Phone: BSB- 5555 ate surveyed: A p ( ; i 2 8, ! ?? s I Stream: Un hawed , " Tr I b R!' Tributary to: lr3 F . 21 o k so- ~ r a& QuadMap: D\ A &\ dy Location: T 305 R 5 " L Sec. 30, sw/ sto Survey Method ( d): d~ lectroshocker Angling 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) I 86 ' Number of Pools Flow Level ( d): CI Low cd~ oderate High Weather: S owv Water Temperature: 7 O F I Water Clarity ( V): dclear Moderate I7 Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE Species I Snes 1 Spedes 1 Quant'ity 1 PHYSICAL STREAM DATA If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. bk If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. prf+ Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): f- 15 L wsz ewd 30 $& abov e f *; rd John50~ m ain\ ifi< ~ r o s s i n OH ~ f r e a ~ 7.% ~ 5t redw g d ~ e n f & ry s t u p abde + he a d 4' & sh use - p & f i a n 10%. 2 1 OREGON FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Fish & Wildlife Stream: ~) nr? euce, d " Tr t b, O " Tributary to: w F & n~ oq CC. Quad Map: old &\ A% Location: T 382 R 5E Sec.' 30, si/ Sw I Survey Method ( 4): ~ lectroshocker 0 Angling 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) 2 5' 0 Number of Pools 20 Flow Level ( d): 0 Low d ~ o d e r a t e High Weather: Lw+ Water Temperature: 6 0 F I Water Clarity ( d): dclear Cl Moderate Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE Species 1 Snes I! , Species Quantity If fish use ends at a natural bamer, desc ' be the conditions that prevent u stre m fish assage. Fid - 4s 4+ 2 S ' ~ r t i Lm* r? d\. A dJ @ cater also % 15& 5 ( ho& a. r. rp Q5 W F - buffis @ ere fouu\ d . opstr + ye If fish use ehs) at a roa d. crossmng, descnbe conhlons that may prevent upstream fish passage. Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): w tfw+ were fbU 4 above % z 6 + of (~ la+ erf~ ll above fu 25fcof I sowe years. 22 fail s& i ro fish t@ f& probab/ y vp FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP stream: V A ~ ~ ~ + SC~" T & ~ ributaryto: u. F. 3ehbtja14 Creek Quad Map: old - b a t d ~ Location: T 3 S 5 R 5 E Sec. Survey Method ( d): d~ lectroshocker 0 Anghng 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) a 2 5 Number of Pools 2 Flow Level ( d): 0 Low & oderate 0 High Weather: SvMwv Water Temperature: I Water Clarity ( d): d l e a r 0 Moderate 0 Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE - ... . .: : :....: ' ' . . . . . . A , , , .: . . . . , . . , .&& : ! Species ... . ..$ pedes Quantity PHYSICAL STREAM DATA If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. M/ A If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Stream: West h r k Aobrson Cr eeG Tributary to: Johnrow Cre~ k Quad Map: ( ~ ( 4Ith .\ Ay Location: T 385 R 5 E Sec. 2?,, 5E/ sLJ I Survey Method ( d): dlectroshocker 0 Angling Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) 3 00 Number of Pools t% Flow Level ( V): 0 Low d ~ o d e r ae t High Weather: j , y~ I Water Temperature: 60" F= Water Clarity ( d): & ear Moderate Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQ- U ATIC WILDLIFE t Spedes Quantity 1 I PHYSICAL STREAM DATA + IH n D CtsL 5h-* If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. N I A If fish use ends t a roqj crossiy, describ~ concl~~ tohnats may prevent upstr am fish passa e. ~ hrvctr ert a no? pQ59 ~ c - r b LOWOJQ 4 u. 4 9 ) drop at * rut-/&. b l d a r p fn qr p aI . 7, slop is 6 70 , and w ( onp 7 % fu~ lv er+ 1s ~ chul~ ledb e replace4 t bi s Svmncr. Other comments ( use reverse s~ de~ fn ecessa ): Lower ~ t r c a - q r d r r & a & e + LC cd en. Sf- rm* bb; M Ieok 30a4, but + k shaln. dry up ;* SOW years. FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Mailing Address: ?. c, 3 2 , AJLO ~ L4- T o R 70 00 Phone: b40 - oool Date Surveyed: / Ha v 2 / cj? T I stream: ~ nnclcr- ed , " 7- r; b k " Tributary to: Lobs k c Creek Quad Map: BULL Lrceu Rtdqc Location: T 35 R 2W S ~ C . ~ ~ N € + 4 Survey Method ( d): ~ lectroshocker Angling 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) 300 Number of Pools I 57 Flow Level ( d): 0 Low rd~ oderate High Weather: 7k + lVL * wy Water Temperature: 6 O T-Water Clarity ( d): && ear Moderate Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLlFE I , , , ' Species Sies Spedes Quantity If fish use ends, at a natural ba ' er, describe t e conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. The. LZ m c b r u f - ~ V~ L ry 54- p X e u e + he ed$+ t.* use. ~ k rlrcnu, RIIIVC ~ L I : : pain+ I S ~ 4 1 ~ g ~ r L ~ d eo5ve r bai( Lle r S, b+ + his ri- gf obnhi~ n o+ Q b r r r t c r. ' 7 If fish use ends at a road crossing, descn e conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. U P Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): N r 4.0r L r ~ s; Wj J bCqPn 5 u ru . + r + he L) wediunn - sws\ l size chaqc, F, sh U ~ CC ~ wJh c r t a d c c y t r ; b ~ + G~ d . ovt WLQ) ew- ker s LLII+. 26 FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Surveyor Name( s): 30 e Cadd i i , Bob hJvrnP1\ Agency: o ba~ ~ a'ndbwner: Lobsfec C r , ~ , , b c c Mailing Address: 7 D. ' 30K 2 , ~ J L pLet~ t , D R DO Phone: 8 YD- o 00 1 Date Surveyed: m4 I/ 2, i? 7- C I f Stream: / ) ~ ~ ~ ~ ek bS "" ~ c Tributaryto: L o b s t e r Lraek Quad Map: B V ' ~ Cr eek ??, d. ie Location: T 73 R 2 0 Sec. 3Y, ~ I. o AA. J G Survey Method ( d): d~ lectroshocker Angling 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) 2 5 0 Number of Pools / D Flow Level ( d): 0 Low d ~ o d e r a t e 0 High Weather: 94, & SU W\ I Water Temperature: 5- 7 " ?= Water Clarity ( d) : Wc1ea. r CI Moderate 0 Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE PHYSICAL STREAM DATA Species Sics Spedes If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. Quantity If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. I I Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): ~ h5ctre um WLS " r y ~ Lw iL tL ~ decy f- goo( r. @. la f is/., observe4 , Ty pr N ~ f . r e u ~ z . FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Surveyor Name( s): \ ce < . 3ab Tr cut Agency: u/ k2 Mailing ~ ddress: Z3R Rne St , b k n h( e dr ! OR ? d o 0 Phone: ZB?- 3333 Date Surveyed: stream: ~*- aweA Tributary to: c r & QuadMap: G l e w b ~ ~ e k Location: T \ 4 5 R 6 @ Sec. zS,, ~ 3t .+ S-Survey Method ( d): d~ lectroshocker Angling Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) Number of Pools Q Flow Level ( d): 0 Low & oderate High Weather: C( ea c Water Temperature: 5?* F Water Clarity ( d): lW2ear 0 Moderate Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE Species Sizes Spedes Quantity PHYSICAL STREAM DATA If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. U P If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. Title: Surveying forest streams for fish use Author: Oregon. Forest Practices Section; Oregon. Habitat Conservation Division Year: 1995, 2005, 2004 Oregon Department of Forestry Forest Practices Section 2600 State Street Salem, OR 97310 Dl Fish 8 Wildlife Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Division P. O. Box 59 Portland, OR 97207 Introduction Identifying Oregon streams that contain fish is an important part in carrying out the new Water Protection Rules. These rules aim to protect areas of benefi-cial uses, such as fish. First, however, the beneficial uses present in each forest stream must be correctly identified. At present, a large number of fish- bearing streams are not identified on stream classification maps. To correct this problem, the Oregon Department of Forestry ( ODF) and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ( ODFW) must complete comprehensive surveys to identify fish use on all non- federal forest streams in Oregon. This effort will require at least 3 to 5 years and a significant financial investment. Because many streams are not accurately classified, the new rules also tempo-rarily protect streams that are likely to contain fish. Under the rules, for example, if Stream A flows into a body of water known to contain fish, it is assumed that fish also are using Stream A, up to the point that a natural barrier blocks their way farther upstream ( see OAR 629- 57- 2100: ll( b) B). Once the survey efforts are complete, this interim rule will not be needed. Coordinated efforts by public agencies, landowners, and others to complete fish- presence surveys will assure that important fisheries resources are pro-tected in the most cost- effective way. Landowners or any interested party may collect stream- classification information so that the overall survey can be completed as quickly as possible. Many private forest landowners, in cooperation with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, are now completing inventories of stream habitat conditions on their lands. In the future, these cooperative efforts may also include fish-presence surveys. This publication tells how to complete fish- presence surveys on forested streams. The guidelines cover: How to plan either " operation- specific" or " maximum upstream fish distribution" surveys The proper way to conduct surveys The proper time of year to conduct surveys Minimum efforts required in completing the surveys The legal requirements for completing the surveys How to provide information to Oregon Department of Forestry to update the stream classification maps The stream reclassification process Operation- specif ic surveys Maximum upstream distribution surveys Planning the survey There are two major types of survey: operation- specific surveys, and surveys to find the maximum upstream distribution of fish. Each type requires different planning and is conducted using different approaches. Operation- specific surveys are those to classify a stream only in the particular area of an operation. This kind of survey may not include efforts to determine the maximum upstream extent of fish use. An operation- specific survey takes minimal planning and coordination. However, it may be very inefficient in the long run because future activities in other areas of the stream may require additional surveys. An operation- specilk survey is very simple to complete. It starts at the down-stream end of the operation area and moves upstream either to the end of the operation area or to the end of fish distribution, whichever comes first. If the purpose of the survey is to prove no fish use, the surveyor must be sure to make at least the minimum effort required to find fish ( see the section on " Survey Effort" on page 10). This kind of survey is done on an entire stream reach or on multiple stream reaches rather than on a restricted portion of a stream. Often, all streams within a basin or reach are completely surveyed. In some cases, the surveys encompass entire ownerships or watersheds. The specific locations of planned operations are usually not the main factor in setting up this kind of survey but can help decide which areas to survey first. Surveys to find the maximum upstream extent of fish use may be the most efficient and cost- effective. Surveyors often cover a group of streams in one area at a time; therefore, travel time is minimized because, often, a group of streams can be easily reached by one common forest road. When travel time is less, the time spent actually completing surveys is greater. This kind of survey may require slightly more planning and coordination to assure efficiency and to minimize duplication of effort by adjacent landowners or by other public agencies, but overall this approach is more cost- effective than the operation-specific surveys. Surveying for the maximum upstream distribution of fish may take more plan-ning than an operation- specific survey, but it is still relatively simple. First, look at ODF Stream Classification Maps for the survey area to see the current extent of fish- use streams. Also note which streams are not classified at all. Next, decide where to start the survey. It may help your planning if you know the relationship between watershed basin area and fish use for your area. Contact the local ODFW office to find out whether these relationships have been established for streams in your area. The information predicts where fish use is " likely to end" and so will help you decide where to start your surveys. At this point, you also may want to consider operations that are planned for certain areas and decide to survey those areas first. After choosing a starting area, look at current road maps to find potential starting points for the survey ( see Figure 1). Look for access points ( such as road crossings) near the upper reaches of the stream. When possible, a survey should start near the highest accessible point in the watershed. If road access to the stream is limited, you may want to start the survey near the point at which the stream's classification size changes from " medium" to " small"; often this point is near the end of fish use ( see Figure 2, page 4). At the starting point, first sample upstream. If you find fish, continue the survey upstream until fish use ends. Be sure to continue sampling above the point at which fish use ends ( see " Survey Effort," page 10). If you make all the required efforts but do not find fish, then survey downstream from the original starting point until you find fish. When surveying downstream, it is important to walk on the streambank until you are ready to sample so that the water stays clear. Begin fish survey above road crossing Fish use extends at least this far Figure I . Selecting survey starting points in an area with a road crossing. Additional survey work may be required if the maximum distribution of fish seems to be affected by a road culvert. If the stream above the culvert has no fish, sample the pool immediately below the culvert. If you find fish in this pool or downstream near the culvert, the culvert is a possible barrier to fish passage. Describe the culvert and the stream on the survey form ( page 19). If you do not find fish in the pool below the culvert, continue the survey down-stream until you do see fish. Begin fish survey here \ \\ \ / I Fish use extends at least this far - - k I Figure 2. Selecting survey starting points, based on the stream- size classification, in an area without a road crossing. Surveys to find the maximum upstream distribution of fish may require sampling across several land ownerships. Be certain to get permission from other landowners before beginning the survey. Contacts with other landowners are also important to prevent a duplication of effort, because many landowners and agencies may be conducting fish- presence surveys. When figuring how many surveyors and how much time you'll need to com-plete surveys in your area, you may want to consider the Department of Forestry's experience. We found that sampling a township ( 36 square miles) required approximately 24 person- days in the Coast region, but an area the same size in the Blue Mountains required only 4 person- days. Survey methods The accuracy and reliability of survey results depend greatly on the methods used to conduct the survey. Methods range from simply looking in the stream ( visual observation) to more intensive and effective sampling with a backpack electroshocker. The method you choose depends on the availability of sam-pling equipment, the size of the stream, the flow and clarity of the water, and other factors. It is important to select a sampling method that is best for the type of survey and for the waters being sampled. If the sample method is not appropriate, the results of the survey will not be very useful. For example, just looking at a stream may tell you there are fish in it at that point, but it is not an acceptable way to find the maximum upstream extent of fish use. Surveys to show that fish are not present require more sampling and specialized equipment in order to provide reliable results. Whenever the survey uses methods other than an electroshocker, it's important to thoroughly explain on the survey report form the reasons for using the other methods. This is the simplest method; it involves only walking the stream to look for fish. It is best to wear polarized sunglasses to reduce glare from the water and to survey only when water conditions allow good visibility. It's also best to walk upstream so that you can " sneak up" on fish in pools. Fish often are near the upstream ends of pools waiting for food to drift toward them. Small fish, such as fry, often are in shallow water along the margin of the stream. Be very alert because fish usually will dart into cover when they detect any movement, especially in small headwater streams. It helps to toss bread crumbs, insects, small twigs, or bemes into the stream to entice the fish to leave cover. The visual method is best suited to small streams where pools aren't deep enough to prevent your seeing the fish. This method is also the least damaging to the fish because actual collection is not required. However, the value of survey results can be reduced by many factors such as cloudy water, surface glare on the water, overcast days ( reduced light), fish behavior, and even the surveyor's poor eyesight. For these reasons, this method is not effective for determining the maximum upstream limit of fish distribution, although it can be used to prove fish are in a certain reach of the stream. Snorkeling is a special method of visual observation that can work well in some situations. Snorkeling allows you to see underwater through a diving mask and breathing snorkel. This method can be used in larger waters where electroshockers are less successful, and it has been used to locate fry where other methods failed. Night snorkel surveys are particularly useful for observ-ing bull trout fry. Visual observation Hook and line Backpack electroshocker The hook- and- line method uses a rod and reel and relies on the feeding be-havior of the fish. In small streams, drop a baited hook into the deepest pools, where larger fish often are. Bait can include worms, single eggs, cheese, dry flies, or stream insects such as caddis larvae. Sample pools that have a lot of cover because those tend to support greater numbers of fish. As with the visual observation method, approach the pool cautiously to avoid alerting the fish. To minimize the risk of injuring or killing the fish, always use barbless hooks. The hook- and- line method can be used when conditions are not good for visual sampling; for example, when water is not clear, flow is high, or the day is overcast. This method may be the most effective for sampling some larger or deeper waters where visual and electroshocker methods can be ineffective. These waters include deep beaver ponds and large, steep streams where downstream barriers ( such as falls and very steep sections) keep fish out of the small tributaries. This method has limitations, though, depending on fish behavior and the life stage of the fish that are present. Fish may be reluctant to bite on cold days, or when the water is murky with sediment, or if the fish detect the surveyor's presence. Also, hook- and- line sampling is not effective if only fry are in the stream. This method also depends on the angling skills of the surveyor. As with the visual observation method, hook- and- line sampling may not be the best way to determine the maximum upstream distribution of fish in small streams, but often it can be used to find fish in larger waters. The most effective way to determine the upstream extent of fish is with a backpack electroshocker. Electroshocker sampling requires additional training and experience, though, to be effective and safe. A backpack electroshocker introduces an electric field into the stream that temporarily immobilizes fish. Stunned fish can be observed as they float in the water, or they can be captured in a small hand net for closer observation if necessary. As with other methods, it is best to work in an upstream direction, wear polarized glasses, and to approach the sampling site carefully to avoid alerting the fish. One person nets fish while another person operates the electroshocker. The netter should walk behind or beside the shocker to avoid alerting the fish. The electroshocker can be very effective for sampling in small streams even where brush or instream cover prevents most other sampling methods. In fact, an electroshocker is often most effective in areas with instream cover because fish usually concentrate in these locations. This method works in streams of various sizes but is less effective in larger streams and in deep pools, espe-cially large beaver ponds. Use electroshockers carefully to minimize killing fish. When properly adjusted and used, the electroshocker should stun the fish without killing them. The fish may escape if the current is set too low, but usually the surveyor will still see the fish and so be able to document fish presence. To sample effectively and minimize fish kill, set the electroshocker on the lowest practical voltage output and low- frequency currents ( low pulse rates). Before sampling, use a voltame-ter to test the electroshocker in a stream. If the voltameter is not available, it is a good idea to test the electroshocker in a stream that you know has fish before working in streams whose fish use you do not know. The test will tell you whether the equipment is working and the effects of using different settings. The surveyors' safety must be considered carefully before using this method. Electroshockers can injure or kill humans if not properly used. Surveyors should not use this method without proper training, including CPR training. Surveyors should work in crews of at least two. All surveyors should wear rubber waders and rubber gloves during stream shocking and never use dipnets with metallic handles; the nets should have wood or fiberglass handles. All members of an electroshocking crew should understand the proper operation procedures and potential dangers of this equipment. The effectiveness of electroshocker sampling depends on water conditions and on the skills of the electroshocker operator and the netter. The electroshocker method may not be so useful in high flows or in turbulent or murky water because the surveyors may not see immobilized fish. Another drawback to this method is that the electroshockers may not be widely available and can be expensive. However, with proper training and experience and under suitable survey conditions, this method is the best for accurately determining the maximum upstream extent of fish use. There may be situations where reliable results can be had by using methods not discussed here. For example, headwater beaver ponds may be effectively Other methods sampled by fishing for at least 48 hours with minnow traps baited with salmon eggs or commercial trout bait. Or, seine nets may be effective in beaver ponds or larger waters. If you are thinking about using these or other sampling methods, discuss it first with the departments of Fish and Wildlife and of Forestry. They will decide whether the proposed methods are appropriate and, if so, set the required minimum level of sample effort for the alternate method. A backpack electroshocker is the best way to get reliable information about the upstream extent of fish use or to prove a stream is m e N ( no fish use). Sur- Survey methods: vey data that document the presence of fish through other methods, such as a summary visual observation or hook- and- line, will always be used to classify streams as Type F as far up as the point of observation, even though the exact upstream extent of fish use may not be known. In some cases, methods other than an electroshocker may give reliable information about the maximum upstream distribution of fish. Examples include deep beaver ponds and large, steep streams in which barriers keep fish out of small upstream tributaries. In those cases, reliable results may be better obtained with hook- and- line sampling or with other methods. Whenever the survey is conducted by methods other than an electroshocker, the reasons for choosing the other method must be thor-oughly explained on the survey form. Timing the surveys Survey accuracy depends a lot on the time of year the survey is done and on stream conditions at that time. Since the purpose of the survey is to accurately document the presence or absence of fish, it is critical to do the survey when fish are expected to be using the upper reaches of a stream. This generally is near spawning times or soon after fry emerge, when stream flows are relatively high. A survey done during a low- flow period may not indicate the actual maximum upstream extent of fish use or accurately prove no fish use the stream. Fish may use the upper reaches of a stream for a limited time only, so fish- use surveys must be timed carefully. Surveys done at other than recommended times may not give a complete description of fish use. For example, if fish are found at other than the recommended survey times, the surveyed part of the stream can be classified as fish- bearing, but the maximum upstream extent of fish use may not be known. If fish are not found, that will not necessarily prove that the stream reach does not support fish use. Only if the survey is made at a time when fish are most likely to be there can the absence of fish be a reliable sign that no fish use that portion of the stream. Other factors can affect the reliability of the survey even if it is made at the proper time. Abnormal flows due to drought or extreme runoff could affect the distribution of fish or the sampling efficiency of the surveyor. So, it is best not only to do the sampling within the recommended time period but also when conditions are appropriate. In some cases, survey timing may not have much effect on the reliability of survey results. This could occur when factors other than seasonal flow patterns control the upstream extent of fish distribution. For example, streams that get most of their water from springs may not have seasonal flow variations, including summer flows low enough to control the upstream distribution of fish. Or, conditions other than low flow could be controlling distribution. For example, large, steep streams that have natural barriers such as falls and steep, impassable sections. In such cases, surveys taken outside the recommended time periods may yield reliable data. However, it is important to describe these conditions thoroughly on the survey forms to justify not following the recom-mended timing. See Table 1 for the recommended sampling periods for different regions of the state for normal water- flow years. Periods differ due to variations in stream flow patterns, fish species, and life- history traits of the species in the different areas. Contact the local ODFW office before sampling to find out the best time to survey the stream you are planning to sample. Table 1. General recommended time periods to sample streams, by geographic region, during nomull water- flow years. Please contact your local ODFW ofice before sampling in order to get specific timing recommendations for the stream you will be sampling. REGION of Recommended Georeaion Stream Survey Period WESTERNO REGON All Coast South Coast West Cascades Interior Siskiyou March 1 through May 3 1 EASTERONR EGON All except spring- fed April 1 East Cascades through June 30 Blue Mountains Spring- fed streams* Entire year * Spring- fed streams are streams that get most of their water Born groundwater sources and that have very minor seasonal variations in flow. Stream surveys must be done within certain time periods ( Table 1) if the purpose is to prove the stream does not contain fish or to document the maximum upstream extent of fish use. mming recommendations are based on normal water- flow years and may vary in some years. Contact the local ODFW office before sampling to get specific timing recommendations for the streams to be surveyed. Information gathered at other times of the year may be used to document fish presence but may not be reliable enough to establish upstream fish- use limits or to classify the stream as II) lpe N ( no fish use). Whenever the recommended survey timing is not used, it is important to explain the reasons on the survey form so that the data can be evaluated for reliability. ~ - ~ Survey timing: a summary Survey effort: a summary Survey effort The level of effort used to complete the survey also can affect the reliability of the survey results. If the level of effort or the amount of stream sampled is too little, it may be wrong to conclude that fish are not present. The following guidelines describe the minimum level of survey effort required to assure that the data are reliable. If the purpose of the survey is to show that no fish use the stream, the survey will be considered reliable only if it includes at least 50 yards of stream length md a minimum of six pools, each at least 1 foot deep, immediately upstream of the point at which the non- fish- bearing section begins. ( In some cases, the survey will have to cover much more than 50 yards of stream in order to also include the required six pools.) In addition, the survey must include sampling any beaver dam ponds in the upstream non- fish section. Surveyors are encouraged to exceed the minimum level of effort in order to be even more sure that fish are absent from a stream reach and that the maximum upstream extent of fish use has been found. A survey intended to show the absence of fish must sample at least 50 yards of stream distance and a minimum of six pools, each at least 1 foot deep, imme-diately upstream of the point at which fish use is believed to end. In addition, any beaver ponds upstream must be sampled as part of the survey. The require-ments for the methods used and the timing of the survey also must be met in order to document the absence of fish. Legal requirements In Oregon, the Department of Fish and Wildlife regulates the collection of fish for personal or scientific use. Generally, collection methods prohibited by the general angling regulations, such as electroshockers, traps, or nets, and collec-tions at times of the year when angling is closed will require a Scientific Collection Permit from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Scientific Collection Permits can be issued to agencies, companies, or indi-viduals. Request an application from the Fish Division of the Oregon Depart-ment of Fish and Wildlife, P. O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207; telephone ( 503) 229- 5410, extension 323. Submit the application at least 1 month before you plan to do the survey in order to be sure the permit can be issued in time. The application requests information about the collection method to be used, when and where collection will be made, and a summary of the proposed project. By law, surveyers must keep records of their collection activities and submit them to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Surveys using the visual observation method ( including snorkeling) do not require any licenses or permits because fish are not physically collected. Sampling with the hook- and- line method during open fishing seasons requires only a valid angling license. However, Oregon resident landowners and their immediate families do not need angling licenses to fish on land they own and live on. In either case, the general ahgling regulations for the stream must be followed during hook- and- line sampling unless a Scientific Collection Permit is obtained. Additional restrictions on survey efforts may apply if the stream contains species that the state or federal government lists as sensitive, threatened, or endangered species. Please contact your local ODFW office to find out whether any of these species are likely to be in streams you plan to sample. Reporting survey results Give survey data to the local ODF district office so that district Stream Classi-fication Maps can be updated. On page 19 is a blank survey report form. It asks for information about the location of the stream; the methods, timing, and effort of the survey; the physical character of the stream; observations of fish and wildlife; and the presence of natural or human- created barriers to fish passage. complete one form for each stream reach where fish were ob-served or fish use was found to end. See Figure 3 ( page 12) for descriptions of some fish species common to $ mall, forested streams; these may help to identify fish seen during surveys. Detailed instructions for completing the survey form are on pages 14 through 18. Attach to the Fish Presence Survey Form a copy of the ODF Stream ClassM-cation Map for the surveyed area or, if that is not available, a copy of the 7.5 minute USGS topographic map for the area. Note the following information on the map. ( Examples of completed survey report forms and maps are on pages 21 through 30.) The area of the stream that was actually surveyed ( including the areas without fish) as part of the survey effort. Highlight in yellow the entire stream reach surveyed ( see examples on pages 25,28, and 30). The upper limit of fish use. Note this on the map by drawing a line across the stream and writing the letter F at that point. The name of the surveyor. The date the stream was surveyed. GENUS ONCORHYNCUS - PACIFIC SALMON IOENTIFICATION FEATURES OF JUVENILES Faint parr marks. extend little. if am: below latanl line. Lures SOCKEYE w GENUS ONCORHYNCUS- TROUT IDENTIFICATIOEI FUTURES OF JUVENILES pols in dorsal Teeth on of tongue Maxillary extend past rear margin on throat W - Of eye CUTTHROAT 5 - I 0 parr marks on ridge ahead of dorsal tongue astend & st rear mark on throat Y; V margin of eye STEELHEAD- RAINBOW Few or no spots i n tail Figure 3. Identification characteristics of some juvenile salmon and trout species that may be observed in forested streams. 3. Permission to enter private forest lands should be obtained from all land-owners before the surveys are conducted. 4. Fish- presence surveys should then be made according to the guidelines given in this publication. 5. The required survey information, recorded on the Fish Presence Survey Form and maps, should be given to the local ODF district office. 6. The ODF office will give copies of the completed survey forms and maps to the local office of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 7. The Department of Forestry will review the information, usually in consul-tation with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, to determine whether the survey results are reliable. 8. Based on its assessment of data reliability, the Department of Forestry will make appropriate changes to the ODF Stream Classification Maps. 9. All affected landowners will be notified of the proposed stream classifica-tion changes, according to the notification rules ( OAR 629- 57- 2110( 2)). Instructions for completing the survey report form The following information should be reported on the Fish Presence Survey Form. These instructions are in the order that the information appears on the form. Complete one form for each stream reach or branch where fish were observed or fish use was found to end. This may require assigning codes to unnamed tributaries ( for example, " trib. a," " trib. b") so that survey data can be cross- referenced to the survey maps. Please refer to examples on pages 21 through 29. Surveyor Narne( s): The name of the person or persons responsible for con-ducting the survey and reporting the results. AgencyfCompany: The name of the agency or company that employs the surveyor ( if applicable). Landowner: The name of the landowner of the reach surveyed. Mailing Address and Phone: The address and phone number for the person responsible for the survey. Stream: The name of the stream as reported on the USGS or ODF Stream Classification Map for the area. If the stream is unnamed, report the stream as " unnamed" and list the tributary that it flows into (" Tributary to..."). Tributary to: The name of the main stream ( as reported on the USGS or ODF map) that the surveyed stream flows into. This is especially important if the surveyed stream is unnamed. Quad Map: The name of the USGS 7.5 minute topographic map that includes the reach of the stream surveyed. If the surveyed reach covers more than one quad map, report first the name of the map that shows the identified end- point of fish use and then give the other maps' names. Location: A legal description ( township, range, and section to at least the quarter section) of the location where fish use ends. Date Surveyed: The month, day, and year the fish survey was conducted. Survey Method: Check the box for the survey method used. If more than one method was used, check all that apply and note the most often used method in the comments section or in the form's margin. Survey Amount Above End of Fish Use: The length of stream reach that was surveyed immediately upstream of the identified end of fish use. Estimate ( in feet) the length surveyed, and give the number of pools sampled for fish in that section. A survey to prove the absence of fish must sample at least 50 yards of stream and at least six pools immediately upstream of the end of fish use. In addition, any upstream beaver ponds must also be sampled. Flow Level: The flow conditions at the time of the survey. Use the following categories of flow. Low: Ranges from a series of isolated pools to flowing across less than 75 percent of the average bankfull width. Moderate: Surface water is flowing across 75 to 90 percent of the average bankfull width. High: Surface water flowing across more than 90 percent of the average bankfull width. It is not recommended thatfih presence surveys be conducted at high jlows. Weather: The weather during most of the fish survey ( rainy, overcast, partly cloudy, sunny, snowy, etc.). Water Clarity: The water visibility during the survey. Use the following categories of water visibility. Clear: Visibility is good in pools, deep pools, and riffles. Moderate: Visibility is good only in riffles and shallow pools. Turbid: Visibility is poor in both riffles and pools. It is not recommended that fih presence surveys be conducted when water is turbid. Water Temperature ( optional): The temperature of the stream ( in degrees Farenheit) at the time of the survey. Fish observations Report the species and approximate size ranges of fish observed in the sur-veyed reach. Use Figure 3 ( page 12) as a guide to identifying some game fish species commonly found in small, forested streams. Use the following codes and instructions to complete this section. Species: Use the following names or codes to report fish observed during the survey. If you observe a species not listed here, such as Pacific lamprey, use its common name. Name Species Code Coho salmon Co Cutthroat trout Ct Rainbow troutfsteelhead Rb/ St Bull trout BUT Brook trout BT Unknown salmonid UnS Sizes: Report the size range of fish, in inches, by species. For example, the size range of coho observed could be reported as " 1- 4 inches." If you see several sizes of one species ( for example, some cutthroat trout in the " 1- to 2- inch range and others in the " 6- to 8- inch" range), list them separately. Aquatic wildlife The types of aquatic wildlife that may be observed include tailed frogs ( includ-ing juvenile " tadpoles"), Pacific giant salamanders, and Olympic salamanders. Species: Give the common name of the species, if known. If you don't know the species name, at least report observations by a general name such as " salamanders." Number: The number of aquatic wildlife in each species or group observed. Physical stream data Report the physical characteristics of the stream in the vicinity of the end- point of fish use. Report information separately for ( 1) the section immediately at and downstream of the end of fish use, and ( 2) the area upstream of the maximum extent of fish use. Following are specific instructions for collecting this information. Bankfull Channel Width: By eye, estimate the average width ( in feet) of the bankfull channel for the 100- foot sections above and below the end- point of fish use. The bankfull channel is the area that is scoured by water during average high flows. The edge of the bankfull channel can be identified by looking for changes in vegetation, in soils and litter characteristics, or in the shape of the bank. The bank often will abruptly change slope at the bankfull boundary. Vegetation at the boundary often changes from annual vegetation ( such as grasses) to more permanent vegetation such as trees and shrubs. Estimate the width across the channel between the edges of the bankfull level. Current Wetted Width: Visually estimate the average width ( in feet) of the channel that contains flow ( is wetted) at the time of the survey. Report the estimated averages for the 100- foot sections above and below the end of fish use. Channel Gradient: Measure the average stream gradient with a clinometer for the 100- foot sections above and below the end of fish use. me a piece of flagging at eye level on a branch or shrub, walk up or down the stream bank, and then use the clinometer to sight on the flagging while you are standing on the channel bottom. Read and report the percent gradient. ODF Stream Class Size: The stream size (" small," " medium," or " large") from the ODF Stream Classification Maps for the reaches immediately above and downstream of the end of fish use. Natural barriers This information is very important for understanding relationships between the presence of fish and the physical characteristics of the stream. Understanding these relationships can help determine where fish- presence surveys should be concentrated and help predict where fish are likely to occur if survey informa-tion is not yet available. Generally, natural barriers are permanent structures such as falls or vertical drops more than 8 to 10 feet high for salmon or steel-head or 4 feet high for trout. Log jams, drops over logs, beaver dams, or other organic structures generally are only temporary barriers to fish passage, but report them as well. If fish use ends at a natural barrier, such as a waterfall, bedrock chute or cascades, describe the conditions at the site. Include a description of: ( 1) the type of barrier, ( 2) the approximate height ( in feet), ( 3) the percentage of slope, ( 4) the length ( in feet) of the bedrock chute or cascades, and ( 5) any other conditions that may be limiting fish passage. If the potential barrier is a bedrock chute, note whether the bedrock contains pools or rough features ( such as rocks, boulders, or other breaks in the flow), or whether the water flows in an even, shallow pattern over the bedrock. Please note on the survey map the locations of any natural barriers encountered. If you encounter a natural barrier, also be sure to sample above this point because fish often are found above natural barriers. Road- crossing barriers This information also is very important for understanding relationships be-tween the presence of fish and the physical characteristics of the stream. Road-crossing barriers can alter the relationships. If fish use ends at a road- crossing barrier, such as a culvert, describe the conditions at the site. Describe the type of barrier and its measurements at the time of the survey such as ( 1) the diameter of the culvert, in inches, ( 2) the depth ( in inches) of water in the culvert, ( 3) the height ( in feet) of the jump ( drop) below the culvert or structure, ( 4) the depth ( in inches or feet) of the plunge pool below the culvert outfall, ( 5) the gradient or slope of the culvert, given as a percentage as read off a clinometer, ( 6) the length ( in feet) of the culvert, and ( 7) any other factors that could affect fish passage. Please note on the survey map the locations of any road- crossing barriers, even if they are not at the end- point of fish use. As with natural barriers, be sure also to sample above the site because fish often are found above road- crossing barriers. Other comments Any other comments or notations that you think may be pertinent to the fish survey. It helps to describe any notable habitat characteristics, for example " lots of instream wood," " very few pools in the reach," " heavy silt load in the stream." Use the reverse side of the form if necessary. FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Surveyor Name( s): Agency: Land Owner: Mailing Address: Phone: Date Surveyed: Stream: Tributary to: Quad Map: Location: T R Sec. Survey Method ( d): 0 Electroshocker 0 h & g 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) Number of Pools Flow Level ( d): 0 Low 17 Moderate High Weather: Water Temperature: Water Clarity ( d): Clear 17 Moderate 17 Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE PHYSICAL STREAM DATA If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Surveyor Name( s): . be Sorveq , 3 Troo+, FI s h G n r u l l , I*? , S.; L. Agency: N/ C I Land Owner: k! 4~ 4f, l T; M ~ C C Mailing address:?.^. sox ~ g~,\ L L I M UF~ A \ ID~ R) jC? suo Phone: BSB- 5555 ate surveyed: A p ( ; i 2 8, ! ?? s I Stream: Un hawed , " Tr I b R!' Tributary to: lr3 F . 21 o k so- ~ r a& QuadMap: D\ A &\ dy Location: T 305 R 5 " L Sec. 30, sw/ sto Survey Method ( d): d~ lectroshocker Angling 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) I 86 ' Number of Pools Flow Level ( d): CI Low cd~ oderate High Weather: S owv Water Temperature: 7 O F I Water Clarity ( V): dclear Moderate I7 Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE Species I Snes 1 Spedes 1 Quant'ity 1 PHYSICAL STREAM DATA If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. bk If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. prf+ Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): f- 15 L wsz ewd 30 $& abov e f *; rd John50~ m ain\ ifi< ~ r o s s i n OH ~ f r e a ~ 7.% ~ 5t redw g d ~ e n f & ry s t u p abde + he a d 4' & sh use - p & f i a n 10%. 2 1 OREGON FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Fish & Wildlife Stream: ~) nr? euce, d " Tr t b, O " Tributary to: w F & n~ oq CC. Quad Map: old &\ A% Location: T 382 R 5E Sec.' 30, si/ Sw I Survey Method ( 4): ~ lectroshocker 0 Angling 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) 2 5' 0 Number of Pools 20 Flow Level ( d): 0 Low d ~ o d e r a t e High Weather: Lw+ Water Temperature: 6 0 F I Water Clarity ( d): dclear Cl Moderate Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE Species 1 Snes I! , Species Quantity If fish use ends at a natural bamer, desc ' be the conditions that prevent u stre m fish assage. Fid - 4s 4+ 2 S ' ~ r t i Lm* r? d\. A dJ @ cater also % 15& 5 ( ho& a. r. rp Q5 W F - buffis @ ere fouu\ d . opstr + ye If fish use ehs) at a roa d. crossmng, descnbe conhlons that may prevent upstream fish passage. Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): w tfw+ were fbU 4 above % z 6 + of (~ la+ erf~ ll above fu 25fcof I sowe years. 22 fail s& i ro fish t@ f& probab/ y vp FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP stream: V A ~ ~ ~ + SC~" T & ~ ributaryto: u. F. 3ehbtja14 Creek Quad Map: old - b a t d ~ Location: T 3 S 5 R 5 E Sec. Survey Method ( d): d~ lectroshocker 0 Anghng 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) a 2 5 Number of Pools 2 Flow Level ( d): 0 Low & oderate 0 High Weather: SvMwv Water Temperature: I Water Clarity ( d): d l e a r 0 Moderate 0 Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE - ... . .: : :....: ' ' . . . . . . A , , , .: . . . . , . . , .&& : ! Species ... . ..$ pedes Quantity PHYSICAL STREAM DATA If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. M/ A If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Stream: West h r k Aobrson Cr eeG Tributary to: Johnrow Cre~ k Quad Map: ( ~ ( 4Ith .\ Ay Location: T 385 R 5 E Sec. 2?,, 5E/ sLJ I Survey Method ( d): dlectroshocker 0 Angling Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) 3 00 Number of Pools t% Flow Level ( V): 0 Low d ~ o d e r ae t High Weather: j , y~ I Water Temperature: 60" F= Water Clarity ( d): & ear Moderate Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQ- U ATIC WILDLIFE t Spedes Quantity 1 I PHYSICAL STREAM DATA + IH n D CtsL 5h-* If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. N I A If fish use ends t a roqj crossiy, describ~ concl~~ tohnats may prevent upstr am fish passa e. ~ hrvctr ert a no? pQ59 ~ c - r b LOWOJQ 4 u. 4 9 ) drop at * rut-/&. b l d a r p fn qr p aI . 7, slop is 6 70 , and w ( onp 7 % fu~ lv er+ 1s ~ chul~ ledb e replace4 t bi s Svmncr. Other comments ( use reverse s~ de~ fn ecessa ): Lower ~ t r c a - q r d r r & a & e + LC cd en. Sf- rm* bb; M Ieok 30a4, but + k shaln. dry up ;* SOW years. FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Mailing Address: ?. c, 3 2 , AJLO ~ L4- T o R 70 00 Phone: b40 - oool Date Surveyed: / Ha v 2 / cj? T I stream: ~ nnclcr- ed , " 7- r; b k " Tributary to: Lobs k c Creek Quad Map: BULL Lrceu Rtdqc Location: T 35 R 2W S ~ C . ~ ~ N € + 4 Survey Method ( d): ~ lectroshocker Angling 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) 300 Number of Pools I 57 Flow Level ( d): 0 Low rd~ oderate High Weather: 7k + lVL * wy Water Temperature: 6 O T-Water Clarity ( d): && ear Moderate Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLlFE I , , , ' Species Sies Spedes Quantity If fish use ends, at a natural ba ' er, describe t e conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. The. LZ m c b r u f - ~ V~ L ry 54- p X e u e + he ed$+ t.* use. ~ k rlrcnu, RIIIVC ~ L I : : pain+ I S ~ 4 1 ~ g ~ r L ~ d eo5ve r bai( Lle r S, b+ + his ri- gf obnhi~ n o+ Q b r r r t c r. ' 7 If fish use ends at a road crossing, descn e conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. U P Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): N r 4.0r L r ~ s; Wj J bCqPn 5 u ru . + r + he L) wediunn - sws\ l size chaqc, F, sh U ~ CC ~ wJh c r t a d c c y t r ; b ~ + G~ d . ovt WLQ) ew- ker s LLII+. 26 FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Surveyor Name( s): 30 e Cadd i i , Bob hJvrnP1\ Agency: o ba~ ~ a'ndbwner: Lobsfec C r , ~ , , b c c Mailing Address: 7 D. ' 30K 2 , ~ J L pLet~ t , D R DO Phone: 8 YD- o 00 1 Date Surveyed: m4 I/ 2, i? 7- C I f Stream: / ) ~ ~ ~ ~ ek bS "" ~ c Tributaryto: L o b s t e r Lraek Quad Map: B V ' ~ Cr eek ??, d. ie Location: T 73 R 2 0 Sec. 3Y, ~ I. o AA. J G Survey Method ( d): d~ lectroshocker Angling 0 Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) 2 5 0 Number of Pools / D Flow Level ( d): 0 Low d ~ o d e r a t e 0 High Weather: 94, & SU W\ I Water Temperature: 5- 7 " ?= Water Clarity ( d) : Wc1ea. r CI Moderate 0 Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE PHYSICAL STREAM DATA Species Sics Spedes If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. Quantity If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. I I Other comments ( use reverse side if necessary): ~ h5ctre um WLS " r y ~ Lw iL tL ~ decy f- goo( r. @. la f is/., observe4 , Ty pr N ~ f . r e u ~ z . FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Surveyor Name( s): \ ce < . 3ab Tr cut Agency: u/ k2 Mailing ~ ddress: Z3R Rne St , b k n h( e dr ! OR ? d o 0 Phone: ZB?- 3333 Date Surveyed: stream: ~*- aweA Tributary to: c r & QuadMap: G l e w b ~ ~ e k Location: T \ 4 5 R 6 @ Sec. zS,, ~ 3t .+ S-Survey Method ( d): d~ lectroshocker Angling Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance ( feet) Number of Pools Q Flow Level ( d): 0 Low & oderate High Weather: C( ea c Water Temperature: 5?* F Water Clarity ( d): lW2ear 0 Moderate Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WILDLIFE Species Sizes Spedes Quantity PHYSICAL STREAM DATA If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. U P If fish use ends at a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. Close

• 231. [Image] Relation between selected water-quality variables and lake level in Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon

  	Relation Between Selected Water-Quality Constituents and Lake Stage in Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon By Tamara M. Wood, Gregory J. Fuhrer, and Jennifer L. Morace SUMMARY Upper Klamath Lake is ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Relation between selected water-quality variables and lake level in Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon Author: Wood, Tamara M. Year: 1996, 2005, 2004 Relation Between Selected Water-Quality Constituents and Lake Stage in Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon By Tamara M. Wood, Gregory J. Fuhrer, and Jennifer L. Morace SUMMARY Upper Klamath Lake is a large (140 square-mile), shallow (mean depth about 8 ft) lake in south-central Oregon that the historical record indicates has been eutrophic since its discovery by non-Native Americans. In recent decades, however, the lake has had annual occurrences of near-monoculture blooms of the blue-green alga Aphanizomenon flos-aquae. In 1988 two sucker species endemic to the lake, the Lost River sucker (Deltistes luxatus) and the shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris), were listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and it has been proposed that the poor water quality conditions associated with extremely long and productive blooms are contributing to the decline of those species. It has also been proposed that the low lake levels made possible by the construction of a dam at the outlet from the lake in 1921 have contributed to worsening water quality through a variety of possible mechanisms (Jacob Kann, Klamath Tribes, written com-mun., 1995). One such mechanism would be an increase in internal phosphorus loading from resuspended sediments (Jacoby and others, 1982), resulting from an increase in bottom shear stresses at lower lake levels (Laenen and LeTourneau, 1996), leading in turn to more intense algal blooms. Another possible mechanism is an earlier triggering of algal blooms. When early spring lake levels are low, greater light intensity at the sediment surface might speed recruitment of algal cells from the sediments. Sediment recruitment has been shown to be an important contributor to water column biomass increases in A. flos aquae (Barbiero and Kann, 1994) and Gloeotrichia echinulata (Barbiero, 1993). An earlier bloom could result in poor water quality conditions occurring earlier in the year, when young-of-the-year fish may be more susceptible to those conditions. Lake level can also influence water quality directly. An increased frequency of sediment resuspension at lower lake levels could increase chemical and biological oxygen demand, resulting in decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations. Sediment oxygen demand also may be enhanced at lower lake levels because it is concentrated over a smaller volume of water. Some compensation for increased oxygen demand at lower lake levels might be provided by increased reaeration, if the water column mixes from top to bottom more frequently. Based on the analysis of data that they have been collecting for several years, the Klamath Tribes recently recommended that the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) modify the operating plan for the dam to make the minimum lake levels for the June-August period more closely resemble pre-dam conditions (Jacob Kann, written commun., 1995). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) was asked to analyze the available data for the lake and to assess whether the evidence exists to conclude that year-to-year differences in certain lake water-quality variables are related to year-to-year differences in lake level. The results of the analysis will be used as scientific input in the process of developing an operating plan for the Link River Dam. Datasets Two water-quality datasets were analyzed. The first was a series of hourly records of pH, dissolved oxygen, and water temperature, each of approximately a week's duration. The records were collected at 3 sites over 3 years, 1992 through 1994, with enough consistency to define the seasonal patterns. This dataset provided information about the diel extremes in dissolved oxygen and pH and the seasonal pattern in the diel cycle, but measurements were limited to a depth of 1 m(3.28 ft). The second dataset was a set of depth profiles of pH and dissolved oxygen and concurrent depth-integrated samples for nutrients and chlo-rophyll-a. The profiles were collected at approximately biweekly intervals at nine sites (seven in Upper Klamath and two in Agency Lake) over the 5 years 1990 through 1994. These depth profiles provided information on the depth-dependence of dissolved oxygen and pH, and allowed more extensive year-to-year comparisons than did the hourly records. Because measurements were made at each site only once during the sampling day, however, they did not capture the daily extremes in water quality. Lake level is measured daily by the USGS at three sites around the lake: Rocky Point, Rattlesnake Point, and near the city of Klamath Falls. These daily measurements are then used to compute a spatially weighted average of the lake level that is reported in the USGS annual Water-Data Report for Oregon. The average lake levels were used in this report. Two climatic datasets were used in this report; both were collected at the Klamath Falls airport. Air temperature was recorded as a daily maximum and daily minimum value. Cloud cover was quantized on a daily basis into one of seven levels. Because the focus of this study was primarily to examine possible relations between water quality and lake level, the lake level data provide an important context for the discussions that follow. Title: Relation between selected water-quality variables and lake level in Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon Author: Wood, Tamara M. Year: 1996, 2005, 2004 Relation Between Selected Water-Quality Constituents and Lake Stage in Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon By Tamara M. Wood, Gregory J. Fuhrer, and Jennifer L. Morace SUMMARY Upper Klamath Lake is a large (140 square-mile), shallow (mean depth about 8 ft) lake in south-central Oregon that the historical record indicates has been eutrophic since its discovery by non-Native Americans. In recent decades, however, the lake has had annual occurrences of near-monoculture blooms of the blue-green alga Aphanizomenon flos-aquae. In 1988 two sucker species endemic to the lake, the Lost River sucker (Deltistes luxatus) and the shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris), were listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and it has been proposed that the poor water quality conditions associated with extremely long and productive blooms are contributing to the decline of those species. It has also been proposed that the low lake levels made possible by the construction of a dam at the outlet from the lake in 1921 have contributed to worsening water quality through a variety of possible mechanisms (Jacob Kann, Klamath Tribes, written com-mun., 1995). One such mechanism would be an increase in internal phosphorus loading from resuspended sediments (Jacoby and others, 1982), resulting from an increase in bottom shear stresses at lower lake levels (Laenen and LeTourneau, 1996), leading in turn to more intense algal blooms. Another possible mechanism is an earlier triggering of algal blooms. When early spring lake levels are low, greater light intensity at the sediment surface might speed recruitment of algal cells from the sediments. Sediment recruitment has been shown to be an important contributor to water column biomass increases in A. flos aquae (Barbiero and Kann, 1994) and Gloeotrichia echinulata (Barbiero, 1993). An earlier bloom could result in poor water quality conditions occurring earlier in the year, when young-of-the-year fish may be more susceptible to those conditions. Lake level can also influence water quality directly. An increased frequency of sediment resuspension at lower lake levels could increase chemical and biological oxygen demand, resulting in decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations. Sediment oxygen demand also may be enhanced at lower lake levels because it is concentrated over a smaller volume of water. Some compensation for increased oxygen demand at lower lake levels might be provided by increased reaeration, if the water column mixes from top to bottom more frequently. Based on the analysis of data that they have been collecting for several years, the Klamath Tribes recently recommended that the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) modify the operating plan for the dam to make the minimum lake levels for the June-August period more closely resemble pre-dam conditions (Jacob Kann, written commun., 1995). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) was asked to analyze the available data for the lake and to assess whether the evidence exists to conclude that year-to-year differences in certain lake water-quality variables are related to year-to-year differences in lake level. The results of the analysis will be used as scientific input in the process of developing an operating plan for the Link River Dam. Datasets Two water-quality datasets were analyzed. The first was a series of hourly records of pH, dissolved oxygen, and water temperature, each of approximately a week's duration. The records were collected at 3 sites over 3 years, 1992 through 1994, with enough consistency to define the seasonal patterns. This dataset provided information about the diel extremes in dissolved oxygen and pH and the seasonal pattern in the diel cycle, but measurements were limited to a depth of 1 m(3.28 ft). The second dataset was a set of depth profiles of pH and dissolved oxygen and concurrent depth-integrated samples for nutrients and chlo-rophyll-a. The profiles were collected at approximately biweekly intervals at nine sites (seven in Upper Klamath and two in Agency Lake) over the 5 years 1990 through 1994. These depth profiles provided information on the depth-dependence of dissolved oxygen and pH, and allowed more extensive year-to-year comparisons than did the hourly records. Because measurements were made at each site only once during the sampling day, however, they did not capture the daily extremes in water quality. Lake level is measured daily by the USGS at three sites around the lake: Rocky Point, Rattlesnake Point, and near the city of Klamath Falls. These daily measurements are then used to compute a spatially weighted average of the lake level that is reported in the USGS annual Water-Data Report for Oregon. The average lake levels were used in this report. Two climatic datasets were used in this report; both were collected at the Klamath Falls airport. Air temperature was recorded as a daily maximum and daily minimum value. Cloud cover was quantized on a daily basis into one of seven levels. Because the focus of this study was primarily to examine possible relations between water quality and lake level, the lake level data provide an important context for the discussions that follow. Close

• 232. [Image] Programmatic environmental assessment for Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office Projects, 2000-2010

  	Programmatic Environmental Assessment Summary This Environmental Assessment (EA) provides compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for restoration actions undertaken by the US Fish ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Programmatic environmental assessment for Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office Projects, 2000-2010 Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office. Year: 2000, 2005, 2004 Programmatic Environmental Assessment Summary This Environmental Assessment (EA) provides compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for restoration actions undertaken by the US Fish & Wildlife Service's Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office (ERO) in Klamath Falls, Oregon. These restoration activities are needed due to the large-scale loss of wetland and riparian habitat and degraded water quality. The purpose of these restoration efforts is the improvement of conditions of the watershed with specific regard to habitat and water quality, resulting in, among other benefits, improved conditions for the endangered fish species (bull trout and Lost River and shortnose sucker) populations of the basin. The geographic scope of this EA is defined as the upper Klamath River basin, including the entire watershed from Irongate Dam upstream to the headwaters. This EA is intended to provide NEPA compliance for restoration projects conducted between the years 2000 and 2010. The ERO was established in 1993 to sponsor and assist with a variety of restoration activities in the Klamath Basin. The ERO funds and provides technical assistance to restoration projects involving private landholders, concerned groups, and other state, federal, and tribal agencies. Four alternatives are presented in this EA. The proposed alternative (Alternative 1) consists of a comprehensive program of ecosystem restoration, promoting projects in both riparian areas and in upland habitats. This would continue the current program in effect since 1994. NEPA compliance would primarily be carried out via a single, programmatic document saving time and funds. The Fish & Wildlife Service proposes to fund and administer the following projects types: Riparian Projects: (fencing for livestock management; native plant establishment & diversification; non-native plant removal/control; erosion control; contour re-establishment; impoundment removal; wildlife habitat improvements) Wetland Projects: (fencing; wetland restoration and enhancement; wildlife habitat improvements) Upland or Road Projects: (road abandonment, decommissioning, & obliteration; road drainage improvements and storm proofing, re-establishment of historic contours; silvicultural treatments; native plant establishment/diversification; non-native plant removal/control; fencing; landslide treatments; culvert/stream crossing upgrades; erosion control; wildlife habitat improvements). In-stream Projects: (habitat complexity and diversity improvements; hydrologic regime improvements; coarse woody debris supplementation; natural or artificial barrier removal, modification &/or creation; fish screens installation). Alternative 2 would concentrate restoration efforts only on riparian, instream, and wetland areas. Road projects would be conducted only within the riparian corridor, as defined. NEPA compliance would also be conducted programmatically. Alternative 3 would cease all restoration activities conducted and funded by the ERO in the Klamath Basin. This alternative would serve as a benchmark against which the effects of the restoration alternatives discussed above can be compared. Alternative 4, the "No Action" alternative, would continue current management policies with regard to NEPA compliance, providing compliance on a project by project basis requiring independent analysis for each project. The affected environment of the region is described in detail. The environment has been changed significantly since the 1890's due to logging, agriculture and urban development. An extensive system of dams, canals, and drainage structures has resulted in the conversion of approximately 80% of pre-settlement wetlands to agricultural uses. Riparian corridors have been similarly impacted, and upland forests regions have been affected by logging, road construction and other factors. These changes have contributed to problems with the water quality in the region, contributing to the listing of several fish species as threatened or endangered; loss of habitat has affected a large number of other species as well. The environmental effects of each alternative is analyzed. Some short term negative impacts could occur as a result of the projects authorized by both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, but these would be strongly offset by the expected beneficial results to water quality and habitat conditions. Alternative 1 would be expected to have a greater overall effect on the environment than Alternative 2, since many of the underlying factors with which restoration efforts are concerned originate in upland conditions (i.e. sedimentation and hydrologic functionality). Alternative 3 would result in conditions remaining much as they are currently, although other programs and organizations are making efforts at restoration activities. The environmental impacts of individual projects anticipated under Alternative 4 would be generally the same as for similar projects under Alternative 1. The primary difference between the two alternatives would be the higher efficiency and improved cumulative analysis resulting from a programmatic approach as proposed in Alternative 1. Public participation in the NEPA process has been, and will continue to be, solicited and welcomed. Compliance with state and federal laws and regulations such as the Clean Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and the Endangered Species Act, as well as guidelines for contaminant surveys, will be carried out as detailed. While these projects are expected to play an important role in the restoration of the region, none of these alternatives are expected to have a significant impact when compared with the loss of wetland, riparian and upland habitats over the past century, impacts which do occur would be of a cumulatively beneficial nature. Other restoration efforts are being carried out in the area by other governmental and private groups, and it is expected that these combined efforts will achieve important beneficial results for the ecosystem. Title: Programmatic environmental assessment for Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office Projects, 2000-2010 Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office. Year: 2000, 2005, 2004 Programmatic Environmental Assessment Summary This Environmental Assessment (EA) provides compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for restoration actions undertaken by the US Fish & Wildlife Service's Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office (ERO) in Klamath Falls, Oregon. These restoration activities are needed due to the large-scale loss of wetland and riparian habitat and degraded water quality. The purpose of these restoration efforts is the improvement of conditions of the watershed with specific regard to habitat and water quality, resulting in, among other benefits, improved conditions for the endangered fish species (bull trout and Lost River and shortnose sucker) populations of the basin. The geographic scope of this EA is defined as the upper Klamath River basin, including the entire watershed from Irongate Dam upstream to the headwaters. This EA is intended to provide NEPA compliance for restoration projects conducted between the years 2000 and 2010. The ERO was established in 1993 to sponsor and assist with a variety of restoration activities in the Klamath Basin. The ERO funds and provides technical assistance to restoration projects involving private landholders, concerned groups, and other state, federal, and tribal agencies. Four alternatives are presented in this EA. The proposed alternative (Alternative 1) consists of a comprehensive program of ecosystem restoration, promoting projects in both riparian areas and in upland habitats. This would continue the current program in effect since 1994. NEPA compliance would primarily be carried out via a single, programmatic document saving time and funds. The Fish & Wildlife Service proposes to fund and administer the following projects types: Riparian Projects: (fencing for livestock management; native plant establishment & diversification; non-native plant removal/control; erosion control; contour re-establishment; impoundment removal; wildlife habitat improvements) Wetland Projects: (fencing; wetland restoration and enhancement; wildlife habitat improvements) Upland or Road Projects: (road abandonment, decommissioning, & obliteration; road drainage improvements and storm proofing, re-establishment of historic contours; silvicultural treatments; native plant establishment/diversification; non-native plant removal/control; fencing; landslide treatments; culvert/stream crossing upgrades; erosion control; wildlife habitat improvements). In-stream Projects: (habitat complexity and diversity improvements; hydrologic regime improvements; coarse woody debris supplementation; natural or artificial barrier removal, modification &/or creation; fish screens installation). Alternative 2 would concentrate restoration efforts only on riparian, instream, and wetland areas. Road projects would be conducted only within the riparian corridor, as defined. NEPA compliance would also be conducted programmatically. Alternative 3 would cease all restoration activities conducted and funded by the ERO in the Klamath Basin. This alternative would serve as a benchmark against which the effects of the restoration alternatives discussed above can be compared. Alternative 4, the "No Action" alternative, would continue current management policies with regard to NEPA compliance, providing compliance on a project by project basis requiring independent analysis for each project. The affected environment of the region is described in detail. The environment has been changed significantly since the 1890's due to logging, agriculture and urban development. An extensive system of dams, canals, and drainage structures has resulted in the conversion of approximately 80% of pre-settlement wetlands to agricultural uses. Riparian corridors have been similarly impacted, and upland forests regions have been affected by logging, road construction and other factors. These changes have contributed to problems with the water quality in the region, contributing to the listing of several fish species as threatened or endangered; loss of habitat has affected a large number of other species as well. The environmental effects of each alternative is analyzed. Some short term negative impacts could occur as a result of the projects authorized by both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, but these would be strongly offset by the expected beneficial results to water quality and habitat conditions. Alternative 1 would be expected to have a greater overall effect on the environment than Alternative 2, since many of the underlying factors with which restoration efforts are concerned originate in upland conditions (i.e. sedimentation and hydrologic functionality). Alternative 3 would result in conditions remaining much as they are currently, although other programs and organizations are making efforts at restoration activities. The environmental impacts of individual projects anticipated under Alternative 4 would be generally the same as for similar projects under Alternative 1. The primary difference between the two alternatives would be the higher efficiency and improved cumulative analysis resulting from a programmatic approach as proposed in Alternative 1. Public participation in the NEPA process has been, and will continue to be, solicited and welcomed. Compliance with state and federal laws and regulations such as the Clean Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and the Endangered Species Act, as well as guidelines for contaminant surveys, will be carried out as detailed. While these projects are expected to play an important role in the restoration of the region, none of these alternatives are expected to have a significant impact when compared with the loss of wetland, riparian and upland habitats over the past century, impacts which do occur would be of a cumulatively beneficial nature. Other restoration efforts are being carried out in the area by other governmental and private groups, and it is expected that these combined efforts will achieve important beneficial results for the ecosystem. Close

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

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

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

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

• 235. [Image] Klamath River fish die-off, September 2002 : report on estimate of mortality

  	Klamath River Fish Die-off, September 2002, Mortality Report, FWS, Arcata, CA Summary of Findings This report provides an estimate of the fish mortality that occurred during the September 2002 Klamath ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath River fish die-off, September 2002 : report on estimate of mortality Author: Guillen, George. Year: 2003, 2005, 2004 Klamath River Fish Die-off, September 2002, Mortality Report, FWS, Arcata, CA Summary of Findings This report provides an estimate of the fish mortality that occurred during the September 2002 Klamath River die-off. The intent of this report is to provide natural resource agencies and trustees with information describing the magnitude of this event for their consideration in near-term decisions regarding the affected fisheries resources and related assets under their authority. The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), in cooperation with other federal and state agencies and Tribes, will continue to collaborate and evaluate information collected during the die-off. This report describes a conservative assessment, which probably underestimates the total number of fish that died during this event. Findings described in this report include the following: 22 The most accurate estimate of the total number of observable fish that died during the incident is 34,056. 22 Approximately 98.4 percent of the dead fish observed were adult anadromous salmonids 22 Out of 33,527 anadromous salmonids estimated to have succumbed during this event, 97.1 percent (32,533) were fall-run Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, 1.8 percent (629) were steelhead, O. mykiss, and 1.0 percent (344) were coho salmon, O. kisutch. Only one coastal cutthroat, O. clarki clarki was found dead during the investigation. 22 Approximately 91.5 percent of the coho salmon, and 38.7 percent of the steelhead observed had marks indicating that they were of hatchery origin. All hatchery coho originated from the Trinity River Hatchery. After accounting for variable tagging and shed rates, the Klamath River Technical Advisory Team (KRTAT) estimated that 7,060 (21.7 percent) Chinook were of hatchery origin. A total of 2,921 (9 percent) Chinook were of Iron Gate (Klamath River) Hatchery origin. A total of 4,139 (12.7 percent) Chinook were of Trinity River Hatchery origin. 22 The KRTAT also estimated that dead Chinook salmon represented 19.2 percent of the total (169,,297) in-river Klamath-Trinity River run. 22 Other dead fish observed during the investigation included sculpins, Cottus spp. (87 fish), speckled dace, Rhinichthys osculus (9 fish), Klamath smallscale sucker, Catostomus rimiculus (311 fish), one American shad, Alosa sapidissima, and one green sturgeon, Acipencer medirostris. ii Klamath River Fish Die-off, September 2002, Mortality Report, FWS, Arcata, CA 22 Throughout the investigation, live adult and juvenile fish of affected and unaffected species were observed in the river. In addition, some species (e.g. American shad, speckled dace, and green sturgeon) did not appear to experience extensive mortality. Almost all (greater than 99 percent) of the dead fish observed were adults or larger species offish. 22 The majority of the recently dead fish examined exhibited one or more outward gross signs of disease including gill necrosis, bacterial growth, sores, bloody vents, and ulcerations. Pathological examinations confirmed that white spot disease and columnaris were the principle immediate causes of death. Additional information collected by the Service and cooperating agencies included a suite of water quality parameters collected during the summer and fall of 2001 and 2002, fish pathology analyses, and related hydrologic information. The Service will provide reports on this additional information after it has received quality assurance review. A more comprehensive report addressing contributing factors associated with causes of the fish die-off will follow. in Title: Klamath River fish die-off, September 2002 : report on estimate of mortality Author: Guillen, George. Year: 2003, 2005, 2004 Klamath River Fish Die-off, September 2002, Mortality Report, FWS, Arcata, CA Summary of Findings This report provides an estimate of the fish mortality that occurred during the September 2002 Klamath River die-off. The intent of this report is to provide natural resource agencies and trustees with information describing the magnitude of this event for their consideration in near-term decisions regarding the affected fisheries resources and related assets under their authority. The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), in cooperation with other federal and state agencies and Tribes, will continue to collaborate and evaluate information collected during the die-off. This report describes a conservative assessment, which probably underestimates the total number of fish that died during this event. Findings described in this report include the following: 22 The most accurate estimate of the total number of observable fish that died during the incident is 34,056. 22 Approximately 98.4 percent of the dead fish observed were adult anadromous salmonids 22 Out of 33,527 anadromous salmonids estimated to have succumbed during this event, 97.1 percent (32,533) were fall-run Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, 1.8 percent (629) were steelhead, O. mykiss, and 1.0 percent (344) were coho salmon, O. kisutch. Only one coastal cutthroat, O. clarki clarki was found dead during the investigation. 22 Approximately 91.5 percent of the coho salmon, and 38.7 percent of the steelhead observed had marks indicating that they were of hatchery origin. All hatchery coho originated from the Trinity River Hatchery. After accounting for variable tagging and shed rates, the Klamath River Technical Advisory Team (KRTAT) estimated that 7,060 (21.7 percent) Chinook were of hatchery origin. A total of 2,921 (9 percent) Chinook were of Iron Gate (Klamath River) Hatchery origin. A total of 4,139 (12.7 percent) Chinook were of Trinity River Hatchery origin. 22 The KRTAT also estimated that dead Chinook salmon represented 19.2 percent of the total (169,,297) in-river Klamath-Trinity River run. 22 Other dead fish observed during the investigation included sculpins, Cottus spp. (87 fish), speckled dace, Rhinichthys osculus (9 fish), Klamath smallscale sucker, Catostomus rimiculus (311 fish), one American shad, Alosa sapidissima, and one green sturgeon, Acipencer medirostris. ii Klamath River Fish Die-off, September 2002, Mortality Report, FWS, Arcata, CA 22 Throughout the investigation, live adult and juvenile fish of affected and unaffected species were observed in the river. In addition, some species (e.g. American shad, speckled dace, and green sturgeon) did not appear to experience extensive mortality. Almost all (greater than 99 percent) of the dead fish observed were adults or larger species offish. 22 The majority of the recently dead fish examined exhibited one or more outward gross signs of disease including gill necrosis, bacterial growth, sores, bloody vents, and ulcerations. Pathological examinations confirmed that white spot disease and columnaris were the principle immediate causes of death. Additional information collected by the Service and cooperating agencies included a suite of water quality parameters collected during the summer and fall of 2001 and 2002, fish pathology analyses, and related hydrologic information. The Service will provide reports on this additional information after it has received quality assurance review. A more comprehensive report addressing contributing factors associated with causes of the fish die-off will follow. in Close

• 236. [Image] The Oregon plan for salmon and watersheds

  	KCAMATH FALLS. QREEON THE OREGON PLAN FOR SALMON AND WATERSHEDS The purpose of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds ( the " Oregon Plan") as stated in the Plan and reaffirmed in this Executive Order ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Oregon plan for salmon and watersheds Author: Oregon. Office of the Governor Year: 1999, 2005, 2004 KCAMATH FALLS. QREEON THE OREGON PLAN FOR SALMON AND WATERSHEDS The purpose of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds ( the " Oregon Plan") as stated in the Plan and reaffirmed in this Executive Order is to restore Oregon's wild salmon and trout populations and fisheries to sustainable and productive levels that will provide substantial environmental, cultural, and economic benefits and to improve water quality. The Oregon Plan is a long- term, ongoing effort that began as a focused set of actions by state, local, tribal and private organizations and individuals in October of 1995. The Oregon Plan first addressed coho salmon on the Oregon Coast, was then broadened to include steelhead trout on the coast and in the Lower Columbia River, and is now expanding to all at- risk wild salmonids throughout the state. The Oregon Plan addresses all factors for decline of these species, including watershed conditions arid fisheries, to the extent those factors can be affected by the state. The Oregon Plan was endorsed and funded by the Oregon Legislature in 1997 through Oregon Senate Bill 924 ( 1 997 Or. Laws, ch. 7) and House Bill 3700 ( 1 997 Or. Laws, ch.' 8). The Oregon Plan is described in two principal documents: " The Oregon Plan," dated March 1997, and " The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, Supplement I - steelhbad," dated January 1998. As used in this Executive Order, + the Oregon Plan also incorporates the Healthy Streams Partnership ( Oregon Senate Bill 101 0, 1 993- Or. Laws, ch. 263). The Oregon Plan is a cooperative effort of state, local, federal, tribal and private organizations and individuals. Although the Oregon Plan contains a strong foundation of protective regulations -- continuing existing regulatory programs and speeding the implementation of others - an essential principle of the Plan is the need to move beyond prohibitions and to encourage efforts to improve conditions for salmon through non- regulatory means. Many of the most significant contributions to the Oregon Plan are private and quasi- governmental efforts to protect and . restore salmon on working landscapes, including efforts by watershed councils. Salmon and trout restoration requires action and sacrifice across the entire economic and geographic spectrum of Oregon. The commercial and sport fishing industries in Oregon have been heavily affected by complete or partial closures of fisheries. The forest industry operates under the Oregon Forest Practices Act, and has contributed substantially to salmon recovery through habitat restoration projects on private lands and by funding a large pan of the state recovery efforts. The agriculture and mining industries are also taking actions that will protect and restore salmon and trout habitat and improve water quality ( including financial support of restoration efforts by the mining industry). Urban areas are developing water conservation programs, spending funds for wastewater treatment improvements to reduce point source pollution, reducing non- point source pollution and reducing activities that degrade riparian areas. All citizens of Oregon share responsibility for declining populations of wild salmon and trout, and it is important that there be both a broad commitment to reversing these historic trends and a sense that the burdens of restoration are being shared by all of society. It is also important that there be independent scientific oversight of the Oregon Plan. This oversight is being provided by the Independent Mutidisciplinary Science Team ( IMST), established under Oregon Senate Bill 924 ( 1 997 Or. Laws, ch. 7). ~ d'ditional legislative oversight for the Oregon Plan is being provided by the Joint Legislative Committee on . Salmon and Stream Enhancement ( the " Joint Committee!'). Under the federal Endangered Species Act ( ESA) the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service . . ( F& WS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS) are responsible for identifying species that are threatened or endangered, and for developing programs to conserve and recover lhose species. F& WS and NMFS have now listed salmonids under the ESA on the entire Oregon Coast, the lower Columbia River ( including most of the Portland metropolitan area). the la math River basin, and in the upper Columbia and Snake River basins. More listings are expected within the next year. To date, the F& WS and NMFS generally have not had the resources to develop and implement effective recovery plans for fisheries. In addition, in many areas a large proportion of the habitat that list'ed'salmonids depend on is located on private lands, where the regulatory tools under the ESA are relatively ' ill- defined and indirect. Finally, federal agencies alone, even if they take an active regulatory approach. to recovery, will not restore listed salmonids. The federal ESA may work to prohibit certain actions, but there is simply too much habitat on private lands for restoration to succeed without pro- active involvement and incentives for individuals, groups, and local governments to take affirmative actions to restore habitat on working landscapes. In April, 1997 the State of Oregon and NMFS entered into a Memorandum of Agreement ( MOA) under which the State agreed to continue existing measures under the March 1997 Oregon Plan and to take certain additional actions to protect and restbre coho salmon on the Oregon Coast. On May 6, 1997, NMFS determined that the Oregon Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit ( ESU) of coho salmon did not warrant listing as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA. On June 2, 1998, the US. District Court for Oregon ordered NMFS to reconsider its decision without taking into account any parts of the Oregon Plan or MOA that are not " current enforceable measures." The U. S. District Court for Oregon also held that the MOA was speculative, due to the fact that it provided for termination by either party on thirty days notice, and that therefore the MOA could not be considered by NMFS ' in its listing decision. Under court order, NMFS reconsidered its decision without taking into account the application in the future of the harvest and hatchery measures contained in the Oregon Plan, or the habitat improvement programs being undertaken under the Oregon Plan, or the commitments made by the State of Oregon in the MOA for improvement of applicable habitat measures. Accordingly, NMFS listed Oregon Coast .. . coho as threatened undefthe ESA on or about October 2, 1998. - The MOA provided for the State of Oregon to take actions necessary to ensfie that - Oregon Coast coho did not warrant listing as a threatened or endangered species under the federal ESA. Now that Oregon Coast coho are listed as a threatened species as a- result of the U. S. District Court's order, the central purpose of the MOA has been eliminated. Due to the uncertainties created by the District Court's decision and the increasing extent of salmonids listed or proposed for listing under the federal ESA, it is important that the status of the State of Oregon's substantive commitments under the MOA and the purpose of the Oregon Plan be clarified. Through this Executive Order, the State of Oregon reaffirms its intent to play the leading role in protecting and restoring Oregon Coast coho and other salmonids. through the implementation of the Oregon Plan. This Executive Order provides the framework and direction for state agencies to implement ( to the extent of their authorities) the Oregon Plan in a timely and effective manner. This Executive Order also provides a framework for extending the state's efforts beyond a focus on Oregon Coast coho, to watersheds and fisheries statewide. Consistent with the principle of adaptive management, this Order applies the experience gained to date in implementing the Oregon Plan to provide additional detailed direction to state agencies. Finally, this Executive Order establishes a public involvement process to prioritize continuing efforts under the Oregon Plan. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED: ( 1) Overall Direction ( a) Agencies of the State of Oregon will, consistent with their authorities, fully implement the state agency efforts described in the Oregon Plan and in this Executive Order. ( b) The overall objective for state agencies under the Oregon Plan and this Executive Order is to protect and restore salmonids and to improve water quality. ( c) The Governor will, in cooperation with the Joint Committee, IMST, affected state agencies, watershed councils, and other affected local entities and persons develop and implement, a process to set biological and habitat goals and objectives to protect and restore salmonids on a basin or regional basis as soon as practicable. Once these goals and objectives are established, they will be used by state agencies . . . to evaluate their regulatory and non- regulatory programs and measures relating to the protection and re'storation of salmonids. Through this on- going evaluation, state agencies will determine any changes to their programs or measures that may be necessary to meet the biological and habitat goals and objectives. In the interim, the following objectives in subsections ( d) and ( e) shall apply to agencies' implem'entation of the OregGn Plan and this Executive Order. . . ( d) Actions that state agencies take, fund and/ or authorize that are primarily for a purpose other than restoration of salmonids or the habitat they depend upon will, considering the anticipated duration and geographic scope of the actions: ( A) to the maximum extent practicable minimize and mitigate adverse effects of the actions on salmoni. ds or the habitat they depend on; and ( 8) not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of salmonids in the wild. ( e) State agencies will take, fund and/ or authorize actions that are primarily for the purpose of restoring salmonids or the habitat they depend upon, including actions implementing the Oregon Plan, with the goal of producing a conservation benefit that ( if taken together with comparable and related actions by all persons and entities within the range of the species) is likely to result in sustainable population levels of salmonids in the foreseeable future, and in population levels of salmonids that provide substantial environmental, cultural and economic benefits to Oregonians in the long term. ( f) With the broadening of the Oregon Plan,' prioritizing all agency actions according to coho core areas is no longer appropriate. Each state agency participating in the Oregon Plan, in consultation with ODFW and other partners involved in the implementation of the Plan and through a public involvement process, will modify their existing work programs in the Oregon Plan to prioritize agency measures to protect and restore salmonids in a timely and effective manner. The work programs will continue to identify key specific outcomes, refine and improve designations of priority areas, and establish completion dates. These modifications will be submitted to the , Governor, the Joint Committee, and to the appropriate boards and commissions as soon as possible, but in no event later than June 1, 1999. Progress reports on action plans will be submitted to the Governor, the Joint Committee, and to the appropriate boards and commissions on an annual basis. In prioritizing their efforts,' state agencies shall consider how to maximize conservation -, benefits for salmonids and the habitat they depend on within limited resources and - . whether their- actions are likely to increase populations of salmonids in the foreseeable future. I p ( g) State agencies will work cooperatively with landowners, local entities and other persons taking actions to protect or restore salmonids. ( h) As the Oregon Plan grows in geographic scope and . in intensity of activity,' there is a growing need to streamline and prioritize state agency activity at the . regional level. One proposal has been to organize state natural resource agency field operations along hydrologic units. Therefore, state agencies will consider this proposal and, through the collective efforts of state agency directors, develop an organization plan that focuses state agency field effort on the activities and areas of highest priority under the Oregon Plan. ( i) State. agencies will continue to encourage and work with agencies of the U. S. government to implement the federal measures described in the Oregon Plan.. In addition, the state agencies will work with the federal government to develop additional means of protecting and restoring salmonids. Where appropriate, state agencies will request that federal agencies obtain incidental take permits under Section 7 of the federal ESA for state actions that ace funded or authorized by a , federal agency. ( j) State agencies will help support efforts to evaluate watershed conditions, and to develop'specific strategic plans to provide for flood management, water quality improvement, and salmonid restoration in basins around the state, including the Willamette basin through the Willamette Restoration Initiative. ( k) The IMST will continue to provide oversight to ensure the use of the best scientific information available as the basis for implementation of and for adaptive changes to the Oregon Plan. State agencies will ensure that the IMST receives data and other information reasonably required for its functions in a timely manner. The Governor's Natural Resources Office ( GNRO) has requested that the IMST's initial priority be review of the freshwater habitat needs of coho and the relationship between population levels, escapement levels, and habitat characteristics. The GNRO also will continue to request that the IMST annually review monitoring results and identify where the Oregon Plan warrants change for scientific or technical reasons and make recommend& ions to the appropriate agency on those adjustments that appear necessary. Agencies will report their responses to any recommendations by . . the IMST to the Governor and to the Joint Committee. Any other changes identified by the IMST as necessary to achieve properly functioning riparian and aquatic habitat conditions required to, protect and restore salmonids will be forwarded to the appropriate governmental entity for its consideration of the adoption of new, changed, or supplemental measures as rapidly as possible while providing for public involvement: Each state agency, by June 1, 1999, will ratify a monitoring team charter through an interagency memorandum. A draft of the charter is contained in the 1998 Oregon Plan Annual Report. ( I) Monitoring is a key element of the Oregon Plan. Each state agency will actively support the monitoring strategy described in the Oregon Plan. Each affected agency will participate on the monitoring team to coordinate activities and integrate analyses. Each agency will implement . an appropriate monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of their programs and measures in meeting the objectives set forth in the Oregon Planon an annual basis. In addition, agencies with regulatory programs that are included in the Oregon Plan will determine levels of compliance with regulatory standards and identify and act on opportunities to improve compliance levels: ( m) If information gathered regarding the effectiveness of measures in the Oregon Plan shows that existing strategies within state control are not achie, ving expected improvements and objectives, the agency( ies1 responsible for those measures will seek appropriate changes in their regulations, policies, programs, r-measures and other areas of the Oregon Plan, as required to protect and restore coho and other sal'monids. Such modification or supplementation will be done as rapidly as possible, consistent with public involvement. ( n) Agencies are using geographically- referenced data in their efforts under the Oregon Plan, and will be using Geographic Information Systems ( GIs) in the analysis of these , data. In doing so, the State GIs Plan, developed by the Oregon Geographic lnformation Council ( OGIC) ( see Executive Order 96- 40) will be followed, with specific adherence to the Plan guidance on data documentation, coordination and data sharing. The agency with primary responsibility for gathering and updating the specific data will be responsible for meeting the requirements of the Plan, and to ensure coordination- with OGIC, the State Service Center for GIs and other' cooperating agencies. In addition, state agencies will cooperate with the Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board ( GWEB), Soil and. Water Conservation Districts ( SWCDs), local waters$ ed councils, landowners and others in making these essential data available. ( 0) Geographically- based strategies to assess and achieve habitat needs and adequate escapement levels will be used, and the state agencies will continue with the development of standardized watershed assessment protocols, including a -- cumulative effects assessment. State agencies will also continue with the development of habitat restoration guides to evaluate and direct habitat restoration efforts. ( 2) Continuation and Expansion of Existing Efforts. Without limiting the generality of section ( l)( a) of this Executive Order, the following subsections of this Executive Order describe some of the many efforts in the Oregon Plan where the initial phase of work has been completed, and where efforts will be continued. ( a) The Oregon Fish & Wildlife Commission ( OFWC), the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife ( ODFW), and the Pacific Fishery Management Council ( PFMC) are managing ocean and terminal fisheries according to the measures set forth in the Oregon Plan ( ODFW I- A. l and Ill- A. l). These measures set a maximum mortality rate ( resulting from other fisheries) for any of four disaggregated stocks of coho of fifteen percent ( 1 5%) under poor ocean conditions. In 1997, the mortality rate. from harvest is estimated to have been between nine and eleven percent ( 9- 1 1 %). ODFW and OFWC will continue these measures in state waters, and will actively support continued implementation of the ocean harvest measures by the PFMC ( Amendment 13 to the Council's salmon management plan) until and unless a different management regime agreeable to NMFS is adopted. ( b) The OFWC and ODFW will ensure that the fish hatchery measures set forth in the Oregon Plan are continued by the OFWC and ODFW. ODFW is marking all hatchery coho on the Oregon Coast. This marking will allow increased certainty in estimating hatchery stray rates beginning in 1999. Available data on hatchery stray rates for coho and steelhead are being provided to NMFS on an annual basis. The number of hatchery coho released is estimated to have been 1.7 million in 1998 - substantially below the level called for in the Oregon Plan. This number will be reduced to 1.2 million in 1999. In addition, ODFW has, and will continue to provide. annual reports regarding: ( i) the number of juvenile hatchery coho that are released by brood year, locations and dates of release, life stage, and broodstock origin; ( ii) the number of adult coho taken for broodstock for each hatchery, the location and date of collection, and the origin ( hatchery or natural); ( iii) the number of hatchery coho . . estimated to have spawned in natural habitat by basin; ( iv) the estimated percentage of hatchery coho% the total natural spawning population; and ( v) the mortality of naturally- spawning coho resulting from each fishery. NMFS may provide comments about hatchery prograk affecting coho to ODFW, with any concerns to be resolved between NMFS and ODFW. - - ( c) ln addition to recent modifications to hatchery practices and programs, a new vision is needed for how Oregon will utilize hatcheries in the best and most effective manner. Therefore, the ODFW and the OFWC shall engage in a process to create a strategic plan for fish hatcheries in Oregon over the next decade ( including state and federally- funded hatcheries, private hatcheries, and the STEP program). The essential elements of this process are as follows: ( i) Impartial analysis - conduct an impartial analysis of the scientific bases, and the social and economic effects of Oregon hatchery programs utilizing existing analyses and review where feasible, but conducting new analyses if necessary; ( ii) Review the Wild Fish Management Policy ( WFMP) - because the future plan for hatcheries in Oregon is dependent on implementation of the WFMP, ODFW shall conduct a science and stakeholder review to determine if this significant policy should be revised and shall make any revision by July 2000; ( iii) Frame alternative strategies -- convene a group of stockholders to . frame alternative strategies, including outcomes and descriptions, of how hatcheries will be used in Oregon over the next decade ( these strategies will address the use of hatcheries for wild fish population recovery including supplementation, research and monitoring, public education, and sport and commercial fishing opportunities); ( iv) Public review and selection of a strategy -- the OFWC shall, after public review and ' ;-'-!&%; f$'. i comment, adopt a strategic plan to guide development of future hatchery programs, incorporating the strategy developed and adopted in accordance with subpart ( iii) of this paragraph. ( d) Criteria and guidelines directing the design of projects that may affect fish passage have been established in a Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) between the Oregon Department of Transportation ( ODOT), ODFW, the Oregon Department of Forestry ( ODF), the Oregon Department of Agriculture ( ODA), the Division of State Lands ( DSL) and the Federal Highway Administration. These guidelines apply to the design, construction and consultations of projects affecting fish passage. Under the MOU, projects requiring regulatory approvals that follow these criteria and guidelines are expedited. Oregon agencies will continue to provide technical assistance to ensure that the criteria and guidelines are applied appropriately in restoration projects, as well as any other projects that may affect fish passage through road crossings and similar structures. ODFW will work with state agencies, local governments, and watershed councils to ensure that Oregon's standards for fish passage set forth in Exhibit A to the MOU are understood and are implemented. - ( e) Fish presence, stream habitat, road and culvert surveys have been conducted for roads within ODOT jurisdiction and county roads in coastal basins, the Lower Columbia basin, the Willamette basin, and the Grande Ronbe/ lmnaha basins. Among the results of these surveys is the finding that culvert barriers to fish passage affect a substantial quantity of salmonid habitat. For example, surveys of county and state highways in western Oregon found over 1,200 culverts that are barriers to passage. As a result, ODOT is placing additional priority on restoring fish access. For 1998, ODOT repaired or replaced 35 culverts restoring access to 101 miles of salmonid habitat. For 1999, the Oregon Transportation Commission will be asked to fund approximately $ 4.0 million for culvert modification. ODOT and the Commission will continue to examine means to speed restoration of fish passage and to coordinate priorities with ODFW. ( f) Draft watershed assessment protocols have been developed and are being field tested. Beginning in 1999, SWCDs, watershed councils and others will be able to use the protocols as the basis for action plans to identify and prioritize opportunities to protect and restore salmonids. Watershed action plans have already been completed in a number of basins including the Rogue, Coos, Coquille and Grande Ronde. State agencies will work to support these watershed assessments and plans to the maximum extent practicable. Where watershed action plans have been developed under the protocols, GWEB will ensure that projects funded through the Watershed Improvement Grant Fund are consistent with watershed action plans, and other state agencies will work with SWCDs and watershed councils to ensure that activities they authorize, fund or undertake are consistent with watershed action plans to the maximum extent practicable. ( g) The State of Oregon has developed interim aquatic habitat restoration and enhancement guidelines for 1998. State agencies involved with restoration activities ( ODFW, ODF, DSL, ODA, DEQ, and GWEB) will continue to develop and refine the interim guidelines for final publication in April 1999. The guidelines will be applied in restoration activities funded or authorized by state agencies. The purpose of ' the guidelines will be to define aquatic restoration and to identify and encourage aquatic habitat restoration techniques to restore salmonids. . . ( h) ODA and O ~ hFave each entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Oregon Department'of Environmental Quality relating to the development of . Total Maximum Daily Loads ( TMDLs) and Water Quality Management Area Plans ( WQMAPs). O Dw~ ill adopt. a nd implement WQMAPs ( through the Healthy Streams Partnership) and ODF , will review the adequacy of forest practices rules to meet water quality standards. ODF and ODA will evaluate the effectiveness of these measures in achieving water quality standards on a regular basis and implement any changes required to meet the standards. ( i) Agencies are implementing a coordinated monitoring program, as described in the Oregon Plan. This program includes technical support and standardized protocols for watershed councils, stream habitat surveys, forest practice effectiveness monitoring, water withdrawal monitoring, ambient water quality monitoring, and biotic index studies, as well as fish presence surveys and salmonid abundance and survival monitoring in selected subbasins. State agencies are also' working to coordinate monitoring efforts by state, federal, and local entities, including watershed councils. State agencies will work actively to ensure that the monitoring measures' in the Oregon Plan are continued. - .. ( j) GWEB has put into place new processes for identifying and coordinating the delivery of financial and technical assistance to individuals, agencies, watershed councils and soil and water conservation districts as they implement watershed ' restoration projects to improve water quality and restore aquatic resources. Over $ 25 ' million has been distributed for watershed restoration projects in the last ten years. During the present ( 1 997- 99 biennium) GWEB has awarded over $ 1 2 million dollars in f- state and federal funds for technical'assistance and watershed restoration activities to implement the Oregon Plan. GWEB and state agencies will continue to seek financial resources to be allocated by GWEB for watershed restoration activities at the local and. statewide levels. ( k) State agencies will continue to encourage, support and work to provide incentives for local, tribal, and private . efforts to implement the Oregon Plan. In addition, state agencies will continue to provide financial assistance to local entities for projects to protect and restore salmonids to the extent consistent with their budgetary and legal authorities, and consistent with their work programs in the Oregon Plan. To the. maximum extent practicable, state agencies will also provide technical assistance and planning tools to provide local conservation groups to assist in and target watershed restoration efforts. These efforts ( during 1996 and 1997) are reported in " The Oregon. Plan for Salmon and Watersheds: Watershed Restoration Inventory, 1998." ~ u s c afe w of the important efforts that have been completed include: ( A) Eighty- two watershed councils have joined with forty- five Soil and Water Conservation Districts as well as private and public landowners to implement on- the- ground projects' to protect and restore salmonids. During 1996 and 1997, a reported $ 27.4 million was spent on 1,234 watershed restoration projects on non-federal lands. Both the amount spent and the number of projects represent significant increases ( of over 300 percent) over prior years. In 1996- 97, watershed councils, SWCDs and other organizations and individuals completed: ( i) 138 stream fencing projects, involving at least 301 miles of streambank; ( ii) 196 riparian area planting projects, involving at least 11 1 miles of streams; and ( iii) 458 instream habitat improvement projects. . . . ( B) Private and state forest landowners are implementing key efforts under the Oregon Plan, including the road risk and remediation program ( ODF- 1 and 2). Under this effort in 1996 and 1997, close to 4,000 miles of roads'have been surveyed to identify risks that the roads may pose to salmonid habitat. As the risks are identified, they are then prioritized for remediation following an established. protocol. Already, 52 miles of forest roads have been closed, 843 miles of road repair and reconstruction projects to - protect salmonid habitat have been completed, and an additional 14 miles of roads have been decommissioned or relocated.. In addition, 530 culverts have been replaced, upgraded or installed for fish passage purposes, improving access to a reported 146 stream miles. ( C) Organizations working in Tillamook County have developed the I ." J aw#~ t Tillamook County Performance Partnership. The Partnership is implementing the \*. Tillamook Bay National Estuary Program by addressing water quality, fisheries, floodplain management and economic development in the county. Among the actions that the Partnership has already accomplished are: ( i) the closure of seven miles of degraded forest roads and the rehabilitation of 469 miles of roads to meet current standards, at a cost of $ 1 8 million; ( ii) the fencing of 53 miles of streambank, and the construction of three cattle bridges and 100 alternative cattle watering sites, at a cost of $ 214,000; and ( iii) the completion of 24 instream restoration projects and 34 barbs protecting 4,200 feet of streambank, at a cost of $ 1.3 million dollars. ( D) The Confederated Tribes of the Grande Ronde Community of Oregon have completed a forest management plan that establishes standards for the protection of aquatic resources that are comparable to those found in the Aquatic Conservation Strategy ' of the Northwest Forest Plan. . % ( E) A combination of funding from the Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation and the National Fish and Wildlife Heritage Foundation ( private, non- profit organizations) is provi, ding support for seven biologists to design restoration projects. These projects are prioritized based on stream surveys, and are carried out with the voluntary participation and support of landowners. A ten- year monitoring plan has been funded- and implemented to determine project effectiveness: ( F) The Oregon Cattlemen's Association has implemented its WESt Program that is designed to help landowners better understand their watersheds and stream functions through assessments and monitoring. h he WESt Program brings landowners together along stream reaches, and offers a series of workshops, conducted on a site specific basis, free of charge. The workshops include riparian ecology, setting goals and objectives, Proper Functioning Condition ( PFC), data. collection and monitoring. Over 25 workshops have been held, with attendance ranging from 5 to 30 landowners per workshop. The WESt Program is sponsored by the Oregon Cattlemen's Association, DEQ, Oregon State University, and GWEB. ( G) Within the Tillamook State Forest road network 1,902 culverts have been replaced or added to'improve road drainage and to disconnect storm water runoff from roads reducing stream sediment impacts. Additionally, some of these culverts also improved fish passage at stream crossings. In this process, ODF has also replaced six culverts with bridges improving fish passage to approximately four miles of stream. The Tillamook State Foresl in conjunction with many partners, such F-as the Association of Northwest Steelheaders, G W EB, Simpson Timber Company, Tillamook County, the FishAmerica Foundation, Hardrock Construction Company, the Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation, the F& WS, the Oregon Youth Conservation Corps, Columbia Helicopters and Terra Helicopters, has also recently completed instream placement of over 400 rootwads, trees and boulders at a cost of $ 300,000 for habitat enhancement. ( 3) Key Agency Efforts. Continuation and completion of the following state agency efforts is critical to the success of the Oregon Plan. State agencies will make continuation or completion ( as appropriate) of the following efforts a high priority. ( a) The State of Oregon and the US. Department of Agriculture have entered into a Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program ( CREP). This cost- share program, one of the first of its kind, . will be used to reduce the impacts of agricultural practices through water quality. add habitat improvement. The objectives of the CREP are to: ( i) provide incentives'for farmers and ranchers to establish riparian buffers; ( ii) protect - . and restore at least 4,000 miles of stream habitat by providing up to 95,000 acres of riparian buffeis; ( i4) restore up to 5,000 acres of wetlands that will benefit salmonids; and ( iv) provide a mechanism for farmers and ranchers to comply with Oregon's ,- Senate Bill 101 0 ( 1 993 Or. Laws, ch. 263). ( b) ODF will work with non- industrial forest landowners to'administer the Stewardship Incentive Program and the Forest Resources Trust programs to protect and restore riparian and wetland areas that benefit salmonids. ( c) The Oregon Board of Forestry will determine, with the assistance of an advisory committee, to what extent changes to forest practices are needed to meet state water quality standards and to protect and restore salmonids. A substantial body of information regarding the effectiveness of current practices is being . developed. This information includes: ( i) the IMST report regarding . the role of forest practices and forest habitat in protecting and restoring salmonids; and ( ii) a series of - monitoring projects that include the Storms of 1996 study, a riparian areas study, a stream temperature study, and a road drainage study. Using this information, as well as other available scientific information including scientific information from NMFS, the advisory committee will make recommendations to the Board at both site and watershed scales on threats to salmonid habitat relating to sediment, water temperature, freshwater habitat needs, roads and fish passage. Based on the advisory committee's recommendations and other scientific information, the Board will make every effort to make its determinations by June 1999. The Board may . . determine that the most effective means of achieving any necessary changes to . - d;.~ .;* i;. z . I:@;.. %- .~ + k forest practices is through regulatory changes, statutory changes or through other programs . including programs to create incentives for forest landowners. In the event that the Board determines that legislative changes. are necessary to carry out its determinations, the Board will transmit any recommendations for such changes to the . Governor and to the Joint Committee at the earliest possible date. ( d) Consistent with administrative rule, and statutory and constitutional mandates for the management of state forests, ODF State Forest management plans will include an aquatic conservation strategy that has a high likelihood of protecting and restoring properly functioning aquatic habitat for salmonids on state forest lands. ( e) ODF will present to NMFS a Habitat Conservation Plan ( HCP) under Section 10 of the federal ESA that includes the Clatsop and Tillamook State Forests. ODF has already completed scierkific review and has public review underway for this draft HCP. The scientific and public review comments will be considered by ODF in . . completing the draft HCP. The draft HCP will be presented to NMFS by June 1999. An HCP for the ~ jliotSt tate Forest was approved by the US. Fish & Wildlife Service in 1995. In October af 1997, ODF and DSL forwarded the Elliott State Forest HCP to NMFS with the request that it be reviewed to determine whether it has a high likelihood of protecting and restoring properly functioning aquatic habitat conditions on state forest lands necessary to protect and restore salmonids. Based on discussions surrounding the NMFS review, ODF and DSL will determine what revisions, if any, are required to the Elliott HCP and/ or Forest Management Plan to ensure a high likelihood of protecting and restoring properly functioning aquatic habitat for salmonids. ( f) Before the OFWC adopts and implements fishery regulations that may result in taking of coho, ODFW will provide NMFS with'all available scientific information and analyses pertinent to the proposed regulation where the harvest measures are not under the jurisdiction of the PFMC, including results of the Oregon Plan monitoring and evaluation program. This information, together with the proposed regulation and supporting analysis, will be provided at least two weeks prior to the OFWC's action, to give NMFS time to review and comment on the proposed regulations. ( g) ODFW will evaluate the effects of predation on salmonids, and . will . work with . affected federal agencies to determine whether changes to programs and law relating to predation are warranted in order to protect and restore salmonids. P ( h) Under Oregon Senate Bill 101 0 ( 1 993 Or. Laws, ch. 2631, ODA will adopt Agricultural Water Qualify Management Area Plans ( AWQMAPs) for Tier I and Tier ll watersheds by the end of 2002. The AWQMAPs will be designed and implemented to meet load allocations for agriculture needed to achieve state water quality . . standards. In addition, ODA will work with ODFW, DEQ, GWEB, SWCDs, federal . agencies and watershed councils to determine to what extent additional measures related to achieving properly functioning riparian and aquatic habitat on agricultural lands are needed to protect and restore salmonids, giving attention first to priority areas identified in. the Oregon Plan. In the event ODA is unable to reach a consensus regarding such measures, ODA will ask the IMST to review areas of substantive ' scientific disagreement and to'make recommendations to ODA regarding how they should be resolved. In the event that legislative changes are needed to implement such measures, ODA will transmit any recommendations for such changes to. the Governor and to the Joint Committee at the earliest possible date. In addition, any measures identified as rieeded by ODA will be implemented at the earliest practicable time. * . ( i) ODFW will expedite its applications for instream water rights and OWRD will process such applications promptly where flow deficits are identified as adversely affecting salmonids, and where such rights. are not already in place. The Oregon - water Resources Department ( OWRD) and the Oregon Water Resources Commission ( OWRC) will- also seek to facilitate flow restoration targeted to streams identified by OWRD and ODFW as posing the most critical low- flow barriers to salmonids. In addition, where necessary, OWRD will continue to work with the Oregon State Police to provide enforcement of water use. Where illegal water uses are identified, OWRD will ensure outcomes consistent with maintenance and restoration of flows. ( j) The Oregon Environmental Quality commission ( EQC). and DEQ will evaluate and will make every effort to utilize their authorities to continue to provide additional protection to . priority areas ( as determined under section 1 ( f) of this Executive Order), including in- stream flow protection under state law, and antidegradation policy under . the federal Clean Water Act ( including Outstanding Resource Waters designations . and high quality waters designations). . ( k) DSL has proposed to adopt changes to its Essential Salmonid Habitat rules that will provide additional protection for spawning and rearing areas of anadromous salmonids. In addition, ODFW and DSL will consult with the OWRC to determine where it is necessary to administratively close priority areas ( including ' work under General Authorizations) to fill and removal activities in order to protect salmonids. . . DSL, ODFW, ODF and ODA also will work together to identify means of regulating the . uy- w :.-:: st. removal of organic material ( such as large woody debris) from streams where such removal would adversely affect salmonids and would not be contrary to other agency mandates. ( I) DSL will seek the advice of the IMST regarding whether gravel removal affects gravel and/ or sediment budgets in a manner that adversely affects salmonids. ( m) The Department of Land Conservation and ~ e v e l o p r n e n t ' ( ~ ~ acn~ d ) th, e Land Conservation- and Development Commission ( LCDC) will evaluate and, to the extent feasible, speed implementation of existing Goal 5 requirements for riparian corridors. ( n) DLCD, DEQ, ODF, ODA, ODFW, and DSL and their respective boards and commissions will evaluate and implement programs to protect and restore riparian vegetation for the purposes of achieving statewide water quality standards and . . protecting and restoring a aquatic habitat for salmonids. ' ( 0) DLCD, with, the assistance of DSL and ODFW, and in consultation with coastal cities and counties, shall review the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal i 6 as they pertain to estuarine resources important to the restoration of salmonids, and shall, report its findings to LCDC for its consideration. ( p) The Oregon State Police will work to facilitate the existing cooperative relationship with the NMFS Office of ~ a Ewnfo rcement, as well as tomaintain cooperation with other enforcement entities, in order to enhance law enforcement, public awareness and voluntary compliance related to harvest, habitat and other issues addressed in the Oregon Plan. ( q) The Oregon Parks and Recreation Department will continue to work to p. rovide information and education to the public on salmon and steelhead needs through park programs and interpretive aids. ( r) The Oregon Marine Board will work to ensure fish friendly boating and to develop boating facilities that protect salmonids. ( s) State natural resource agencies will continue, to the extent feasible, to support watershed councils by providing technical assistance to develop watershed assessments, restoration plans and to develop watershed priorities to benefit 7- salmonids. In addition, state natural resource agencies will work'on a larger . .:.... watershed scale to develop basin- wide restoration priorities. ( 4) Future Modifications; Public Involvement for the Oregon Plan Generally. The GNRO will solicit public co'mments and input from participants in the Oregon Plan regarding whether there are refinements or changes to the Plan and/ or the organizational framework for implementing the Plan that are necessary or desirable based on the experience gained over the past three years, or resulting from the widespread listings and proposed listings of salmon and trout under the federal ESA. Based on this public involvement, the GNRO will provide a report and recommendations to the Governor and the Joint Committee regarding whether modifications are necessary to the Oregon Plan in order to protect and restore coho and other salmonids. ( 5) Definitions. For purioses'of this Executive Order: . . ( aj The " Oregon Plan" means the Oregon Coastal Salmon Recovery lnitiative, dated March 1991, and the Steelhead. Supplement, dated January 1998. " Oregon Plan," as used in this Order, is intended to be consistent with the definition of the' Oregon Coastal Salmon Recovery lnitiative in Oregon Senate Bill 924 ( 1997 Or. Laws, .- cti. 7), and to include the Healthy Streams Partnership ( 1 993 Or. Laws, ch. 263). -. - ( b) " Protect" has the meaning given in section ( l)( d) of this Executive Order. ( c) " Restore" has the meaning'given in section ( l)( e) of this Executive Order. Restore necessarily includes actions to manage salmonids to provide for adequate escapement levels, and actions to increase the quantity and improve the quality of properly functioning habitat upon which salmonids depend. ( d) " Coho" means native wild coho salmon found in rivers and lakes along the Oregon Coast. ( el " Salmonids" means native wild salmon, char and trout in the State of Oregon. ( 6) Effective Date; Relation to Federal ESA. This Executive Order will take effect on the date that it is filed with the Secretary of State. The State of Oregon will continue to work with NMFS to determine the appropriate relationship between the Oregon Plan and NMFS's efforts under the federal ESA. Done at Salem, Oregon, this $ day of & ~ 4 y , 1999. ha26 . ~ it& er, M. D. Suz adnd .~. ow& end DEPUTY SECR~ ARYOF - STATE Title: The Oregon plan for salmon and watersheds Author: Oregon. Office of the Governor Year: 1999, 2005, 2004 KCAMATH FALLS. QREEON THE OREGON PLAN FOR SALMON AND WATERSHEDS The purpose of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds ( the " Oregon Plan") as stated in the Plan and reaffirmed in this Executive Order is to restore Oregon's wild salmon and trout populations and fisheries to sustainable and productive levels that will provide substantial environmental, cultural, and economic benefits and to improve water quality. The Oregon Plan is a long- term, ongoing effort that began as a focused set of actions by state, local, tribal and private organizations and individuals in October of 1995. The Oregon Plan first addressed coho salmon on the Oregon Coast, was then broadened to include steelhead trout on the coast and in the Lower Columbia River, and is now expanding to all at- risk wild salmonids throughout the state. The Oregon Plan addresses all factors for decline of these species, including watershed conditions arid fisheries, to the extent those factors can be affected by the state. The Oregon Plan was endorsed and funded by the Oregon Legislature in 1997 through Oregon Senate Bill 924 ( 1 997 Or. Laws, ch. 7) and House Bill 3700 ( 1 997 Or. Laws, ch.' 8). The Oregon Plan is described in two principal documents: " The Oregon Plan," dated March 1997, and " The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, Supplement I - steelhbad," dated January 1998. As used in this Executive Order, + the Oregon Plan also incorporates the Healthy Streams Partnership ( Oregon Senate Bill 101 0, 1 993- Or. Laws, ch. 263). The Oregon Plan is a cooperative effort of state, local, federal, tribal and private organizations and individuals. Although the Oregon Plan contains a strong foundation of protective regulations -- continuing existing regulatory programs and speeding the implementation of others - an essential principle of the Plan is the need to move beyond prohibitions and to encourage efforts to improve conditions for salmon through non- regulatory means. Many of the most significant contributions to the Oregon Plan are private and quasi- governmental efforts to protect and . restore salmon on working landscapes, including efforts by watershed councils. Salmon and trout restoration requires action and sacrifice across the entire economic and geographic spectrum of Oregon. The commercial and sport fishing industries in Oregon have been heavily affected by complete or partial closures of fisheries. The forest industry operates under the Oregon Forest Practices Act, and has contributed substantially to salmon recovery through habitat restoration projects on private lands and by funding a large pan of the state recovery efforts. The agriculture and mining industries are also taking actions that will protect and restore salmon and trout habitat and improve water quality ( including financial support of restoration efforts by the mining industry). Urban areas are developing water conservation programs, spending funds for wastewater treatment improvements to reduce point source pollution, reducing non- point source pollution and reducing activities that degrade riparian areas. All citizens of Oregon share responsibility for declining populations of wild salmon and trout, and it is important that there be both a broad commitment to reversing these historic trends and a sense that the burdens of restoration are being shared by all of society. It is also important that there be independent scientific oversight of the Oregon Plan. This oversight is being provided by the Independent Mutidisciplinary Science Team ( IMST), established under Oregon Senate Bill 924 ( 1 997 Or. Laws, ch. 7). ~ d'ditional legislative oversight for the Oregon Plan is being provided by the Joint Legislative Committee on . Salmon and Stream Enhancement ( the " Joint Committee!'). Under the federal Endangered Species Act ( ESA) the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service . . ( F& WS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS) are responsible for identifying species that are threatened or endangered, and for developing programs to conserve and recover lhose species. F& WS and NMFS have now listed salmonids under the ESA on the entire Oregon Coast, the lower Columbia River ( including most of the Portland metropolitan area). the la math River basin, and in the upper Columbia and Snake River basins. More listings are expected within the next year. To date, the F& WS and NMFS generally have not had the resources to develop and implement effective recovery plans for fisheries. In addition, in many areas a large proportion of the habitat that list'ed'salmonids depend on is located on private lands, where the regulatory tools under the ESA are relatively ' ill- defined and indirect. Finally, federal agencies alone, even if they take an active regulatory approach. to recovery, will not restore listed salmonids. The federal ESA may work to prohibit certain actions, but there is simply too much habitat on private lands for restoration to succeed without pro- active involvement and incentives for individuals, groups, and local governments to take affirmative actions to restore habitat on working landscapes. In April, 1997 the State of Oregon and NMFS entered into a Memorandum of Agreement ( MOA) under which the State agreed to continue existing measures under the March 1997 Oregon Plan and to take certain additional actions to protect and restbre coho salmon on the Oregon Coast. On May 6, 1997, NMFS determined that the Oregon Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit ( ESU) of coho salmon did not warrant listing as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA. On June 2, 1998, the US. District Court for Oregon ordered NMFS to reconsider its decision without taking into account any parts of the Oregon Plan or MOA that are not " current enforceable measures." The U. S. District Court for Oregon also held that the MOA was speculative, due to the fact that it provided for termination by either party on thirty days notice, and that therefore the MOA could not be considered by NMFS ' in its listing decision. Under court order, NMFS reconsidered its decision without taking into account the application in the future of the harvest and hatchery measures contained in the Oregon Plan, or the habitat improvement programs being undertaken under the Oregon Plan, or the commitments made by the State of Oregon in the MOA for improvement of applicable habitat measures. Accordingly, NMFS listed Oregon Coast .. . coho as threatened undefthe ESA on or about October 2, 1998. - The MOA provided for the State of Oregon to take actions necessary to ensfie that - Oregon Coast coho did not warrant listing as a threatened or endangered species under the federal ESA. Now that Oregon Coast coho are listed as a threatened species as a- result of the U. S. District Court's order, the central purpose of the MOA has been eliminated. Due to the uncertainties created by the District Court's decision and the increasing extent of salmonids listed or proposed for listing under the federal ESA, it is important that the status of the State of Oregon's substantive commitments under the MOA and the purpose of the Oregon Plan be clarified. Through this Executive Order, the State of Oregon reaffirms its intent to play the leading role in protecting and restoring Oregon Coast coho and other salmonids. through the implementation of the Oregon Plan. This Executive Order provides the framework and direction for state agencies to implement ( to the extent of their authorities) the Oregon Plan in a timely and effective manner. This Executive Order also provides a framework for extending the state's efforts beyond a focus on Oregon Coast coho, to watersheds and fisheries statewide. Consistent with the principle of adaptive management, this Order applies the experience gained to date in implementing the Oregon Plan to provide additional detailed direction to state agencies. Finally, this Executive Order establishes a public involvement process to prioritize continuing efforts under the Oregon Plan. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED: ( 1) Overall Direction ( a) Agencies of the State of Oregon will, consistent with their authorities, fully implement the state agency efforts described in the Oregon Plan and in this Executive Order. ( b) The overall objective for state agencies under the Oregon Plan and this Executive Order is to protect and restore salmonids and to improve water quality. ( c) The Governor will, in cooperation with the Joint Committee, IMST, affected state agencies, watershed councils, and other affected local entities and persons develop and implement, a process to set biological and habitat goals and objectives to protect and restore salmonids on a basin or regional basis as soon as practicable. Once these goals and objectives are established, they will be used by state agencies . . . to evaluate their regulatory and non- regulatory programs and measures relating to the protection and re'storation of salmonids. Through this on- going evaluation, state agencies will determine any changes to their programs or measures that may be necessary to meet the biological and habitat goals and objectives. In the interim, the following objectives in subsections ( d) and ( e) shall apply to agencies' implem'entation of the OregGn Plan and this Executive Order. . . ( d) Actions that state agencies take, fund and/ or authorize that are primarily for a purpose other than restoration of salmonids or the habitat they depend upon will, considering the anticipated duration and geographic scope of the actions: ( A) to the maximum extent practicable minimize and mitigate adverse effects of the actions on salmoni. ds or the habitat they depend on; and ( 8) not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of salmonids in the wild. ( e) State agencies will take, fund and/ or authorize actions that are primarily for the purpose of restoring salmonids or the habitat they depend upon, including actions implementing the Oregon Plan, with the goal of producing a conservation benefit that ( if taken together with comparable and related actions by all persons and entities within the range of the species) is likely to result in sustainable population levels of salmonids in the foreseeable future, and in population levels of salmonids that provide substantial environmental, cultural and economic benefits to Oregonians in the long term. ( f) With the broadening of the Oregon Plan,' prioritizing all agency actions according to coho core areas is no longer appropriate. Each state agency participating in the Oregon Plan, in consultation with ODFW and other partners involved in the implementation of the Plan and through a public involvement process, will modify their existing work programs in the Oregon Plan to prioritize agency measures to protect and restore salmonids in a timely and effective manner. The work programs will continue to identify key specific outcomes, refine and improve designations of priority areas, and establish completion dates. These modifications will be submitted to the , Governor, the Joint Committee, and to the appropriate boards and commissions as soon as possible, but in no event later than June 1, 1999. Progress reports on action plans will be submitted to the Governor, the Joint Committee, and to the appropriate boards and commissions on an annual basis. In prioritizing their efforts,' state agencies shall consider how to maximize conservation -, benefits for salmonids and the habitat they depend on within limited resources and - . whether their- actions are likely to increase populations of salmonids in the foreseeable future. I p ( g) State agencies will work cooperatively with landowners, local entities and other persons taking actions to protect or restore salmonids. ( h) As the Oregon Plan grows in geographic scope and . in intensity of activity,' there is a growing need to streamline and prioritize state agency activity at the . regional level. One proposal has been to organize state natural resource agency field operations along hydrologic units. Therefore, state agencies will consider this proposal and, through the collective efforts of state agency directors, develop an organization plan that focuses state agency field effort on the activities and areas of highest priority under the Oregon Plan. ( i) State. agencies will continue to encourage and work with agencies of the U. S. government to implement the federal measures described in the Oregon Plan.. In addition, the state agencies will work with the federal government to develop additional means of protecting and restoring salmonids. Where appropriate, state agencies will request that federal agencies obtain incidental take permits under Section 7 of the federal ESA for state actions that ace funded or authorized by a , federal agency. ( j) State agencies will help support efforts to evaluate watershed conditions, and to develop'specific strategic plans to provide for flood management, water quality improvement, and salmonid restoration in basins around the state, including the Willamette basin through the Willamette Restoration Initiative. ( k) The IMST will continue to provide oversight to ensure the use of the best scientific information available as the basis for implementation of and for adaptive changes to the Oregon Plan. State agencies will ensure that the IMST receives data and other information reasonably required for its functions in a timely manner. The Governor's Natural Resources Office ( GNRO) has requested that the IMST's initial priority be review of the freshwater habitat needs of coho and the relationship between population levels, escapement levels, and habitat characteristics. The GNRO also will continue to request that the IMST annually review monitoring results and identify where the Oregon Plan warrants change for scientific or technical reasons and make recommend& ions to the appropriate agency on those adjustments that appear necessary. Agencies will report their responses to any recommendations by . . the IMST to the Governor and to the Joint Committee. Any other changes identified by the IMST as necessary to achieve properly functioning riparian and aquatic habitat conditions required to, protect and restore salmonids will be forwarded to the appropriate governmental entity for its consideration of the adoption of new, changed, or supplemental measures as rapidly as possible while providing for public involvement: Each state agency, by June 1, 1999, will ratify a monitoring team charter through an interagency memorandum. A draft of the charter is contained in the 1998 Oregon Plan Annual Report. ( I) Monitoring is a key element of the Oregon Plan. Each state agency will actively support the monitoring strategy described in the Oregon Plan. Each affected agency will participate on the monitoring team to coordinate activities and integrate analyses. Each agency will implement . an appropriate monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of their programs and measures in meeting the objectives set forth in the Oregon Planon an annual basis. In addition, agencies with regulatory programs that are included in the Oregon Plan will determine levels of compliance with regulatory standards and identify and act on opportunities to improve compliance levels: ( m) If information gathered regarding the effectiveness of measures in the Oregon Plan shows that existing strategies within state control are not achie, ving expected improvements and objectives, the agency( ies1 responsible for those measures will seek appropriate changes in their regulations, policies, programs, r-measures and other areas of the Oregon Plan, as required to protect and restore coho and other sal'monids. Such modification or supplementation will be done as rapidly as possible, consistent with public involvement. ( n) Agencies are using geographically- referenced data in their efforts under the Oregon Plan, and will be using Geographic Information Systems ( GIs) in the analysis of these , data. In doing so, the State GIs Plan, developed by the Oregon Geographic lnformation Council ( OGIC) ( see Executive Order 96- 40) will be followed, with specific adherence to the Plan guidance on data documentation, coordination and data sharing. The agency with primary responsibility for gathering and updating the specific data will be responsible for meeting the requirements of the Plan, and to ensure coordination- with OGIC, the State Service Center for GIs and other' cooperating agencies. In addition, state agencies will cooperate with the Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board ( GWEB), Soil and. Water Conservation Districts ( SWCDs), local waters$ ed councils, landowners and others in making these essential data available. ( 0) Geographically- based strategies to assess and achieve habitat needs and adequate escapement levels will be used, and the state agencies will continue with the development of standardized watershed assessment protocols, including a -- cumulative effects assessment. State agencies will also continue with the development of habitat restoration guides to evaluate and direct habitat restoration efforts. ( 2) Continuation and Expansion of Existing Efforts. Without limiting the generality of section ( l)( a) of this Executive Order, the following subsections of this Executive Order describe some of the many efforts in the Oregon Plan where the initial phase of work has been completed, and where efforts will be continued. ( a) The Oregon Fish & Wildlife Commission ( OFWC), the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife ( ODFW), and the Pacific Fishery Management Council ( PFMC) are managing ocean and terminal fisheries according to the measures set forth in the Oregon Plan ( ODFW I- A. l and Ill- A. l). These measures set a maximum mortality rate ( resulting from other fisheries) for any of four disaggregated stocks of coho of fifteen percent ( 1 5%) under poor ocean conditions. In 1997, the mortality rate. from harvest is estimated to have been between nine and eleven percent ( 9- 1 1 %). ODFW and OFWC will continue these measures in state waters, and will actively support continued implementation of the ocean harvest measures by the PFMC ( Amendment 13 to the Council's salmon management plan) until and unless a different management regime agreeable to NMFS is adopted. ( b) The OFWC and ODFW will ensure that the fish hatchery measures set forth in the Oregon Plan are continued by the OFWC and ODFW. ODFW is marking all hatchery coho on the Oregon Coast. This marking will allow increased certainty in estimating hatchery stray rates beginning in 1999. Available data on hatchery stray rates for coho and steelhead are being provided to NMFS on an annual basis. The number of hatchery coho released is estimated to have been 1.7 million in 1998 - substantially below the level called for in the Oregon Plan. This number will be reduced to 1.2 million in 1999. In addition, ODFW has, and will continue to provide. annual reports regarding: ( i) the number of juvenile hatchery coho that are released by brood year, locations and dates of release, life stage, and broodstock origin; ( ii) the number of adult coho taken for broodstock for each hatchery, the location and date of collection, and the origin ( hatchery or natural); ( iii) the number of hatchery coho . . estimated to have spawned in natural habitat by basin; ( iv) the estimated percentage of hatchery coho% the total natural spawning population; and ( v) the mortality of naturally- spawning coho resulting from each fishery. NMFS may provide comments about hatchery prograk affecting coho to ODFW, with any concerns to be resolved between NMFS and ODFW. - - ( c) ln addition to recent modifications to hatchery practices and programs, a new vision is needed for how Oregon will utilize hatcheries in the best and most effective manner. Therefore, the ODFW and the OFWC shall engage in a process to create a strategic plan for fish hatcheries in Oregon over the next decade ( including state and federally- funded hatcheries, private hatcheries, and the STEP program). The essential elements of this process are as follows: ( i) Impartial analysis - conduct an impartial analysis of the scientific bases, and the social and economic effects of Oregon hatchery programs utilizing existing analyses and review where feasible, but conducting new analyses if necessary; ( ii) Review the Wild Fish Management Policy ( WFMP) - because the future plan for hatcheries in Oregon is dependent on implementation of the WFMP, ODFW shall conduct a science and stakeholder review to determine if this significant policy should be revised and shall make any revision by July 2000; ( iii) Frame alternative strategies -- convene a group of stockholders to . frame alternative strategies, including outcomes and descriptions, of how hatcheries will be used in Oregon over the next decade ( these strategies will address the use of hatcheries for wild fish population recovery including supplementation, research and monitoring, public education, and sport and commercial fishing opportunities); ( iv) Public review and selection of a strategy -- the OFWC shall, after public review and ' ;-'-!&%; f$'. i comment, adopt a strategic plan to guide development of future hatchery programs, incorporating the strategy developed and adopted in accordance with subpart ( iii) of this paragraph. ( d) Criteria and guidelines directing the design of projects that may affect fish passage have been established in a Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) between the Oregon Department of Transportation ( ODOT), ODFW, the Oregon Department of Forestry ( ODF), the Oregon Department of Agriculture ( ODA), the Division of State Lands ( DSL) and the Federal Highway Administration. These guidelines apply to the design, construction and consultations of projects affecting fish passage. Under the MOU, projects requiring regulatory approvals that follow these criteria and guidelines are expedited. Oregon agencies will continue to provide technical assistance to ensure that the criteria and guidelines are applied appropriately in restoration projects, as well as any other projects that may affect fish passage through road crossings and similar structures. ODFW will work with state agencies, local governments, and watershed councils to ensure that Oregon's standards for fish passage set forth in Exhibit A to the MOU are understood and are implemented. - ( e) Fish presence, stream habitat, road and culvert surveys have been conducted for roads within ODOT jurisdiction and county roads in coastal basins, the Lower Columbia basin, the Willamette basin, and the Grande Ronbe/ lmnaha basins. Among the results of these surveys is the finding that culvert barriers to fish passage affect a substantial quantity of salmonid habitat. For example, surveys of county and state highways in western Oregon found over 1,200 culverts that are barriers to passage. As a result, ODOT is placing additional priority on restoring fish access. For 1998, ODOT repaired or replaced 35 culverts restoring access to 101 miles of salmonid habitat. For 1999, the Oregon Transportation Commission will be asked to fund approximately $ 4.0 million for culvert modification. ODOT and the Commission will continue to examine means to speed restoration of fish passage and to coordinate priorities with ODFW. ( f) Draft watershed assessment protocols have been developed and are being field tested. Beginning in 1999, SWCDs, watershed councils and others will be able to use the protocols as the basis for action plans to identify and prioritize opportunities to protect and restore salmonids. Watershed action plans have already been completed in a number of basins including the Rogue, Coos, Coquille and Grande Ronde. State agencies will work to support these watershed assessments and plans to the maximum extent practicable. Where watershed action plans have been developed under the protocols, GWEB will ensure that projects funded through the Watershed Improvement Grant Fund are consistent with watershed action plans, and other state agencies will work with SWCDs and watershed councils to ensure that activities they authorize, fund or undertake are consistent with watershed action plans to the maximum extent practicable. ( g) The State of Oregon has developed interim aquatic habitat restoration and enhancement guidelines for 1998. State agencies involved with restoration activities ( ODFW, ODF, DSL, ODA, DEQ, and GWEB) will continue to develop and refine the interim guidelines for final publication in April 1999. The guidelines will be applied in restoration activities funded or authorized by state agencies. The purpose of ' the guidelines will be to define aquatic restoration and to identify and encourage aquatic habitat restoration techniques to restore salmonids. . . ( h) ODA and O ~ hFave each entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Oregon Department'of Environmental Quality relating to the development of . Total Maximum Daily Loads ( TMDLs) and Water Quality Management Area Plans ( WQMAPs). O Dw~ ill adopt. a nd implement WQMAPs ( through the Healthy Streams Partnership) and ODF , will review the adequacy of forest practices rules to meet water quality standards. ODF and ODA will evaluate the effectiveness of these measures in achieving water quality standards on a regular basis and implement any changes required to meet the standards. ( i) Agencies are implementing a coordinated monitoring program, as described in the Oregon Plan. This program includes technical support and standardized protocols for watershed councils, stream habitat surveys, forest practice effectiveness monitoring, water withdrawal monitoring, ambient water quality monitoring, and biotic index studies, as well as fish presence surveys and salmonid abundance and survival monitoring in selected subbasins. State agencies are also' working to coordinate monitoring efforts by state, federal, and local entities, including watershed councils. State agencies will work actively to ensure that the monitoring measures' in the Oregon Plan are continued. - .. ( j) GWEB has put into place new processes for identifying and coordinating the delivery of financial and technical assistance to individuals, agencies, watershed councils and soil and water conservation districts as they implement watershed ' restoration projects to improve water quality and restore aquatic resources. Over $ 25 ' million has been distributed for watershed restoration projects in the last ten years. During the present ( 1 997- 99 biennium) GWEB has awarded over $ 1 2 million dollars in f- state and federal funds for technical'assistance and watershed restoration activities to implement the Oregon Plan. GWEB and state agencies will continue to seek financial resources to be allocated by GWEB for watershed restoration activities at the local and. statewide levels. ( k) State agencies will continue to encourage, support and work to provide incentives for local, tribal, and private . efforts to implement the Oregon Plan. In addition, state agencies will continue to provide financial assistance to local entities for projects to protect and restore salmonids to the extent consistent with their budgetary and legal authorities, and consistent with their work programs in the Oregon Plan. To the. maximum extent practicable, state agencies will also provide technical assistance and planning tools to provide local conservation groups to assist in and target watershed restoration efforts. These efforts ( during 1996 and 1997) are reported in " The Oregon. Plan for Salmon and Watersheds: Watershed Restoration Inventory, 1998." ~ u s c afe w of the important efforts that have been completed include: ( A) Eighty- two watershed councils have joined with forty- five Soil and Water Conservation Districts as well as private and public landowners to implement on- the- ground projects' to protect and restore salmonids. During 1996 and 1997, a reported $ 27.4 million was spent on 1,234 watershed restoration projects on non-federal lands. Both the amount spent and the number of projects represent significant increases ( of over 300 percent) over prior years. In 1996- 97, watershed councils, SWCDs and other organizations and individuals completed: ( i) 138 stream fencing projects, involving at least 301 miles of streambank; ( ii) 196 riparian area planting projects, involving at least 11 1 miles of streams; and ( iii) 458 instream habitat improvement projects. . . . ( B) Private and state forest landowners are implementing key efforts under the Oregon Plan, including the road risk and remediation program ( ODF- 1 and 2). Under this effort in 1996 and 1997, close to 4,000 miles of roads'have been surveyed to identify risks that the roads may pose to salmonid habitat. As the risks are identified, they are then prioritized for remediation following an established. protocol. Already, 52 miles of forest roads have been closed, 843 miles of road repair and reconstruction projects to - protect salmonid habitat have been completed, and an additional 14 miles of roads have been decommissioned or relocated.. In addition, 530 culverts have been replaced, upgraded or installed for fish passage purposes, improving access to a reported 146 stream miles. ( C) Organizations working in Tillamook County have developed the I ." J aw#~ t Tillamook County Performance Partnership. The Partnership is implementing the \*. Tillamook Bay National Estuary Program by addressing water quality, fisheries, floodplain management and economic development in the county. Among the actions that the Partnership has already accomplished are: ( i) the closure of seven miles of degraded forest roads and the rehabilitation of 469 miles of roads to meet current standards, at a cost of $ 1 8 million; ( ii) the fencing of 53 miles of streambank, and the construction of three cattle bridges and 100 alternative cattle watering sites, at a cost of $ 214,000; and ( iii) the completion of 24 instream restoration projects and 34 barbs protecting 4,200 feet of streambank, at a cost of $ 1.3 million dollars. ( D) The Confederated Tribes of the Grande Ronde Community of Oregon have completed a forest management plan that establishes standards for the protection of aquatic resources that are comparable to those found in the Aquatic Conservation Strategy ' of the Northwest Forest Plan. . % ( E) A combination of funding from the Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation and the National Fish and Wildlife Heritage Foundation ( private, non- profit organizations) is provi, ding support for seven biologists to design restoration projects. These projects are prioritized based on stream surveys, and are carried out with the voluntary participation and support of landowners. A ten- year monitoring plan has been funded- and implemented to determine project effectiveness: ( F) The Oregon Cattlemen's Association has implemented its WESt Program that is designed to help landowners better understand their watersheds and stream functions through assessments and monitoring. h he WESt Program brings landowners together along stream reaches, and offers a series of workshops, conducted on a site specific basis, free of charge. The workshops include riparian ecology, setting goals and objectives, Proper Functioning Condition ( PFC), data. collection and monitoring. Over 25 workshops have been held, with attendance ranging from 5 to 30 landowners per workshop. The WESt Program is sponsored by the Oregon Cattlemen's Association, DEQ, Oregon State University, and GWEB. ( G) Within the Tillamook State Forest road network 1,902 culverts have been replaced or added to'improve road drainage and to disconnect storm water runoff from roads reducing stream sediment impacts. Additionally, some of these culverts also improved fish passage at stream crossings. In this process, ODF has also replaced six culverts with bridges improving fish passage to approximately four miles of stream. The Tillamook State Foresl in conjunction with many partners, such F-as the Association of Northwest Steelheaders, G W EB, Simpson Timber Company, Tillamook County, the FishAmerica Foundation, Hardrock Construction Company, the Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation, the F& WS, the Oregon Youth Conservation Corps, Columbia Helicopters and Terra Helicopters, has also recently completed instream placement of over 400 rootwads, trees and boulders at a cost of $ 300,000 for habitat enhancement. ( 3) Key Agency Efforts. Continuation and completion of the following state agency efforts is critical to the success of the Oregon Plan. State agencies will make continuation or completion ( as appropriate) of the following efforts a high priority. ( a) The State of Oregon and the US. Department of Agriculture have entered into a Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program ( CREP). This cost- share program, one of the first of its kind, . will be used to reduce the impacts of agricultural practices through water quality. add habitat improvement. The objectives of the CREP are to: ( i) provide incentives'for farmers and ranchers to establish riparian buffers; ( ii) protect - . and restore at least 4,000 miles of stream habitat by providing up to 95,000 acres of riparian buffeis; ( i4) restore up to 5,000 acres of wetlands that will benefit salmonids; and ( iv) provide a mechanism for farmers and ranchers to comply with Oregon's ,- Senate Bill 101 0 ( 1 993 Or. Laws, ch. 263). ( b) ODF will work with non- industrial forest landowners to'administer the Stewardship Incentive Program and the Forest Resources Trust programs to protect and restore riparian and wetland areas that benefit salmonids. ( c) The Oregon Board of Forestry will determine, with the assistance of an advisory committee, to what extent changes to forest practices are needed to meet state water quality standards and to protect and restore salmonids. A substantial body of information regarding the effectiveness of current practices is being . developed. This information includes: ( i) the IMST report regarding . the role of forest practices and forest habitat in protecting and restoring salmonids; and ( ii) a series of - monitoring projects that include the Storms of 1996 study, a riparian areas study, a stream temperature study, and a road drainage study. Using this information, as well as other available scientific information including scientific information from NMFS, the advisory committee will make recommendations to the Board at both site and watershed scales on threats to salmonid habitat relating to sediment, water temperature, freshwater habitat needs, roads and fish passage. Based on the advisory committee's recommendations and other scientific information, the Board will make every effort to make its determinations by June 1999. The Board may . . determine that the most effective means of achieving any necessary changes to . - d;.~ .;* i;. z . I:@;.. %- .~ + k forest practices is through regulatory changes, statutory changes or through other programs . including programs to create incentives for forest landowners. In the event that the Board determines that legislative changes. are necessary to carry out its determinations, the Board will transmit any recommendations for such changes to the . Governor and to the Joint Committee at the earliest possible date. ( d) Consistent with administrative rule, and statutory and constitutional mandates for the management of state forests, ODF State Forest management plans will include an aquatic conservation strategy that has a high likelihood of protecting and restoring properly functioning aquatic habitat for salmonids on state forest lands. ( e) ODF will present to NMFS a Habitat Conservation Plan ( HCP) under Section 10 of the federal ESA that includes the Clatsop and Tillamook State Forests. ODF has already completed scierkific review and has public review underway for this draft HCP. The scientific and public review comments will be considered by ODF in . . completing the draft HCP. The draft HCP will be presented to NMFS by June 1999. An HCP for the ~ jliotSt tate Forest was approved by the US. Fish & Wildlife Service in 1995. In October af 1997, ODF and DSL forwarded the Elliott State Forest HCP to NMFS with the request that it be reviewed to determine whether it has a high likelihood of protecting and restoring properly functioning aquatic habitat conditions on state forest lands necessary to protect and restore salmonids. Based on discussions surrounding the NMFS review, ODF and DSL will determine what revisions, if any, are required to the Elliott HCP and/ or Forest Management Plan to ensure a high likelihood of protecting and restoring properly functioning aquatic habitat for salmonids. ( f) Before the OFWC adopts and implements fishery regulations that may result in taking of coho, ODFW will provide NMFS with'all available scientific information and analyses pertinent to the proposed regulation where the harvest measures are not under the jurisdiction of the PFMC, including results of the Oregon Plan monitoring and evaluation program. This information, together with the proposed regulation and supporting analysis, will be provided at least two weeks prior to the OFWC's action, to give NMFS time to review and comment on the proposed regulations. ( g) ODFW will evaluate the effects of predation on salmonids, and . will . work with . affected federal agencies to determine whether changes to programs and law relating to predation are warranted in order to protect and restore salmonids. P ( h) Under Oregon Senate Bill 101 0 ( 1 993 Or. Laws, ch. 2631, ODA will adopt Agricultural Water Qualify Management Area Plans ( AWQMAPs) for Tier I and Tier ll watersheds by the end of 2002. The AWQMAPs will be designed and implemented to meet load allocations for agriculture needed to achieve state water quality . . standards. In addition, ODA will work with ODFW, DEQ, GWEB, SWCDs, federal . agencies and watershed councils to determine to what extent additional measures related to achieving properly functioning riparian and aquatic habitat on agricultural lands are needed to protect and restore salmonids, giving attention first to priority areas identified in. the Oregon Plan. In the event ODA is unable to reach a consensus regarding such measures, ODA will ask the IMST to review areas of substantive ' scientific disagreement and to'make recommendations to ODA regarding how they should be resolved. In the event that legislative changes are needed to implement such measures, ODA will transmit any recommendations for such changes to. the Governor and to the Joint Committee at the earliest possible date. In addition, any measures identified as rieeded by ODA will be implemented at the earliest practicable time. * . ( i) ODFW will expedite its applications for instream water rights and OWRD will process such applications promptly where flow deficits are identified as adversely affecting salmonids, and where such rights. are not already in place. The Oregon - water Resources Department ( OWRD) and the Oregon Water Resources Commission ( OWRC) will- also seek to facilitate flow restoration targeted to streams identified by OWRD and ODFW as posing the most critical low- flow barriers to salmonids. In addition, where necessary, OWRD will continue to work with the Oregon State Police to provide enforcement of water use. Where illegal water uses are identified, OWRD will ensure outcomes consistent with maintenance and restoration of flows. ( j) The Oregon Environmental Quality commission ( EQC). and DEQ will evaluate and will make every effort to utilize their authorities to continue to provide additional protection to . priority areas ( as determined under section 1 ( f) of this Executive Order), including in- stream flow protection under state law, and antidegradation policy under . the federal Clean Water Act ( including Outstanding Resource Waters designations . and high quality waters designations). . ( k) DSL has proposed to adopt changes to its Essential Salmonid Habitat rules that will provide additional protection for spawning and rearing areas of anadromous salmonids. In addition, ODFW and DSL will consult with the OWRC to determine where it is necessary to administratively close priority areas ( including ' work under General Authorizations) to fill and removal activities in order to protect salmonids. . . DSL, ODFW, ODF and ODA also will work together to identify means of regulating the . uy- w :.-:: st. removal of organic material ( such as large woody debris) from streams where such removal would adversely affect salmonids and would not be contrary to other agency mandates. ( I) DSL will seek the advice of the IMST regarding whether gravel removal affects gravel and/ or sediment budgets in a manner that adversely affects salmonids. ( m) The Department of Land Conservation and ~ e v e l o p r n e n t ' ( ~ ~ acn~ d ) th, e Land Conservation- and Development Commission ( LCDC) will evaluate and, to the extent feasible, speed implementation of existing Goal 5 requirements for riparian corridors. ( n) DLCD, DEQ, ODF, ODA, ODFW, and DSL and their respective boards and commissions will evaluate and implement programs to protect and restore riparian vegetation for the purposes of achieving statewide water quality standards and . . protecting and restoring a aquatic habitat for salmonids. ' ( 0) DLCD, with, the assistance of DSL and ODFW, and in consultation with coastal cities and counties, shall review the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal i 6 as they pertain to estuarine resources important to the restoration of salmonids, and shall, report its findings to LCDC for its consideration. ( p) The Oregon State Police will work to facilitate the existing cooperative relationship with the NMFS Office of ~ a Ewnfo rcement, as well as tomaintain cooperation with other enforcement entities, in order to enhance law enforcement, public awareness and voluntary compliance related to harvest, habitat and other issues addressed in the Oregon Plan. ( q) The Oregon Parks and Recreation Department will continue to work to p. rovide information and education to the public on salmon and steelhead needs through park programs and interpretive aids. ( r) The Oregon Marine Board will work to ensure fish friendly boating and to develop boating facilities that protect salmonids. ( s) State natural resource agencies will continue, to the extent feasible, to support watershed councils by providing technical assistance to develop watershed assessments, restoration plans and to develop watershed priorities to benefit 7- salmonids. In addition, state natural resource agencies will work'on a larger . .:.... watershed scale to develop basin- wide restoration priorities. ( 4) Future Modifications; Public Involvement for the Oregon Plan Generally. The GNRO will solicit public co'mments and input from participants in the Oregon Plan regarding whether there are refinements or changes to the Plan and/ or the organizational framework for implementing the Plan that are necessary or desirable based on the experience gained over the past three years, or resulting from the widespread listings and proposed listings of salmon and trout under the federal ESA. Based on this public involvement, the GNRO will provide a report and recommendations to the Governor and the Joint Committee regarding whether modifications are necessary to the Oregon Plan in order to protect and restore coho and other salmonids. ( 5) Definitions. For purioses'of this Executive Order: . . ( aj The " Oregon Plan" means the Oregon Coastal Salmon Recovery lnitiative, dated March 1991, and the Steelhead. Supplement, dated January 1998. " Oregon Plan," as used in this Order, is intended to be consistent with the definition of the' Oregon Coastal Salmon Recovery lnitiative in Oregon Senate Bill 924 ( 1997 Or. Laws, .- cti. 7), and to include the Healthy Streams Partnership ( 1 993 Or. Laws, ch. 263). -. - ( b) " Protect" has the meaning given in section ( l)( d) of this Executive Order. ( c) " Restore" has the meaning'given in section ( l)( e) of this Executive Order. Restore necessarily includes actions to manage salmonids to provide for adequate escapement levels, and actions to increase the quantity and improve the quality of properly functioning habitat upon which salmonids depend. ( d) " Coho" means native wild coho salmon found in rivers and lakes along the Oregon Coast. ( el " Salmonids" means native wild salmon, char and trout in the State of Oregon. ( 6) Effective Date; Relation to Federal ESA. This Executive Order will take effect on the date that it is filed with the Secretary of State. The State of Oregon will continue to work with NMFS to determine the appropriate relationship between the Oregon Plan and NMFS's efforts under the federal ESA. Done at Salem, Oregon, this $ day of & ~ 4 y , 1999. ha26 . ~ it& er, M. D. Suz adnd .~. ow& end DEPUTY SECR~ ARYOF - STATE Close

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

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

• 238. [Image] Larval ecology of shortnose and Lost River suckers in the lower Williamson River and Upper Klamath Lake

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

• 239. [Image] Annual survey of abundance and distribution of age 0 shortnose and Lost River suckers in Upper Klamath Lake

  	One chapter of a seven chapter annual report from 1999 examining ecological issues regarding the shortnose and Lost River sucker populations in Upper Klamath Lake and Williamson River.
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Annual survey of abundance and distribution of age 0 shortnose and Lost River suckers in Upper Klamath Lake Author: Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit Year: 2000, 2005 One chapter of a seven chapter annual report from 1999 examining ecological issues regarding the shortnose and Lost River sucker populations in Upper Klamath Lake and Williamson River. Title: Annual survey of abundance and distribution of age 0 shortnose and Lost River suckers in Upper Klamath Lake Author: Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit Year: 2000, 2005 One chapter of a seven chapter annual report from 1999 examining ecological issues regarding the shortnose and Lost River sucker populations in Upper Klamath Lake and Williamson River. Close

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

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

• 241. [Image] Molecular evolution and ecology of Klamath Basin suckers. Part B - Evidence for a lethal homozyhous genotpe at the Ankyrin(g) locus in Klamath Basin suckers (Catostomidae)

  	One chapter of a seven chapter annual report from 1999 examining ecological issues regarding the shortnose and Lost River sucker populations in Upper Klamath Lake and Williamson River.
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Molecular evolution and ecology of Klamath Basin suckers. Part B - Evidence for a lethal homozyhous genotpe at the Ankyrin(g) locus in Klamath Basin suckers (Catostomidae) Author: Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit Year: 2000, 2005 One chapter of a seven chapter annual report from 1999 examining ecological issues regarding the shortnose and Lost River sucker populations in Upper Klamath Lake and Williamson River. Title: Molecular evolution and ecology of Klamath Basin suckers. Part B - Evidence for a lethal homozyhous genotpe at the Ankyrin(g) locus in Klamath Basin suckers (Catostomidae) Author: Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit Year: 2000, 2005 One chapter of a seven chapter annual report from 1999 examining ecological issues regarding the shortnose and Lost River sucker populations in Upper Klamath Lake and Williamson River. Close

• 242. [Image] Effects of water quality on growth of juvenile shortnose suckers, Chasmistes brevirostris (Catostomidae: Cypriniformes), from Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon

  	One chapter of a seven chapter annual report from 1999 examining ecological issues regarding the shortnose and Lost River sucker populations in Upper Klamath Lake and Williamson River.
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Effects of water quality on growth of juvenile shortnose suckers, Chasmistes brevirostris (Catostomidae: Cypriniformes), from Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon Author: Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit Year: 2000, 2005 One chapter of a seven chapter annual report from 1999 examining ecological issues regarding the shortnose and Lost River sucker populations in Upper Klamath Lake and Williamson River. Title: Effects of water quality on growth of juvenile shortnose suckers, Chasmistes brevirostris (Catostomidae: Cypriniformes), from Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon Author: Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit Year: 2000, 2005 One chapter of a seven chapter annual report from 1999 examining ecological issues regarding the shortnose and Lost River sucker populations in Upper Klamath Lake and Williamson River. Close

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 247. [Image] Klamath and Trinity River basins : hearing before the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Ninety-ninth Congress, second session, on H.R. 4712 ... July 16, 1986

  	Serial no. 99-54 (United States. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries)
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath and Trinity River basins : hearing before the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Ninety-ninth Congress, second session, on H.R. 4712 ... July 16, 1986 Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment Year: 1986, 2005 Serial no. 99-54 (United States. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries) Title: Klamath and Trinity River basins : hearing before the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Ninety-ninth Congress, second session, on H.R. 4712 ... July 16, 1986 Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment Year: 1986, 2005 Serial no. 99-54 (United States. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries) Close

• 248. [Image] Endangered species : Fish and Wildlife Service generally focuses recovery funding on high priority species, but needs to periodically assess its funding decisions : report to the Chairman, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives

  	"GAO-05-211"; "April 2005"
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Endangered species : Fish and Wildlife Service generally focuses recovery funding on high priority species, but needs to periodically assess its funding decisions : report to the Chairman, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Year: 2005 "GAO-05-211"; "April 2005" Title: Endangered species : Fish and Wildlife Service generally focuses recovery funding on high priority species, but needs to periodically assess its funding decisions : report to the Chairman, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Year: 2005 "GAO-05-211"; "April 2005" Close

• 249. [Image] Monitoring of Lost River and Shortnose suckers and shoreline spawning areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999

  	Monitoring of Lost River and Shortnose Suckers at Shoreline Spawning Areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999 Prepared by: Rip S. Shively1 Mark F. Bautista2 Andre E. Kohler2 1 U. S. Geological Survey, Biological ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Monitoring of Lost River and Shortnose suckers and shoreline spawning areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999 Author: Shively, Rip S.; Bautista, Mark F.; Kohler, Andre E. Year: 1999, 2005 Monitoring of Lost River and Shortnose Suckers at Shoreline Spawning Areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999 Prepared by: Rip S. Shively1 Mark F. Bautista2 Andre E. Kohler2 1 U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division Klamath Falls Duty Station 6937 Washburn Way Klamath Falls, OR 97603 2 Johnson Controls World Services Inc. NERC Operation Post Office Box 270308 Fort Collins, CO 80527 Executive Summary In 1999, we sampled Lost River { Deltistes luxatus) and shortnose ( Chasmistes brevirostris) suckers from 5 April to 17 June at five shoreline spawning locations in Upper Klamath Lake ( UKL). Trammel nets were set to encompass identified spawning areas and were fished approximately 1- 1.5 hours before sunset until 3 hours after sunset or until 20 or more fish were captured. A total of 808 Lost River and 19 shortnose suckers were captured from Sucker, Silver Building, Ouxy, and Boulder springs, and Cinder Flats. The majority of Lost River suckers were captured at Cinder Flats ( 35%) and Sucker Springs ( 34%), followed by Ouxy Springs ( 16%), Silver Building Springs ( 12%), and Boulder Springs ( 3%). Males dominated the catch at all sites, but the sex ratios at Cinder Flats and Silver Building Springs were particularly skewed towards males. We recaptured 32 Lost River suckers that had been tagged during previous years sampling efforts. All of these fish, with the exception of two fish tagged at Ball Point in July, were originally tagged during the spawning season at shoreline spawning areas in UKL. This information provides further evidence that distinct stocks of Lost River suckers exist based on spawning location ( i. e., UKL and Williamson River). We also recaptured 23 Lost River suckers that were tagged in 1999 at shoreline spawning areas. Approximately half of these fish were recaptured at different locations than tagged indicating these fish were moving between spawning areas. The size offish captured at shoreline spawning areas decreased as the spawning season progressed, although the decrease in size was not as dramatic as reported in previous years. A limited number of shortnose suckers were captured at shoreline spawning areas in 1999, with a majority sampled after 1 May. Previous data for shortnose suckers at these sites is limited with respect to size, timing of spawning, sex composition, and relative numbers. Continuation of systematic sampling efforts at shoreline spawning areas will provide valuable information on the demographics and life history of Lost River and shortnose suckers utilizing these areas. Acknowledgements We thank Anita Baker, Brooke Bechen, Lani Hickey, and Tonya Wiley for assisting with sampling offish at shoreline spawning areas. Mark Buettner and Brian Peck ( U. S. Bureau of Reclamation) provided support during the early phases of our sampling as well as helpful comments on this report. We also appreciate the cooperation and support of Larry Dunsmoor ( Klamath Tribes) for identifying spawning areas, providing logistical support, and for the thoughtful review of this report. Cassandra Watson and Elizabeth Neuman produced finalized versions of tables and figures within this report and their efforts are greatly appreciated. This research was funded by the U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division through the Western Reservoirs Initiative. Introduction Severe water quality problems in Upper Klamath Lake ( UKL) have led to critical fisheries concerns for the region. Historically, UKL was eutrophic but has become hypereutrophic ( Goldman and Home 1983) presumably due to land- use practices within the basin ( USFWS 1993). As a result, the algal community has shifted to a monoculture of the blue- green algae Aphanizomemon flos- aquae and massive blooms of this species have been directly related to poor water quality episodes in UKL. The growth and decomposition of dense algal blooms in the lake frequently cause extreme water quality conditions characterized by high pH ( 9- 10.5), widely variable dissolved oxygen ( anoxic to supersaturated), and high ammonia concentrations (> 0.5 mg/ 1 unionized). In addition to water quality problems associated with A. flos- aquae, it is believed the loss of marsh habitat near the lake, timber harvest, removal of riparian vegetation, livestock grazing, and agricultural practices within the basin has contributed to hypereutrophic conditions. It is likely that these disturbances have altered the UKL ecosystem substantially enough to contribute to the near monoculture of A. flos- aquae. Investigations in 1913 documented the algal community as a diverse mix of blue- green and diatom communities, however, by the 1950' s A. flos- aquae was dominant ( USFWS 1993). The Lost River sucker ( Deltistes luxatus) and shortnose sucker ( Chasmistes brevirostris) are endemic to the Upper Klamath Basin of California and Oregon ( Moyle 1976). Declining population trends for both species were noted as early as the mid- 1960' s, however, the severities of the population declines were not evident until the mid- 1980' s. In 1988 the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed both Lost River and shortnose suckers as endangered. Suspected reasons for their decline included damming of rivers, dredging and draining of marshes, water diversions, hybridization, competition and predation by exotic species, insularization of habitat, and water quality problems associated with timber harvest, removal of riparian vegetation, livestock grazing, and agricultural practices ( USFWS 1993). The U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division ( BRD) has been conducting field investigations on Lost River and shortnose suckers in UKL since 1994. The majority of these sampling efforts have focused on catching fish in UKL and the Lower Williamson River. Sampling in the Lower Williamson River focused on developing indices of relative abundance of Lost River and shortnose suckers. In 1999, Oregon State University continued sampling in the Lower Williamson River fishing trammel nets from April to August at four standardized locations. In addition to sampling efforts in the Lower Williamson River, BRD crews conducted periodic sampling at several shoreline spawning areas on the east side of UKL. This sampling was beneficial because it provided information on species composition, size, and sex ratios of suckers utilizing these areas. However, temporal changes in abundance may have been missed because consistent sampling never occurred throughout the entire spawning season ( Perkins et al, In preparation). Recently, there has been increased concern on the effects of water level management in UKL on spawning suckers. Information is needed on the timing, relative abundance, and distribution of sucker spawning in UKL to make informed decisions with respect to management of lake elevation. In 1999, we conducted systematic trammel netting surveys at Sucker, Silver Building, Ouxy, and Boulder springs and Cinder Flats along the east shore of UKL. In addition, we sampled periodically at Barkley Springs and Modoc Point to determine if suckers were utilizing these areas for spawning. This report summarizes data collected in 1999 on shoreline spawning populations of Lost River and shortnose suckers with emphasis on timing, species composition, sex ratios, and relative abundance. Methods We conducted systematic trammel netting surveys at five locations along the east shore of UKL ( Figure 1). We began sampling at Cinder Flats, Sucker, Silver Building, and Ouxy springs in early April with Boulder Springs added to the list of sampling sites on 27 April. In addition to these sites, we periodically sampled at Barkley Springs and Modoc Point ( Table 1). We attempted to sample each site twice per week although certain sites were only sampled once per week when catch rates of suckers were low ( i. e., less than 5 fish per evening). Trammel nets were fished for about 4 hours ( approximately 1- 1.5 hours before sunset until 3 hours after dark) or until we captured 20 or more fish. Nets used at individual sites varied in length from 15- 30 m, were 1.8 m tall with two outer panels ( 30cm bar mesh), an inner panel ( 3.8 cm bar mesh), a foam core float line, and a lead core bottom line. Generally, we set 1- 2 nets starting at the shoreline and extending out to encompass the perimeter of the identified spawning area. Nets were checked at approximately 1 hour intervals and captured fish were cut from the inner mesh panel and placed in a mesh cage and processed within 2 hours. Suckers were identified by species and sex, measured to the nearest mm ( fork length), inspected for tags ( both PIT and Floy tags), and examined for physical afflictions ( e. g., presence oiLernaea spp. and lamprey scars). If a sucker did not have a PIT tag, one was inserted with a hypodermic needle along the ventral surface 1- 2 cm anterior of the pelvic girdle. The catch per unit effort ( CPUE) of adult Lost River suckers was calculated for individual sampling locations for each evening sampled. Because identified spawning areas varied in size we used different length trammel nets to encompass the spawning areas. We did not attempt to standardize CPUE based on length of trammel nets used at each location. Results We sampled shoreline spawning areas from 5 April - 17 June capturing a total of 808 Lost River suckers and 19 shortnose suckers from 5 sites ( Table 1). Lost River and shortnose suckers were captured at Sucker Springs, Silver Building Springs, Ouxy Springs, and Cinder Flats, while only Lost River suckers were captured at Boulder Springs. No suckers were captured at Barkley Springs and Modoc Point ( Table 1). The majority of Lost River suckers were captured at Cinder Flats ( 35%) and Sucker Springs ( 34%; Figure 2). Males dominated the catch at all sites and were generally smaller ( mean length = 538 mm) than females captured ( mean length = 596 mm). In particular, sex ratios ( males to females) were most skewed at Cinder Flats and Silver Building Springs ( Figure 3). Large females (> 650 mm) were captured at most sites, except Boulder Springs, and the size range offish captured over time remained similar with the exception that a fewer large individuals (> 600 mm) were captured in the late sampling period ( 1 May - 17 June) as compared to the early sampling period ( 6- 30 April; Figure 4; Appendix Figure A). The catch of shortnose suckers was limited at all sites sampled. Most ( 12 of 19) of the shortnose suckers were collected at Sucker Springs, with 1- 3 fish captured at Cinder Flats, Ouxy Springs, and Silver Building Springs ( Table 1). We identified 8 males and 8 females during the sampling period and were unable to determine sex for three individuals. The mean size of shortnose suckers was 360 mm ( range 289- 528 mm) similar to data reported by Perkins et al. ( In preparation) from Sucker, Silver Building, and Ouxy springs. We observed the highest CPUE of Lost River suckers at Cinder Flats ( mean CPUE= 12.7/ h) followed by Sucker Springs ( mean CPUE= 6.0/ h), Silver Building Springs ( mean CPUE = 2.8/ h), and Ouxy Springs ( mean CPUE= 2.4/ h) ( Figure 5). On three occasions at Cinder Flats, 20 or more suckers were captured within an hour or less resulting in the termination of sampling for the evening. CPUE was calculated for sampling dates at Boulder Springs ( mean CPUE= 1.4/ h), although comparisons with other sites is not applicable because this site was not initially included in systematic sampling efforts. We did not calculate CPUE for shortnose suckers. We captured a total of 32 Lost River and 2 shortnose suckers that were tagged during previous years sampling efforts. The majority ( 96%) of these fish was originally tagged at shoreline locations ( Table 2), which is consistent with historical recapture data ( Appendix Table A). Two Lost River suckers were originally tagged at Ball Point in UKL in July, after the spawning season. In addition, most Lost River suckers were recaptured before 1 May, including 15 fish that were collected at Sucker Springs during two sampling occasions in March ( Figure 6). We also recaptured a total of 21 Lost River suckers that were tagged in 1999 at shoreline spawning areas. Approximately half of these fish were recaptured at different areas than where they were tagged, indicating that some suckers are moving between spawning areas within the season ( Table 3). Discussion Our sampling indicated the spawning period for Lost River suckers lasted from mid- March through the beginning of June at shoreline spawning areas in 1999. The catch of Lost River suckers was dominated by males at all sites sampled, particularly at Cinder Flats and Silver Building Springs. Perkins et al., ( In preparation) reported skewed sex ratios at shoreline spawning locations following the fish kills that occurred in UKL from 1995- 1997. However, the ratios we observed were considerably higher than those reported by Perkins et al., ( In preparation). At this time we are unable to determine the reason for the sex ratios observed. It is possible that males remain longer at the spawning areas than females making them more vulnerable to capture. Perkins et al., ( In preparation) observed spawning acts and reported that males remained near the actual site where spawning occurs while females move onto the spawning site only when ready to spawn. We captured 23 Lost River suckers twice in 1999 and all but one of these fish were males. However, it is difficult to determine if this percentage is due to males remaining at these sites longer than females or a reflection of the existing sex ratios. Another possible explanation could be the large numbers of males in the catch are from the 1991- 1993 year classes and females from these year classes have yet to be recruited into the adult population. The majority of males captured ( 81%) were between 475 - 574 mm. Age and growth information from Lost River suckers collected during the 1996- 1997 fish kills indicate these fish would be between 5- 9 years old ( USGS, BRD, 10 unpublished data). Perkins et al., ( In preparation) reported that male Lost River suckers migrating up the Williamson River begin to be recruited into the adult population starting at age 4+, while females did not begin to mature until age 7+ . These data were based on examining length frequency distributions and noting when fish from the 1991 year class, which is presumed to be a strong year class, began showing up in trammel net catches. Fish from the 1991 year class would have been age 8+ in 1999. Buettner and Scoppetone ( 1990) examined opercles from Lost River suckers collected during the 1986 fish kill in UKL and reported that individuals matured between 6- 14 years of age with the peak being 9 years. It is possible that in the next few years more females from the 1991- 93 year classes will be recruited into the adult population spawning at shoreline areas. Our data provides additional evidence that distinct stocks of Lost River suckers may exist based on fidelity to spawning area. Of the 32 suckers we recaptured from previous years sampling efforts, all but two were originally tagged at shoreline spawning locations. The two fish that were not originally tagged at shoreline spawning locations were captured at Ball Point in July and were not presumed to be spawning in this location. Perkins et al. ( In preparation) reported that of 316 Lost River and 11 shortnose suckers recaptured at shoreline spawning areas all were originally tagged at shoreline spawning locations. Continuation of systematic sampling at both shoreline spawning areas and the Williamson and Sprague rivers will continue to provide information on potential separation of spawning populations. The majority of recaptured fish were tagged during the first half of our sampling efforts including 13 fish that were recaptured on 25 March while sampling with Larry Dunsmoor of the Klamath Tribes. Historically, the majority of sampling effort at 11 shoreline spawning locations occurred prior to 1 May, which may explain why most recaptures were collected during the early part of our sampling period. In fiiture years, we plan to continue systematic sampling through June to determine if temporal aspects of spawning remain consistent between years. The size offish captured at shoreline spawning areas decreased as the spawning season progressed, particularly near the end of our sampling period, although the decrease was not as dramatic as reported by Perkins et al., ( In preparation). It is possible that individual timing of Lost River sucker spawning is affected by size. Scoppettone et al., ( 1986) observed that smaller, younger cui- ui ( Chasmistes cujus) at Pyramid Lake spawned at the end of the spawning season. We believe further investigation is needed to determine if differences in spawning timing among individuals is due to size or related to stock differences. A limited number of shortnose suckers were captured in 1999. Sampling continued well into June and was sufficient to detect spawning concentrations of shortnose suckers at these sites. Based on previous sampling conducted at shoreline spawning areas, there appears to be a decreasing trend in the number of shortnose suckers captured at these sites ( Perkins, et al., In preparation). Our sampling efforts at shoreline spawning areas on the east side of UKL represents the first time these areas have been systematically sampled during the spawning season. Continuation of systematic sampling at these areas is important to provide information on species composition, timing and duration of spawning, fidelity to spawning areas, sex ratios, size distribution, and relative abundance. How these 12 population characteristics change over time will also provide important insights into the population stability of Lost River and shortnose suckers in UKL. 13 Literature Cited Buettner, M. And G. Scoppettone. 1990. Life history status of catostomids in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. U. S. F. W. S. Completion Report. 108 pp. Goldman, C. R. and A. J. Home. 1983. Limnology. McGraw Hill, New York. Moyle, P. B. 1976. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Perkins, D. L., G. G. Scoppettone, and M. Buettner. In preparation. Reproductive biology and demographics of endangered Lost River and shortnose suckers in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Lost River ( Deltistes luxatus) and shortnose ( Chasmistes brevirostris) sucker recovery plan. Portland, Oregon. 108 pp. 14 Table 1. Summary of the shoreline locations sampled in Upper Klamath Lake and the number of Lost River ( LRS) and shortnose ( SNS) suckers captured in 1999. Sampling Dates Sampled Number of days Number of LRS Number of SNS Location ( range) Sampled Captured Captured Barkley Springs 4/ 5- 4/ 27 4 0 0 11 21 0 19 284 2 4 0 0 20 129 3 19 100 2 Sucker Springs 4/ 5- 6/ 17 20 274 13 Total 808 20 Boulder Springs Cinder Flats Modoc Point Ouxy Springs Silver Bldg. Springs 4/ 27- 4/ 6- 4/ 13- 4/ 6- 4/ 5- 6/ 17 6/ 17 4/ 21 6/ 17 6/ 17 15 Table 2. Summary of the number of Lost River suckers recaptured from previous years sampling efforts at shoreline spawning locations in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999. Site Originally Captured Boulder Springs Cinder Flats Ouxy Springs Silver Bldg. Springs Sucker Springs Ball Point Total Boulder Springs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site Cinder Flats 0 1 0 0 4 2 7 Recaptured Ouxy Springs 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 in 1999 Silver Bldg. Springs 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Sucker Springs 0 0 1 2 19 0 22 16 Table 3. Summary of the number of Lost River suckers recaptured at shoreline locations in Upper Klamath Lake originally tagged in 1999. Site Originally Captured in 1999 Boulder Springs Cinder Flats Ouxy Springs Silver Bldg. Springs Sucker Springs Total Boulder Springs 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site Cinder Flats 0 3 1 3 1 8 Recaptured Ouxy Springs 0 1 0 0 3 4 in 1999 Silver Bldg. Springs 0 0 1 1 0 2 Sucker Springs 0 2 0 1 6 9 17 1. Sucker Springs 2. Silver Building Springs 3. Ouxy Springs 4. Cinder Flats 5. Boulder Springs Figure 1. Map of Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes showing major tributaries and shoreline spawning areas sampled in 1999. 18 o I 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 BOULDER SPRINGS 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 D LRS Male • LRS Female * No Fish Jtt * * * * * * OUXY SPRINGS D LRS Male • LRS Female * No Fish 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 CINDER FLATS D LRS Unknow n _ r i • LRS Male • i_ r\ o remaie ic No Fish EII1IJ n „ * * * * 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 > SILVER BUILDING SPRINGS • LRS Unknow n • LRS Male • LRS Female * No Fish D n n p » * * * * * SUCKER SPRINGS ALL AREAS COMBINED • LRS Unknown D LRS Male • LRS Female • LRS Unknow n • LRS Male • LRS Female / / / / / / Figure 2. Summary of the number and sex of Lost River Suckers ( LRS) captured at shoreline spawning areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999 sampling. LRS unknown refers to captured individuals in which sex could not be determined. 19 70% -, 60% 50% 40% - 30% - 20% - 10% 0% CINDER FLATS _ o_ n= 283 9.1 : 1 8C O in io in om CD o i n 70% -, 60% - 50% - 40% - 30% - 20% - 10% - 0% - BOULDER SPRINGS y n 11 7 6 2 n= 21 9.5: 1 • g si n 8 CD omr o in oo § 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% OUXY SPRINGS om CN oi n co o ini o in in SUCKER SPRINGS 70% -, 60% - 50% - 40% - 30% - 20% - 10% - 0% - n= 129 4.1 : 0 • _ o in CD omh omoo n= 273 3.5: 1 U • - - sC O oi n oi nm om o i n 00 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% - 10% 0% SILVER BUILDING SPRINGS 70% 60% - 50% - 40% 30% 20% 10% - 0% 8 CM ALL SITES 8 CO JL 8 8 i n n= 99 8.1 : 1 • H „ - in in in CD h- 00 n= 805 5.3: 1 _ D • Male • Female 8 C N O O O O O O O O O O O i n o m oin i nin oCDi nCDo i n o i nco Fork length Figure 3. Length frequency histogram of male and female Lost River suckers ( LRS) captured at shore-line spawning areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999. The total number of LRS captured in 1999 and ratio of males to females are presented in the upper right hand corner of each graph. 20 E QJ D 160 i 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 A) 1999 LR Length Frequency ( 3/ 18/ 99- 4/ 30/ 99) DMale • Female • male = 457 xM = 541.4 i siaev - jo. y female = 60 xF = 611.9 stdev = 77.2 (—| Qy O ^ D 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 # 4? B) o - I— # $ # C) # # $ # 1999 LR Length Frequency ( 5/ 1/ 99 - 6/ 8/ 99) DMale • Female male = 219 xM = 531.4 5> lUeV — H 1 , , — i remaie = bB xF = 582 8 stdev = 68.1 • y . _ _ # ^ # # # # # # # ^ 1999 SN Length Frequency ( 4/ 30/ 99 - 5/ 30/ 99) 1 U 14 - 12 - 10 s p. A 2 0 - , Dmale • female y y • l i y n male = 8 xM = 363 stdev - 29.7 fpryiolp — ft xF = 357.1 stdev = 35.5 Forklength ( mm) Figure 4. Length frequency for Lost River ( LRS) and shortnose ( SNS) suckers captured at shoreline spawning areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999. Graphs represent A) LRS caught from March 19- April 30, 1999, B) LRS caught from May 1- June 8, 1999, and C) SNS caught from April 30- May 30, 1999 ( all SNS sampling days were combined due to limited SNS numbers). Four LRS with unknown gender were not included in the graph, two were caught before May 1st, and two after May 1st. Three SNS with unknown gender were not included in the graph. 21 BOULDER SPRINGS 20 i 18 16 - I 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 O) O) O) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) in CM O) $ § I co o L? 5 LO O) O) O) g> g> g> o r^ •<*• n ^ CN CD CD CD 45 40 - 35 30 25 20 15 10 - 5 0 CINDER FLATS 0 ) 0 ) OO - f - r in in 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) C D C D C D 1 sw 20 18 16- 14- 12 - 10 8 6 4 OUXYSPRNGS Jl 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) OO 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) C N I O C D O) O) O) O) Q < o z: ? z in CD CD 20- 18 - 16 14 - 12 - 10 - 8 6 4 - 2 - 0 - SILVER BUILDING SPRINGS ii , II p l, « u u •———,—— O) O) O) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) in CN O) T- CM CM O) O) O) O) O) O) CO O h » - in O) O) O) ill CD CD CD SUCKER SPRINGS ALL SITES Figure 5. Summary of catch per unit effort ( CPUE) of Lost River suckers at shoreline spawning areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999. Note change in scale for the Cinder Flats and the All Sites graphs. 22 BOULDER SPRINGS 14 12 10 8 -| 6 4 2 0 n= 0 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) O) CD CN O) CD CO O T - C\| ^ ^ T- CNJ CO CO CO ^" ^" ^" OUXY SPRINGS 1 C D n= 2 14 1 8 4 2^ 0 oo S ^ ^ SUCKER SPRINGS ^ £ j CNJ in in to n= 22 - U-CD CO O j - CM CO 1 C D 14 12 -\ 10 8 -] 6 4 2 - 0 CINDER FLATS n= 7 LJl 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) T^ Cr^ N ^? ^ T- 14 12 10 - 8 6 4 - 2 0 SILVER BUILDING SPRINGS Tt x- 00 - CN CN in in in n= 1 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) O) CD CN O> CD CO ^ CJ ^ ^ ^ CN co co ^ j- "< t ALL SITES O) O) O) O) O) O) in in in n= 32 I 0 0) in in in Figure 6. Summary of the number of Lost River suckers recaptured at shoreline spawning areas, Upper Klamath Lake, 1999. Recaptured fish were originally tagged betweeen 1988- 1998. 23 Appendix Table A. Summary of recapture data for Lost River Suckers in the Upper Klamath Lake Basin from 1985- 1999. Sampling was generally conducted from March- July of each year, although the emphasis in sampling was during the spawning period. Recapture data includes fish that were tagged with Floy and PIT tags. Site Last Recaptured Site Originally Captured Cinder Flats Ouxy Springs Silver Bldg. Springs Sucker Springs Williamson River Sprague River Upper Lake Middle Lake Total Cinder Flats 1 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 7 Ouxy Springs 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 Silver Bldg. Springs 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 7 Sucker Springs 0 0 6 288 4 0 0 0 298 Williamson River 0 0 0 1 6 3 0 0 10 Sprague River 0 0 0 0 1 13 1 0 15 Upper Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Middle Lake 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 Total 1 1 9 300 12 16 3 0 342 Appendix Table B. Summary of recapture data for shortnose suckers in the Upper Klamath Lake Basin from 1985- 1999. Sampling was generally conducted from March- July of each year, although the emphasis in sampling was during the spawning period. Recapture data includes fish that were tagged with Floy and PIT tags. Site Last Recaptured Site Originally Captured Ouxy Springs Silver Bldg. Springs Sucker Springs Williamson River Sprague River Lower Lake Middle Lake Total Ouxy Springs 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Silver Bldg. Springs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sucker Springs 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Williamson River 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 Sprague River 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 5 Lower Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Middle Lake 0 0 0 1 2 0 5 8 Upper Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reeder Road Bridge 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Total 2 0 0 7 5 0 6 20 25 5 2iu5 Appendix Figure A. Summary of the size range of Lost River suckers captured at shoreline sampling areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999, by date sampled. Title: Monitoring of Lost River and Shortnose suckers and shoreline spawning areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999 Author: Shively, Rip S.; Bautista, Mark F.; Kohler, Andre E. Year: 1999, 2005 Monitoring of Lost River and Shortnose Suckers at Shoreline Spawning Areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999 Prepared by: Rip S. Shively1 Mark F. Bautista2 Andre E. Kohler2 1 U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division Klamath Falls Duty Station 6937 Washburn Way Klamath Falls, OR 97603 2 Johnson Controls World Services Inc. NERC Operation Post Office Box 270308 Fort Collins, CO 80527 Executive Summary In 1999, we sampled Lost River { Deltistes luxatus) and shortnose ( Chasmistes brevirostris) suckers from 5 April to 17 June at five shoreline spawning locations in Upper Klamath Lake ( UKL). Trammel nets were set to encompass identified spawning areas and were fished approximately 1- 1.5 hours before sunset until 3 hours after sunset or until 20 or more fish were captured. A total of 808 Lost River and 19 shortnose suckers were captured from Sucker, Silver Building, Ouxy, and Boulder springs, and Cinder Flats. The majority of Lost River suckers were captured at Cinder Flats ( 35%) and Sucker Springs ( 34%), followed by Ouxy Springs ( 16%), Silver Building Springs ( 12%), and Boulder Springs ( 3%). Males dominated the catch at all sites, but the sex ratios at Cinder Flats and Silver Building Springs were particularly skewed towards males. We recaptured 32 Lost River suckers that had been tagged during previous years sampling efforts. All of these fish, with the exception of two fish tagged at Ball Point in July, were originally tagged during the spawning season at shoreline spawning areas in UKL. This information provides further evidence that distinct stocks of Lost River suckers exist based on spawning location ( i. e., UKL and Williamson River). We also recaptured 23 Lost River suckers that were tagged in 1999 at shoreline spawning areas. Approximately half of these fish were recaptured at different locations than tagged indicating these fish were moving between spawning areas. The size offish captured at shoreline spawning areas decreased as the spawning season progressed, although the decrease in size was not as dramatic as reported in previous years. A limited number of shortnose suckers were captured at shoreline spawning areas in 1999, with a majority sampled after 1 May. Previous data for shortnose suckers at these sites is limited with respect to size, timing of spawning, sex composition, and relative numbers. Continuation of systematic sampling efforts at shoreline spawning areas will provide valuable information on the demographics and life history of Lost River and shortnose suckers utilizing these areas. Acknowledgements We thank Anita Baker, Brooke Bechen, Lani Hickey, and Tonya Wiley for assisting with sampling offish at shoreline spawning areas. Mark Buettner and Brian Peck ( U. S. Bureau of Reclamation) provided support during the early phases of our sampling as well as helpful comments on this report. We also appreciate the cooperation and support of Larry Dunsmoor ( Klamath Tribes) for identifying spawning areas, providing logistical support, and for the thoughtful review of this report. Cassandra Watson and Elizabeth Neuman produced finalized versions of tables and figures within this report and their efforts are greatly appreciated. This research was funded by the U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division through the Western Reservoirs Initiative. Introduction Severe water quality problems in Upper Klamath Lake ( UKL) have led to critical fisheries concerns for the region. Historically, UKL was eutrophic but has become hypereutrophic ( Goldman and Home 1983) presumably due to land- use practices within the basin ( USFWS 1993). As a result, the algal community has shifted to a monoculture of the blue- green algae Aphanizomemon flos- aquae and massive blooms of this species have been directly related to poor water quality episodes in UKL. The growth and decomposition of dense algal blooms in the lake frequently cause extreme water quality conditions characterized by high pH ( 9- 10.5), widely variable dissolved oxygen ( anoxic to supersaturated), and high ammonia concentrations (> 0.5 mg/ 1 unionized). In addition to water quality problems associated with A. flos- aquae, it is believed the loss of marsh habitat near the lake, timber harvest, removal of riparian vegetation, livestock grazing, and agricultural practices within the basin has contributed to hypereutrophic conditions. It is likely that these disturbances have altered the UKL ecosystem substantially enough to contribute to the near monoculture of A. flos- aquae. Investigations in 1913 documented the algal community as a diverse mix of blue- green and diatom communities, however, by the 1950' s A. flos- aquae was dominant ( USFWS 1993). The Lost River sucker ( Deltistes luxatus) and shortnose sucker ( Chasmistes brevirostris) are endemic to the Upper Klamath Basin of California and Oregon ( Moyle 1976). Declining population trends for both species were noted as early as the mid- 1960' s, however, the severities of the population declines were not evident until the mid- 1980' s. In 1988 the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed both Lost River and shortnose suckers as endangered. Suspected reasons for their decline included damming of rivers, dredging and draining of marshes, water diversions, hybridization, competition and predation by exotic species, insularization of habitat, and water quality problems associated with timber harvest, removal of riparian vegetation, livestock grazing, and agricultural practices ( USFWS 1993). The U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division ( BRD) has been conducting field investigations on Lost River and shortnose suckers in UKL since 1994. The majority of these sampling efforts have focused on catching fish in UKL and the Lower Williamson River. Sampling in the Lower Williamson River focused on developing indices of relative abundance of Lost River and shortnose suckers. In 1999, Oregon State University continued sampling in the Lower Williamson River fishing trammel nets from April to August at four standardized locations. In addition to sampling efforts in the Lower Williamson River, BRD crews conducted periodic sampling at several shoreline spawning areas on the east side of UKL. This sampling was beneficial because it provided information on species composition, size, and sex ratios of suckers utilizing these areas. However, temporal changes in abundance may have been missed because consistent sampling never occurred throughout the entire spawning season ( Perkins et al, In preparation). Recently, there has been increased concern on the effects of water level management in UKL on spawning suckers. Information is needed on the timing, relative abundance, and distribution of sucker spawning in UKL to make informed decisions with respect to management of lake elevation. In 1999, we conducted systematic trammel netting surveys at Sucker, Silver Building, Ouxy, and Boulder springs and Cinder Flats along the east shore of UKL. In addition, we sampled periodically at Barkley Springs and Modoc Point to determine if suckers were utilizing these areas for spawning. This report summarizes data collected in 1999 on shoreline spawning populations of Lost River and shortnose suckers with emphasis on timing, species composition, sex ratios, and relative abundance. Methods We conducted systematic trammel netting surveys at five locations along the east shore of UKL ( Figure 1). We began sampling at Cinder Flats, Sucker, Silver Building, and Ouxy springs in early April with Boulder Springs added to the list of sampling sites on 27 April. In addition to these sites, we periodically sampled at Barkley Springs and Modoc Point ( Table 1). We attempted to sample each site twice per week although certain sites were only sampled once per week when catch rates of suckers were low ( i. e., less than 5 fish per evening). Trammel nets were fished for about 4 hours ( approximately 1- 1.5 hours before sunset until 3 hours after dark) or until we captured 20 or more fish. Nets used at individual sites varied in length from 15- 30 m, were 1.8 m tall with two outer panels ( 30cm bar mesh), an inner panel ( 3.8 cm bar mesh), a foam core float line, and a lead core bottom line. Generally, we set 1- 2 nets starting at the shoreline and extending out to encompass the perimeter of the identified spawning area. Nets were checked at approximately 1 hour intervals and captured fish were cut from the inner mesh panel and placed in a mesh cage and processed within 2 hours. Suckers were identified by species and sex, measured to the nearest mm ( fork length), inspected for tags ( both PIT and Floy tags), and examined for physical afflictions ( e. g., presence oiLernaea spp. and lamprey scars). If a sucker did not have a PIT tag, one was inserted with a hypodermic needle along the ventral surface 1- 2 cm anterior of the pelvic girdle. The catch per unit effort ( CPUE) of adult Lost River suckers was calculated for individual sampling locations for each evening sampled. Because identified spawning areas varied in size we used different length trammel nets to encompass the spawning areas. We did not attempt to standardize CPUE based on length of trammel nets used at each location. Results We sampled shoreline spawning areas from 5 April - 17 June capturing a total of 808 Lost River suckers and 19 shortnose suckers from 5 sites ( Table 1). Lost River and shortnose suckers were captured at Sucker Springs, Silver Building Springs, Ouxy Springs, and Cinder Flats, while only Lost River suckers were captured at Boulder Springs. No suckers were captured at Barkley Springs and Modoc Point ( Table 1). The majority of Lost River suckers were captured at Cinder Flats ( 35%) and Sucker Springs ( 34%; Figure 2). Males dominated the catch at all sites and were generally smaller ( mean length = 538 mm) than females captured ( mean length = 596 mm). In particular, sex ratios ( males to females) were most skewed at Cinder Flats and Silver Building Springs ( Figure 3). Large females (> 650 mm) were captured at most sites, except Boulder Springs, and the size range offish captured over time remained similar with the exception that a fewer large individuals (> 600 mm) were captured in the late sampling period ( 1 May - 17 June) as compared to the early sampling period ( 6- 30 April; Figure 4; Appendix Figure A). The catch of shortnose suckers was limited at all sites sampled. Most ( 12 of 19) of the shortnose suckers were collected at Sucker Springs, with 1- 3 fish captured at Cinder Flats, Ouxy Springs, and Silver Building Springs ( Table 1). We identified 8 males and 8 females during the sampling period and were unable to determine sex for three individuals. The mean size of shortnose suckers was 360 mm ( range 289- 528 mm) similar to data reported by Perkins et al. ( In preparation) from Sucker, Silver Building, and Ouxy springs. We observed the highest CPUE of Lost River suckers at Cinder Flats ( mean CPUE= 12.7/ h) followed by Sucker Springs ( mean CPUE= 6.0/ h), Silver Building Springs ( mean CPUE = 2.8/ h), and Ouxy Springs ( mean CPUE= 2.4/ h) ( Figure 5). On three occasions at Cinder Flats, 20 or more suckers were captured within an hour or less resulting in the termination of sampling for the evening. CPUE was calculated for sampling dates at Boulder Springs ( mean CPUE= 1.4/ h), although comparisons with other sites is not applicable because this site was not initially included in systematic sampling efforts. We did not calculate CPUE for shortnose suckers. We captured a total of 32 Lost River and 2 shortnose suckers that were tagged during previous years sampling efforts. The majority ( 96%) of these fish was originally tagged at shoreline locations ( Table 2), which is consistent with historical recapture data ( Appendix Table A). Two Lost River suckers were originally tagged at Ball Point in UKL in July, after the spawning season. In addition, most Lost River suckers were recaptured before 1 May, including 15 fish that were collected at Sucker Springs during two sampling occasions in March ( Figure 6). We also recaptured a total of 21 Lost River suckers that were tagged in 1999 at shoreline spawning areas. Approximately half of these fish were recaptured at different areas than where they were tagged, indicating that some suckers are moving between spawning areas within the season ( Table 3). Discussion Our sampling indicated the spawning period for Lost River suckers lasted from mid- March through the beginning of June at shoreline spawning areas in 1999. The catch of Lost River suckers was dominated by males at all sites sampled, particularly at Cinder Flats and Silver Building Springs. Perkins et al., ( In preparation) reported skewed sex ratios at shoreline spawning locations following the fish kills that occurred in UKL from 1995- 1997. However, the ratios we observed were considerably higher than those reported by Perkins et al., ( In preparation). At this time we are unable to determine the reason for the sex ratios observed. It is possible that males remain longer at the spawning areas than females making them more vulnerable to capture. Perkins et al., ( In preparation) observed spawning acts and reported that males remained near the actual site where spawning occurs while females move onto the spawning site only when ready to spawn. We captured 23 Lost River suckers twice in 1999 and all but one of these fish were males. However, it is difficult to determine if this percentage is due to males remaining at these sites longer than females or a reflection of the existing sex ratios. Another possible explanation could be the large numbers of males in the catch are from the 1991- 1993 year classes and females from these year classes have yet to be recruited into the adult population. The majority of males captured ( 81%) were between 475 - 574 mm. Age and growth information from Lost River suckers collected during the 1996- 1997 fish kills indicate these fish would be between 5- 9 years old ( USGS, BRD, 10 unpublished data). Perkins et al., ( In preparation) reported that male Lost River suckers migrating up the Williamson River begin to be recruited into the adult population starting at age 4+, while females did not begin to mature until age 7+ . These data were based on examining length frequency distributions and noting when fish from the 1991 year class, which is presumed to be a strong year class, began showing up in trammel net catches. Fish from the 1991 year class would have been age 8+ in 1999. Buettner and Scoppetone ( 1990) examined opercles from Lost River suckers collected during the 1986 fish kill in UKL and reported that individuals matured between 6- 14 years of age with the peak being 9 years. It is possible that in the next few years more females from the 1991- 93 year classes will be recruited into the adult population spawning at shoreline areas. Our data provides additional evidence that distinct stocks of Lost River suckers may exist based on fidelity to spawning area. Of the 32 suckers we recaptured from previous years sampling efforts, all but two were originally tagged at shoreline spawning locations. The two fish that were not originally tagged at shoreline spawning locations were captured at Ball Point in July and were not presumed to be spawning in this location. Perkins et al. ( In preparation) reported that of 316 Lost River and 11 shortnose suckers recaptured at shoreline spawning areas all were originally tagged at shoreline spawning locations. Continuation of systematic sampling at both shoreline spawning areas and the Williamson and Sprague rivers will continue to provide information on potential separation of spawning populations. The majority of recaptured fish were tagged during the first half of our sampling efforts including 13 fish that were recaptured on 25 March while sampling with Larry Dunsmoor of the Klamath Tribes. Historically, the majority of sampling effort at 11 shoreline spawning locations occurred prior to 1 May, which may explain why most recaptures were collected during the early part of our sampling period. In fiiture years, we plan to continue systematic sampling through June to determine if temporal aspects of spawning remain consistent between years. The size offish captured at shoreline spawning areas decreased as the spawning season progressed, particularly near the end of our sampling period, although the decrease was not as dramatic as reported by Perkins et al., ( In preparation). It is possible that individual timing of Lost River sucker spawning is affected by size. Scoppettone et al., ( 1986) observed that smaller, younger cui- ui ( Chasmistes cujus) at Pyramid Lake spawned at the end of the spawning season. We believe further investigation is needed to determine if differences in spawning timing among individuals is due to size or related to stock differences. A limited number of shortnose suckers were captured in 1999. Sampling continued well into June and was sufficient to detect spawning concentrations of shortnose suckers at these sites. Based on previous sampling conducted at shoreline spawning areas, there appears to be a decreasing trend in the number of shortnose suckers captured at these sites ( Perkins, et al., In preparation). Our sampling efforts at shoreline spawning areas on the east side of UKL represents the first time these areas have been systematically sampled during the spawning season. Continuation of systematic sampling at these areas is important to provide information on species composition, timing and duration of spawning, fidelity to spawning areas, sex ratios, size distribution, and relative abundance. How these 12 population characteristics change over time will also provide important insights into the population stability of Lost River and shortnose suckers in UKL. 13 Literature Cited Buettner, M. And G. Scoppettone. 1990. Life history status of catostomids in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. U. S. F. W. S. Completion Report. 108 pp. Goldman, C. R. and A. J. Home. 1983. Limnology. McGraw Hill, New York. Moyle, P. B. 1976. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Perkins, D. L., G. G. Scoppettone, and M. Buettner. In preparation. Reproductive biology and demographics of endangered Lost River and shortnose suckers in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Lost River ( Deltistes luxatus) and shortnose ( Chasmistes brevirostris) sucker recovery plan. Portland, Oregon. 108 pp. 14 Table 1. Summary of the shoreline locations sampled in Upper Klamath Lake and the number of Lost River ( LRS) and shortnose ( SNS) suckers captured in 1999. Sampling Dates Sampled Number of days Number of LRS Number of SNS Location ( range) Sampled Captured Captured Barkley Springs 4/ 5- 4/ 27 4 0 0 11 21 0 19 284 2 4 0 0 20 129 3 19 100 2 Sucker Springs 4/ 5- 6/ 17 20 274 13 Total 808 20 Boulder Springs Cinder Flats Modoc Point Ouxy Springs Silver Bldg. Springs 4/ 27- 4/ 6- 4/ 13- 4/ 6- 4/ 5- 6/ 17 6/ 17 4/ 21 6/ 17 6/ 17 15 Table 2. Summary of the number of Lost River suckers recaptured from previous years sampling efforts at shoreline spawning locations in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999. Site Originally Captured Boulder Springs Cinder Flats Ouxy Springs Silver Bldg. Springs Sucker Springs Ball Point Total Boulder Springs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site Cinder Flats 0 1 0 0 4 2 7 Recaptured Ouxy Springs 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 in 1999 Silver Bldg. Springs 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Sucker Springs 0 0 1 2 19 0 22 16 Table 3. Summary of the number of Lost River suckers recaptured at shoreline locations in Upper Klamath Lake originally tagged in 1999. Site Originally Captured in 1999 Boulder Springs Cinder Flats Ouxy Springs Silver Bldg. Springs Sucker Springs Total Boulder Springs 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site Cinder Flats 0 3 1 3 1 8 Recaptured Ouxy Springs 0 1 0 0 3 4 in 1999 Silver Bldg. Springs 0 0 1 1 0 2 Sucker Springs 0 2 0 1 6 9 17 1. Sucker Springs 2. Silver Building Springs 3. Ouxy Springs 4. Cinder Flats 5. Boulder Springs Figure 1. Map of Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes showing major tributaries and shoreline spawning areas sampled in 1999. 18 o I 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 BOULDER SPRINGS 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 D LRS Male • LRS Female * No Fish Jtt * * * * * * OUXY SPRINGS D LRS Male • LRS Female * No Fish 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 CINDER FLATS D LRS Unknow n _ r i • LRS Male • i_ r\ o remaie ic No Fish EII1IJ n „ * * * * 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 > SILVER BUILDING SPRINGS • LRS Unknow n • LRS Male • LRS Female * No Fish D n n p » * * * * * SUCKER SPRINGS ALL AREAS COMBINED • LRS Unknown D LRS Male • LRS Female • LRS Unknow n • LRS Male • LRS Female / / / / / / Figure 2. Summary of the number and sex of Lost River Suckers ( LRS) captured at shoreline spawning areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999 sampling. LRS unknown refers to captured individuals in which sex could not be determined. 19 70% -, 60% 50% 40% - 30% - 20% - 10% 0% CINDER FLATS _ o_ n= 283 9.1 : 1 8C O in io in om CD o i n 70% -, 60% - 50% - 40% - 30% - 20% - 10% - 0% - BOULDER SPRINGS y n 11 7 6 2 n= 21 9.5: 1 • g si n 8 CD omr o in oo § 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% OUXY SPRINGS om CN oi n co o ini o in in SUCKER SPRINGS 70% -, 60% - 50% - 40% - 30% - 20% - 10% - 0% - n= 129 4.1 : 0 • _ o in CD omh omoo n= 273 3.5: 1 U • - - sC O oi n oi nm om o i n 00 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% - 10% 0% SILVER BUILDING SPRINGS 70% 60% - 50% - 40% 30% 20% 10% - 0% 8 CM ALL SITES 8 CO JL 8 8 i n n= 99 8.1 : 1 • H „ - in in in CD h- 00 n= 805 5.3: 1 _ D • Male • Female 8 C N O O O O O O O O O O O i n o m oin i nin oCDi nCDo i n o i nco Fork length Figure 3. Length frequency histogram of male and female Lost River suckers ( LRS) captured at shore-line spawning areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999. The total number of LRS captured in 1999 and ratio of males to females are presented in the upper right hand corner of each graph. 20 E QJ D 160 i 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 A) 1999 LR Length Frequency ( 3/ 18/ 99- 4/ 30/ 99) DMale • Female • male = 457 xM = 541.4 i siaev - jo. y female = 60 xF = 611.9 stdev = 77.2 (—| Qy O ^ D 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 # 4? B) o - I— # $ # C) # # $ # 1999 LR Length Frequency ( 5/ 1/ 99 - 6/ 8/ 99) DMale • Female male = 219 xM = 531.4 5> lUeV — H 1 , , — i remaie = bB xF = 582 8 stdev = 68.1 • y . _ _ # ^ # # # # # # # ^ 1999 SN Length Frequency ( 4/ 30/ 99 - 5/ 30/ 99) 1 U 14 - 12 - 10 s p. A 2 0 - , Dmale • female y y • l i y n male = 8 xM = 363 stdev - 29.7 fpryiolp — ft xF = 357.1 stdev = 35.5 Forklength ( mm) Figure 4. Length frequency for Lost River ( LRS) and shortnose ( SNS) suckers captured at shoreline spawning areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999. Graphs represent A) LRS caught from March 19- April 30, 1999, B) LRS caught from May 1- June 8, 1999, and C) SNS caught from April 30- May 30, 1999 ( all SNS sampling days were combined due to limited SNS numbers). Four LRS with unknown gender were not included in the graph, two were caught before May 1st, and two after May 1st. Three SNS with unknown gender were not included in the graph. 21 BOULDER SPRINGS 20 i 18 16 - I 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 O) O) O) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) in CM O) $ § I co o L? 5 LO O) O) O) g> g> g> o r^ •<*• n ^ CN CD CD CD 45 40 - 35 30 25 20 15 10 - 5 0 CINDER FLATS 0 ) 0 ) OO - f - r in in 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) C D C D C D 1 sw 20 18 16- 14- 12 - 10 8 6 4 OUXYSPRNGS Jl 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) OO 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) C N I O C D O) O) O) O) Q < o z: ? z in CD CD 20- 18 - 16 14 - 12 - 10 - 8 6 4 - 2 - 0 - SILVER BUILDING SPRINGS ii , II p l, « u u •———,—— O) O) O) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) in CN O) T- CM CM O) O) O) O) O) O) CO O h » - in O) O) O) ill CD CD CD SUCKER SPRINGS ALL SITES Figure 5. Summary of catch per unit effort ( CPUE) of Lost River suckers at shoreline spawning areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999. Note change in scale for the Cinder Flats and the All Sites graphs. 22 BOULDER SPRINGS 14 12 10 8 -| 6 4 2 0 n= 0 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) O) CD CN O) CD CO O T - C\| ^ ^ T- CNJ CO CO CO ^" ^" ^" OUXY SPRINGS 1 C D n= 2 14 1 8 4 2^ 0 oo S ^ ^ SUCKER SPRINGS ^ £ j CNJ in in to n= 22 - U-CD CO O j - CM CO 1 C D 14 12 -\ 10 8 -] 6 4 2 - 0 CINDER FLATS n= 7 LJl 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) T^ Cr^ N ^? ^ T- 14 12 10 - 8 6 4 - 2 0 SILVER BUILDING SPRINGS Tt x- 00 - CN CN in in in n= 1 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) O) CD CN O> CD CO ^ CJ ^ ^ ^ CN co co ^ j- "< t ALL SITES O) O) O) O) O) O) in in in n= 32 I 0 0) in in in Figure 6. Summary of the number of Lost River suckers recaptured at shoreline spawning areas, Upper Klamath Lake, 1999. Recaptured fish were originally tagged betweeen 1988- 1998. 23 Appendix Table A. Summary of recapture data for Lost River Suckers in the Upper Klamath Lake Basin from 1985- 1999. Sampling was generally conducted from March- July of each year, although the emphasis in sampling was during the spawning period. Recapture data includes fish that were tagged with Floy and PIT tags. Site Last Recaptured Site Originally Captured Cinder Flats Ouxy Springs Silver Bldg. Springs Sucker Springs Williamson River Sprague River Upper Lake Middle Lake Total Cinder Flats 1 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 7 Ouxy Springs 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 Silver Bldg. Springs 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 7 Sucker Springs 0 0 6 288 4 0 0 0 298 Williamson River 0 0 0 1 6 3 0 0 10 Sprague River 0 0 0 0 1 13 1 0 15 Upper Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Middle Lake 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 Total 1 1 9 300 12 16 3 0 342 Appendix Table B. Summary of recapture data for shortnose suckers in the Upper Klamath Lake Basin from 1985- 1999. Sampling was generally conducted from March- July of each year, although the emphasis in sampling was during the spawning period. Recapture data includes fish that were tagged with Floy and PIT tags. Site Last Recaptured Site Originally Captured Ouxy Springs Silver Bldg. Springs Sucker Springs Williamson River Sprague River Lower Lake Middle Lake Total Ouxy Springs 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Silver Bldg. Springs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sucker Springs 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Williamson River 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 Sprague River 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 5 Lower Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Middle Lake 0 0 0 1 2 0 5 8 Upper Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reeder Road Bridge 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Total 2 0 0 7 5 0 6 20 25 5 2iu5 Appendix Figure A. Summary of the size range of Lost River suckers captured at shoreline sampling areas in Upper Klamath Lake, 1999, by date sampled. Close

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

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

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

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

• 252. [Image] Klamath

  	An article summarizing the abundant natural resources of the Klamath region and the plans for irrigation and further settlement of the area
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath Author: White, Frank Ira Year: 1906, 2004 An article summarizing the abundant natural resources of the Klamath region and the plans for irrigation and further settlement of the area Title: Klamath Author: White, Frank Ira Year: 1906, 2004 An article summarizing the abundant natural resources of the Klamath region and the plans for irrigation and further settlement of the area Close

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 258. [Image] Geographical analysis of Klamath Lakes

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

• 259. [Image] Past, present and future activities being conducted in the Klamath River Basin related to the protection and recovery of fish and their habitat

  	"March 2003"
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Past, present and future activities being conducted in the Klamath River Basin related to the protection and recovery of fish and their habitat Author: United States. National Marine Fisheries Service Year: 2003, 2005 "March 2003" Title: Past, present and future activities being conducted in the Klamath River Basin related to the protection and recovery of fish and their habitat Author: United States. National Marine Fisheries Service Year: 2003, 2005 "March 2003" Close

• 260. [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

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

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

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

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

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

  	FINAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR THE BULL TROUT September 2004 FINAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR THE BULL TROUT Prepared for: Division of Economics U. ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Final economic analysis of critical habitat designation for the bull trout Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Year: 2004, 2005 FINAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR THE BULL TROUT September 2004 FINAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR THE BULL TROUT Prepared for: Division of Economics U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 N. Fairfax Drive Arlington, VA 22203 Prepared by: Bioeconomics, Inc. 315 S. 4th E. Missoula, MT 59801 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES- 1 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1- 1 1.1 Description of Species and Habitat 1- 2 1.2 Proposed Critical Habitat 1- 5 1.3 Framework and Methodology 1- 6 1.3.1 Types of Economic Effects Considered 1- 6 1.3.2 Defining the Baseline 1- 9 1.3.3 Direct Compliance Costs 1- 10 1.3.4 Indirect Costs 1- 10 1.3.5 Benefits 1- 14 1.3.6 Analytic Time Frame 1- 15 1.3.7 General Analytic Steps 1- 15 1.4 Information Sources 1- 16 2 RELEVANT BASELINE INFORMATION 2- 1 2.1 Socioeconomic Profile of the Critical Habitat Areas 2- 1 2.1.1 Population 2- 1 2.1.2 Land Ownership and Major Uses 2- 2 2.1.3 Employment 2- 12 2.1.4 Economic and Demographic Characteristics of the 74 Counties Containing Bull Trout Critical Habitat 2- 15 2.1.5. Tribes of the Columbia and Klamath Basins 2- 18 2.2 Baseline Elements 2- 21 2.2.1 Recovery Plan 2- 21 2.2.2 Overlap with Other Listed Species 2- 22 2.2.3 Federal and State Statutes and Regulations 2- 25 2.2.4 Summary Discussion of Impacts of Baseline Regulations on Economic Analysis 2- 40 2.2.5 Discussion: Impacts of Existing Fisheries Policies on Timber and Grazing Activities 2- 43 3 FORECASTED ECONOMIC IMPACTS 3- 1 3.1 Categories of Economic Impacts 3- 1 3.1.1 Section 7 Consultations 3- 2 3.1.2 Technical Assistance 3- 4 3.1.3 Project Modifications 3- 5 3.1.4 Distributional and Regional Economic Effects 3- 5 3.2 Consultation History for Bull Trout Since Listing 3- 7 3.2.1 Action Agencies and Activities Involved in Past Bull Trout Consultations 3- 7 3.2.2 Formal Section 7 Consultations History on Bull Trout Since Listing . 3- 13 3.2.3 Informal Section 7 Consultations History on Bull Trout 3- 15 3.3 Project Modifications 3- 16 3.3.1 Modifications to FHWA Bridge Projects 3- 16 3.3.2 Modifications to Grazing Permits 3- 17 3.3.3 Modifications to Timber Harvest 3- 18 3.3.4 Modifications to Mining Operations 3- 20 3.3.5 Modifications to Agricultural Irrigation Projects 3- 21 3.3.6 Modifications to Dams and Hydroelectric Projects 3- 24 3.3.7 Modifications to Forest Management and Road Maintenance Projects 3- 29 3.3.8 Activities Unlikely to Involve Significant Modification 3- 29 3.4 Projected Future Section 7 Consultations Involving the Bull Trout 3- 29 3.4.1 Projected Future Formal Section 7 Consultations 3- 33 3.4.2 Projected Future Informal Section 7 Consultations 3- 36 ESTIMATING THE CO- EXTENSIVE COSTS OF THE DESIGNATION 4- 1 4.1 Summary of Estimated Impacts 4- 2 4.1.1 Annual Administrative Costs of Consultation 4- 2 4.1.2 Costs Associated with Development of HCPs Within Proposed Bull Trout Critical Habitat 4- 3 4.1.3 Annual Bull Trout Project Modification Costs 4- 4 4.1.4 Proposed Critical Habitat Units Expected to Generate the Greatest Economic Impacts 4- 5 4.2 Discussion of Impacts by Action Agency 4- 6 4.2.1 Army Corps of Engineers 4- 7 4.2.2 Bureau of Land Management 4- 9 4.2.3 Bonneville Power Administration 4- 10 4.2.4 Bureau of Reclamation 4- 25 4.2.5 Federal Highway Administration 4- 29 4.2.6 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 4- 31 4.2.7 U. S. Forest Service 4- 52 4.2.8 Other Action Agencies 4- 79 4.3 Potential Impacts on Small Entities 4- 79 4.3.1 Identifying Activities That May Involve Small Entities 4- 81 4.3.2 Costs Associated with Agriculture Water Diversions 4- 83 4.3.3 Hydroelectric Facility Re- licensing 4- 84 4.3.4 Mining 4- 87 4.4 Potential Impacts on the Energy Industry 4- 88 4.4.1 Evaluation of Whether the Designation will Result in a Reduction in Electricity Production in Excess of One Billion Kilowatt- Hours Per Year or in Excess of 500 Megawatts of Installed Capacity 4- 89 4.4.2 Evaluation of Whether the Designation will Result in an Increase in the Cost of Energy Production in Excess of One Percent 4- 91 APPENDIX A: Detailed Description of Critical Habitat Units A- l APPENDIX B: Ownership of Lands Adjacent to Proposed Critical Habitat Unit and Subunit B- l APPENDIX C: Overlap of Proposed Bull Trout Critical Habitat and Salmon and Steelhead Habitat C- l APPENDIX D: Listing of All Suggested Project Modifications Found in Formal Biological Opinions: By Activity Type D- l APPENDIX E: Length ( stream) and area ( lakes) of proposed designated bull trout critical habitat that is within U. S. Forest Service Land and Forest Service Wilderness Areas E- l APPENDIX F: Breakdown of Total Annual Estimated Costs by Proposed Critical Habitat Unit F- l EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. The purpose of this report is to identify and analyze the potential economic impacts associated with the designation of critical habitat for the Columbia River and Klamath River Distinct Population Segments ( DPSs) of bull trout ( Salvelinus confluentus), hereafter " bull trout." This report was prepared by Bioeconomics, Inc. of Missoula, Montana, for the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's ( the Service) Division of Economics. 2. Section 4( b)( 2) of the Endangered Species Act ( the Act) requires the Service to designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Service may exclude areas from critical habitat designation when the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of including the areas within critical habitat, provided the exclusion will not result in extinction of the species. KEY FINDINGS Total costs associated with both listing and critical habitat designation for the bull trout are forecast to be $ 200 million to $ 260 million over the next ten years. Total costs associated with both listing and critical habitat designation for the bull trout within the proposed Klamath Distinct Population Segment are forecast to be $ 5.3 million to $ 7.3 million over the next ten years. Total costs associated with both listing and critical habitat designation for the bull trout within the proposed Columbia Distinct Population Segment are forecast to be $ 195 million to $ 253 million over the next ten years. Federal agencies are expected to bear 70 to 75 percent of these costs; private entities will incur the remaining 25 to 30 percent. Project modification costs account for as much as 63 percent of forecast costs. Administrative cost represent the remaining 37 percent. U. S. Forest Service and Army Corps of Engineer- related activities account for approximately 70 percent of forecast project modification costs. Activities experiencing the greatest costs include timber harvesting, irrigation diversions, and dam and reservoir operations. Dam and reservoir- related consultations, including power facility re- licensing, account for 42 percent of forecast project modification costs ( excluding the cost associated with reduced irrigation diversions). Timber harvest, irrigation diversions, habitat conservation plans, and mining account for 29 percent, 12 percent, eight percent, and three percent of forecast costs, respectively. In terms of river miles, approximately 18 percent of the total forecast costs are associated with one percent of the proposed designation, 25 percent with five percent of the proposed designation, and 45 percent with ten percent of the proposed designation. When expressed in terms of the expected cost per river mile, the two most costly units are the Willamette River Basin ( Unit 4) and the Malheur River Basin ( Unit 13). ES- 1 Framework for the Analysis 3. The primary purpose of this analysis is to estimate the economic impact associated with the designation of critical habitat for the bull trout. This information is intended to assist the Secretary in making decisions about whether the benefits of excluding particular areas from the designation outweigh the benefits of including those areas in the designation. 1 This economic analysis considers the economic efficiency effects that may result from the designation, including habitat protections that may be co- extensive with the listing of the species. It also addresses distribution of impacts, including an assessment of the potential effects on small entities and the energy industry. This information can be used by decision- makers to assess whether the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector. 4. This analysis focuses on the direct and indirect costs of the rule. However, economic impacts to land use activities can exist in the absence of critical habitat. These impacts may result from, for example, local zoning laws, State and natural resource laws, and enforceable management plans and best management practices ( BMPs) applied by other State and Federal agencies. For example, as discussed in detail in this report, regional management plans, such as the Northwest Forest Plan, PACFISH and INFISH provide significant protection to bull trout and its habitat while imposing significant costs within the region. Economic impacts that result from these types of protections are not included in this assessment as they are considered to be part of the regulatory and policy " baseline." 5. The measurement of direct compliance costs focuses on the implementation of section 7 of the Act. This section requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The administrative costs of these consultations, along with the costs of project modifications resulting from these consultations, represent the direct compliance costs of designating critical habitat. Importantly, this analysis does not differentiate between consultations that result from the listing of the species ( i. e., the jeopardy standard) and consultations that result from the presence of critical habitat ( i. e., the adverse modification standard). 6. The analysis examines activities taking place both within and adjacent to the proposed designation. It estimates impacts based on activities that are " reasonably foreseeable," including, but not limited to, activities that are currently authorized, permitted, or funded, or for which proposed plans are currently available to the public. Accordingly, the analysis bases estimates on activities that are likely to occur within a ten- year time frame, beginning on the day that the current proposed rule became available to the public ( November 30, 2002). The ten- year time frame was chosen for the analysis because, as the time horizon for an economic analysis is expanded, the assumptions on which the projected number of projects and cost impacts associated with those projects becomes increasingly 1 16U. S. C. § 1533( b)( 2). ES- 2 speculative. An exception to the 10 year analysis time horizon used in this analysis is for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( FERC) licenses, which are renewed for up to 50 years. Accordingly, this analysis estimates the annualized costs of the expected impacts associated with section 7 bull trout consultations involving FERC re- licensing over a 50 year time horizon. 7. The analysis is based on a wide range of information sources. Numerous individuals were contacted from the Service, as well as from the U. S. Forest Service ( USFS), Federal Highway Administration ( FHWA), Bureau of Land Management ( BLM), Army Corps of Engineers ( ACOE), Bureau of Reclamation ( BOR), Bonneville Power Administration ( BPA), Natural Resources Conservation Service ( NRCS), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA) and other Federal agencies. The analysis of the hydroelectric facilities and other dam structures in the region also relied in information from the Northwest Power and Conservation Council ( NWPCC), the Pacific Northwest Utility Coordinating Council as well as information from utilities owning dams in bull trout proposed critical habitat ( e. g., Avista Corporation ( Avista), Eugene Water and Electric Board, Pacificorp and Portland General Electric ( PGE)). Native American Tribes ( e. g., Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes), State agencies ( e. g., State Departments of Environmental Quality ( DEQ) and State Departments of Transportation ( DOTs)) and industry organizations ( e. g., American Forest Resource Council, American Farm Bureau and Northwest Mining Association) were also contacted, as were numerous individuals in the private sector on topics ranging from irrigation to forestry to bull trout conservation. Census Bureau and other Department of Commerce data was relied on to characterize the regional economy. 8. The bull trout was listed as a threatened species in 1998.2 Since that time, numerous Action agencies have participated in well over 200 formal consultations and thousands of informal consultations involving bull trout. The past consultation record was used as a starting point from which to predict future consultation activity. Action agencies provided additional information on likely changes in future consultation activity following designation of critical habitat. In some cases these agencies saw little change in future consultation levels. For example, FHWA projects are planned for many years in advance and bridge or road- related bull trout consultations are generally quite certain and foreseeable. In some cases ( e. g., mining activity, irrigation diversions) it was determined that the historical consultation record understated the potential level of future consultation activity for the species and adjustments to future predicted consultation levels were made. For dam and reservoir operations, a wide spectrum of information from agency representatives, as well as the actual FERC re- licensing schedules for privately operated hydropower facilities were used to augment historical consultation rates and develop future annual cost estimates associated with bull trout consultations on dam, reservoir and power- related activities. 2 This economic analysis applies only to the Columbia River and Klamath River DPSs of bull trout and is not a rangewide analysis. The rangewide listing of the bull trout occurred in 1999 and critical habitat will be proposed for the remainder of the range at a later date. ES- 3 Exhibit ES. l provides a summary of the wide range of activities that may be impacted by bull trout- related consultations. Exhibit ES. l PROJECTED ACTIVITIES AFFECTED BY BULL TROUT Action Agency Army Corps of Engineers Bureau of Land Management Bonneville Power Administration Bureau of Reclamation Federal Highway Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission U. S. Forest Service Other agencies, including NPS, BIA, U. S. Department of Agriculture ( USDA), U. S. Geological Survey ( USGS), U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries Activities Consulted on Dam and reservoir operations, streambank stabilization, dredging, bridge replacement, stream restoration. Forest management, grazing, timber harvest, resource maintenance and road construction, weed management, streambank stabilization, flood control projects. Federal Columbia River Power System ( FCRPS)- dam operation, fisheries restoration and augmentation, agricultural practices and irrigation systems. Dam and reservoir operations, irrigation diversions. Highway bridge replacement. Dam re- licensing and removal. Timber harvest, grazing, mining, resource maintenance and road construction, weed management, streambank stabilization, recreation, special use permits, watershed restoration, road decommissioning, irrigation diversions, culvert replacement, and prescribed fuel reduction programs. Assorted activities, primarily fisheries and stream and wetland restoration. Results of the Analysis 9. The economic impacts associated with the designation of critical habitat for the bull trout are expected to range from $ 200 million to $ 260 million over the next ten years ($ 20 million to $ 26 million per year). Federal agencies are expected to bear approximately 70 to 75 percent of the total costs of this designation. A significant portion of the land adjacent to the proposed designation is Federally owned ( 58 percent), 36 percent is under private ownership and the remainder is comprised of Tribal, State or local interests. Of the Federal lands, the majority is managed by the USFS ( 85 percent) and the BLM ( 12 percent). The remaining 25 to 30 percent of costs are expected to be borne by private entities. Exhibit ES. 2 shows the location of USFS and BLM managed land within the proposed designation. ES- 4 Exhibit ES. 2 ES- 5 10. In some cases, the cost associated with consultation is not borne by the Action agency, but passed onto other parties. For example, while farmers and ranchers do not consult on the operation of Federal irrigation impoundments, irrigators could be impacted by potential reductions in water deliveries to maintain instream flow during dry years. While the unit location of USFS- related water diversions is uncertain, it is likely to occur in the Salmon River ( Unit 16), Clark Fork ( Unit 2), Southwest Idaho River and Clearwater River ( Unit 15) Basins, as these units contain the largest portion of USFS managed lands. 11. Consultations that may involve private entities include those related to timber harvest, grazing, mining and power facility re- licensing. Some of the costs associated with these consultations, however, are expected to be borne directly by or passed onto the Federal government ( e. g., increased logging and yarding costs passed onto the USFS through lower stumpage bids for timber). Most of the forecast project modification costs resulting from designation ( 42 percent) are dam and reservoir related ( excluding USFS water diversions). These costs result from consultations on ACOE and BOR dams and reservoirs, BPA consultations on the FCRPS, and FERC re- licensing consultations. Exhibit ES. 3 illustrates the location of major dams within the proposed critical habitat. The remaining project modification costs are associated with timber harvest ( 29 percent), USFS- related water diversions ( 12 percent), habitat conservation plans ( eight percent), and placer gold mining ( three percent). Grazing, forest management, road and bridge construction and maintenance and other activities each account for less than two percent of forecast project modification costs. Exhibit ES. 4 provides the distribution of total costs by activity. 12. Costs can be expressed in terms of unit or river mile; both of these metrics are useful in describing economic impacts. 3 On a cost per unit basis the largest portion of forecast costs are expected to occur in Unit 4, the Willamette River Basin ( 18 percent). These costs are attributable to fish passage and temperature control projects and annual operating and maintenance and fish study costs at ACOE's facilities in the Upper Willamette River System ( Dexter, Lookout Point, Hills Creek and Blue River Dams). The next most costly unit is Unit 16, the Salmon River Basin ( 12 percent). Because this is the largest unit in terms of river miles and proportion of USFS managed land, and because future USFS activities are expected to generate approximately 70 percent of the consultation activity, this unit bears the greatest number of future bull trout- related consultations. Therefore, the administrative costs account for a large portion of the costs in this unit. Together, these two units account for 30 percent ( approximately $ 8.2 million) of forecast costs. The next three most costly units, Hells Canyon complex ( Unit 12) and the Clark Fork River ( Unit 2) and Malheur River ( Unit 13) Basins, each account for eight percent ( a unit cost range of approximately $ 2.1 million to $ 2.3 million) of forecast costs. In total, these five units account for almost 55 percent of forecast costs ( approximately $ 14.8 million). 3 Twelve of the units also contain more than 500,000 lake acres of critical habitat. These units account for approximately 55 percent of the potential economic impacts associated with the proposed designation ($ 15.4 million). The Clark Fork River Basin ( Unit 2) contains almost 60 percent of the lake acres ( more than 300,000 acres) and accounts for eight percent of the cost ( approximately $ 3 million). Because all 25 units contain river miles, the costs are expressed in terms of dollars per river mile for comparison. ES- 6 ES- 7 ES- 8 13. Project modifications or other restrictions that engender cost and revenue impacts involving commercial enterprises can have a subsequent detrimental effect on other sectors of the local economy, especially when the affected industry is central to the local economy. Industries within a geographic area are interdependent in the sense that they purchase output from other industries and sectors, while also supplying inputs to other businesses. Therefore, direct economic effects on a particular enterprise can affect regional output and employment in multiple industries. The extent to which regional economic impacts are realized depends largely on whether a significant number of projects are stopped or fundamentally altered. For example, impacts to the timber or grazing industries depend on whether required project modifications substantially reduce output within economic sectors below that which would be seen in the absence of the trout consultation. 14. Examination of BOs involving timber harvest and grazing show only small and sporadic reductions in either grazing opportunity or available timber harvest. Therefore, this analysis assumes that regional economic impacts associated with these activities will be unpredictable ( in terms of geographic location and timing) and small in the context of the overall economy of the Columbia River Basin. In the case of agricultural water diversions on Forest Service lands, regional economic impacts are not modeled due to uncertainty about the magnitude and potential location of impacts. 15. Exhibit ES- 5 highlights the relative contributions of each unit to total forecast costs. Exhibit ES- 6 then presents the unit cost by river mile. Considering the cost per river mile, the Willamette River ( Unit 4) and Malheur River ( Unit 13) Basins are the most costly units. Together these two units account for 25 percent of the costs ( approximately $ 7.0 million, annualized) over two percent of the proposed miles of the designation ( 451 miles). Overall, 10 percent of the river miles ( 1,910 miles) in eight units account for approximately 45 percent of the total costs ( approximately $ 12.5 million, annualized). 4 4 In terms of cost per lake acre, the Willamette River Basin is the most expensive unit ( Unit 4), followed by the Northeast Washington River ( Unit 22) and Upper Columbia River ( Unit 21) Basins. These three units account for approximately 25 percent of the cost ($ 6.8 million) and five percent of the river miles ( 1,020 miles) in the proposed designation. ES- 9 tn m W GO 16. Consideration of the regulatory baseline is particularly pertinent in the context of estimating economic costs attributable to section 7 for bull trout. Specifically, existing regulations such as the Federal Power Act ( FPA) and Wilderness Act of 1964, fisheries management directives ( Northwest Forest Plan, INFISH and PACFISH) and the presence of other listed species ( especially anadromous fish) provide for the protection of areas that could contribute to the recovery of bull trout and improve riparian habitat and water quality throughout the proposed designation. Thus, the costs of this designation is limited by the extent to which existing regulations already impose requirements on land use and resource management within the proposed designation. In addition, the cost estimates developed in this report reflect various allocations made throughout the analysis for projects benefitting more than one listed species. Since these allocations are important to the analysis, Exhibit ES. 7 describes how forecasted costs were allocated among bull trout and other listed species. Exhibit ES. 7 ALLOCATION OF ESTIMATED FUTURE PROJECT MODIFICATION COSTS Agency / Project ACOE - Upper Willamette River Dams and Reservoirs BPA - Federal Columbia River Power System FERC - re- licensing hydroelectric facilities USFS activities Allocation NOAA Fisheries and the Service are currently consulting on salmon, steelhead and bull trout in this proposed area. No clear allocation of costs can be made between these species, as most of the projects modifications would be sought under both the NOAA and Service consultations. Therefore, one- third of estimated costs are allocated to each species. This is likely to overstate the cost of bull trout conservation rather than understate it, since the primary driving force behind these project modifications is the salmon. While there is extensive discussion of the relative magnitude of potential bull trout versus salmon mitigation actions, because of the relatively modest project modification costs ( up to $ 400,000 associated with fishery studies) there is no allocation of costs to salmon. The estimation of section 7 bull trout costs associated with FERC re- licensing includes allocation of mitigation costs for specific dams to salmon, as well as to other aquatic species. As a result, a little more than 40 percent of total fishery-related costs are allocated to bull trout, and five percent specifically to bull trout section 7 consultation. While certain costs in the sample of timber consultations were allocated to other listed species ( e. g. grizzlies and cutthroat trout), there is no allocation of costs to anadromous species. Summary of Costs 17. Exhibit ES. 8 provides a detailed summary of the co- extensive costs of designation of critical habitat for the bull trout. These costs are presented on an annualized basis. A map of the watersheds that encompass each unit is provided in Exhibit ES. 9 to assist the reader in understanding the location and distribution of estimated costs. A detailed discussion of the estimated administrative and project modification costs by critical habitat unit is presented in the unit- by- unit summary section following Exhibit ES. 8. ES- 12 Exhibit ES. 8 SUMMARY OF SECTION 7 COSTS FOR THE BULL TROUT ( Annualized) Unit Unit 1 - Klamath River Basin Unit 2 - Clark Fork River Basin Unit 3 - Kootenai River Basin Unit 4 - Willamette River Basin Unit 5 - Hood River Basin Unit 6 - Deschutes River Basin Unit 7 - Odell Lake Unit 8 - John Day River Basin Unit 9 - Umatilla- Walla Walla River Basins Unit 10 - Grande Ronde River Basin Unit 11 - Imaha/ Snake River Basins Unit 12 - Hells Canyon Complex Unit 13 - Malheur River Basin Unit 14 - Coeur d'Alene Lake Basin Unit 15 - Clearwater River Basin Unit 16 - Salmon River Basin Unit 17 - Southwest Idaho River Basins Unit 18 - Little Lost River Basin Unit 19 - Lower Columbia River Basin Unit 20 - Middle Columbia River Basin Unit 21 - Upper Columbia River Basin Unit 22 - Northwest Washington River Basins Unit 23 - Snake River Basin in Washington Unit 24 - Columbia River Basin Unit 25 - Snake River Basin Multiple unit or unknown a Estimated Range of Cost ($ l, 000fs) $ 529 to $ 733 $ 1,321 to $ 2,192 $ 328 to $ 402 $ 4,497 to $ 4,891 $ 328 to $ 413 $ 430 to $ 719 $ 51 to $ 56 $ 446 to $ 600 $ 98 to $ 211 $ 467 to $ 580 $ 559 to $ 605 $ 1,939 to $ 2,338 $ 2,006 to $ 2,095 $ 429 to $ 693 $ 995 to $ 1,676 $ 2,059 to $ 3,319 $ 1,004 to $ 1,867 $ 150 to $ 176 $ 385 to $ 494 $ 391 to $ 494 $ 196 to $ 505 $ 965 to $ 1,397 $ 230 to $ 287 $ 243 to $ 504 $ 135 $ 1,303 Notes: These estimates include all section 7 costs, including those co- extensive with the listing and designation of critical habitat for the bull trout. Costs are reported in 2003 dollars. A more detailed presentation of these costs is provided in Appendix F. a Miscellaneous costs ($ 213,000 annually) and the costs associated with development of habitat conservation Dlans ($ 1,090,000 annuallv) have not been allocated to the unit level due to uncertainty as to their location. ES- 13 Exhibit ES- 9 ES- 14 Unit- bv- Unit Summary 18. The following discussion presents a unit- by- unit synopsis of the co- extensive costs of designation of critical habitat for the bull trout. Details on how these cost estimates were developed is provided in Section 4 of this report. 19. From an aggregate perspective, forecast project modification costs are dominated by dam related activities, totaling about 42 percent of all estimated costs. Typical costs include fish passage, changes in operations, habitat protection or restoration, and fishery studies at 36 FERC- licensed hydroelectric facilities and at more than 30 major Federal hydropower, irrigation and flood projects. The second largest category of costs is associated with timber harvest on Federal lands, representing about 29 percent of all estimated costs. These costs include harvest reduction, fishery study and monitoring costs, costs related to roads and culverts, and changes to log yarding systems. The remaining costs are split among a large number of activities including the development of habitat conservation plans, mining, agriculture and irrigation diversions, grazing, bridge construction and maintenance, and general forest management. Accordingly, the primary factor driving the distribution of costs across units is the location of significant dam projects for power, irrigation, and flood control. This factor is highlighted in the following unit- by- unit discussion. The second most important factor is the occurrence of federally- owned acreage within a given unit, particularly the acreage of non- wilderness lands managed by the USFS. This factor drives both timber costs and administrative consultation costs. 20. A significant component of the total estimated cost of this designation are the administrative costs associated with conducting both formal and informal consultations on the species ( approximately 37 to 50 percent of total forecast bull trout- related costs). These costs accrue to the Service as well as to action agencies and the public. In some cases these administrative costs constitute a majority of the estimated costs for a unit, suggesting that there will be many activities consulted on but few resulting project modifications. 21. This discussion is presented on a unit by unit basis. A perspective on how the units compare, in both absolute terms and in terms of cost per river mile of proposed critical habitat, is provided in Exhibits ES- 6 and ES- 7. For purposes of this summary, proposed units with per mile costs ( after adjusting each unit's costs for its respective unoccupied habitat) forecast to be less than half of the proposed designation- wide average are described as having " relatively low costs." Units with per mile costs forecast to be between 50 percent and 200 percent ( i. e., twice) the designation- wide average costs are described as having " relatively moderate costs." Units with per- mile costs forecast to be greater than twice the designation- wide average costs are described as having " relatively high costs." Note that these descriptors are intended as a general guide, and refer to total cost only. Individual economic sectors and entities within a unit may bear disproportionate shares of these costs, as discussed in Section 4. 22. Unit 1: Klamath River Basin - The Klamath River Basin is located in south- central Oregon. Proposed critical habitat within this unit includes 475 km ( 295 mi) of streams and ES- 15 3,775 ha ( 9,327 ac) of lake habitat. The Klamath River Basin Unit is largely contained within Klamath County Oregon. The town of Klamath Falls is the largest community within the county. The Klamath River Basin Unit has a relatively high percentage of proposed critical habitat that is currently either unoccupied or of unknown occupancy ( 72 percent). Approximately 69 percent of the stream miles proposed for designation are within Federal land. 23. The Klamath River Basin Unit is a relatively moderate cost unit. Estimated total annual bull trout- related costs within this unit range between $ 529,000 and $ 733,000. These estimates include $ 425,000 per year in administrative costs. It is estimated that costs associated with consultations on timber harvest and agricultural irrigation withdrawals will constitute the large majority of potential future project modification costs in the unit ( estimated at between 73 percent and 87 percent of total annual project modification costs). These agricultural diversion- related costs are expected to result from reductions in available irrigation water. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 15,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 24. Unit 2: Clark Fork River Basin - The Clark Fork River Basin Unit is the largest unit within the proposed designation. This unit includes most of Western Montana and the Idaho panhandle. This Unit includes the Missoula and Bitterroot River Valleys in Western Montana, the Kalispell- Flathead Lake Region, and the Lake Pend Orielle Region of North Idaho. These areas contain many of the larger towns and communities within Western Montana and North Idaho. Approximately 54 percent of the proposed streams and 33 percent of proposed lakes in Clark Fork Unit are within Federal lands. There is no unoccupied habitat within the proposed Clark Fork Critical Habitat Unit. 25. Forecast total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 1.3 million and $ 2.2 million. These estimates include $ 800,000 per year in administrative costs. In addition, a number of agencies and activities will incur significant annual project modification costs associated with the bull trout in this unit. Specifically, • Timber harvest activity is expected to generate the largest share of future project modification costs in this unit ($ 270,000 to $ 680,000 per year). These costs include harvest reduction, fishery study and monitoring costs, costs related to road and culverts, and changes to log yarding systems. • Costs associated with forecast project modifications to irrigation diversions within this unit range from zero to $ 280,000. These costs represent potential costs to agricultural producers associated with reductions in available irrigation water. 26. Other significant forecast project modification costs within this unit are associated with mining ( up to $ 100,000 annually, principally involving watershed assessment costs), FERC hydro re- licensing ($ 50,000 to $ 91,000 annually), and FHWA bridge and road work ($ 45,000 per year, generally involving constraints on in- stream work periods). Forecast FERC- related costs are associated with several major hydroelectric facilities within the unit, ES- 16 including Kerr Dam on the Flathead River and Thompson Falls Dam on the Clark Fork. Additionally, bull trout- related modifications on operation of the FCRPS have resulted in changes in operations at Hungry Horse Dam ( a BOR facility on the S. Fork of the Flathead) and Albeni Falls ( an ACOE facility that controls the level of Lake Pend Orielle). Bull trout study costs specific to the Clark Fork Unit and associated with FCRPS consultation are expected to cost up to $ 97,000 annually. 27. Although the proposed Clark Fork River Basin Critical Habitat Unit has significant forecast total annual costs, these costs should be viewed in light of the large size of this proposed unit. In fact, the Clark Fork Unit is forecast to be one of the lowest cost units, when expressed per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. 28. Unit 3: Kootenai River Basin - A short stretch of the Kootenai River lies in the U. S., looping down out of British Columbia. The Kootenai Unit thus comprises only the northwestern corner of Montana, including Libby Dam, and the northeastern tip of the Idaho panhandle. This unit is contained within two counties, Boundary County, Idaho and Lincoln County, Montana. Within this proposed critical habitat unit, approximately 53 percent of the rivers and streams proposed for designation are on Federal land. There is no unoccupied bull trout habitat within this unit. 29. The Kootenai River Unit is a relatively low- cost unit, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Total forecast annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 328,000 and $ 402,000. Of this amount, the majority, approximately $ 290,000 annually, are forecast administrative costs. In addition, it is estimated that project modification costs within the Kootenai River Unit will total between $ 38,000 and $ 112,000 annually. Costs associated with timber harvest are expected to be the largest category of future project modification costs in this unit ($ 27,000 to $ 69,000 per year, including costs of harvest reduction, fishery study and monitoring costs, costs related to roads and culverts, and changes to log yarding systems). Costs resulting from modifications to agricultural irrigation diversions ( primarily reductions in irrigation withdrawals) could range from zero to $ 28,000. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 5,000 per year in project modification costs. Bull trout- related modifications to operations of the FCRPS have resulted in changes in operations at Libby Dam. 30. Unit 4: Willamette River Basin - The Willamette River Basin Unit includes 337 km ( 209 mi) of stream and 1,600 ha ( 3,954 ac) of lake habitat in the McKenzie River and Middle Fork Willamette River subbasins of Western Oregon. The unit is located primarily within Lane County, but also extends into Linn County. The unit contains Eugene, Oregon and surrounding areas. Approximately 46 percent of the proposed waters within this unit are on Federal land and about 23 percent of the waters in the unit are currently either unoccupied by the bull trout or of unknown occupancy. 31. Forecast total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 4.5 million and $ 4.9 million. Of this amount, approximately $ 125,000 are forecast ES- 17 administrative costs. Thus, most of the costs for this unit are associated with required project modifications. While project modification costs are forecast to be associated with timber harvest activities and agricultural diversions within this unit ( estimated between $ 22,000 and $ 55,000 annually), the vast majority of forecast costs are associated with dam and reservoir operations in the unit. 32. The ACOE is currently in consultation on 13 flood control facilities located in the Upper Willamette River system. Potential future costs of required modifications for bull trout will likely be driven by provisions for temperature control facilities at the Lookout Point, Hills Creek, and Blue River dams, and trap and haul passage at Lookout Point, Hills Creek, and possibly a fish ladder at Dexter Dam. It is estimated that these passage and temperature control modifications and operation at ACOE operated impoundments in the unit will cost between $ 4.3 and $ 4.5 million per year. It is further estimated that annual project modification costs associated with FERC re- licensing of hydroelectric facilities in the unit will cost between $ 70,000 and $ 144,000 annually. These costs are associated with several hydroelectric facilities operated by the City of Eugene: Trail Bridge and Carmen on the McKenzie River, and Blue River Dam. 33. The Willamette River Unit is the highest cost of the proposed units in terms of forecast cost per river mile of habitat proposed for designation ( greater than $ 20,000 per river mile, annually). These costs are associated with dam and reservoir modifications to ACOE projects. However, the ACOE is also consulting with NOAA Fisheries on the impacts of these facilities on chinook salmon and steelhead, these costs might occur even absent the bull trout. 34. Unit 5: Hood River Basin - The Hood River Unit lies entirely within Hood River County, Oregon and contains the communities of Hood River and The Dalles among a number of smaller towns. The Unit includes the mainstem Hood River and three major tributaries: the Clear Branch Hood River, West Fork Hood River, and East Fork Hood River. A relatively high 43 percent of the proposed habitat in the Hood River Unit is currently either unoccupied or of unknown occupancy. Overall, about 48 percent of the waters proposed for designation within this unit are located on Federal lands. 35. The Hood River Unit is a relatively moderate- cost unit, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 328,000 and $ 413,000. Of this amount, a substantial portion are forecast administrative costs ( approximately $ 282,000). The remainder of the forecast costs are associated with required project modifications. Costs associated with FERC re- licensing of hydroelectric facilities ($ 24,000 to $ 67,000) and timber harvest on USFS lands ($ 16,000 to $ 40,000 per year) are expected to be the most significant categories of future project modification costs in the unit. FERC licensed facilities include Powerdale on the Hood River. Agricultural irrigation diversions in the unit could experience up to $ 16,000 in annual project modification costs. Other activities are individually estimated to account for less than $ 5,000 per year in project modification costs. ES- 18 36. Unit 6: Deschutes River Basin - The Deschutes River Basin Unit in central Oregon contains two critical habitat subunits: the lower Deschutes and the upper Deschutes, separated by Big Falls, an impassible barrier on the Deschutes River. The Lower Deschutes critical habitat subunit is in Wasco, Sherman, Jefferson, Deschutes, and Crook Counties. The Upper Deschutes River critical habitat subunit is located in Deschutes, Crook, and Klamath counties. Approximately 801 km ( 498 mi) of stream habitat in the Deschutes River basin is proposed for critical habitat designation. Overall, a relatively high 37 percent of the proposed habitat within the Deschutes River Unit is unoccupied. The entire upper Deschutes River Critical Habitat subunit is currently unoccupied by the species. A relatively low portion ( 35 percent) of the waters proposed for designation within this unit are on Federal land. This unit also has a substantial amount of Tribal land ( 23 percent of proposed waters). 37. The Deschutes River Unit is a relatively low- cost unit, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. It is forecast that total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit will be between $ 431,000 and $ 719,000. A relatively small portion of this amount, approximately $ 102,000 annually, are forecast administrative costs. The vast majority of these costs are associated with required project modifications. Specifically, costs associated with operation of BOR irrigation impoundments ($ 159,000 annually, largely associated with fishery studies), FERC re- licensing of hydroelectric facilities, ($ 106,000 to $ 280,000) and timber harvest on USFS lands ($ 42,000 to $ 105,000 per year resulting from reduced harvest, fishery studies, road and culvert costs, and changes in yarding systems) are expected to be the most significant categories of future project modification costs in this unit. The BOR- related costs are for studies at Crane Prairie and Wickiup Reservoirs on the Upper Deschutes River. Since both of these reservoirs are in the currently unoccupied Upper Deschutes subunit, dam and reservoir modifications are not reasonably foreseeable. Projected FERC re- licensing costs are for bull trout studies and passage at the Pelton- Round Butte Project on the Deschutes River. Agricultural irrigation diversion project modification costs associated with potential reductions in irrigation water availability could range from zero to $ 43,000 annually. Other activities are individually estimated to account for less than $ 15,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 38. Unit 7: Odell Lake - The Odell Lake Unit in central Oregon lies entirely within the Deschutes National Forest in Deschutes and Klamath counties. This unit is the smallest of the proposed units within the designation. Total proposed critical habitat includes approximately 2,675 ha ( 6,611 ac) of lake habitat and 18.1 km ( 11.3 mi) of streams. There is no unoccupied habitat within this unit. 39. Total annual costs associated with the bull trout within the unit are forecast to be between $ 51,000 and $ 56,000. Of this amount, almost all ( approximately $ 50,000 annually) will be associated with the administrative costs of the consultation process. It is estimated that project modification costs within the Odell Lake Unit will total less than $ 5,000 annually. These project modification costs are forecast to be largely associated with USFS activities. ES- 19 40. Unit 8: John Day River Basin - The John Day River Basin Unit in eastern Oregon includes the North Fork, the Middle Fork, and mainstem portions of the John Day River and their tributary streams in Wheeler, Grant, and Umatilla counties. A total of 1,080 km ( 671 mi) of stream habitat is proposed for designation as critical habitat. Overall, 19 percent of the proposed areas within the John Day River Unit are currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 54 percent of the waters proposed for designation within the John Day Unit are located on Federal land. 41. The John Day River Unit is a relatively low cost unit, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are forecast to be between $ 446,000 and $ 600,000. Of this amount, a large portion, approximately $ 278,000 annually, will be made up of administrative costs. The remainder of the forecast costs are associated with required project modifications. Specifically, project modifications associated with timber harvest on USFS lands ($ 57,000 to $ 143,000 per year from reductions in harvest, fisheries studies, road and culvert costs, and changes in yarding systems) and placer mining on USFS lands ( up to $ 88,000 per year associated with requirements for and limitations on allowed stream crossing activity) are expected to generate the greatest share of project modification costs in this unit. Costs associated with agricultural irrigation diversion reductions could range from zero to $ 58,000 annually. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 10,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. The John Day River Basin is one of two units identified in this study as a setting where bull trout related project modifications could have a significant impact on a small placer mining business, the other is the Hells Canyon Complex ( Unit 12). 42. Unit 9: Umatilla- Walla Walla River Basins - The Umatilla and Walla Walla Rivers Unit is located in northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. The unit includes 636 km ( 395 mi) of streams extending across portions of Umatilla, Union, and Wallowa counties in Oregon, and Walla Walla and Columbia counties in Washington. Overall, 17 percent of the proposed critical habitat within this unit is currently unoccupied by the species. A relatively low portion ( 32 percent) of the waters proposed for designation within the Umatilla- Walla Walla Unit are located on Federal land. 43. The Umatilla- Walla Walla River Unit is among the lowest cost units, in terms of consultation- related cost per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. It is estimated that total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit will be between $ 98,000 and $ 211,000. Of this amount, approximately $ 59,000 annually will be associated with the administrative costs of the consultation process and the remainder with required project modifications. Specifically, fisheries studies associated with FCRPS consultations could cost up to $ 43,000 annually. Project modification associated with timber harvest on USFS lands is expected to be another significant category of future costs in this unit ($ 26,000 to $ 65,000 per year). Agricultural irrigation diversions could experience up to $ 26,000 in annual project modification costs within this unit. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 10,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. In addition to the consultation and project modification costs, the Walla Walla Drainage is in ES- 20 the final stages of developing a basin- wide habitat conservation plan to protect bull trout, among other species. The plan has cost approximately $ 4 million to develop, and it is expected an additional $ 1 million will be spent to complete the plan during the next year or two. 44. Unit 10: Grande Ronde River Basin - The Grande Ronde Unit extends across Union, Wallowa, and Umatilla counties in northeastern Oregon, and Asotin, Columbia, and Garfield counties in southeastern Washington. This unit includes the Grande Ronde River from its headwaters to the confluence with the Snake River and a number of its tributaries, the largest being the Wallowa River. Approximately 1,030 km ( 640 mi) of stream habitat in the Grande Ronde River basin is proposed for critical habitat designation. Overall, seven percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Grand Ronde River Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 52 percent of the waters proposed for designation within this unit are located on Federal land. 45. The Grand Ronde River Unit is a low- cost unit, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit will be between $ 467,000 and $ 580,000. Of this amount, the vast majority, approximately $ 417,000 annually, are forecast to be administrative costs. The remainder of the forecast costs are associated with required project modifications. Specifically, fisheries studies within the unit associated with FCRPS consultations could cost up to $ 19,000 annually. Timber harvest on USFS lands is expected to be another significant source of future project modification costs in this unit ($ 34,000 to $ 87,000 per year resulting from reduced harvest, fisheries studies, and road and culvert costs, and changes in yarding systems). Agricultural irrigation diversion costs could be up to $ 35,000. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 10,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 46. Unit 11: Imnaha/ Snake River Basins - The Imnaha/ Snake Unit extends across Wallowa, Baker, and Union counties in northeastern Oregon and Adams and Idaho counties in western Idaho. The unit contains approximately 306 km ( 190 mi) of proposed critical habitat. All of the proposed habitat within the Imnaha- Snake River Unit is currently occupied by the species. Approximately 51 percent of the waters proposed for designation within this unit are located on Federal land. 47. The Imnaha/ Snake River Unit is a moderate- cost unit, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 559,000 and $ 605,000. Of this amount, the large majority are made up of administrative costs ( approximately $ 544,000, annually). The remainder of the forecast costs are associated with required project modifications. Specifically, fishery studies within the unit associated with FCRPS consultations could cost up to $ 18,000 annually. Timber harvest activities on USFS lands are expected to be another significant category of future project modification costs ($ 10,000 to $ 26,000 per year). Agricultural irrigation diversion related project modification costs could range from zero ES- 21 to $ 11,000. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 5,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 48. Unit 12: Hells Canyon Complex - The Hells Canyon Complex Unit encompasses basins in Idaho and Oregon draining into the Snake River and its associated reservoirs, from Hells Canyon Dam upstream to the confluence of the Weiser River. The Hells Canyon Complex unit includes a total of approximately 1,000 km ( 621 mi) of streams proposed as critical habitat. A relatively high portion ( about 48 percent) of the proposed critical habitat within the Hells Canyon Complex Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 47 percent of the waters proposed for designation within this unit are located on Federal land. 49. The Hells Canyon Complex Unit is a relatively moderate- cost unit, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. It is forecast that total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit will be between $ 1.9 million and $ 2.3 million. Of this amount, a majority are expected to be made up of administrative costs ( approximately $ 1.4 million, annually). In addition, significant categories of forecast project modification costs within this unit are associated with timber harvest on USFS lands ($ 92,000 to $ 233,000 per year resulting from reduced harvest, fishery studies, road and culvert costs, and changes in yarding systems), placer mining on USFS land ($ 69,000 associated with requirements for and limitations on allowed stream crossing activity), FERC hydroelectric re- licensing ($ 111,000 to $ 259,000), and BOR reservoir activities ($ 192,000 annually, primarily for study related costs). The BOR reservoirs in the unit include Phillips Reservoir and Thief Valley Reservoir; projected costs are for bull trout related studies. Major FERC- licensed hydroelectric facilities in the unit include Hells Canyon, Brownlee and Oxbow. Agricultural irrigation diversions could experience up to $ 95,000 in annual project modification costs within this unit. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than 20,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. The Hells Canyon complex is one of two units identified in this study as a setting where bull trout related project modifications could have a significant impact on a small placer mining business, the other is the John Day River Basin ( Unit 8). 50. Unit 13: Malheur River Basin - The Malheur Unit is in the Malheur River Basin in eastern Oregon, in Grant, Baker, Harney, and Malheur counties. A total of 389 km ( 241 mi) of streams and two reservoirs are proposed for critical habitat. About 25 percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Malheur River Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 63 percent of the waters proposed for designation within the Malheur River Unit are located on Federal land. 51. The Malheur River Unit is the second highest cost unit, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 2.0 million and $ 2.1 million. Project modification costs make up a small portion of these costs, between $ 179,000 and $ 268,000 annually. The rest of the forecast costs are associated with administrative requirements. Major categories of forecast project modification costs within this unit are associated with ES- 22 timber harvest on USFS lands ($ 33,000 to $ 83,000 per year) and BOR reservoir activities ($ 133,000 annually). The BOR costs are for research as well as trap and haul fish passage that is ongoing at Beulah Reservoir on the Malheur River, and estimated research costs at Warm Springs Reservoir, which is currently unoccupied by bull trout. Possible reductions in agricultural irrigation diversions could cost from zero to $ 34,000 annually . Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 5,000 per year in project modification costs. 52. Unit 14: Coeur d'Alene Lake Basin - The Coeur d'Alene Lake Basin Unit in Idaho is broken into two subunits. The Coeur d'Alene Lake subunit lies within Kootenai, Shoshone, Benewah and Bonner counties. The St. Joe River subunit includes streams in Shoshone, Benewah, and Latah counties, Idaho. Thirty stream reaches or tributaries ( 677 km ( 421 mi)) and lakes comprising 12,727 ha ( 31,450 ac) of surface area are proposed as critical habitat within this unit. Of this, a relatively high portion ( 46 percent) is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 58 percent of the waters proposed for designation within this Unit are located on Federal land. 53. The Coeur d'Alene Lake Unit is relatively low cost unit, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 429,000 and $ 693,000. A large share of this amount, approximately $ 287,000 annually, is forecast to be made up of administrative costs. In addition, major categories of forecast project modification costs within the unit are associated with timber harvest on USFS lands ($ 97,000 to $ 245,000 per year resulting from reduced harvest, fishery studies, road and culvert costs, and changes in yarding systems), and FHWA bridge and road work ($ 23,000 associated with limitations on in- stream work periods). Modifications to agricultural irrigation diversions could result in costs from zero to $ 100,000. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 10,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 54. Unit 15: Clearwater River Basin - The Clearwater River Unit includes 3,063 km ( 1,904 mi) of streams and 6,722 ha ( 16,611 ac) of lakes proposed as critical habitat for bull trout in north- central Idaho. This large unit extends from the Snake River confluence at Lewiston on the west to headwaters in the Bitterroot Mountains along the Idaho/ Montana border on the east. About 13 percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Clearwater River Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 78 percent of the waters proposed for designation within the Unit are located on Federal land. 55. Total forecast costs associated with consultation on bull trout within this unit are between $ 1.0 million and $ 1.7 million annually. Of this amount, approximately $ 572,000 is associated with administrative costs. In addition, major categories of forecast project modification costs within this unit are associated with timber harvest on USFS lands ($ 252,000 to $ 635,000 per year resulting from reduced harvest, fishery studies, road and culvert costs and changes in yarding systems), recreational suction mining on USFS land ($ 115,000 associated with reduced availability of stream access due to seasonal closures), highway bridge and road work ($ 25,000), and USFS management activities ($ 35,000 ES- 23 annually). Agricultural irrigation diversion project modification costs could range from zero up to $ 259,000 annually. These costs may result from reductions in irrigation deliveries. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 15,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 56. Although the proposed Clearwater River Basin Critical Habitat Unit is forecast to experience significant costs associated with the bull trout, these costs should be viewed in light of the large size of the proposed unit. In fact, the Clearwater Unit is one of the lowest cost of the proposed units, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. 57. Unit 16: Salmon River Basin - The Salmon River basin is a geographically large unit that extends across central Idaho from the Snake River to the Montana border. The critical habitat unit includes 7,688 km ( 4,777 mi) of streams extending across portions of Adams, Blaine, Custer, Idaho, Lemhi, Nez Perce, and Valley counties in Idaho. About six percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Salmon River Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 86 percent of the waters proposed for designation within the Unit are located on Federal land. 58. Forecast total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 2.1 million and $ 3.3 million. Of this amount, approximately $ 1.3 million is associated with administrative costs, with the rest made up of project modification costs. Major categories of forecast project modification costs are associated with timber harvest on USFS lands ($ 465,000 to $ 1.2 million per year resulting from reduced harvest, fishery studies, road and culvert costs and changes in yarding systems), highway bridge and road work ($ 57,000), and USFS general forest management activities ($ 65,000 annually). The cost of modifications to agricultural irrigation water deliveries could range from zero up to $ 479,000 annually. Costs associated with mining activities at Hecla Mining Company's Grouse Creek and Thompson Creek mines are estimated at $ 132,000 annually. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 25,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 59. Although the proposed Salmon River Basin Critical Habitat Unit has significant forecast costs associated with the bull trout, these costs should be viewed in light of the large size of the proposed unit. In fact, the Salmon River Unit is also one of the lowest cost of the proposed units, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. 60. Unit 17: Southwest Idaho River Basins - The Southwest Idaho Unit includes a total of approximately 2,792 km ( 1,735 mi) of streams in the Boise, Payette, and Weiser River basins. A number of southern Idaho counties are wholly or partially within this unit, including Ada, Adams, Boise, Camas, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, Payette, Valley, and Washington counties. The counties within the southern Idaho unit include both a significant portion of productive agricultural land as well as the largest population center in the state ( the Boise Valley). About 24 percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Southwest ES- 24 Idaho Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 78 percent of the proposed streams and 66 percent of proposed lakes and reservoirs within the Southwest Idaho River Basins Unit are located on Federal land. 61. The Southwest Idaho River Basins Unit is a relatively low- cost unit, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 1.0 million and $ 1.9 million. Total administrative costs are forecast to be a relatively small portion of this total ($ 328,000 annually). The remainder of the forecast costs are expected to result from forecast project modifications. Specifically, project modification costs within this unit are forecast to be associated with timber harvest on USFS lands ($ 309,000 to $ 781,000 per year resulting from reduced harvest, fishery studies, road and culvert costs and changes in yarding systems) and BOR reservoir activities ($ 263,000 annually). Major BOR reservoirs in this unit include Anderson Ranch and Arrowrock Reservoirs on the Boise River, Cascade Reservoir on the North Fork Payette, and Deadwood Reservoir on the Payette River. Forecast project modification costs include bull trout life- cycle studies and monitoring at all the reservoirs, and trap and haul passage around the Boise River reservoirs. Costs associated with FERC relicensing at the Lucky Peak facility on the Boise River, and power facilities at the Cascade impoundment, are expected to cost between $ 31,000 and $ 58,000 annually. Modifications to agricultural irrigation diversions could range from zero to $ 318,000 annually. These costs could potentially be associated with reductions in irrigation water withdrawals. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 30,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 62. Unit 18: Little Lost River Basin - The Little Lost River Unit is within Butte, Custer, and Lemhi counties in east- central Idaho. Approximately 184.6 km ( 115.4 mi) of stream habitat in the Little Lost River Basin is proposed for critical habitat designation. About eight percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Little Lost River Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 76 percent of the proposed streams within the Little Lost River Basin Unit are located on Federal land. 63. The Little Lost River Unit is forecast to be a relatively inexpensive unit compared to others in the designation, and is a moderate- cost unit in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. It is estimated that total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit will be between $ 150,000 and $ 176,000. Of this amount, a large share, approximately $ 136,000 annually, is forecast to be comprised of administrative costs, with the remainder made up of project modification costs. The largest category of project modification costs within this unit is forecast to be associated with timber harvest on USFS lands ($ 10,000 to $ 24,000 per year). Project modifications to agricultural irrigation diversions could result in costs from zero to $ 10,000 annually. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 5,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 64. Unit 19: Lower Columbia River Basin - The Lower Columbia Unit consists of portions of the Lewis, White Salmon, and Klickitat Rivers, and associated tributaries in ES- 25 southwestern and south- central Washington. The unit extends across Clark, Cowlitz, Klickitat, Skamania, and Yakima counties. Approximately 340 km ( 210 mi) of streams and three reservoirs covering 5,054 ha ( 12,488 ac) are proposed for critical habitat designation. About 20 percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Lower Columbia River Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. A low portion ( 18 percent) of the proposed streams and 29 percent of the proposed lakes and reservoirs within the Lower Columbia River Basin Unit are located on Federal land. 65. When forecast total costs for this unit are viewed in light of its size, the Lower Columbia River Basins Unit is a moderate- cost unit, in terms of forecast cost per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. It is estimated that total annual costs associated with the bull trout within the unit will be between $ 385,000 to $ 494,000. Total administrative costs associated with the consultation process are estimated to be a relatively large fraction of these costs ($ 304,000 annually). In addition, project modification costs are forecast to be associated with FERC hydroelectric facility re- licensing activities ($ 67,000 to $ 153,000 annually). These FERC re- licensing costs are for the significant hydroelectric developments on the Lewis River, including Yale, Merwin, Swift No. 1, and Swift No. 2. These costs are projected to include study costs, trap and haul passage, and habitat acquisition. Swift No, 2 is one of two hydroelectric projects identified in this study where bull trout- related project modifications could have a significant impact on a small business; the other is Box Canyon in the Northeast Washington River Basin ( Unit 22). Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 10,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 66. Unit 20: Middle Columbia River Basin - The Middle Columbia River unit encompasses the entire Yakima River basin located in south central Washington, draining approximately 15,900 square km ( 6,155 square mi). The basin occupies most of Yakima and Kittitas counties, about half of Benton County, and a small portion of Klickitat County. Approximately 846 km ( 529 mi) of stream habitat and 6,066 ha ( 14,986 ac) of lake and reservoir surface area are proposed as critical habitat within this unit. About 13 percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Middle Columbia River Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 44 percent of the waters proposed for designation within the Middle Columbia River Basin Unit are located on Federal land. 67. The Middle Columbia River Unit is a relatively low- cost unit in terms of cost per stream mile. Forecast costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 391,000 and $ 494,000 annually. Of this amount, a very small portion, approximately $ 50,000 annually, will be associated with the administrative costs of the consultation process, while the remainder will be associated with project modifications. While there are projected to be project modification costs associated with timber harvest activities ( through consultation with the USFS; estimated to be between $ 36,000 and $ 91,000 annually), the majority of forecast costs for this unit are associated with dam and reservoir operations. The BOR operates a system of five dams in this basin ( Cle Elum Lake, Kachess Lake, Keechelus Lake, Tieton Dam, and Bumping Lake) which provide power and irrigation for this agriculturally important region. It is estimated that project modification costs ( periodic trap- ES- 26 and- haul passage to allow genetic interchange between isolated bull trout populations) at the BOR operated impoundments in the unit will cost approximately $ 290,000 per year. Other activities are individually estimated to account for a small portion of forecast annual project modification costs. 68. TheMiddle Columbia River Unit is a relatively low- cost unit in terms of cost per stream mile. 69. Unit 21: Upper Columbia River Basin - The Upper Columbia River Basin includes three subunits in central and northern Washington: the Wenatchee River subunit in Chelan County; the Entiat River subunit in Chelan County; and the Methow River subunit in Okanogan County. A total of 909.7 km ( 565.4 mi) of streams and 1,010 ha ( 2,497 ac) of lake surface area are proposed for critical habitat. About nine percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Upper Columbia River Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 58 percent of the proposed streams and 41 percent of the proposed lakes and reservoirs within the Upper Columbia River Basin Unit are located on Federal land. 70. The Upper Columbia River Basins Unit is a low- cost unit, in terms of forecast cost per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 196,000 to $ 505,000 annually. Total administrative costs associated with the consultation process are estimated to be $ 122,000, with the remainder of the forecast costs made up of project modification requirements. Major categories of forecast project modification costs within this unit are associated with FCRPS fisheries studies ( zero to $ 155,000 per year), and USFS timber harvest activities ($ 57,000 to $ 144,000 annually resulting from reduced harvest, fishery studies, road and culvert costs and changes in yarding systems). The FCRPS fisheries studies are for bull trout radio telemetry, snorkel and general monitoring study costs in the Entiat, Methow, and Wenatchee Rivers. In addition, modifications to agricultural irrigation diversions could result in costs from zero to $ 59,000 annually. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 10,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 71. Unit 22: Northeast Washington River Basins - The Northeast Washington unit includes bull trout above Chief Joseph Dam on the Columbia River. A total of 373.1 km ( 231.9 mi) of streams and 1,166 ha ( 2,880 ac) of lake surface area are proposed as critical habitat within this unit. A high proportion ( 54 percent) of the proposed critical habitat within the Northeast Washington River Basins Unit is currently unoccupied by the species, and approximately 58 percent of the proposed streams and reservoirs within this unit are located on Federal land. 72. The Northeast Washington River Basins Unit is forecast to be a relatively high- cost unit, in terms of forecast cost per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 965,000 to $ 1.4 million annually. Total annual administrative costs are estimated to be a large share of these costs ($ 676,000), with the remainder associated with project modifications. A major category of ES- 27 annual project modification costs within this unit involves FERC hydroelectric facility re-licensing activities ( up to $ 540,000 annually). The estimated FERC re- licensing costs are related to two major hydroelectric facilities on the Pend Orielle River: Box Canyon and Boundary. The Box Canyon re- licensing terms are currently in continuing settlement negotiations, and likely costs specific to this facility are not currently available. However, a recent FERC environmental impact statement ( EIS) estimates that the present value of bull trout related project modifications ( including habitat acquisition) could total upwards of $ 60 million for this relatively small ( 60 MW) facility. Box Canyon is one of two hydroelectric projects identified in this study where bull trout- related project modifications could have a significant impact on a small business; the other is Swift No. 2 in the Lower Columbia River Basin ( Unit 19). Modifications to agricultural irrigation diversions could impose costs from zero to $ 46,000 annually. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 10,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 73. Unit 23: Snake River Basin in Washington - The Snake River Washington Unit includes two critical habitat subunits located in southeast Washington: the Tucannon River subunit located in Columbia and Garfield counties, and the Asotin Creek subunit within Garfield and Asotin counties. A total of 326 km ( 203 mi) of stream reaches are proposed as critical habitat within this unit. About 23 percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Snake River Basin in Washington Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 52 percent of the proposed streams within the Snake River Basin Unit are located on Federal land. 74. The Snake River Basin Unit is a relatively low- cost unit, in terms of forecast cost per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast costs associated with the bull trout within the unit will be between $ 230,000 to $ 287,000. Total annual administrative costs associated with the bull trout are estimated to be a large portion of this total ($ 201,000). The major category of project modification costs within this unit is forecast to be associated with USFS timber harvest activities ($ 21,000 to $ 53,000 annually). Agricultural irrigation diversions could see up to $ 22,000 in annual project modification costs within this unit. Other activities are estimated to each account for less than $ 5,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 75. Unit 24: Columbia River - This unit is located in the states of Oregon and Washington and includes Clatsop, Columbia, Multnomah, Hood River, Wasco, Sherman, Gilliam, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Pacific, Wahkiakum, Cowlitz, Clark, Skamania, Klickitat, Benton, Walla Walla, Franklin, Yakima, Grant, Kittitas, Chelan, Douglas, and Okanogan counties in Washington. All of this stretch of the Columbia River is currently considered occupied by the bull trout. A relatively low share of the land adjacent to the river in this unit is made up of Federally managed lands ( approximately 39 percent). 76. The Columbia River Unit is a relatively low- cost unit, in terms of forecast cost per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast total costs associated with the bull trout within this unit will be between $ 243,000 to $ 504,000 annually. Total annual ES- 28 administrative costs associated with this unit are relatively low ($ 50,000). The major category of annual project modification costs within the unit are forecast to be associated FERC hydroelectric facility re- licensing activities ( up to $ 362,000 annually). Major FERC-licensed hydroelectric projects on the mainstem Columbia River include Priest Rapids, Rocky Reach, and Wells. These very large facilities are operated by PUD's. Other activities are individually forecast to account for less than $ 15,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 77. Unit 25: Snake River - The lower Snake River is located in Washington ( Franklin, Walla Walla, Columbia, Whitman, and Asotin counties) from its mouth to the confluence with the Clearwater River at the cities of Clarkston, Washington and Lewiston, Idaho. The Snake River forms the border between Washington and Idaho from Clarkston/ Lewiston upstream to the Oregon border. The Snake River forms the boundary between Idaho and Oregon from that point upstream to the limit of this critical habitat unit. This portion of the Snake River is within Nez Perce, Idaho, Adams, and Washington counties in Idaho, and Wallowa, Baker, and Malheur counties in Oregon. About 20 percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Snake River Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 50 percent of the habitat proposed for designation within the Snake River Unit is located on Federal land. 78. The Snake River Unit is a relatively low- cost unit, in terms of forecast cost per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are approximately $ 135,000. Administrative costs associated with the consultation process are estimated to be nearly all of that amount, or $ 125,000 annually. Small Business Effects 79. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) ( as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA) of 1996), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( i. e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). The following summarizes the potential effects of critical habitat designation on small entities: Reductions in contractual USFS water deliveries could significantly impact five ranching/ farming operations annually. However, the location of the reduction in water deliveries within the critical habitat designation is uncertain. Small hydroelectric producers in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana could be affected by project modification costs at the time of facility re- licensing. Specifically, the resulting project modifications could have a significant economic impact on the financial operations of Cowlitz County public utility district ( PUD) ( Unit 19 - Lower Columbia River) and Pend Orielle County PUD ( Unit 22 - Northeast Washington River). ES- 29 • Section 7- related costs associated with instream work is expected to affect approximately 15 placer mines annually in the John Day River Basin ( Unit 8) and Hells Canyon Complex ( Unit 12). While the financial characteristics of these mining operations are unknown, this analysis assumes the economic effect will be significant for those operations that are impacted. Energy Industry Impacts 80. Pursuant to Executive Order No. 13211, Federal agencies are required to submit a summary of the potential effects of regulatory actions on the supply, distribution and use of energy. Two criteria are relevant to this analysis: 1) reductions in electricity production in excess of 1 billion kilowatt- hours per year or in excess of 500 megawatts ( MWs) of installed capacity and 2) increases in the cost of energy production in excess of one percent. The constraints placed on energy production within the region from compliance with bull trout section 7 consultations will not result in significant decreases in production or increases in energy costs within the region. Changes From Draft Economic Analysis 81. Information supplied though public comments to the Draft Economic Analysis along with additional information from Action agency and Service personnel on issues raised through public comment led to several changes to the analysis. This Final Economic Analysis contains the following significant changes from the draft report. 1) Additional information on Habitat Conservation Plans ( HCPs) currently under development within the proposed designation has been incorporated. Additional costs on the order of one million dollars annually have been added to the estimated costs reported. 2) The BOR supplied extensive comments on current and potential costs associated with consultation on its impoundments. Costs associated with potential project modifications to Yakima Drainage dams ( as well as for other BOR impoundments within the proposed designation) have been reduced in response to the new BOR information. 3) Information from Hecla Mining Company identified additional consultation- related costs for the Hecla Grouse Creek and Thompson Creek mines. These costs have been included in the section 4 discussion of USFS mining activity. 4) Information from USFS personnel from the Wallowa/ Whitman National Forest identified impacts associated with limitations on in- stream work windows for placer mining operations as baseline State of Oregon regulations that are independent of bull trout section 7 consultation. Estimated impacts to Oregon placer mining have been adjusted accordingly. ES- 30 5) Additionally, corrections to minor errors within the report, not impacting final cost estimates, have been made in response to public comments. Caveats to Economic Analysis 82. Exhibit ES. 10 presents the key assumptions of this economic analysis, as well as the potential direction and relative scale of bias introduced by the assumptions. 83. These caveats below describe factors that introduce uncertainty into the results of this analysis. ES. 10 CAVEATS TO THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Key Assumption Projected USFS timber harvest activity is based on recent regional history and ignores the declining long- term trend of the industry. USFS water diversion reductions occur annually and representative water costs reflect the high- end of water lease rates in Washington. Cost of USFS water diversion reductions and timber harvest project modifications are distributed across the units in proportion to USFS non- wilderness acreage. While this may have no effect on the total cost estimate, it may have an effect on the unit cost estimate. Total costs of providing technical assistance is expected to be small relative to other economic impacts; therefore, this analysis does not quantify the instances and costs of technical assistance efforts. Project modifications incorporating measures suggested by the Service and voluntarily agreed to by the applicant during the informal consultation process in order to minimize impact to the bull trout and/ or its habitat are not quantified in this analysis. Amortization of fishery- related capital investments are based on the life of the project rather than a shorter revenue recovery period. Changes in hydroelectric power revenues attributable to reductions in operational flexibility at Libby and Hungry Horse dams is not quantified Most of the project modification costs will either be borne directly by or passed onto the Federal government. The FPA, the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, and fisheries management directives ( Northwest Forest Plan, INFISH and PACFISH) provide baseline protection. Project modification costs allocated between bull trout and other listed species. Limited consultation with the NRCS is anticipated and based on a the record of past formal and informal consultation activity on the bull trout Effect on Cost Estimate + + +/- - - - - +/- +/- +/- - -: This assumption may result in an underestimate of real costs. + : This assumption may result in an overestimate of real costs. +/-: This assumption has an unknown effect on estimates. ES- 31 Estimated Cost of the Final Designation 84. The analysis contained in this report is consistent with the designation as described in the proposed rule; 5 however, the Service is expected to exclude some proposed areas of habitat to arrive at a final designation. The purpose of this section is to detail the expected changes to the proposed designation and show the implication of these changes on estimated consultation and project modification costs. 85. Exhibit ES. ll compares the spatial extent of the proposed and expected final designations for bull trout critical habitat for both river and stream miles and lake and reservoir acres. Overall, 1,925 miles of rivers and streams and approximately 55,000 acres of lakes and reservoirs are expected to be excluded from critical habitat in the final designation. The greatest reductions in critical habitat stream miles are expected to occur in the Deschutes River Unit ( 60.5 percent reduction), Hood River Unit ( 33.2 percent), Southwest Idaho River Basins Unit ( 32.8 percent), and the Hells Canyon Complex Unit ( 21.3 percent). Most of the reductions in lake and reservoir critical habitat acres are expected to occur in the Deschutes River, Southwest Idaho River Basins and Malheur River Units, all with more than a 70 percent reduction in designated lake and reservoir critical habitat compared to the original proposed designation. ExhibitES. il SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN BULL TROUT CRITICAL HABITAT FROM PROPOSED TO FINAL DESIGNATION Unit Unit 1 - Klamath River Basin Unit 2 - Clark Fork River Basin Unit 3 - Kootenai River Basin Unit 4 - Willamette River Basin Unit 5 - Hood River Basin Unit 6 - Deschutes River Basin Unit 7 - Odell Lake Unit 8 - John Day River Basin Unit 9 - Umatilla- Walla Walla River Basins Unit 10 - Grande Ronde River Basin Unit 11 - Imaha/ Snake River Basins Unit 12 - Hells Canyon Complex Unit 13 - Malheur River Basin Unit 14 - Coeur d'Alene Lake Basin Proposed Designation Stream Miles 296 3,372 368 200 103 439 15 639 396 644 191 599 233 403 Lake and Reservoir Acres 33,939 304,226 30,094 8,899 91 23,314 6,439 0 0 0 0 0 5,926 27,296 Final Designation Stream Miles 280 3,368 368 200 69 173 13 563 348 625 191 471 214 403 Lake and Reservoir Acres 33,939 304,225 30,094 8,899 91 3,407 6,439 0 0 0 0 0 1,769 27,296 5 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Klamath River and Columbia River Distinct Population Segments of Bull Trout, November 29, 2002 ( 67 FR 71235- 71284). ES- 32 Exhibit ES. ll SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN BULL TROUT CRITICAL HABITAT FROM PROPOSED TO FINAL DESIGNATION Unit Unit 15 - Clearwater River Basin Unit 16 - Salmon River Basin Unit 17 - Southwest Idaho River Basins Unit 18 - Little Lost River Basin Unit 19 - Lower Columbia River Basin Unit 20 - Middle Columbia River Basin Unit 21 - Upper Columbia River Basin Unit 22 - Northwest Washington River Basins Unit 23 - Snake River Basin in Washington Unit 24 - Columbia River Basin Unit 25 - Snake River Basin Total Proposed Designation Stream Miles 1,904 4,296 1,657 113 171 523 591 232 204 537 343 18,468 Lake and Reservoir Acres 16,610 3,683 41,307 0 12,078 14,987 2,553 1,279 0 0 0 532.724 Final Designation Stream Miles 1,655 3,835 1,114 110 145 519 578 232 189 537 343 16,543 Lake and Reservoir Acres 16,610 3,487 10,651 0 12,000 15,548 2,553 1,279 0 0 0 478,188 86. As noted, the costs reported in the body of this report are consistent with the proposed designation. Expected changes to the proposed designation and the impact of these exclusions on costs are summarized in Exhibit ES. 12, where estimates of annual section 7- related consultation costs for both the proposed and expected final bull trout critical habitat designations are shown. The expected changes to the final designation impacts estimated costs in two ways. 87. First, where future consultation and project modification costs were estimated for dams and reservoirs located within stream reaches that are expected to be excluded from the final critical habitat designation, the costs associated with these anticipated consultations are removed. Three critical habitat units have dams and reservoirs located on waters expected to be excluded in the final designation. The previously quantified costs associated with consultations on Lucky Peak and Cascade Dams and Reservoirs, and Warm Springs, Crane Prairie, and Wickiup Reservoirs have therefore been removed from the forecast total costs associated with the final critical habitat designation. Costs associated with consultations on Lucky Peak and Cascade Dams and Reservoirs have been removed from estimates for the Southwest Idaho River Basins Units, costs associated with consultation on Warm Springs Reservoir have been removed from estimates for the Malheur River Unit, and costs associated with consultations on Crane Prairie and Wickiup Reservoirs have been removed from estimates for the Deschutes River Unit. 88. Second, because the Service is expected to exclude areas of unknown occupancy from the final designation, the spatial extent of unoccupied habitat in each critical habitat ES- 33 unit is adjusted to reflect the expected final designation ( see Appendix F, Exhibit F. 11), and the forecast costs of the expected final designation reflect these changes. 89. Exhibit ES. 12 presents a summary of the annualized forecast total costs, by unit, likely to be associated with the final critical habitat designation over the next ten years. Overall, the removal of waters from the proposed to the expected final bull trout designation is expected to lower forecast section 7- related consultation and project modification costs by approximately $ 18 to $ 24 million over the next ten years ( nine percent). In six units where no changes in the proposed designation were made, there is no change in forecast costs. As a percentage of unit costs, the greatest reduction in forecast costs resulting from the exclusions is expected to occur in the Deschutes River Basin Unit, where forecast costs of the expected final designation are 43 to 55 percent of the costs originally forecast for the proposed designation. 90. The economic impacts associated with the final designation, discounted to present value using a rate of seven percent, are forecast to range from approximately $ 180 to $ 245 million over the next ten years, or $ 18.0 to $ 24.5 million annually. Total costs associated with the final designation for the Klamath Distinct Population Segment of bull trout are forecast to range from approximately $ 5 million to $ 7 million over the next ten years ($ 0.5 to 0.7 million annually), while costs associated with the final designation for the Columbia Distinct Population Segment of bull trout are forecast to range from approximately $ 175 million $ 235 million ($ 17.5 to $ 23.5 million annually). 91. These costs will be incurred primarily by Federal agencies responsible for section 7 consultations ( approximately 65 percent of forecast costs) and the Service ( approximately five to ten percent of forecast costs); private entities will incur the remaining 25 to 30 percent. Project modification costs account for as much as 50 to 60 percent of forecast costs, and administrative costs the remaining 40 to 50 percent. Dam and reservoir- related consultations, including power facility re- licensing, account for approximately 42 percent of forecast project modification costs ( excluding the cost associated with reduced irrigation diversions). Timber harvest, irrigation diversions, habitat conservation plans, and mining account for 20 percent, 12 percent, nine percent, and three percent of forecast project modification costs, respectively. 92. The main text of the report discusses impacts to small businesses expected under the rulemaking as proposed. Impacts to small businesses are primarily related to potential reductions in USFS water deliveries to farmers/ ranchers, project modifications triggered during hydroelectric facility re- licensing, and costs associated with activity restrictions for placer mining. Under the final designation, the reduction in small business impacts would parallel the extent to which these activities occur in habitat removed from the final designation and losses related to these activities reduced. ES- 34 Exhibit ES. 12 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION SECTION 7 COSTS FOR THE BULL TROUT ( Annualized $ l, 000fs) Unit Unit 1 - Klamath River Basin Unit 2 - Clark Fork River Basin Unit 3 - Kootenai River Basin Unit 4 - Willamette River Basin Unit 5 - Hood River Basin Unit 6 - Deschutes River Basin Unit 7 - Odell Lake Unit 8 - John Day River Basin Unit 9 - Umatilla- Walla Walla River Basins Unit 10 - Grande Ronde River Basin Unit 11 - Imaha/ Snake River Basins Unit 12 - Hells Canyon Complex Unit 13 - Malheur River Basin Unit 14 - Coeur d'Alene Lake Basin Unit 15 - Clearwater River Basin Unit 16 - Salmon River Basin Unit 17 - Southwest Idaho River Basins Unit 18 - Little Lost River Basin Unit 19 - Lower Columbia River Basin Unit 20 - Middle Columbia River Basin Unit 21 - Upper Columbia River Basin Unit 22 - Northwest Washington River Basins Unit 23 - Snake River Basin in Washington Unit 24 - Columbia River Basin Estimated Range of Cost Proposed Critical Habitat Designation Low Estimate $ 529 1,321 328 4,497 328 430 51 446 98 467 559 1,939 2,006 429 995 2,059 1,004 150 385 391 196 965 230 243 High Estimate $ 733 2,192 402 4,891 413 719 56 600 211 580 605 2,338 2,095 693 1,676 3,319 1,867 176 494 494 505 1,397 287 504 Estimated Range of Cost Final Critical Habitat Designation Low Estimate $ 507 1,321 328 3,463 248 195 51 411 81 444 559 1,443 1,792 279 881 1,942 698 144 308 376 178 663 177 243 High Estimate $ 703 2,192 402 3,766 312 401 56 553 175 551 605 1,740 1,874 450 1,483 3,130 1,348 169 396 475 460 959 221 504 ES- 35 Exhibit ES. 12 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION SECTION 7 COSTS FOR THE BULL TROUT ( Annualized $ l, 000fs) Unit Unit 25 - Snake River Basin Multiple unit or unknown a Estimated Range of Cost Proposed Critical Habitat Designation Low Estimate 135 1,303 High Estimate 135 1,303 Estimated Range of Cost Final Critical Habitat Designation Low Estimate 135 1,303 High Estimate 135 1,303 Notes: These estimates include all section 7 costs, including those co- extensive with the listing and designation of critical habitat for the bull trout. Costs are reported in 2003 dollars. a Miscellaneous costs ($ 213,000 annually) and the costs associated with development of HCP's ($ 1,090,000 annually) have not been allocated to the unit level due to uncertainty as to their location. ES- 36 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND SECTION 1 93. In November 2002, the Service proposed to designate critical habitat for the Columbia River and Klamath River DPSs of bull trout ( Salvelinus confluentus), hereafter " bull trout." 6 The purpose of this report is to identify and analyze potential economic impacts associated with the proposed critical habitat designation. This report was prepared by Bioeconomics, Inc. of Missoula, Montana. 94. Section 4( b)( 2) of the Act requires the Service to designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Service may exclude areas from critical habitat designation when the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of including the areas within critical habitat, provided the exclusion will not result in extinction of the species. 95. Under the listing of a species, section 7( a)( 2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service in order to ensure that activities they fund, authorize, permit, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. The Service defines jeopardy as any action that would appreciably reduce the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the species. For designated critical habitat, section 7( a)( 2) also requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service to ensure that activities they fund, authorize, permit, or carry out do not result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Adverse modification of critical habitat is currently construed as any direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for conservation of a listed species. 6 On January 26,2001, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Inc. and Friends of the Wild Swan, Inc. filed a lawsuit in the U. S. District Court of Oregon challenging the Service's failure to designate critical habitat for bull trout. The Service entered into a settlement agreement on January 14, 2002, which stipulated that the Service would make critical habitat determinations for five populations of bull trout ( Civil Case No: CV 01- 127- JO). The Service has proposed critical habitat for the Columbia River and Klamath River populations, which are the subject of this analysis. 1- 1 1.1 Description of Species and Habitat7 96. Bull trout { Salvelinus confluentus, family Salmonidae) is a char native to waters of western North America. The historic range of bull trout includes major river basins in the Pacific Northwest from about 41° north to 60° north latitude, extending south to the McCloud River in northern California and the Jarbidge River in Nevada, and north to the headwaters of the Yukon River in Northwest Territories, Canada. To the west, bull trout range includes Puget Sound, various coastal rivers of British Columbia, Canada, and southeast Alaska. Bull trout occur in portions of the Columbia River and Snake River basins, extending east to headwater streams in Montana and Idaho, and into Canada. Bull trout also occur in the Klamath River basin of south- central Oregon. East of the Continental Divide in Canada, the bull trout's range includes the headwaters of the Saskatchewan River in Alberta, and the MacKenzie River system in Alberta and British Columbia. 97. Bull trout were first described as Salmo spectabilis by Girard in 1856 from a specimen collected on the lower Columbia River near The Dalles, Oregon, and subsequently described under a number of names such as Salmo confluentus and Salvelinus malma. Bull trout and Dolly Varden ( Salvelinus malma) were previously considered a single species. However, in 1980, the American Fisheries Society formally recognized bull trout and Dolly Varden as separate species. Two of the most useful characteristics in separating the two species are the shape and size of the head. The head of bull trout is more broad and flat on top, unlike Dolly Varden. Bull trout have an elongated body and large mouth, with the maxilla ( jaw) extending beyond the eye and with well- developed teeth on both jaws and head of the vomer ( a bone in teleost fishes that form the front part of the roof of the mouth and often bears teeth). Bull trout have 11 dorsal fin rays, nine anal fin rays, and the caudal fin is slightly forked. Although they are often olive green to brown with paler sides, color is variable with locality and habitat. 98. Bull trout exhibit both resident and migratory life history strategies. Resident bull trout complete their entire life cycle in the tributary streams where they spawn and rear. Migratory bull trout spawn in tributary streams where juvenile fish rear from one to four years before migrating to either a larger river or lake, where they spend their adult life, returning to the tributary stream only to spawn. These migratory forms occur in areas where conditions allow for movement from upper watershed spawning streams to larger downstream waters that contain greater foraging opportunities. Bull trout that migrate to a downstream river are referred to as " fluvial" fish, while the term " adfluvial" is used to describe fish that migrate to a lake or reservoir. Resident and migratory forms may spawn in the same areas and either form can produce resident or migratory offspring. 7 Information on the bull trout and its habitat is taken from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Klamath River and Columbia River Distinct Population Segments of Bull Trout, November 29, 2002 ( 67 FR 71235- 71284). 1- 2 99. The Klamath River population segment consists of bull trout in the Upper Klamath Lake, Sprague River, and Sycan River watersheds in Oregon. Historical records suggest that bull trout were once widely distributed and exhibited diverse life- history traits in the Klamath River basin. Currently, bull trout in this basin are non- migratory fish that are confined to headwater streams. The local populations that remain reside in an estimated 21 percent of the historic range of bull trout in the Klamath River basin, and they are isolated from one another. 100. The Columbia River population segment includes bull trout residing in portions of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana. The Bull Trout Draft Recovery Plan ( Draft Recovery Plan) ( Service 2002) identifies 22 recovery units within the Columbia River basin: the Willamette River ( upper tributaries including the McKenzie River), Lower Columbia River ( principally the Lewis, White Salmon, and Klickitat Rivers), Hood River, Deschutes River, Odell Lake, John Day River, Umatilla and Walla Walla Rivers, Middle Columbia River ( principally the Yakima River), Snake River ( including Asotin Creek and Tucannon River), Grande Ronde River, Clearwater River, Salmon River, Little Lost River, Imnaha River, Hells Canyon ( including Powder River), Malheur River, Southwest Idaho, Upper Columbia River ( principally the Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow Rivers), Northeast Washington, Clark Fork River, Kootenai River, and Coeur d'Alene Lake. Bull trout are estimated to have once occupied about 60 percent of the Columbia River basin; they presently occur in approximately 45 percent of their historic range. Although still somewhat widely distributed in the Columbia River basin, bull trout occur in low numbers in many areas and populations are considered depressed or declining across much of their range. 101. Many factors have contributed to the decline of bull trout in the Columbia and Klamath River basins. However, several appear to be particularly significant: ( 1) fragmentation and isolation of local populations due to dams and water diversions that have eliminated habitat, altered water flow and temperature regimes, and impeded migratory movements; ( 2) degradation of spawning and rearing habitat in upper watershed areas, particularly alterations in sedimentation rates and water temperature resulting from past forest and rangeland management practices and intensive development of roads; and ( 3) the introduction and spread of non- native species, particularly brook trout ( Salvelinusfontinalis) and lake trout ( Salvelinus namaycush), which compete with bull trout for limited resources and, in the case of brook trout, hybridize with bull trout. 102. Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements than most other salmonids. Habitat components that influence bull trout distribution and abundance include water temperature, cover, channel form and stability, spawning and rearing substrate conditions, and migratory corridors. 103. Bull trout are found primarily in cold streams; water temperatures above 15° Celsius ( C) ( 59° Fahrenheit ( F)) are believed to limit bull trout distribution. Adult bull trout have been observed in large rivers throughout the Columbia River basin in water temperatures up to 20° C ( 68° F); however, there are documented steady and substantial declines in 1- 3 abundance in stream reaches where water temperature ranged from 15° to 20° C ( 59° to 68° F). In large rivers, bull trout are often observed " dipping" into the lower reaches of tributary streams, and it is suspected that cooler waters in these tributary mouths may provide important thermal refugia, allowing them to forage, migrate, and overwinter in waters that would otherwise be, at least seasonally, too warm. 104. Preferred spawning habitat consists of low- gradient stream reaches with loose, clean gravel, and water temperatures that range from 4° to 10° C ( 39° to 51° F). Such areas are often associated with cold- water springs or groundwater up- welling. Because bull trout eggs incubate about seven months in the gravel, they are especially vulnerable to fine sediments and water quality degradation. Increases in fine sediment appear to reduce egg survival and emergence. Juveniles are likely similarly affected, as they also live on or within the stream bed cobble. 105. Throughout their lives, bull trout require complex forms of cover, including large woody debris, undercut banks, boulders, and pools. Bull trout are opportunistic feeders, with food habits that are primarily a function of size and life- history strategy. Resident and juvenile migratory bull trout prey on terrestrial and aquatic insects, macro- zooplankton, and small fish. Adult migratory bull trout feed almost exclusively on other fish. 106. The ability to migrate is important to the persistence of bull trout. Maintaining the full complement of bull trout life history forms appears to be important for long- term population persistence in a dynamic and unpredictable environment. Migratory bull trout become much larger than resident fish in the more productive waters of larger streams and lakes, leading to increased reproductive potential. Migration also results in increased dispersion of the population which facilitates gene flow among local populations when individuals from different local populations interbreed, stray, or return to non- natal streams. Local populations that are extirpated by catastrophic events may also become re- established by bull trout migrants. 107. Introduced brook trout threaten bull trout through hybridization, competition, and possibly predation. Hybridization between brook trout and bull trout has been reported in Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. In addition, brook trout mature at an earlier age and have a higher reproductive rate than bull trout. This difference appears to favor brook trout over bull trout when they occur together, often leading to the decline or extirpation of bull trout. Brook trout also appear to adapt better to degraded habitat than bull trout and are more tolerant of high water temperatures. Non- native lake trout also negatively affect bull trout. In a study of 34 lakes in Montana, Alberta, and British Columbia, lake trout appeared to limit foraging opportunities and reduce the distribution and abundance of migratory bull trout in mountain lakes. 108. The Service determined the primary constituent elements of bull trout habitat from studies of their habitat requirements, life history characteristics, and population biology, as outlined above. These primary constituent elements are: 1- 4 Permanent water and associated substrate having low levels of contaminants such that normal reproduction, growth and survival are not inhibited; Water temperatures ranging from 2° to 15° C ( 37° to 59° F). Adequate thermal refugia may be necessary for persistence of bull trout if water temperatures commonly exceed this range. Specific temperatures within this range will vary depending on bull trout life history stage and form, geography, elevation, diurnal and seasonal variation, shade, such as that provided by riparian habitat, and local groundwater influence; • Complex stream channels with features such as woody debris, side channels, pools, and undercut banks to provide a variety of depths, velocities, and instream structures; • Substrates of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young- of- the- year and juvenile survival. A minimal amount of fines less than 0.63 cm ( 0.25 in) in diameter and minimal substrate embeddedness are characteristic of these conditions; • A natural hydrograph, including high, low, peak, and base flows within historic ranges or, if regulated, a hydrograph that demonstrates the ability to support bull trout populations; • Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity to contribute to water quality and quantity; • Migratory corridors with minimal physical, biological or chemical barriers between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and foraging habitats, including intermittent or seasonal barriers induced by high water temperatures or low flows; • An abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish; and • Few or no predatory, interbreeding, or competitive non- native species present. An area need not include all of these elements to qualify for designation as critical habitat. 1.2 Proposed Critical Habitat 109. The areas proposed for designation as critical habitat for the bull trout provide one or more of the primary constituent elements described above. All of the proposed areas require special management considerations to ensure their contribution to the conservation of the bull trout. The critical habitat area consists of 18,469 river miles and 532,721 acres of lake and reservoir habitat within 25 units. While the lateral extent of proposed riverine 1- 5 critical habitat is the width of the stream channel defined by its bankfull elevation, the designation of critical habitat is expected to impact inland activity. How far inland the designation's effects extend is a more or less a site specific issue. For example, with regards to land- based activities such as timber sales or grazing practices, it is a matter of site specific physical processes such as sediment transport, the local topography, and the size of the drainage basin. Descriptions of each critical habitat unit are provided in Appendix A. 1.3 Framework and Methodology 110. The primary purpose of this analysis is to estimate the economic impact associated with the designation of critical habitat for bull trout. 8 This information is intended to assist the Secretary in making decisions about whether the benefits of excluding particular areas from the designation outweigh the benefits of including those areas in the designation. 9 In addition, this information allows the Service to address the requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13211, the RFA, as amended by the SBREFA. 10 111. This chapter provides the framework for this analysis. First, it defines the economic effects considered in the analysis. Second, it establishes the baseline against which these effects are measured. Third, it describes the measurement of direct compliance costs, which include costs associated with, and generated as a result of, section 7 consultations. Fourth, it identifies potential indirect economic effects of the rule resulting from ( 1) compliance with other parts of the Act potentially triggered by critical habitat, ( 2) compliance with other laws, and ( 3) time delays and regulatory uncertainty. Fifth, it discusses the need for an economic assessment of the benefits of critical habitat designation. Finally, the section concludes by discussing the time frame for the analysis and the general steps followed in the analysis. 1.3.1 Types of Economic Effects Considered 112. This economic analysis considers both the economic efficiency and distributional effects. For the purpose of this analysis, economic efficiency effects generally reflect the " opportunity costs" associated with the commitment of resources required to comply with the Act. For example, if the activities that can take place on a parcel of private land are limited as a result of a designation, and thus the market value of the land reduced, this reduction in value represents one measure of opportunity cost or change in economic efficiency. Similarly, the costs incurred by a Federal Action agency to consult with the Service under section 7 represent economic opportunity costs. 8 This analysis considers the effects of the regulatory action as proposed in the Federal Register on November 29, 2002 ( 67 FR 71236). M6U. S. C. § 1533( b)( 2). 10 Executive Order 12866, " Regulatory Planning and Review," September 30, 1993; Executive Order 13211, " Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use," May 18, 2001; 5 U. S. C. § § 601 etseq; and Pub Law No. 104- 121. 1- 6 113. This analysis also addresses how the impacts are distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional economic impacts and the potential effects on small entities and the energy industry. This information can be used by decision- makers to assess whether the effects might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector. 114. For example, while the designation may have a relatively small impact when measured in terms of changes in economic efficiency, individuals employed in a particular sector of the economy in the geographic area of the designation may experience relatively greater effects. The difference between economic efficiency effects and distributional effects, as well as their application in this analysis, are discussed in greater detail below. Efficiency Effects 115. At the guidance of the OMB and in compliance with Executive Order 12866 " Regulatory Planning and Review," Federal agencies measure changes in economic efficiency in order to understand how society, as a whole, will be affected by a regulatory action. 11 In the context of this regulatory action, these efficiency effects represent the opportunity cost of resources used or benefits foregone by society as a result of critical habitat designation and other co- extensive regulations. 12 Economists generally characterize opportunity costs in terms of changes in producer and consumer surpluses in affected markets. 13 116. In some instances, compliance costs may provide a reasonable approximation for the efficiency effects associated with a regulatory action. For example, a landowner or manager may need to enter into a consultation with the Service to ensure that a particular activity will not adversely modify critical habitat. The effort required for the consultation represents an economic opportunity cost, because the landowner or manager's time and effort would have been spent in an alternative activity had the parcel not been included in the designation. When compliance activity is not expected to significantly affect markets — that is, not result in a shift in the quantity of a good or service provided at a given price, or in the quantity of a good or service demanded given a change in price ~ the measurement of compliance costs can provide a reasonable estimate of the change in economic efficiency. 11 Executive Order 12866, " Regulatory Planning and Review," September 30,1993; U. S. Office of Management and Budget, " Circular A- 4," September 17, 2003. 12 The term " co- extensive" is discussed in greater detail in Section 1.3.3. 13 For additional information on the definition of " surplus" and an explanation of consumer and producer surplus in the context of regulatory analysis, see Gramlich, Edward M, A Guide to Benefit- Cost Analysis ( 2nd Ed.), Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc., 1990; and U. S. EPA, Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, EPA 240- R- 00- 003, September 2000, available at http:// yosemite. epa. gov/ ee/ epa/ eed. nsf/ webpages/ Guidelines. html. 1- 7 117. Where a designation is expected to significantly impact a market, it may be necessary to estimate changes in producer and consumer surpluses. For example, a designation that precludes the development of large areas of land may shift the price and quantity of housing supplied in a region. In this case, changes in economic efficiency can be measured by considering changes in producer and consumer surplus in the real estate market. 118. This analysis begins by measuring reasonably foreseeable compliance costs. As noted above, in some cases, compliance costs can provide a reasonable estimate of changes in economic efficiency. However, if the designation is expected to significantly impact markets, the analysis will consider potential changes in consumer and/ or producer surplus in affected markets. Distributional and Regional Economic Effects 119. Measurements of changes in economic efficiency focus on the net impact of the regulation, without consideration for how certain economic sectors or groups of people are affected. Thus, a discussion of efficiency effects alone may miss important distributional considerations concerning groups that may be disproportionately affected. OMB encourages Federal agencies to consider distributional effects separately from efficiency effects. 14 This analysis considers the potential for several types of distributional effects, including impacts on small entities; impacts on energy supply distribution and use; and regional economic impacts. It is important to note that these are fundamentally different measures of economic impact than efficiency effects, and thus cannot be added to or compared with estimates of changes in economic efficiency. Impacts on Small Entities and Energy Supply, Distribution and Use 120. This analysis considers how small entities, including small businesses, organizations, and governments, as defined by the RFA, might be affected by critical habitat designation and other co- extensive regulatory actions. 15 In addition, in response to Executive Order 13211 " Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use," this analysis considers the impacts of critical habitat on the energy industry and its customers. 16 14 U. S. Office of Management and Budget, " Circular A- 4," September 17, 2003. 155U. S. C. § 60\ etseq. 16 Executive Order 13211, " Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use," May 18, 2001. 1- 8 Regional Economic Effects 121. Regional economic impact analysis provides an assessment of the potential localized effects of critical habitat designation and other co- extensive regulations. Specifically, regional economic impact analysis produces a quantitative estimate of the potential magnitude of the initial change in the regional economy resulting from a regulatory action. Regional economic impacts are commonly measured using regional input/ output models. These models rely on multipliers that mathematically represent the relationship between a change in one sector of the economy ( e. g., hydroelectric power generation) and the effect of that change on economic output, income, or employment in other local industries ( e. g., manufacturers relying on the electricity generated). These economic data provide a quantitative estimate of the magnitude of shifts of jobs and revenues in the local economy. 122. The use of regional input/ output models can overstate the long- term impacts of a regulatory change. Most importantly, these models provide a static view of the economy of a region. That is, they measure the initial impact of a regulatory change on an economy but do not consider long- term adjustments that the economy will make in response to this change. For example, these models provide estimates of the number of jobs lost as a result of a regulatory change, but do not consider re- employment of these individuals over time. In addition, the flow of goods and services across the regional boundaries defined in the model may change as a result of the designation, compensating for a potential decrease in economic activity within the region. 123. Despite these and other limitations, in certain circumstances regional economic impact analysis may provide useful information about the scale and scope of localized impacts. It is important to remember that measures of regional economic effects generally reflect shifts in resource use rather than efficiency losses. These types of distributional effects, therefore, should be reported separately from efficiency effects ( i. e., not summed). In addition, measures of regional economic impact cannot be compared with estimates of efficiency effects. 1.3.2 Defining the Baseline 124. The purpose of this analysis is to measure the economic impact of compliance with the protections derived from the designation of critical habitat, including habitat protections that may be " co- extensive" with the listing of the species ( the term " co- extensive" is described in greater detail in the following section). Economic impacts to land use activities may exist in the absence of co- extensive protections. These impacts may result from, for example: • Local zoning laws; • State and natural resource laws; and 1- 9 • Enforceable management plans and BMPs applied by other State and Federal agencies. 125. Economic impacts that result from these types of protections are not included in this assessment; they are considered to be part of the " baseline." Existing laws, regulations, and policies are described in greater detail in Section 2.3 of this analysis. 1.3.3 Direct Compliance Costs 126. The measurement of direct compliance costs focuses on the implementation of section 7 of the Act. This section requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The administrative costs of these consultations, along with the costs of project modifications resulting from these consultations, represent the direct compliance costs of designating critical habitat. 127. This analysis does not differentiate between consultations that result from the listing of the species ( i. e., the jeopardy standard) and consultations that result from the presence of critical habitat ( i. e., the adverse modification standard). Consultations resulting from the listing of the species, or project modifications meant specifically to protect the species as opposed to its habitat, may occur even in the absence of critical habitat. However, in 2001, the U. S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals instructed the Service to conduct a full analysis of all of the economic impacts of critical habitat designation, regardless of whether those impacts are attributable co- extensively to other causes. 17 Given the similarity in regulatory definitions between the terms " jeopardy" and " adverse modification," in practice it can be difficult to pre- determine the standard that drives a section 7 consultation. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that this economic analysis complies with the instructions of the 10th Circuit as well as to ensure that no costs of the proposed designation are omitted, the potential effects associated with all section 7 impacts in or near proposed critical habitat are fully considered. In doing so, the analysis ensures that any critical habitat impacts that are co- extensive with the listing of the species are not overlooked. 1.3.4 Indirect Costs 128. A designation may Title: Final economic analysis of critical habitat designation for the bull trout Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Year: 2004, 2005 FINAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR THE BULL TROUT September 2004 FINAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR THE BULL TROUT Prepared for: Division of Economics U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 N. Fairfax Drive Arlington, VA 22203 Prepared by: Bioeconomics, Inc. 315 S. 4th E. Missoula, MT 59801 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES- 1 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1- 1 1.1 Description of Species and Habitat 1- 2 1.2 Proposed Critical Habitat 1- 5 1.3 Framework and Methodology 1- 6 1.3.1 Types of Economic Effects Considered 1- 6 1.3.2 Defining the Baseline 1- 9 1.3.3 Direct Compliance Costs 1- 10 1.3.4 Indirect Costs 1- 10 1.3.5 Benefits 1- 14 1.3.6 Analytic Time Frame 1- 15 1.3.7 General Analytic Steps 1- 15 1.4 Information Sources 1- 16 2 RELEVANT BASELINE INFORMATION 2- 1 2.1 Socioeconomic Profile of the Critical Habitat Areas 2- 1 2.1.1 Population 2- 1 2.1.2 Land Ownership and Major Uses 2- 2 2.1.3 Employment 2- 12 2.1.4 Economic and Demographic Characteristics of the 74 Counties Containing Bull Trout Critical Habitat 2- 15 2.1.5. Tribes of the Columbia and Klamath Basins 2- 18 2.2 Baseline Elements 2- 21 2.2.1 Recovery Plan 2- 21 2.2.2 Overlap with Other Listed Species 2- 22 2.2.3 Federal and State Statutes and Regulations 2- 25 2.2.4 Summary Discussion of Impacts of Baseline Regulations on Economic Analysis 2- 40 2.2.5 Discussion: Impacts of Existing Fisheries Policies on Timber and Grazing Activities 2- 43 3 FORECASTED ECONOMIC IMPACTS 3- 1 3.1 Categories of Economic Impacts 3- 1 3.1.1 Section 7 Consultations 3- 2 3.1.2 Technical Assistance 3- 4 3.1.3 Project Modifications 3- 5 3.1.4 Distributional and Regional Economic Effects 3- 5 3.2 Consultation History for Bull Trout Since Listing 3- 7 3.2.1 Action Agencies and Activities Involved in Past Bull Trout Consultations 3- 7 3.2.2 Formal Section 7 Consultations History on Bull Trout Since Listing . 3- 13 3.2.3 Informal Section 7 Consultations History on Bull Trout 3- 15 3.3 Project Modifications 3- 16 3.3.1 Modifications to FHWA Bridge Projects 3- 16 3.3.2 Modifications to Grazing Permits 3- 17 3.3.3 Modifications to Timber Harvest 3- 18 3.3.4 Modifications to Mining Operations 3- 20 3.3.5 Modifications to Agricultural Irrigation Projects 3- 21 3.3.6 Modifications to Dams and Hydroelectric Projects 3- 24 3.3.7 Modifications to Forest Management and Road Maintenance Projects 3- 29 3.3.8 Activities Unlikely to Involve Significant Modification 3- 29 3.4 Projected Future Section 7 Consultations Involving the Bull Trout 3- 29 3.4.1 Projected Future Formal Section 7 Consultations 3- 33 3.4.2 Projected Future Informal Section 7 Consultations 3- 36 ESTIMATING THE CO- EXTENSIVE COSTS OF THE DESIGNATION 4- 1 4.1 Summary of Estimated Impacts 4- 2 4.1.1 Annual Administrative Costs of Consultation 4- 2 4.1.2 Costs Associated with Development of HCPs Within Proposed Bull Trout Critical Habitat 4- 3 4.1.3 Annual Bull Trout Project Modification Costs 4- 4 4.1.4 Proposed Critical Habitat Units Expected to Generate the Greatest Economic Impacts 4- 5 4.2 Discussion of Impacts by Action Agency 4- 6 4.2.1 Army Corps of Engineers 4- 7 4.2.2 Bureau of Land Management 4- 9 4.2.3 Bonneville Power Administration 4- 10 4.2.4 Bureau of Reclamation 4- 25 4.2.5 Federal Highway Administration 4- 29 4.2.6 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 4- 31 4.2.7 U. S. Forest Service 4- 52 4.2.8 Other Action Agencies 4- 79 4.3 Potential Impacts on Small Entities 4- 79 4.3.1 Identifying Activities That May Involve Small Entities 4- 81 4.3.2 Costs Associated with Agriculture Water Diversions 4- 83 4.3.3 Hydroelectric Facility Re- licensing 4- 84 4.3.4 Mining 4- 87 4.4 Potential Impacts on the Energy Industry 4- 88 4.4.1 Evaluation of Whether the Designation will Result in a Reduction in Electricity Production in Excess of One Billion Kilowatt- Hours Per Year or in Excess of 500 Megawatts of Installed Capacity 4- 89 4.4.2 Evaluation of Whether the Designation will Result in an Increase in the Cost of Energy Production in Excess of One Percent 4- 91 APPENDIX A: Detailed Description of Critical Habitat Units A- l APPENDIX B: Ownership of Lands Adjacent to Proposed Critical Habitat Unit and Subunit B- l APPENDIX C: Overlap of Proposed Bull Trout Critical Habitat and Salmon and Steelhead Habitat C- l APPENDIX D: Listing of All Suggested Project Modifications Found in Formal Biological Opinions: By Activity Type D- l APPENDIX E: Length ( stream) and area ( lakes) of proposed designated bull trout critical habitat that is within U. S. Forest Service Land and Forest Service Wilderness Areas E- l APPENDIX F: Breakdown of Total Annual Estimated Costs by Proposed Critical Habitat Unit F- l EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. The purpose of this report is to identify and analyze the potential economic impacts associated with the designation of critical habitat for the Columbia River and Klamath River Distinct Population Segments ( DPSs) of bull trout ( Salvelinus confluentus), hereafter " bull trout." This report was prepared by Bioeconomics, Inc. of Missoula, Montana, for the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's ( the Service) Division of Economics. 2. Section 4( b)( 2) of the Endangered Species Act ( the Act) requires the Service to designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Service may exclude areas from critical habitat designation when the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of including the areas within critical habitat, provided the exclusion will not result in extinction of the species. KEY FINDINGS Total costs associated with both listing and critical habitat designation for the bull trout are forecast to be $ 200 million to $ 260 million over the next ten years. Total costs associated with both listing and critical habitat designation for the bull trout within the proposed Klamath Distinct Population Segment are forecast to be $ 5.3 million to $ 7.3 million over the next ten years. Total costs associated with both listing and critical habitat designation for the bull trout within the proposed Columbia Distinct Population Segment are forecast to be $ 195 million to $ 253 million over the next ten years. Federal agencies are expected to bear 70 to 75 percent of these costs; private entities will incur the remaining 25 to 30 percent. Project modification costs account for as much as 63 percent of forecast costs. Administrative cost represent the remaining 37 percent. U. S. Forest Service and Army Corps of Engineer- related activities account for approximately 70 percent of forecast project modification costs. Activities experiencing the greatest costs include timber harvesting, irrigation diversions, and dam and reservoir operations. Dam and reservoir- related consultations, including power facility re- licensing, account for 42 percent of forecast project modification costs ( excluding the cost associated with reduced irrigation diversions). Timber harvest, irrigation diversions, habitat conservation plans, and mining account for 29 percent, 12 percent, eight percent, and three percent of forecast costs, respectively. In terms of river miles, approximately 18 percent of the total forecast costs are associated with one percent of the proposed designation, 25 percent with five percent of the proposed designation, and 45 percent with ten percent of the proposed designation. When expressed in terms of the expected cost per river mile, the two most costly units are the Willamette River Basin ( Unit 4) and the Malheur River Basin ( Unit 13). ES- 1 Framework for the Analysis 3. The primary purpose of this analysis is to estimate the economic impact associated with the designation of critical habitat for the bull trout. This information is intended to assist the Secretary in making decisions about whether the benefits of excluding particular areas from the designation outweigh the benefits of including those areas in the designation. 1 This economic analysis considers the economic efficiency effects that may result from the designation, including habitat protections that may be co- extensive with the listing of the species. It also addresses distribution of impacts, including an assessment of the potential effects on small entities and the energy industry. This information can be used by decision- makers to assess whether the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector. 4. This analysis focuses on the direct and indirect costs of the rule. However, economic impacts to land use activities can exist in the absence of critical habitat. These impacts may result from, for example, local zoning laws, State and natural resource laws, and enforceable management plans and best management practices ( BMPs) applied by other State and Federal agencies. For example, as discussed in detail in this report, regional management plans, such as the Northwest Forest Plan, PACFISH and INFISH provide significant protection to bull trout and its habitat while imposing significant costs within the region. Economic impacts that result from these types of protections are not included in this assessment as they are considered to be part of the regulatory and policy " baseline." 5. The measurement of direct compliance costs focuses on the implementation of section 7 of the Act. This section requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The administrative costs of these consultations, along with the costs of project modifications resulting from these consultations, represent the direct compliance costs of designating critical habitat. Importantly, this analysis does not differentiate between consultations that result from the listing of the species ( i. e., the jeopardy standard) and consultations that result from the presence of critical habitat ( i. e., the adverse modification standard). 6. The analysis examines activities taking place both within and adjacent to the proposed designation. It estimates impacts based on activities that are " reasonably foreseeable," including, but not limited to, activities that are currently authorized, permitted, or funded, or for which proposed plans are currently available to the public. Accordingly, the analysis bases estimates on activities that are likely to occur within a ten- year time frame, beginning on the day that the current proposed rule became available to the public ( November 30, 2002). The ten- year time frame was chosen for the analysis because, as the time horizon for an economic analysis is expanded, the assumptions on which the projected number of projects and cost impacts associated with those projects becomes increasingly 1 16U. S. C. § 1533( b)( 2). ES- 2 speculative. An exception to the 10 year analysis time horizon used in this analysis is for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( FERC) licenses, which are renewed for up to 50 years. Accordingly, this analysis estimates the annualized costs of the expected impacts associated with section 7 bull trout consultations involving FERC re- licensing over a 50 year time horizon. 7. The analysis is based on a wide range of information sources. Numerous individuals were contacted from the Service, as well as from the U. S. Forest Service ( USFS), Federal Highway Administration ( FHWA), Bureau of Land Management ( BLM), Army Corps of Engineers ( ACOE), Bureau of Reclamation ( BOR), Bonneville Power Administration ( BPA), Natural Resources Conservation Service ( NRCS), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA) and other Federal agencies. The analysis of the hydroelectric facilities and other dam structures in the region also relied in information from the Northwest Power and Conservation Council ( NWPCC), the Pacific Northwest Utility Coordinating Council as well as information from utilities owning dams in bull trout proposed critical habitat ( e. g., Avista Corporation ( Avista), Eugene Water and Electric Board, Pacificorp and Portland General Electric ( PGE)). Native American Tribes ( e. g., Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes), State agencies ( e. g., State Departments of Environmental Quality ( DEQ) and State Departments of Transportation ( DOTs)) and industry organizations ( e. g., American Forest Resource Council, American Farm Bureau and Northwest Mining Association) were also contacted, as were numerous individuals in the private sector on topics ranging from irrigation to forestry to bull trout conservation. Census Bureau and other Department of Commerce data was relied on to characterize the regional economy. 8. The bull trout was listed as a threatened species in 1998.2 Since that time, numerous Action agencies have participated in well over 200 formal consultations and thousands of informal consultations involving bull trout. The past consultation record was used as a starting point from which to predict future consultation activity. Action agencies provided additional information on likely changes in future consultation activity following designation of critical habitat. In some cases these agencies saw little change in future consultation levels. For example, FHWA projects are planned for many years in advance and bridge or road- related bull trout consultations are generally quite certain and foreseeable. In some cases ( e. g., mining activity, irrigation diversions) it was determined that the historical consultation record understated the potential level of future consultation activity for the species and adjustments to future predicted consultation levels were made. For dam and reservoir operations, a wide spectrum of information from agency representatives, as well as the actual FERC re- licensing schedules for privately operated hydropower facilities were used to augment historical consultation rates and develop future annual cost estimates associated with bull trout consultations on dam, reservoir and power- related activities. 2 This economic analysis applies only to the Columbia River and Klamath River DPSs of bull trout and is not a rangewide analysis. The rangewide listing of the bull trout occurred in 1999 and critical habitat will be proposed for the remainder of the range at a later date. ES- 3 Exhibit ES. l provides a summary of the wide range of activities that may be impacted by bull trout- related consultations. Exhibit ES. l PROJECTED ACTIVITIES AFFECTED BY BULL TROUT Action Agency Army Corps of Engineers Bureau of Land Management Bonneville Power Administration Bureau of Reclamation Federal Highway Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission U. S. Forest Service Other agencies, including NPS, BIA, U. S. Department of Agriculture ( USDA), U. S. Geological Survey ( USGS), U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries Activities Consulted on Dam and reservoir operations, streambank stabilization, dredging, bridge replacement, stream restoration. Forest management, grazing, timber harvest, resource maintenance and road construction, weed management, streambank stabilization, flood control projects. Federal Columbia River Power System ( FCRPS)- dam operation, fisheries restoration and augmentation, agricultural practices and irrigation systems. Dam and reservoir operations, irrigation diversions. Highway bridge replacement. Dam re- licensing and removal. Timber harvest, grazing, mining, resource maintenance and road construction, weed management, streambank stabilization, recreation, special use permits, watershed restoration, road decommissioning, irrigation diversions, culvert replacement, and prescribed fuel reduction programs. Assorted activities, primarily fisheries and stream and wetland restoration. Results of the Analysis 9. The economic impacts associated with the designation of critical habitat for the bull trout are expected to range from $ 200 million to $ 260 million over the next ten years ($ 20 million to $ 26 million per year). Federal agencies are expected to bear approximately 70 to 75 percent of the total costs of this designation. A significant portion of the land adjacent to the proposed designation is Federally owned ( 58 percent), 36 percent is under private ownership and the remainder is comprised of Tribal, State or local interests. Of the Federal lands, the majority is managed by the USFS ( 85 percent) and the BLM ( 12 percent). The remaining 25 to 30 percent of costs are expected to be borne by private entities. Exhibit ES. 2 shows the location of USFS and BLM managed land within the proposed designation. ES- 4 Exhibit ES. 2 ES- 5 10. In some cases, the cost associated with consultation is not borne by the Action agency, but passed onto other parties. For example, while farmers and ranchers do not consult on the operation of Federal irrigation impoundments, irrigators could be impacted by potential reductions in water deliveries to maintain instream flow during dry years. While the unit location of USFS- related water diversions is uncertain, it is likely to occur in the Salmon River ( Unit 16), Clark Fork ( Unit 2), Southwest Idaho River and Clearwater River ( Unit 15) Basins, as these units contain the largest portion of USFS managed lands. 11. Consultations that may involve private entities include those related to timber harvest, grazing, mining and power facility re- licensing. Some of the costs associated with these consultations, however, are expected to be borne directly by or passed onto the Federal government ( e. g., increased logging and yarding costs passed onto the USFS through lower stumpage bids for timber). Most of the forecast project modification costs resulting from designation ( 42 percent) are dam and reservoir related ( excluding USFS water diversions). These costs result from consultations on ACOE and BOR dams and reservoirs, BPA consultations on the FCRPS, and FERC re- licensing consultations. Exhibit ES. 3 illustrates the location of major dams within the proposed critical habitat. The remaining project modification costs are associated with timber harvest ( 29 percent), USFS- related water diversions ( 12 percent), habitat conservation plans ( eight percent), and placer gold mining ( three percent). Grazing, forest management, road and bridge construction and maintenance and other activities each account for less than two percent of forecast project modification costs. Exhibit ES. 4 provides the distribution of total costs by activity. 12. Costs can be expressed in terms of unit or river mile; both of these metrics are useful in describing economic impacts. 3 On a cost per unit basis the largest portion of forecast costs are expected to occur in Unit 4, the Willamette River Basin ( 18 percent). These costs are attributable to fish passage and temperature control projects and annual operating and maintenance and fish study costs at ACOE's facilities in the Upper Willamette River System ( Dexter, Lookout Point, Hills Creek and Blue River Dams). The next most costly unit is Unit 16, the Salmon River Basin ( 12 percent). Because this is the largest unit in terms of river miles and proportion of USFS managed land, and because future USFS activities are expected to generate approximately 70 percent of the consultation activity, this unit bears the greatest number of future bull trout- related consultations. Therefore, the administrative costs account for a large portion of the costs in this unit. Together, these two units account for 30 percent ( approximately $ 8.2 million) of forecast costs. The next three most costly units, Hells Canyon complex ( Unit 12) and the Clark Fork River ( Unit 2) and Malheur River ( Unit 13) Basins, each account for eight percent ( a unit cost range of approximately $ 2.1 million to $ 2.3 million) of forecast costs. In total, these five units account for almost 55 percent of forecast costs ( approximately $ 14.8 million). 3 Twelve of the units also contain more than 500,000 lake acres of critical habitat. These units account for approximately 55 percent of the potential economic impacts associated with the proposed designation ($ 15.4 million). The Clark Fork River Basin ( Unit 2) contains almost 60 percent of the lake acres ( more than 300,000 acres) and accounts for eight percent of the cost ( approximately $ 3 million). Because all 25 units contain river miles, the costs are expressed in terms of dollars per river mile for comparison. ES- 6 ES- 7 ES- 8 13. Project modifications or other restrictions that engender cost and revenue impacts involving commercial enterprises can have a subsequent detrimental effect on other sectors of the local economy, especially when the affected industry is central to the local economy. Industries within a geographic area are interdependent in the sense that they purchase output from other industries and sectors, while also supplying inputs to other businesses. Therefore, direct economic effects on a particular enterprise can affect regional output and employment in multiple industries. The extent to which regional economic impacts are realized depends largely on whether a significant number of projects are stopped or fundamentally altered. For example, impacts to the timber or grazing industries depend on whether required project modifications substantially reduce output within economic sectors below that which would be seen in the absence of the trout consultation. 14. Examination of BOs involving timber harvest and grazing show only small and sporadic reductions in either grazing opportunity or available timber harvest. Therefore, this analysis assumes that regional economic impacts associated with these activities will be unpredictable ( in terms of geographic location and timing) and small in the context of the overall economy of the Columbia River Basin. In the case of agricultural water diversions on Forest Service lands, regional economic impacts are not modeled due to uncertainty about the magnitude and potential location of impacts. 15. Exhibit ES- 5 highlights the relative contributions of each unit to total forecast costs. Exhibit ES- 6 then presents the unit cost by river mile. Considering the cost per river mile, the Willamette River ( Unit 4) and Malheur River ( Unit 13) Basins are the most costly units. Together these two units account for 25 percent of the costs ( approximately $ 7.0 million, annualized) over two percent of the proposed miles of the designation ( 451 miles). Overall, 10 percent of the river miles ( 1,910 miles) in eight units account for approximately 45 percent of the total costs ( approximately $ 12.5 million, annualized). 4 4 In terms of cost per lake acre, the Willamette River Basin is the most expensive unit ( Unit 4), followed by the Northeast Washington River ( Unit 22) and Upper Columbia River ( Unit 21) Basins. These three units account for approximately 25 percent of the cost ($ 6.8 million) and five percent of the river miles ( 1,020 miles) in the proposed designation. ES- 9 tn m W GO 16. Consideration of the regulatory baseline is particularly pertinent in the context of estimating economic costs attributable to section 7 for bull trout. Specifically, existing regulations such as the Federal Power Act ( FPA) and Wilderness Act of 1964, fisheries management directives ( Northwest Forest Plan, INFISH and PACFISH) and the presence of other listed species ( especially anadromous fish) provide for the protection of areas that could contribute to the recovery of bull trout and improve riparian habitat and water quality throughout the proposed designation. Thus, the costs of this designation is limited by the extent to which existing regulations already impose requirements on land use and resource management within the proposed designation. In addition, the cost estimates developed in this report reflect various allocations made throughout the analysis for projects benefitting more than one listed species. Since these allocations are important to the analysis, Exhibit ES. 7 describes how forecasted costs were allocated among bull trout and other listed species. Exhibit ES. 7 ALLOCATION OF ESTIMATED FUTURE PROJECT MODIFICATION COSTS Agency / Project ACOE - Upper Willamette River Dams and Reservoirs BPA - Federal Columbia River Power System FERC - re- licensing hydroelectric facilities USFS activities Allocation NOAA Fisheries and the Service are currently consulting on salmon, steelhead and bull trout in this proposed area. No clear allocation of costs can be made between these species, as most of the projects modifications would be sought under both the NOAA and Service consultations. Therefore, one- third of estimated costs are allocated to each species. This is likely to overstate the cost of bull trout conservation rather than understate it, since the primary driving force behind these project modifications is the salmon. While there is extensive discussion of the relative magnitude of potential bull trout versus salmon mitigation actions, because of the relatively modest project modification costs ( up to $ 400,000 associated with fishery studies) there is no allocation of costs to salmon. The estimation of section 7 bull trout costs associated with FERC re- licensing includes allocation of mitigation costs for specific dams to salmon, as well as to other aquatic species. As a result, a little more than 40 percent of total fishery-related costs are allocated to bull trout, and five percent specifically to bull trout section 7 consultation. While certain costs in the sample of timber consultations were allocated to other listed species ( e. g. grizzlies and cutthroat trout), there is no allocation of costs to anadromous species. Summary of Costs 17. Exhibit ES. 8 provides a detailed summary of the co- extensive costs of designation of critical habitat for the bull trout. These costs are presented on an annualized basis. A map of the watersheds that encompass each unit is provided in Exhibit ES. 9 to assist the reader in understanding the location and distribution of estimated costs. A detailed discussion of the estimated administrative and project modification costs by critical habitat unit is presented in the unit- by- unit summary section following Exhibit ES. 8. ES- 12 Exhibit ES. 8 SUMMARY OF SECTION 7 COSTS FOR THE BULL TROUT ( Annualized) Unit Unit 1 - Klamath River Basin Unit 2 - Clark Fork River Basin Unit 3 - Kootenai River Basin Unit 4 - Willamette River Basin Unit 5 - Hood River Basin Unit 6 - Deschutes River Basin Unit 7 - Odell Lake Unit 8 - John Day River Basin Unit 9 - Umatilla- Walla Walla River Basins Unit 10 - Grande Ronde River Basin Unit 11 - Imaha/ Snake River Basins Unit 12 - Hells Canyon Complex Unit 13 - Malheur River Basin Unit 14 - Coeur d'Alene Lake Basin Unit 15 - Clearwater River Basin Unit 16 - Salmon River Basin Unit 17 - Southwest Idaho River Basins Unit 18 - Little Lost River Basin Unit 19 - Lower Columbia River Basin Unit 20 - Middle Columbia River Basin Unit 21 - Upper Columbia River Basin Unit 22 - Northwest Washington River Basins Unit 23 - Snake River Basin in Washington Unit 24 - Columbia River Basin Unit 25 - Snake River Basin Multiple unit or unknown a Estimated Range of Cost ($ l, 000fs) $ 529 to $ 733 $ 1,321 to $ 2,192 $ 328 to $ 402 $ 4,497 to $ 4,891 $ 328 to $ 413 $ 430 to $ 719 $ 51 to $ 56 $ 446 to $ 600 $ 98 to $ 211 $ 467 to $ 580 $ 559 to $ 605 $ 1,939 to $ 2,338 $ 2,006 to $ 2,095 $ 429 to $ 693 $ 995 to $ 1,676 $ 2,059 to $ 3,319 $ 1,004 to $ 1,867 $ 150 to $ 176 $ 385 to $ 494 $ 391 to $ 494 $ 196 to $ 505 $ 965 to $ 1,397 $ 230 to $ 287 $ 243 to $ 504 $ 135 $ 1,303 Notes: These estimates include all section 7 costs, including those co- extensive with the listing and designation of critical habitat for the bull trout. Costs are reported in 2003 dollars. A more detailed presentation of these costs is provided in Appendix F. a Miscellaneous costs ($ 213,000 annually) and the costs associated with development of habitat conservation Dlans ($ 1,090,000 annuallv) have not been allocated to the unit level due to uncertainty as to their location. ES- 13 Exhibit ES- 9 ES- 14 Unit- bv- Unit Summary 18. The following discussion presents a unit- by- unit synopsis of the co- extensive costs of designation of critical habitat for the bull trout. Details on how these cost estimates were developed is provided in Section 4 of this report. 19. From an aggregate perspective, forecast project modification costs are dominated by dam related activities, totaling about 42 percent of all estimated costs. Typical costs include fish passage, changes in operations, habitat protection or restoration, and fishery studies at 36 FERC- licensed hydroelectric facilities and at more than 30 major Federal hydropower, irrigation and flood projects. The second largest category of costs is associated with timber harvest on Federal lands, representing about 29 percent of all estimated costs. These costs include harvest reduction, fishery study and monitoring costs, costs related to roads and culverts, and changes to log yarding systems. The remaining costs are split among a large number of activities including the development of habitat conservation plans, mining, agriculture and irrigation diversions, grazing, bridge construction and maintenance, and general forest management. Accordingly, the primary factor driving the distribution of costs across units is the location of significant dam projects for power, irrigation, and flood control. This factor is highlighted in the following unit- by- unit discussion. The second most important factor is the occurrence of federally- owned acreage within a given unit, particularly the acreage of non- wilderness lands managed by the USFS. This factor drives both timber costs and administrative consultation costs. 20. A significant component of the total estimated cost of this designation are the administrative costs associated with conducting both formal and informal consultations on the species ( approximately 37 to 50 percent of total forecast bull trout- related costs). These costs accrue to the Service as well as to action agencies and the public. In some cases these administrative costs constitute a majority of the estimated costs for a unit, suggesting that there will be many activities consulted on but few resulting project modifications. 21. This discussion is presented on a unit by unit basis. A perspective on how the units compare, in both absolute terms and in terms of cost per river mile of proposed critical habitat, is provided in Exhibits ES- 6 and ES- 7. For purposes of this summary, proposed units with per mile costs ( after adjusting each unit's costs for its respective unoccupied habitat) forecast to be less than half of the proposed designation- wide average are described as having " relatively low costs." Units with per mile costs forecast to be between 50 percent and 200 percent ( i. e., twice) the designation- wide average costs are described as having " relatively moderate costs." Units with per- mile costs forecast to be greater than twice the designation- wide average costs are described as having " relatively high costs." Note that these descriptors are intended as a general guide, and refer to total cost only. Individual economic sectors and entities within a unit may bear disproportionate shares of these costs, as discussed in Section 4. 22. Unit 1: Klamath River Basin - The Klamath River Basin is located in south- central Oregon. Proposed critical habitat within this unit includes 475 km ( 295 mi) of streams and ES- 15 3,775 ha ( 9,327 ac) of lake habitat. The Klamath River Basin Unit is largely contained within Klamath County Oregon. The town of Klamath Falls is the largest community within the county. The Klamath River Basin Unit has a relatively high percentage of proposed critical habitat that is currently either unoccupied or of unknown occupancy ( 72 percent). Approximately 69 percent of the stream miles proposed for designation are within Federal land. 23. The Klamath River Basin Unit is a relatively moderate cost unit. Estimated total annual bull trout- related costs within this unit range between $ 529,000 and $ 733,000. These estimates include $ 425,000 per year in administrative costs. It is estimated that costs associated with consultations on timber harvest and agricultural irrigation withdrawals will constitute the large majority of potential future project modification costs in the unit ( estimated at between 73 percent and 87 percent of total annual project modification costs). These agricultural diversion- related costs are expected to result from reductions in available irrigation water. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 15,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 24. Unit 2: Clark Fork River Basin - The Clark Fork River Basin Unit is the largest unit within the proposed designation. This unit includes most of Western Montana and the Idaho panhandle. This Unit includes the Missoula and Bitterroot River Valleys in Western Montana, the Kalispell- Flathead Lake Region, and the Lake Pend Orielle Region of North Idaho. These areas contain many of the larger towns and communities within Western Montana and North Idaho. Approximately 54 percent of the proposed streams and 33 percent of proposed lakes in Clark Fork Unit are within Federal lands. There is no unoccupied habitat within the proposed Clark Fork Critical Habitat Unit. 25. Forecast total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 1.3 million and $ 2.2 million. These estimates include $ 800,000 per year in administrative costs. In addition, a number of agencies and activities will incur significant annual project modification costs associated with the bull trout in this unit. Specifically, • Timber harvest activity is expected to generate the largest share of future project modification costs in this unit ($ 270,000 to $ 680,000 per year). These costs include harvest reduction, fishery study and monitoring costs, costs related to road and culverts, and changes to log yarding systems. • Costs associated with forecast project modifications to irrigation diversions within this unit range from zero to $ 280,000. These costs represent potential costs to agricultural producers associated with reductions in available irrigation water. 26. Other significant forecast project modification costs within this unit are associated with mining ( up to $ 100,000 annually, principally involving watershed assessment costs), FERC hydro re- licensing ($ 50,000 to $ 91,000 annually), and FHWA bridge and road work ($ 45,000 per year, generally involving constraints on in- stream work periods). Forecast FERC- related costs are associated with several major hydroelectric facilities within the unit, ES- 16 including Kerr Dam on the Flathead River and Thompson Falls Dam on the Clark Fork. Additionally, bull trout- related modifications on operation of the FCRPS have resulted in changes in operations at Hungry Horse Dam ( a BOR facility on the S. Fork of the Flathead) and Albeni Falls ( an ACOE facility that controls the level of Lake Pend Orielle). Bull trout study costs specific to the Clark Fork Unit and associated with FCRPS consultation are expected to cost up to $ 97,000 annually. 27. Although the proposed Clark Fork River Basin Critical Habitat Unit has significant forecast total annual costs, these costs should be viewed in light of the large size of this proposed unit. In fact, the Clark Fork Unit is forecast to be one of the lowest cost units, when expressed per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. 28. Unit 3: Kootenai River Basin - A short stretch of the Kootenai River lies in the U. S., looping down out of British Columbia. The Kootenai Unit thus comprises only the northwestern corner of Montana, including Libby Dam, and the northeastern tip of the Idaho panhandle. This unit is contained within two counties, Boundary County, Idaho and Lincoln County, Montana. Within this proposed critical habitat unit, approximately 53 percent of the rivers and streams proposed for designation are on Federal land. There is no unoccupied bull trout habitat within this unit. 29. The Kootenai River Unit is a relatively low- cost unit, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Total forecast annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 328,000 and $ 402,000. Of this amount, the majority, approximately $ 290,000 annually, are forecast administrative costs. In addition, it is estimated that project modification costs within the Kootenai River Unit will total between $ 38,000 and $ 112,000 annually. Costs associated with timber harvest are expected to be the largest category of future project modification costs in this unit ($ 27,000 to $ 69,000 per year, including costs of harvest reduction, fishery study and monitoring costs, costs related to roads and culverts, and changes to log yarding systems). Costs resulting from modifications to agricultural irrigation diversions ( primarily reductions in irrigation withdrawals) could range from zero to $ 28,000. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 5,000 per year in project modification costs. Bull trout- related modifications to operations of the FCRPS have resulted in changes in operations at Libby Dam. 30. Unit 4: Willamette River Basin - The Willamette River Basin Unit includes 337 km ( 209 mi) of stream and 1,600 ha ( 3,954 ac) of lake habitat in the McKenzie River and Middle Fork Willamette River subbasins of Western Oregon. The unit is located primarily within Lane County, but also extends into Linn County. The unit contains Eugene, Oregon and surrounding areas. Approximately 46 percent of the proposed waters within this unit are on Federal land and about 23 percent of the waters in the unit are currently either unoccupied by the bull trout or of unknown occupancy. 31. Forecast total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 4.5 million and $ 4.9 million. Of this amount, approximately $ 125,000 are forecast ES- 17 administrative costs. Thus, most of the costs for this unit are associated with required project modifications. While project modification costs are forecast to be associated with timber harvest activities and agricultural diversions within this unit ( estimated between $ 22,000 and $ 55,000 annually), the vast majority of forecast costs are associated with dam and reservoir operations in the unit. 32. The ACOE is currently in consultation on 13 flood control facilities located in the Upper Willamette River system. Potential future costs of required modifications for bull trout will likely be driven by provisions for temperature control facilities at the Lookout Point, Hills Creek, and Blue River dams, and trap and haul passage at Lookout Point, Hills Creek, and possibly a fish ladder at Dexter Dam. It is estimated that these passage and temperature control modifications and operation at ACOE operated impoundments in the unit will cost between $ 4.3 and $ 4.5 million per year. It is further estimated that annual project modification costs associated with FERC re- licensing of hydroelectric facilities in the unit will cost between $ 70,000 and $ 144,000 annually. These costs are associated with several hydroelectric facilities operated by the City of Eugene: Trail Bridge and Carmen on the McKenzie River, and Blue River Dam. 33. The Willamette River Unit is the highest cost of the proposed units in terms of forecast cost per river mile of habitat proposed for designation ( greater than $ 20,000 per river mile, annually). These costs are associated with dam and reservoir modifications to ACOE projects. However, the ACOE is also consulting with NOAA Fisheries on the impacts of these facilities on chinook salmon and steelhead, these costs might occur even absent the bull trout. 34. Unit 5: Hood River Basin - The Hood River Unit lies entirely within Hood River County, Oregon and contains the communities of Hood River and The Dalles among a number of smaller towns. The Unit includes the mainstem Hood River and three major tributaries: the Clear Branch Hood River, West Fork Hood River, and East Fork Hood River. A relatively high 43 percent of the proposed habitat in the Hood River Unit is currently either unoccupied or of unknown occupancy. Overall, about 48 percent of the waters proposed for designation within this unit are located on Federal lands. 35. The Hood River Unit is a relatively moderate- cost unit, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 328,000 and $ 413,000. Of this amount, a substantial portion are forecast administrative costs ( approximately $ 282,000). The remainder of the forecast costs are associated with required project modifications. Costs associated with FERC re- licensing of hydroelectric facilities ($ 24,000 to $ 67,000) and timber harvest on USFS lands ($ 16,000 to $ 40,000 per year) are expected to be the most significant categories of future project modification costs in the unit. FERC licensed facilities include Powerdale on the Hood River. Agricultural irrigation diversions in the unit could experience up to $ 16,000 in annual project modification costs. Other activities are individually estimated to account for less than $ 5,000 per year in project modification costs. ES- 18 36. Unit 6: Deschutes River Basin - The Deschutes River Basin Unit in central Oregon contains two critical habitat subunits: the lower Deschutes and the upper Deschutes, separated by Big Falls, an impassible barrier on the Deschutes River. The Lower Deschutes critical habitat subunit is in Wasco, Sherman, Jefferson, Deschutes, and Crook Counties. The Upper Deschutes River critical habitat subunit is located in Deschutes, Crook, and Klamath counties. Approximately 801 km ( 498 mi) of stream habitat in the Deschutes River basin is proposed for critical habitat designation. Overall, a relatively high 37 percent of the proposed habitat within the Deschutes River Unit is unoccupied. The entire upper Deschutes River Critical Habitat subunit is currently unoccupied by the species. A relatively low portion ( 35 percent) of the waters proposed for designation within this unit are on Federal land. This unit also has a substantial amount of Tribal land ( 23 percent of proposed waters). 37. The Deschutes River Unit is a relatively low- cost unit, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. It is forecast that total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit will be between $ 431,000 and $ 719,000. A relatively small portion of this amount, approximately $ 102,000 annually, are forecast administrative costs. The vast majority of these costs are associated with required project modifications. Specifically, costs associated with operation of BOR irrigation impoundments ($ 159,000 annually, largely associated with fishery studies), FERC re- licensing of hydroelectric facilities, ($ 106,000 to $ 280,000) and timber harvest on USFS lands ($ 42,000 to $ 105,000 per year resulting from reduced harvest, fishery studies, road and culvert costs, and changes in yarding systems) are expected to be the most significant categories of future project modification costs in this unit. The BOR- related costs are for studies at Crane Prairie and Wickiup Reservoirs on the Upper Deschutes River. Since both of these reservoirs are in the currently unoccupied Upper Deschutes subunit, dam and reservoir modifications are not reasonably foreseeable. Projected FERC re- licensing costs are for bull trout studies and passage at the Pelton- Round Butte Project on the Deschutes River. Agricultural irrigation diversion project modification costs associated with potential reductions in irrigation water availability could range from zero to $ 43,000 annually. Other activities are individually estimated to account for less than $ 15,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 38. Unit 7: Odell Lake - The Odell Lake Unit in central Oregon lies entirely within the Deschutes National Forest in Deschutes and Klamath counties. This unit is the smallest of the proposed units within the designation. Total proposed critical habitat includes approximately 2,675 ha ( 6,611 ac) of lake habitat and 18.1 km ( 11.3 mi) of streams. There is no unoccupied habitat within this unit. 39. Total annual costs associated with the bull trout within the unit are forecast to be between $ 51,000 and $ 56,000. Of this amount, almost all ( approximately $ 50,000 annually) will be associated with the administrative costs of the consultation process. It is estimated that project modification costs within the Odell Lake Unit will total less than $ 5,000 annually. These project modification costs are forecast to be largely associated with USFS activities. ES- 19 40. Unit 8: John Day River Basin - The John Day River Basin Unit in eastern Oregon includes the North Fork, the Middle Fork, and mainstem portions of the John Day River and their tributary streams in Wheeler, Grant, and Umatilla counties. A total of 1,080 km ( 671 mi) of stream habitat is proposed for designation as critical habitat. Overall, 19 percent of the proposed areas within the John Day River Unit are currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 54 percent of the waters proposed for designation within the John Day Unit are located on Federal land. 41. The John Day River Unit is a relatively low cost unit, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are forecast to be between $ 446,000 and $ 600,000. Of this amount, a large portion, approximately $ 278,000 annually, will be made up of administrative costs. The remainder of the forecast costs are associated with required project modifications. Specifically, project modifications associated with timber harvest on USFS lands ($ 57,000 to $ 143,000 per year from reductions in harvest, fisheries studies, road and culvert costs, and changes in yarding systems) and placer mining on USFS lands ( up to $ 88,000 per year associated with requirements for and limitations on allowed stream crossing activity) are expected to generate the greatest share of project modification costs in this unit. Costs associated with agricultural irrigation diversion reductions could range from zero to $ 58,000 annually. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 10,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. The John Day River Basin is one of two units identified in this study as a setting where bull trout related project modifications could have a significant impact on a small placer mining business, the other is the Hells Canyon Complex ( Unit 12). 42. Unit 9: Umatilla- Walla Walla River Basins - The Umatilla and Walla Walla Rivers Unit is located in northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. The unit includes 636 km ( 395 mi) of streams extending across portions of Umatilla, Union, and Wallowa counties in Oregon, and Walla Walla and Columbia counties in Washington. Overall, 17 percent of the proposed critical habitat within this unit is currently unoccupied by the species. A relatively low portion ( 32 percent) of the waters proposed for designation within the Umatilla- Walla Walla Unit are located on Federal land. 43. The Umatilla- Walla Walla River Unit is among the lowest cost units, in terms of consultation- related cost per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. It is estimated that total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit will be between $ 98,000 and $ 211,000. Of this amount, approximately $ 59,000 annually will be associated with the administrative costs of the consultation process and the remainder with required project modifications. Specifically, fisheries studies associated with FCRPS consultations could cost up to $ 43,000 annually. Project modification associated with timber harvest on USFS lands is expected to be another significant category of future costs in this unit ($ 26,000 to $ 65,000 per year). Agricultural irrigation diversions could experience up to $ 26,000 in annual project modification costs within this unit. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 10,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. In addition to the consultation and project modification costs, the Walla Walla Drainage is in ES- 20 the final stages of developing a basin- wide habitat conservation plan to protect bull trout, among other species. The plan has cost approximately $ 4 million to develop, and it is expected an additional $ 1 million will be spent to complete the plan during the next year or two. 44. Unit 10: Grande Ronde River Basin - The Grande Ronde Unit extends across Union, Wallowa, and Umatilla counties in northeastern Oregon, and Asotin, Columbia, and Garfield counties in southeastern Washington. This unit includes the Grande Ronde River from its headwaters to the confluence with the Snake River and a number of its tributaries, the largest being the Wallowa River. Approximately 1,030 km ( 640 mi) of stream habitat in the Grande Ronde River basin is proposed for critical habitat designation. Overall, seven percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Grand Ronde River Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 52 percent of the waters proposed for designation within this unit are located on Federal land. 45. The Grand Ronde River Unit is a low- cost unit, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit will be between $ 467,000 and $ 580,000. Of this amount, the vast majority, approximately $ 417,000 annually, are forecast to be administrative costs. The remainder of the forecast costs are associated with required project modifications. Specifically, fisheries studies within the unit associated with FCRPS consultations could cost up to $ 19,000 annually. Timber harvest on USFS lands is expected to be another significant source of future project modification costs in this unit ($ 34,000 to $ 87,000 per year resulting from reduced harvest, fisheries studies, and road and culvert costs, and changes in yarding systems). Agricultural irrigation diversion costs could be up to $ 35,000. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 10,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 46. Unit 11: Imnaha/ Snake River Basins - The Imnaha/ Snake Unit extends across Wallowa, Baker, and Union counties in northeastern Oregon and Adams and Idaho counties in western Idaho. The unit contains approximately 306 km ( 190 mi) of proposed critical habitat. All of the proposed habitat within the Imnaha- Snake River Unit is currently occupied by the species. Approximately 51 percent of the waters proposed for designation within this unit are located on Federal land. 47. The Imnaha/ Snake River Unit is a moderate- cost unit, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 559,000 and $ 605,000. Of this amount, the large majority are made up of administrative costs ( approximately $ 544,000, annually). The remainder of the forecast costs are associated with required project modifications. Specifically, fishery studies within the unit associated with FCRPS consultations could cost up to $ 18,000 annually. Timber harvest activities on USFS lands are expected to be another significant category of future project modification costs ($ 10,000 to $ 26,000 per year). Agricultural irrigation diversion related project modification costs could range from zero ES- 21 to $ 11,000. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 5,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 48. Unit 12: Hells Canyon Complex - The Hells Canyon Complex Unit encompasses basins in Idaho and Oregon draining into the Snake River and its associated reservoirs, from Hells Canyon Dam upstream to the confluence of the Weiser River. The Hells Canyon Complex unit includes a total of approximately 1,000 km ( 621 mi) of streams proposed as critical habitat. A relatively high portion ( about 48 percent) of the proposed critical habitat within the Hells Canyon Complex Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 47 percent of the waters proposed for designation within this unit are located on Federal land. 49. The Hells Canyon Complex Unit is a relatively moderate- cost unit, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. It is forecast that total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit will be between $ 1.9 million and $ 2.3 million. Of this amount, a majority are expected to be made up of administrative costs ( approximately $ 1.4 million, annually). In addition, significant categories of forecast project modification costs within this unit are associated with timber harvest on USFS lands ($ 92,000 to $ 233,000 per year resulting from reduced harvest, fishery studies, road and culvert costs, and changes in yarding systems), placer mining on USFS land ($ 69,000 associated with requirements for and limitations on allowed stream crossing activity), FERC hydroelectric re- licensing ($ 111,000 to $ 259,000), and BOR reservoir activities ($ 192,000 annually, primarily for study related costs). The BOR reservoirs in the unit include Phillips Reservoir and Thief Valley Reservoir; projected costs are for bull trout related studies. Major FERC- licensed hydroelectric facilities in the unit include Hells Canyon, Brownlee and Oxbow. Agricultural irrigation diversions could experience up to $ 95,000 in annual project modification costs within this unit. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than 20,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. The Hells Canyon complex is one of two units identified in this study as a setting where bull trout related project modifications could have a significant impact on a small placer mining business, the other is the John Day River Basin ( Unit 8). 50. Unit 13: Malheur River Basin - The Malheur Unit is in the Malheur River Basin in eastern Oregon, in Grant, Baker, Harney, and Malheur counties. A total of 389 km ( 241 mi) of streams and two reservoirs are proposed for critical habitat. About 25 percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Malheur River Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 63 percent of the waters proposed for designation within the Malheur River Unit are located on Federal land. 51. The Malheur River Unit is the second highest cost unit, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 2.0 million and $ 2.1 million. Project modification costs make up a small portion of these costs, between $ 179,000 and $ 268,000 annually. The rest of the forecast costs are associated with administrative requirements. Major categories of forecast project modification costs within this unit are associated with ES- 22 timber harvest on USFS lands ($ 33,000 to $ 83,000 per year) and BOR reservoir activities ($ 133,000 annually). The BOR costs are for research as well as trap and haul fish passage that is ongoing at Beulah Reservoir on the Malheur River, and estimated research costs at Warm Springs Reservoir, which is currently unoccupied by bull trout. Possible reductions in agricultural irrigation diversions could cost from zero to $ 34,000 annually . Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 5,000 per year in project modification costs. 52. Unit 14: Coeur d'Alene Lake Basin - The Coeur d'Alene Lake Basin Unit in Idaho is broken into two subunits. The Coeur d'Alene Lake subunit lies within Kootenai, Shoshone, Benewah and Bonner counties. The St. Joe River subunit includes streams in Shoshone, Benewah, and Latah counties, Idaho. Thirty stream reaches or tributaries ( 677 km ( 421 mi)) and lakes comprising 12,727 ha ( 31,450 ac) of surface area are proposed as critical habitat within this unit. Of this, a relatively high portion ( 46 percent) is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 58 percent of the waters proposed for designation within this Unit are located on Federal land. 53. The Coeur d'Alene Lake Unit is relatively low cost unit, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 429,000 and $ 693,000. A large share of this amount, approximately $ 287,000 annually, is forecast to be made up of administrative costs. In addition, major categories of forecast project modification costs within the unit are associated with timber harvest on USFS lands ($ 97,000 to $ 245,000 per year resulting from reduced harvest, fishery studies, road and culvert costs, and changes in yarding systems), and FHWA bridge and road work ($ 23,000 associated with limitations on in- stream work periods). Modifications to agricultural irrigation diversions could result in costs from zero to $ 100,000. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 10,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 54. Unit 15: Clearwater River Basin - The Clearwater River Unit includes 3,063 km ( 1,904 mi) of streams and 6,722 ha ( 16,611 ac) of lakes proposed as critical habitat for bull trout in north- central Idaho. This large unit extends from the Snake River confluence at Lewiston on the west to headwaters in the Bitterroot Mountains along the Idaho/ Montana border on the east. About 13 percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Clearwater River Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 78 percent of the waters proposed for designation within the Unit are located on Federal land. 55. Total forecast costs associated with consultation on bull trout within this unit are between $ 1.0 million and $ 1.7 million annually. Of this amount, approximately $ 572,000 is associated with administrative costs. In addition, major categories of forecast project modification costs within this unit are associated with timber harvest on USFS lands ($ 252,000 to $ 635,000 per year resulting from reduced harvest, fishery studies, road and culvert costs and changes in yarding systems), recreational suction mining on USFS land ($ 115,000 associated with reduced availability of stream access due to seasonal closures), highway bridge and road work ($ 25,000), and USFS management activities ($ 35,000 ES- 23 annually). Agricultural irrigation diversion project modification costs could range from zero up to $ 259,000 annually. These costs may result from reductions in irrigation deliveries. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 15,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 56. Although the proposed Clearwater River Basin Critical Habitat Unit is forecast to experience significant costs associated with the bull trout, these costs should be viewed in light of the large size of the proposed unit. In fact, the Clearwater Unit is one of the lowest cost of the proposed units, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. 57. Unit 16: Salmon River Basin - The Salmon River basin is a geographically large unit that extends across central Idaho from the Snake River to the Montana border. The critical habitat unit includes 7,688 km ( 4,777 mi) of streams extending across portions of Adams, Blaine, Custer, Idaho, Lemhi, Nez Perce, and Valley counties in Idaho. About six percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Salmon River Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 86 percent of the waters proposed for designation within the Unit are located on Federal land. 58. Forecast total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 2.1 million and $ 3.3 million. Of this amount, approximately $ 1.3 million is associated with administrative costs, with the rest made up of project modification costs. Major categories of forecast project modification costs are associated with timber harvest on USFS lands ($ 465,000 to $ 1.2 million per year resulting from reduced harvest, fishery studies, road and culvert costs and changes in yarding systems), highway bridge and road work ($ 57,000), and USFS general forest management activities ($ 65,000 annually). The cost of modifications to agricultural irrigation water deliveries could range from zero up to $ 479,000 annually. Costs associated with mining activities at Hecla Mining Company's Grouse Creek and Thompson Creek mines are estimated at $ 132,000 annually. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 25,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 59. Although the proposed Salmon River Basin Critical Habitat Unit has significant forecast costs associated with the bull trout, these costs should be viewed in light of the large size of the proposed unit. In fact, the Salmon River Unit is also one of the lowest cost of the proposed units, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. 60. Unit 17: Southwest Idaho River Basins - The Southwest Idaho Unit includes a total of approximately 2,792 km ( 1,735 mi) of streams in the Boise, Payette, and Weiser River basins. A number of southern Idaho counties are wholly or partially within this unit, including Ada, Adams, Boise, Camas, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, Payette, Valley, and Washington counties. The counties within the southern Idaho unit include both a significant portion of productive agricultural land as well as the largest population center in the state ( the Boise Valley). About 24 percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Southwest ES- 24 Idaho Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 78 percent of the proposed streams and 66 percent of proposed lakes and reservoirs within the Southwest Idaho River Basins Unit are located on Federal land. 61. The Southwest Idaho River Basins Unit is a relatively low- cost unit, in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 1.0 million and $ 1.9 million. Total administrative costs are forecast to be a relatively small portion of this total ($ 328,000 annually). The remainder of the forecast costs are expected to result from forecast project modifications. Specifically, project modification costs within this unit are forecast to be associated with timber harvest on USFS lands ($ 309,000 to $ 781,000 per year resulting from reduced harvest, fishery studies, road and culvert costs and changes in yarding systems) and BOR reservoir activities ($ 263,000 annually). Major BOR reservoirs in this unit include Anderson Ranch and Arrowrock Reservoirs on the Boise River, Cascade Reservoir on the North Fork Payette, and Deadwood Reservoir on the Payette River. Forecast project modification costs include bull trout life- cycle studies and monitoring at all the reservoirs, and trap and haul passage around the Boise River reservoirs. Costs associated with FERC relicensing at the Lucky Peak facility on the Boise River, and power facilities at the Cascade impoundment, are expected to cost between $ 31,000 and $ 58,000 annually. Modifications to agricultural irrigation diversions could range from zero to $ 318,000 annually. These costs could potentially be associated with reductions in irrigation water withdrawals. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 30,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 62. Unit 18: Little Lost River Basin - The Little Lost River Unit is within Butte, Custer, and Lemhi counties in east- central Idaho. Approximately 184.6 km ( 115.4 mi) of stream habitat in the Little Lost River Basin is proposed for critical habitat designation. About eight percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Little Lost River Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 76 percent of the proposed streams within the Little Lost River Basin Unit are located on Federal land. 63. The Little Lost River Unit is forecast to be a relatively inexpensive unit compared to others in the designation, and is a moderate- cost unit in terms of forecast costs per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. It is estimated that total annual costs associated with the bull trout within this unit will be between $ 150,000 and $ 176,000. Of this amount, a large share, approximately $ 136,000 annually, is forecast to be comprised of administrative costs, with the remainder made up of project modification costs. The largest category of project modification costs within this unit is forecast to be associated with timber harvest on USFS lands ($ 10,000 to $ 24,000 per year). Project modifications to agricultural irrigation diversions could result in costs from zero to $ 10,000 annually. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 5,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 64. Unit 19: Lower Columbia River Basin - The Lower Columbia Unit consists of portions of the Lewis, White Salmon, and Klickitat Rivers, and associated tributaries in ES- 25 southwestern and south- central Washington. The unit extends across Clark, Cowlitz, Klickitat, Skamania, and Yakima counties. Approximately 340 km ( 210 mi) of streams and three reservoirs covering 5,054 ha ( 12,488 ac) are proposed for critical habitat designation. About 20 percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Lower Columbia River Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. A low portion ( 18 percent) of the proposed streams and 29 percent of the proposed lakes and reservoirs within the Lower Columbia River Basin Unit are located on Federal land. 65. When forecast total costs for this unit are viewed in light of its size, the Lower Columbia River Basins Unit is a moderate- cost unit, in terms of forecast cost per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. It is estimated that total annual costs associated with the bull trout within the unit will be between $ 385,000 to $ 494,000. Total administrative costs associated with the consultation process are estimated to be a relatively large fraction of these costs ($ 304,000 annually). In addition, project modification costs are forecast to be associated with FERC hydroelectric facility re- licensing activities ($ 67,000 to $ 153,000 annually). These FERC re- licensing costs are for the significant hydroelectric developments on the Lewis River, including Yale, Merwin, Swift No. 1, and Swift No. 2. These costs are projected to include study costs, trap and haul passage, and habitat acquisition. Swift No, 2 is one of two hydroelectric projects identified in this study where bull trout- related project modifications could have a significant impact on a small business; the other is Box Canyon in the Northeast Washington River Basin ( Unit 22). Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 10,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 66. Unit 20: Middle Columbia River Basin - The Middle Columbia River unit encompasses the entire Yakima River basin located in south central Washington, draining approximately 15,900 square km ( 6,155 square mi). The basin occupies most of Yakima and Kittitas counties, about half of Benton County, and a small portion of Klickitat County. Approximately 846 km ( 529 mi) of stream habitat and 6,066 ha ( 14,986 ac) of lake and reservoir surface area are proposed as critical habitat within this unit. About 13 percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Middle Columbia River Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 44 percent of the waters proposed for designation within the Middle Columbia River Basin Unit are located on Federal land. 67. The Middle Columbia River Unit is a relatively low- cost unit in terms of cost per stream mile. Forecast costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 391,000 and $ 494,000 annually. Of this amount, a very small portion, approximately $ 50,000 annually, will be associated with the administrative costs of the consultation process, while the remainder will be associated with project modifications. While there are projected to be project modification costs associated with timber harvest activities ( through consultation with the USFS; estimated to be between $ 36,000 and $ 91,000 annually), the majority of forecast costs for this unit are associated with dam and reservoir operations. The BOR operates a system of five dams in this basin ( Cle Elum Lake, Kachess Lake, Keechelus Lake, Tieton Dam, and Bumping Lake) which provide power and irrigation for this agriculturally important region. It is estimated that project modification costs ( periodic trap- ES- 26 and- haul passage to allow genetic interchange between isolated bull trout populations) at the BOR operated impoundments in the unit will cost approximately $ 290,000 per year. Other activities are individually estimated to account for a small portion of forecast annual project modification costs. 68. TheMiddle Columbia River Unit is a relatively low- cost unit in terms of cost per stream mile. 69. Unit 21: Upper Columbia River Basin - The Upper Columbia River Basin includes three subunits in central and northern Washington: the Wenatchee River subunit in Chelan County; the Entiat River subunit in Chelan County; and the Methow River subunit in Okanogan County. A total of 909.7 km ( 565.4 mi) of streams and 1,010 ha ( 2,497 ac) of lake surface area are proposed for critical habitat. About nine percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Upper Columbia River Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 58 percent of the proposed streams and 41 percent of the proposed lakes and reservoirs within the Upper Columbia River Basin Unit are located on Federal land. 70. The Upper Columbia River Basins Unit is a low- cost unit, in terms of forecast cost per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 196,000 to $ 505,000 annually. Total administrative costs associated with the consultation process are estimated to be $ 122,000, with the remainder of the forecast costs made up of project modification requirements. Major categories of forecast project modification costs within this unit are associated with FCRPS fisheries studies ( zero to $ 155,000 per year), and USFS timber harvest activities ($ 57,000 to $ 144,000 annually resulting from reduced harvest, fishery studies, road and culvert costs and changes in yarding systems). The FCRPS fisheries studies are for bull trout radio telemetry, snorkel and general monitoring study costs in the Entiat, Methow, and Wenatchee Rivers. In addition, modifications to agricultural irrigation diversions could result in costs from zero to $ 59,000 annually. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 10,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 71. Unit 22: Northeast Washington River Basins - The Northeast Washington unit includes bull trout above Chief Joseph Dam on the Columbia River. A total of 373.1 km ( 231.9 mi) of streams and 1,166 ha ( 2,880 ac) of lake surface area are proposed as critical habitat within this unit. A high proportion ( 54 percent) of the proposed critical habitat within the Northeast Washington River Basins Unit is currently unoccupied by the species, and approximately 58 percent of the proposed streams and reservoirs within this unit are located on Federal land. 72. The Northeast Washington River Basins Unit is forecast to be a relatively high- cost unit, in terms of forecast cost per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are between $ 965,000 to $ 1.4 million annually. Total annual administrative costs are estimated to be a large share of these costs ($ 676,000), with the remainder associated with project modifications. A major category of ES- 27 annual project modification costs within this unit involves FERC hydroelectric facility re-licensing activities ( up to $ 540,000 annually). The estimated FERC re- licensing costs are related to two major hydroelectric facilities on the Pend Orielle River: Box Canyon and Boundary. The Box Canyon re- licensing terms are currently in continuing settlement negotiations, and likely costs specific to this facility are not currently available. However, a recent FERC environmental impact statement ( EIS) estimates that the present value of bull trout related project modifications ( including habitat acquisition) could total upwards of $ 60 million for this relatively small ( 60 MW) facility. Box Canyon is one of two hydroelectric projects identified in this study where bull trout- related project modifications could have a significant impact on a small business; the other is Swift No. 2 in the Lower Columbia River Basin ( Unit 19). Modifications to agricultural irrigation diversions could impose costs from zero to $ 46,000 annually. Other activities are individually estimated to each account for less than $ 10,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 73. Unit 23: Snake River Basin in Washington - The Snake River Washington Unit includes two critical habitat subunits located in southeast Washington: the Tucannon River subunit located in Columbia and Garfield counties, and the Asotin Creek subunit within Garfield and Asotin counties. A total of 326 km ( 203 mi) of stream reaches are proposed as critical habitat within this unit. About 23 percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Snake River Basin in Washington Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 52 percent of the proposed streams within the Snake River Basin Unit are located on Federal land. 74. The Snake River Basin Unit is a relatively low- cost unit, in terms of forecast cost per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast costs associated with the bull trout within the unit will be between $ 230,000 to $ 287,000. Total annual administrative costs associated with the bull trout are estimated to be a large portion of this total ($ 201,000). The major category of project modification costs within this unit is forecast to be associated with USFS timber harvest activities ($ 21,000 to $ 53,000 annually). Agricultural irrigation diversions could see up to $ 22,000 in annual project modification costs within this unit. Other activities are estimated to each account for less than $ 5,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 75. Unit 24: Columbia River - This unit is located in the states of Oregon and Washington and includes Clatsop, Columbia, Multnomah, Hood River, Wasco, Sherman, Gilliam, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Pacific, Wahkiakum, Cowlitz, Clark, Skamania, Klickitat, Benton, Walla Walla, Franklin, Yakima, Grant, Kittitas, Chelan, Douglas, and Okanogan counties in Washington. All of this stretch of the Columbia River is currently considered occupied by the bull trout. A relatively low share of the land adjacent to the river in this unit is made up of Federally managed lands ( approximately 39 percent). 76. The Columbia River Unit is a relatively low- cost unit, in terms of forecast cost per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast total costs associated with the bull trout within this unit will be between $ 243,000 to $ 504,000 annually. Total annual ES- 28 administrative costs associated with this unit are relatively low ($ 50,000). The major category of annual project modification costs within the unit are forecast to be associated FERC hydroelectric facility re- licensing activities ( up to $ 362,000 annually). Major FERC-licensed hydroelectric projects on the mainstem Columbia River include Priest Rapids, Rocky Reach, and Wells. These very large facilities are operated by PUD's. Other activities are individually forecast to account for less than $ 15,000 dollars per year in project modification costs. 77. Unit 25: Snake River - The lower Snake River is located in Washington ( Franklin, Walla Walla, Columbia, Whitman, and Asotin counties) from its mouth to the confluence with the Clearwater River at the cities of Clarkston, Washington and Lewiston, Idaho. The Snake River forms the border between Washington and Idaho from Clarkston/ Lewiston upstream to the Oregon border. The Snake River forms the boundary between Idaho and Oregon from that point upstream to the limit of this critical habitat unit. This portion of the Snake River is within Nez Perce, Idaho, Adams, and Washington counties in Idaho, and Wallowa, Baker, and Malheur counties in Oregon. About 20 percent of the proposed critical habitat within the Snake River Unit is currently unoccupied by the species. Approximately 50 percent of the habitat proposed for designation within the Snake River Unit is located on Federal land. 78. The Snake River Unit is a relatively low- cost unit, in terms of forecast cost per river mile of habitat proposed for designation. Forecast costs associated with the bull trout within this unit are approximately $ 135,000. Administrative costs associated with the consultation process are estimated to be nearly all of that amount, or $ 125,000 annually. Small Business Effects 79. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) ( as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA) of 1996), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( i. e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). The following summarizes the potential effects of critical habitat designation on small entities: Reductions in contractual USFS water deliveries could significantly impact five ranching/ farming operations annually. However, the location of the reduction in water deliveries within the critical habitat designation is uncertain. Small hydroelectric producers in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana could be affected by project modification costs at the time of facility re- licensing. Specifically, the resulting project modifications could have a significant economic impact on the financial operations of Cowlitz County public utility district ( PUD) ( Unit 19 - Lower Columbia River) and Pend Orielle County PUD ( Unit 22 - Northeast Washington River). ES- 29 • Section 7- related costs associated with instream work is expected to affect approximately 15 placer mines annually in the John Day River Basin ( Unit 8) and Hells Canyon Complex ( Unit 12). While the financial characteristics of these mining operations are unknown, this analysis assumes the economic effect will be significant for those operations that are impacted. Energy Industry Impacts 80. Pursuant to Executive Order No. 13211, Federal agencies are required to submit a summary of the potential effects of regulatory actions on the supply, distribution and use of energy. Two criteria are relevant to this analysis: 1) reductions in electricity production in excess of 1 billion kilowatt- hours per year or in excess of 500 megawatts ( MWs) of installed capacity and 2) increases in the cost of energy production in excess of one percent. The constraints placed on energy production within the region from compliance with bull trout section 7 consultations will not result in significant decreases in production or increases in energy costs within the region. Changes From Draft Economic Analysis 81. Information supplied though public comments to the Draft Economic Analysis along with additional information from Action agency and Service personnel on issues raised through public comment led to several changes to the analysis. This Final Economic Analysis contains the following significant changes from the draft report. 1) Additional information on Habitat Conservation Plans ( HCPs) currently under development within the proposed designation has been incorporated. Additional costs on the order of one million dollars annually have been added to the estimated costs reported. 2) The BOR supplied extensive comments on current and potential costs associated with consultation on its impoundments. Costs associated with potential project modifications to Yakima Drainage dams ( as well as for other BOR impoundments within the proposed designation) have been reduced in response to the new BOR information. 3) Information from Hecla Mining Company identified additional consultation- related costs for the Hecla Grouse Creek and Thompson Creek mines. These costs have been included in the section 4 discussion of USFS mining activity. 4) Information from USFS personnel from the Wallowa/ Whitman National Forest identified impacts associated with limitations on in- stream work windows for placer mining operations as baseline State of Oregon regulations that are independent of bull trout section 7 consultation. Estimated impacts to Oregon placer mining have been adjusted accordingly. ES- 30 5) Additionally, corrections to minor errors within the report, not impacting final cost estimates, have been made in response to public comments. Caveats to Economic Analysis 82. Exhibit ES. 10 presents the key assumptions of this economic analysis, as well as the potential direction and relative scale of bias introduced by the assumptions. 83. These caveats below describe factors that introduce uncertainty into the results of this analysis. ES. 10 CAVEATS TO THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Key Assumption Projected USFS timber harvest activity is based on recent regional history and ignores the declining long- term trend of the industry. USFS water diversion reductions occur annually and representative water costs reflect the high- end of water lease rates in Washington. Cost of USFS water diversion reductions and timber harvest project modifications are distributed across the units in proportion to USFS non- wilderness acreage. While this may have no effect on the total cost estimate, it may have an effect on the unit cost estimate. Total costs of providing technical assistance is expected to be small relative to other economic impacts; therefore, this analysis does not quantify the instances and costs of technical assistance efforts. Project modifications incorporating measures suggested by the Service and voluntarily agreed to by the applicant during the informal consultation process in order to minimize impact to the bull trout and/ or its habitat are not quantified in this analysis. Amortization of fishery- related capital investments are based on the life of the project rather than a shorter revenue recovery period. Changes in hydroelectric power revenues attributable to reductions in operational flexibility at Libby and Hungry Horse dams is not quantified Most of the project modification costs will either be borne directly by or passed onto the Federal government. The FPA, the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, and fisheries management directives ( Northwest Forest Plan, INFISH and PACFISH) provide baseline protection. Project modification costs allocated between bull trout and other listed species. Limited consultation with the NRCS is anticipated and based on a the record of past formal and informal consultation activity on the bull trout Effect on Cost Estimate + + +/- - - - - +/- +/- +/- - -: This assumption may result in an underestimate of real costs. + : This assumption may result in an overestimate of real costs. +/-: This assumption has an unknown effect on estimates. ES- 31 Estimated Cost of the Final Designation 84. The analysis contained in this report is consistent with the designation as described in the proposed rule; 5 however, the Service is expected to exclude some proposed areas of habitat to arrive at a final designation. The purpose of this section is to detail the expected changes to the proposed designation and show the implication of these changes on estimated consultation and project modification costs. 85. Exhibit ES. ll compares the spatial extent of the proposed and expected final designations for bull trout critical habitat for both river and stream miles and lake and reservoir acres. Overall, 1,925 miles of rivers and streams and approximately 55,000 acres of lakes and reservoirs are expected to be excluded from critical habitat in the final designation. The greatest reductions in critical habitat stream miles are expected to occur in the Deschutes River Unit ( 60.5 percent reduction), Hood River Unit ( 33.2 percent), Southwest Idaho River Basins Unit ( 32.8 percent), and the Hells Canyon Complex Unit ( 21.3 percent). Most of the reductions in lake and reservoir critical habitat acres are expected to occur in the Deschutes River, Southwest Idaho River Basins and Malheur River Units, all with more than a 70 percent reduction in designated lake and reservoir critical habitat compared to the original proposed designation. ExhibitES. il SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN BULL TROUT CRITICAL HABITAT FROM PROPOSED TO FINAL DESIGNATION Unit Unit 1 - Klamath River Basin Unit 2 - Clark Fork River Basin Unit 3 - Kootenai River Basin Unit 4 - Willamette River Basin Unit 5 - Hood River Basin Unit 6 - Deschutes River Basin Unit 7 - Odell Lake Unit 8 - John Day River Basin Unit 9 - Umatilla- Walla Walla River Basins Unit 10 - Grande Ronde River Basin Unit 11 - Imaha/ Snake River Basins Unit 12 - Hells Canyon Complex Unit 13 - Malheur River Basin Unit 14 - Coeur d'Alene Lake Basin Proposed Designation Stream Miles 296 3,372 368 200 103 439 15 639 396 644 191 599 233 403 Lake and Reservoir Acres 33,939 304,226 30,094 8,899 91 23,314 6,439 0 0 0 0 0 5,926 27,296 Final Designation Stream Miles 280 3,368 368 200 69 173 13 563 348 625 191 471 214 403 Lake and Reservoir Acres 33,939 304,225 30,094 8,899 91 3,407 6,439 0 0 0 0 0 1,769 27,296 5 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Klamath River and Columbia River Distinct Population Segments of Bull Trout, November 29, 2002 ( 67 FR 71235- 71284). ES- 32 Exhibit ES. ll SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN BULL TROUT CRITICAL HABITAT FROM PROPOSED TO FINAL DESIGNATION Unit Unit 15 - Clearwater River Basin Unit 16 - Salmon River Basin Unit 17 - Southwest Idaho River Basins Unit 18 - Little Lost River Basin Unit 19 - Lower Columbia River Basin Unit 20 - Middle Columbia River Basin Unit 21 - Upper Columbia River Basin Unit 22 - Northwest Washington River Basins Unit 23 - Snake River Basin in Washington Unit 24 - Columbia River Basin Unit 25 - Snake River Basin Total Proposed Designation Stream Miles 1,904 4,296 1,657 113 171 523 591 232 204 537 343 18,468 Lake and Reservoir Acres 16,610 3,683 41,307 0 12,078 14,987 2,553 1,279 0 0 0 532.724 Final Designation Stream Miles 1,655 3,835 1,114 110 145 519 578 232 189 537 343 16,543 Lake and Reservoir Acres 16,610 3,487 10,651 0 12,000 15,548 2,553 1,279 0 0 0 478,188 86. As noted, the costs reported in the body of this report are consistent with the proposed designation. Expected changes to the proposed designation and the impact of these exclusions on costs are summarized in Exhibit ES. 12, where estimates of annual section 7- related consultation costs for both the proposed and expected final bull trout critical habitat designations are shown. The expected changes to the final designation impacts estimated costs in two ways. 87. First, where future consultation and project modification costs were estimated for dams and reservoirs located within stream reaches that are expected to be excluded from the final critical habitat designation, the costs associated with these anticipated consultations are removed. Three critical habitat units have dams and reservoirs located on waters expected to be excluded in the final designation. The previously quantified costs associated with consultations on Lucky Peak and Cascade Dams and Reservoirs, and Warm Springs, Crane Prairie, and Wickiup Reservoirs have therefore been removed from the forecast total costs associated with the final critical habitat designation. Costs associated with consultations on Lucky Peak and Cascade Dams and Reservoirs have been removed from estimates for the Southwest Idaho River Basins Units, costs associated with consultation on Warm Springs Reservoir have been removed from estimates for the Malheur River Unit, and costs associated with consultations on Crane Prairie and Wickiup Reservoirs have been removed from estimates for the Deschutes River Unit. 88. Second, because the Service is expected to exclude areas of unknown occupancy from the final designation, the spatial extent of unoccupied habitat in each critical habitat ES- 33 unit is adjusted to reflect the expected final designation ( see Appendix F, Exhibit F. 11), and the forecast costs of the expected final designation reflect these changes. 89. Exhibit ES. 12 presents a summary of the annualized forecast total costs, by unit, likely to be associated with the final critical habitat designation over the next ten years. Overall, the removal of waters from the proposed to the expected final bull trout designation is expected to lower forecast section 7- related consultation and project modification costs by approximately $ 18 to $ 24 million over the next ten years ( nine percent). In six units where no changes in the proposed designation were made, there is no change in forecast costs. As a percentage of unit costs, the greatest reduction in forecast costs resulting from the exclusions is expected to occur in the Deschutes River Basin Unit, where forecast costs of the expected final designation are 43 to 55 percent of the costs originally forecast for the proposed designation. 90. The economic impacts associated with the final designation, discounted to present value using a rate of seven percent, are forecast to range from approximately $ 180 to $ 245 million over the next ten years, or $ 18.0 to $ 24.5 million annually. Total costs associated with the final designation for the Klamath Distinct Population Segment of bull trout are forecast to range from approximately $ 5 million to $ 7 million over the next ten years ($ 0.5 to 0.7 million annually), while costs associated with the final designation for the Columbia Distinct Population Segment of bull trout are forecast to range from approximately $ 175 million $ 235 million ($ 17.5 to $ 23.5 million annually). 91. These costs will be incurred primarily by Federal agencies responsible for section 7 consultations ( approximately 65 percent of forecast costs) and the Service ( approximately five to ten percent of forecast costs); private entities will incur the remaining 25 to 30 percent. Project modification costs account for as much as 50 to 60 percent of forecast costs, and administrative costs the remaining 40 to 50 percent. Dam and reservoir- related consultations, including power facility re- licensing, account for approximately 42 percent of forecast project modification costs ( excluding the cost associated with reduced irrigation diversions). Timber harvest, irrigation diversions, habitat conservation plans, and mining account for 20 percent, 12 percent, nine percent, and three percent of forecast project modification costs, respectively. 92. The main text of the report discusses impacts to small businesses expected under the rulemaking as proposed. Impacts to small businesses are primarily related to potential reductions in USFS water deliveries to farmers/ ranchers, project modifications triggered during hydroelectric facility re- licensing, and costs associated with activity restrictions for placer mining. Under the final designation, the reduction in small business impacts would parallel the extent to which these activities occur in habitat removed from the final designation and losses related to these activities reduced. ES- 34 Exhibit ES. 12 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION SECTION 7 COSTS FOR THE BULL TROUT ( Annualized $ l, 000fs) Unit Unit 1 - Klamath River Basin Unit 2 - Clark Fork River Basin Unit 3 - Kootenai River Basin Unit 4 - Willamette River Basin Unit 5 - Hood River Basin Unit 6 - Deschutes River Basin Unit 7 - Odell Lake Unit 8 - John Day River Basin Unit 9 - Umatilla- Walla Walla River Basins Unit 10 - Grande Ronde River Basin Unit 11 - Imaha/ Snake River Basins Unit 12 - Hells Canyon Complex Unit 13 - Malheur River Basin Unit 14 - Coeur d'Alene Lake Basin Unit 15 - Clearwater River Basin Unit 16 - Salmon River Basin Unit 17 - Southwest Idaho River Basins Unit 18 - Little Lost River Basin Unit 19 - Lower Columbia River Basin Unit 20 - Middle Columbia River Basin Unit 21 - Upper Columbia River Basin Unit 22 - Northwest Washington River Basins Unit 23 - Snake River Basin in Washington Unit 24 - Columbia River Basin Estimated Range of Cost Proposed Critical Habitat Designation Low Estimate $ 529 1,321 328 4,497 328 430 51 446 98 467 559 1,939 2,006 429 995 2,059 1,004 150 385 391 196 965 230 243 High Estimate $ 733 2,192 402 4,891 413 719 56 600 211 580 605 2,338 2,095 693 1,676 3,319 1,867 176 494 494 505 1,397 287 504 Estimated Range of Cost Final Critical Habitat Designation Low Estimate $ 507 1,321 328 3,463 248 195 51 411 81 444 559 1,443 1,792 279 881 1,942 698 144 308 376 178 663 177 243 High Estimate $ 703 2,192 402 3,766 312 401 56 553 175 551 605 1,740 1,874 450 1,483 3,130 1,348 169 396 475 460 959 221 504 ES- 35 Exhibit ES. 12 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION SECTION 7 COSTS FOR THE BULL TROUT ( Annualized $ l, 000fs) Unit Unit 25 - Snake River Basin Multiple unit or unknown a Estimated Range of Cost Proposed Critical Habitat Designation Low Estimate 135 1,303 High Estimate 135 1,303 Estimated Range of Cost Final Critical Habitat Designation Low Estimate 135 1,303 High Estimate 135 1,303 Notes: These estimates include all section 7 costs, including those co- extensive with the listing and designation of critical habitat for the bull trout. Costs are reported in 2003 dollars. a Miscellaneous costs ($ 213,000 annually) and the costs associated with development of HCP's ($ 1,090,000 annually) have not been allocated to the unit level due to uncertainty as to their location. ES- 36 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND SECTION 1 93. In November 2002, the Service proposed to designate critical habitat for the Columbia River and Klamath River DPSs of bull trout ( Salvelinus confluentus), hereafter " bull trout." 6 The purpose of this report is to identify and analyze potential economic impacts associated with the proposed critical habitat designation. This report was prepared by Bioeconomics, Inc. of Missoula, Montana. 94. Section 4( b)( 2) of the Act requires the Service to designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Service may exclude areas from critical habitat designation when the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of including the areas within critical habitat, provided the exclusion will not result in extinction of the species. 95. Under the listing of a species, section 7( a)( 2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service in order to ensure that activities they fund, authorize, permit, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. The Service defines jeopardy as any action that would appreciably reduce the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the species. For designated critical habitat, section 7( a)( 2) also requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service to ensure that activities they fund, authorize, permit, or carry out do not result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Adverse modification of critical habitat is currently construed as any direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for conservation of a listed species. 6 On January 26,2001, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Inc. and Friends of the Wild Swan, Inc. filed a lawsuit in the U. S. District Court of Oregon challenging the Service's failure to designate critical habitat for bull trout. The Service entered into a settlement agreement on January 14, 2002, which stipulated that the Service would make critical habitat determinations for five populations of bull trout ( Civil Case No: CV 01- 127- JO). The Service has proposed critical habitat for the Columbia River and Klamath River populations, which are the subject of this analysis. 1- 1 1.1 Description of Species and Habitat7 96. Bull trout { Salvelinus confluentus, family Salmonidae) is a char native to waters of western North America. The historic range of bull trout includes major river basins in the Pacific Northwest from about 41° north to 60° north latitude, extending south to the McCloud River in northern California and the Jarbidge River in Nevada, and north to the headwaters of the Yukon River in Northwest Territories, Canada. To the west, bull trout range includes Puget Sound, various coastal rivers of British Columbia, Canada, and southeast Alaska. Bull trout occur in portions of the Columbia River and Snake River basins, extending east to headwater streams in Montana and Idaho, and into Canada. Bull trout also occur in the Klamath River basin of south- central Oregon. East of the Continental Divide in Canada, the bull trout's range includes the headwaters of the Saskatchewan River in Alberta, and the MacKenzie River system in Alberta and British Columbia. 97. Bull trout were first described as Salmo spectabilis by Girard in 1856 from a specimen collected on the lower Columbia River near The Dalles, Oregon, and subsequently described under a number of names such as Salmo confluentus and Salvelinus malma. Bull trout and Dolly Varden ( Salvelinus malma) were previously considered a single species. However, in 1980, the American Fisheries Society formally recognized bull trout and Dolly Varden as separate species. Two of the most useful characteristics in separating the two species are the shape and size of the head. The head of bull trout is more broad and flat on top, unlike Dolly Varden. Bull trout have an elongated body and large mouth, with the maxilla ( jaw) extending beyond the eye and with well- developed teeth on both jaws and head of the vomer ( a bone in teleost fishes that form the front part of the roof of the mouth and often bears teeth). Bull trout have 11 dorsal fin rays, nine anal fin rays, and the caudal fin is slightly forked. Although they are often olive green to brown with paler sides, color is variable with locality and habitat. 98. Bull trout exhibit both resident and migratory life history strategies. Resident bull trout complete their entire life cycle in the tributary streams where they spawn and rear. Migratory bull trout spawn in tributary streams where juvenile fish rear from one to four years before migrating to either a larger river or lake, where they spend their adult life, returning to the tributary stream only to spawn. These migratory forms occur in areas where conditions allow for movement from upper watershed spawning streams to larger downstream waters that contain greater foraging opportunities. Bull trout that migrate to a downstream river are referred to as " fluvial" fish, while the term " adfluvial" is used to describe fish that migrate to a lake or reservoir. Resident and migratory forms may spawn in the same areas and either form can produce resident or migratory offspring. 7 Information on the bull trout and its habitat is taken from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Klamath River and Columbia River Distinct Population Segments of Bull Trout, November 29, 2002 ( 67 FR 71235- 71284). 1- 2 99. The Klamath River population segment consists of bull trout in the Upper Klamath Lake, Sprague River, and Sycan River watersheds in Oregon. Historical records suggest that bull trout were once widely distributed and exhibited diverse life- history traits in the Klamath River basin. Currently, bull trout in this basin are non- migratory fish that are confined to headwater streams. The local populations that remain reside in an estimated 21 percent of the historic range of bull trout in the Klamath River basin, and they are isolated from one another. 100. The Columbia River population segment includes bull trout residing in portions of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana. The Bull Trout Draft Recovery Plan ( Draft Recovery Plan) ( Service 2002) identifies 22 recovery units within the Columbia River basin: the Willamette River ( upper tributaries including the McKenzie River), Lower Columbia River ( principally the Lewis, White Salmon, and Klickitat Rivers), Hood River, Deschutes River, Odell Lake, John Day River, Umatilla and Walla Walla Rivers, Middle Columbia River ( principally the Yakima River), Snake River ( including Asotin Creek and Tucannon River), Grande Ronde River, Clearwater River, Salmon River, Little Lost River, Imnaha River, Hells Canyon ( including Powder River), Malheur River, Southwest Idaho, Upper Columbia River ( principally the Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow Rivers), Northeast Washington, Clark Fork River, Kootenai River, and Coeur d'Alene Lake. Bull trout are estimated to have once occupied about 60 percent of the Columbia River basin; they presently occur in approximately 45 percent of their historic range. Although still somewhat widely distributed in the Columbia River basin, bull trout occur in low numbers in many areas and populations are considered depressed or declining across much of their range. 101. Many factors have contributed to the decline of bull trout in the Columbia and Klamath River basins. However, several appear to be particularly significant: ( 1) fragmentation and isolation of local populations due to dams and water diversions that have eliminated habitat, altered water flow and temperature regimes, and impeded migratory movements; ( 2) degradation of spawning and rearing habitat in upper watershed areas, particularly alterations in sedimentation rates and water temperature resulting from past forest and rangeland management practices and intensive development of roads; and ( 3) the introduction and spread of non- native species, particularly brook trout ( Salvelinusfontinalis) and lake trout ( Salvelinus namaycush), which compete with bull trout for limited resources and, in the case of brook trout, hybridize with bull trout. 102. Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements than most other salmonids. Habitat components that influence bull trout distribution and abundance include water temperature, cover, channel form and stability, spawning and rearing substrate conditions, and migratory corridors. 103. Bull trout are found primarily in cold streams; water temperatures above 15° Celsius ( C) ( 59° Fahrenheit ( F)) are believed to limit bull trout distribution. Adult bull trout have been observed in large rivers throughout the Columbia River basin in water temperatures up to 20° C ( 68° F); however, there are documented steady and substantial declines in 1- 3 abundance in stream reaches where water temperature ranged from 15° to 20° C ( 59° to 68° F). In large rivers, bull trout are often observed " dipping" into the lower reaches of tributary streams, and it is suspected that cooler waters in these tributary mouths may provide important thermal refugia, allowing them to forage, migrate, and overwinter in waters that would otherwise be, at least seasonally, too warm. 104. Preferred spawning habitat consists of low- gradient stream reaches with loose, clean gravel, and water temperatures that range from 4° to 10° C ( 39° to 51° F). Such areas are often associated with cold- water springs or groundwater up- welling. Because bull trout eggs incubate about seven months in the gravel, they are especially vulnerable to fine sediments and water quality degradation. Increases in fine sediment appear to reduce egg survival and emergence. Juveniles are likely similarly affected, as they also live on or within the stream bed cobble. 105. Throughout their lives, bull trout require complex forms of cover, including large woody debris, undercut banks, boulders, and pools. Bull trout are opportunistic feeders, with food habits that are primarily a function of size and life- history strategy. Resident and juvenile migratory bull trout prey on terrestrial and aquatic insects, macro- zooplankton, and small fish. Adult migratory bull trout feed almost exclusively on other fish. 106. The ability to migrate is important to the persistence of bull trout. Maintaining the full complement of bull trout life history forms appears to be important for long- term population persistence in a dynamic and unpredictable environment. Migratory bull trout become much larger than resident fish in the more productive waters of larger streams and lakes, leading to increased reproductive potential. Migration also results in increased dispersion of the population which facilitates gene flow among local populations when individuals from different local populations interbreed, stray, or return to non- natal streams. Local populations that are extirpated by catastrophic events may also become re- established by bull trout migrants. 107. Introduced brook trout threaten bull trout through hybridization, competition, and possibly predation. Hybridization between brook trout and bull trout has been reported in Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. In addition, brook trout mature at an earlier age and have a higher reproductive rate than bull trout. This difference appears to favor brook trout over bull trout when they occur together, often leading to the decline or extirpation of bull trout. Brook trout also appear to adapt better to degraded habitat than bull trout and are more tolerant of high water temperatures. Non- native lake trout also negatively affect bull trout. In a study of 34 lakes in Montana, Alberta, and British Columbia, lake trout appeared to limit foraging opportunities and reduce the distribution and abundance of migratory bull trout in mountain lakes. 108. The Service determined the primary constituent elements of bull trout habitat from studies of their habitat requirements, life history characteristics, and population biology, as outlined above. These primary constituent elements are: 1- 4 Permanent water and associated substrate having low levels of contaminants such that normal reproduction, growth and survival are not inhibited; Water temperatures ranging from 2° to 15° C ( 37° to 59° F). Adequate thermal refugia may be necessary for persistence of bull trout if water temperatures commonly exceed this range. Specific temperatures within this range will vary depending on bull trout life history stage and form, geography, elevation, diurnal and seasonal variation, shade, such as that provided by riparian habitat, and local groundwater influence; • Complex stream channels with features such as woody debris, side channels, pools, and undercut banks to provide a variety of depths, velocities, and instream structures; • Substrates of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young- of- the- year and juvenile survival. A minimal amount of fines less than 0.63 cm ( 0.25 in) in diameter and minimal substrate embeddedness are characteristic of these conditions; • A natural hydrograph, including high, low, peak, and base flows within historic ranges or, if regulated, a hydrograph that demonstrates the ability to support bull trout populations; • Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity to contribute to water quality and quantity; • Migratory corridors with minimal physical, biological or chemical barriers between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and foraging habitats, including intermittent or seasonal barriers induced by high water temperatures or low flows; • An abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish; and • Few or no predatory, interbreeding, or competitive non- native species present. An area need not include all of these elements to qualify for designation as critical habitat. 1.2 Proposed Critical Habitat 109. The areas proposed for designation as critical habitat for the bull trout provide one or more of the primary constituent elements described above. All of the proposed areas require special management considerations to ensure their contribution to the conservation of the bull trout. The critical habitat area consists of 18,469 river miles and 532,721 acres of lake and reservoir habitat within 25 units. While the lateral extent of proposed riverine 1- 5 critical habitat is the width of the stream channel defined by its bankfull elevation, the designation of critical habitat is expected to impact inland activity. How far inland the designation's effects extend is a more or less a site specific issue. For example, with regards to land- based activities such as timber sales or grazing practices, it is a matter of site specific physical processes such as sediment transport, the local topography, and the size of the drainage basin. Descriptions of each critical habitat unit are provided in Appendix A. 1.3 Framework and Methodology 110. The primary purpose of this analysis is to estimate the economic impact associated with the designation of critical habitat for bull trout. 8 This information is intended to assist the Secretary in making decisions about whether the benefits of excluding particular areas from the designation outweigh the benefits of including those areas in the designation. 9 In addition, this information allows the Service to address the requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13211, the RFA, as amended by the SBREFA. 10 111. This chapter provides the framework for this analysis. First, it defines the economic effects considered in the analysis. Second, it establishes the baseline against which these effects are measured. Third, it describes the measurement of direct compliance costs, which include costs associated with, and generated as a result of, section 7 consultations. Fourth, it identifies potential indirect economic effects of the rule resulting from ( 1) compliance with other parts of the Act potentially triggered by critical habitat, ( 2) compliance with other laws, and ( 3) time delays and regulatory uncertainty. Fifth, it discusses the need for an economic assessment of the benefits of critical habitat designation. Finally, the section concludes by discussing the time frame for the analysis and the general steps followed in the analysis. 1.3.1 Types of Economic Effects Considered 112. This economic analysis considers both the economic efficiency and distributional effects. For the purpose of this analysis, economic efficiency effects generally reflect the " opportunity costs" associated with the commitment of resources required to comply with the Act. For example, if the activities that can take place on a parcel of private land are limited as a result of a designation, and thus the market value of the land reduced, this reduction in value represents one measure of opportunity cost or change in economic efficiency. Similarly, the costs incurred by a Federal Action agency to consult with the Service under section 7 represent economic opportunity costs. 8 This analysis considers the effects of the regulatory action as proposed in the Federal Register on November 29, 2002 ( 67 FR 71236). M6U. S. C. § 1533( b)( 2). 10 Executive Order 12866, " Regulatory Planning and Review," September 30, 1993; Executive Order 13211, " Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use," May 18, 2001; 5 U. S. C. § § 601 etseq; and Pub Law No. 104- 121. 1- 6 113. This analysis also addresses how the impacts are distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional economic impacts and the potential effects on small entities and the energy industry. This information can be used by decision- makers to assess whether the effects might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector. 114. For example, while the designation may have a relatively small impact when measured in terms of changes in economic efficiency, individuals employed in a particular sector of the economy in the geographic area of the designation may experience relatively greater effects. The difference between economic efficiency effects and distributional effects, as well as their application in this analysis, are discussed in greater detail below. Efficiency Effects 115. At the guidance of the OMB and in compliance with Executive Order 12866 " Regulatory Planning and Review," Federal agencies measure changes in economic efficiency in order to understand how society, as a whole, will be affected by a regulatory action. 11 In the context of this regulatory action, these efficiency effects represent the opportunity cost of resources used or benefits foregone by society as a result of critical habitat designation and other co- extensive regulations. 12 Economists generally characterize opportunity costs in terms of changes in producer and consumer surpluses in affected markets. 13 116. In some instances, compliance costs may provide a reasonable approximation for the efficiency effects associated with a regulatory action. For example, a landowner or manager may need to enter into a consultation with the Service to ensure that a particular activity will not adversely modify critical habitat. The effort required for the consultation represents an economic opportunity cost, because the landowner or manager's time and effort would have been spent in an alternative activity had the parcel not been included in the designation. When compliance activity is not expected to significantly affect markets — that is, not result in a shift in the quantity of a good or service provided at a given price, or in the quantity of a good or service demanded given a change in price ~ the measurement of compliance costs can provide a reasonable estimate of the change in economic efficiency. 11 Executive Order 12866, " Regulatory Planning and Review," September 30,1993; U. S. Office of Management and Budget, " Circular A- 4," September 17, 2003. 12 The term " co- extensive" is discussed in greater detail in Section 1.3.3. 13 For additional information on the definition of " surplus" and an explanation of consumer and producer surplus in the context of regulatory analysis, see Gramlich, Edward M, A Guide to Benefit- Cost Analysis ( 2nd Ed.), Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc., 1990; and U. S. EPA, Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, EPA 240- R- 00- 003, September 2000, available at http:// yosemite. epa. gov/ ee/ epa/ eed. nsf/ webpages/ Guidelines. html. 1- 7 117. Where a designation is expected to significantly impact a market, it may be necessary to estimate changes in producer and consumer surpluses. For example, a designation that precludes the development of large areas of land may shift the price and quantity of housing supplied in a region. In this case, changes in economic efficiency can be measured by considering changes in producer and consumer surplus in the real estate market. 118. This analysis begins by measuring reasonably foreseeable compliance costs. As noted above, in some cases, compliance costs can provide a reasonable estimate of changes in economic efficiency. However, if the designation is expected to significantly impact markets, the analysis will consider potential changes in consumer and/ or producer surplus in affected markets. Distributional and Regional Economic Effects 119. Measurements of changes in economic efficiency focus on the net impact of the regulation, without consideration for how certain economic sectors or groups of people are affected. Thus, a discussion of efficiency effects alone may miss important distributional considerations concerning groups that may be disproportionately affected. OMB encourages Federal agencies to consider distributional effects separately from efficiency effects. 14 This analysis considers the potential for several types of distributional effects, including impacts on small entities; impacts on energy supply distribution and use; and regional economic impacts. It is important to note that these are fundamentally different measures of economic impact than efficiency effects, and thus cannot be added to or compared with estimates of changes in economic efficiency. Impacts on Small Entities and Energy Supply, Distribution and Use 120. This analysis considers how small entities, including small businesses, organizations, and governments, as defined by the RFA, might be affected by critical habitat designation and other co- extensive regulatory actions. 15 In addition, in response to Executive Order 13211 " Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use," this analysis considers the impacts of critical habitat on the energy industry and its customers. 16 14 U. S. Office of Management and Budget, " Circular A- 4," September 17, 2003. 155U. S. C. § 60\ etseq. 16 Executive Order 13211, " Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use," May 18, 2001. 1- 8 Regional Economic Effects 121. Regional economic impact analysis provides an assessment of the potential localized effects of critical habitat designation and other co- extensive regulations. Specifically, regional economic impact analysis produces a quantitative estimate of the potential magnitude of the initial change in the regional economy resulting from a regulatory action. Regional economic impacts are commonly measured using regional input/ output models. These models rely on multipliers that mathematically represent the relationship between a change in one sector of the economy ( e. g., hydroelectric power generation) and the effect of that change on economic output, income, or employment in other local industries ( e. g., manufacturers relying on the electricity generated). These economic data provide a quantitative estimate of the magnitude of shifts of jobs and revenues in the local economy. 122. The use of regional input/ output models can overstate the long- term impacts of a regulatory change. Most importantly, these models provide a static view of the economy of a region. That is, they measure the initial impact of a regulatory change on an economy but do not consider long- term adjustments that the economy will make in response to this change. For example, these models provide estimates of the number of jobs lost as a result of a regulatory change, but do not consider re- employment of these individuals over time. In addition, the flow of goods and services across the regional boundaries defined in the model may change as a result of the designation, compensating for a potential decrease in economic activity within the region. 123. Despite these and other limitations, in certain circumstances regional economic impact analysis may provide useful information about the scale and scope of localized impacts. It is important to remember that measures of regional economic effects generally reflect shifts in resource use rather than efficiency losses. These types of distributional effects, therefore, should be reported separately from efficiency effects ( i. e., not summed). In addition, measures of regional economic impact cannot be compared with estimates of efficiency effects. 1.3.2 Defining the Baseline 124. The purpose of this analysis is to measure the economic impact of compliance with the protections derived from the designation of critical habitat, including habitat protections that may be " co- extensive" with the listing of the species ( the term " co- extensive" is described in greater detail in the following section). Economic impacts to land use activities may exist in the absence of co- extensive protections. These impacts may result from, for example: • Local zoning laws; • State and natural resource laws; and 1- 9 • Enforceable management plans and BMPs applied by other State and Federal agencies. 125. Economic impacts that result from these types of protections are not included in this assessment; they are considered to be part of the " baseline." Existing laws, regulations, and policies are described in greater detail in Section 2.3 of this analysis. 1.3.3 Direct Compliance Costs 126. The measurement of direct compliance costs focuses on the implementation of section 7 of the Act. This section requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The administrative costs of these consultations, along with the costs of project modifications resulting from these consultations, represent the direct compliance costs of designating critical habitat. 127. This analysis does not differentiate between consultations that result from the listing of the species ( i. e., the jeopardy standard) and consultations that result from the presence of critical habitat ( i. e., the adverse modification standard). Consultations resulting from the listing of the species, or project modifications meant specifically to protect the species as opposed to its habitat, may occur even in the absence of critical habitat. However, in 2001, the U. S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals instructed the Service to conduct a full analysis of all of the economic impacts of critical habitat designation, regardless of whether those impacts are attributable co- extensively to other causes. 17 Given the similarity in regulatory definitions between the terms " jeopardy" and " adverse modification," in practice it can be difficult to pre- determine the standard that drives a section 7 consultation. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that this economic analysis complies with the instructions of the 10th Circuit as well as to ensure that no costs of the proposed designation are omitted, the potential effects associated with all section 7 impacts in or near proposed critical habitat are fully considered. In doing so, the analysis ensures that any critical habitat impacts that are co- extensive with the listing of the species are not overlooked. 1.3.4 Indirect Costs 128. A designation may Close

• 264. [Image] September 2002 Klamath River fish-kill : final analysis of contributing factors and impacts

  	"July 2004"
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: September 2002 Klamath River fish-kill : final analysis of contributing factors and impacts Author: California. Dept. of Fish and Game Year: 2004, 2005 "July 2004" Title: September 2002 Klamath River fish-kill : final analysis of contributing factors and impacts Author: California. Dept. of Fish and Game Year: 2004, 2005 "July 2004" Close

• 265. [Image] Scientific disagreement regarding coho salmon status under the ESA

  	Internal memo between staff of the National Marine Fisheries Service dated September 27, 1996 which summarizes the issues of scientific disagreement related to the listing of three coho salmon as an endangered ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Scientific disagreement regarding coho salmon status under the ESA Author: Varanasi, Usha; Tillman, Michael Year: 1996, 2005 Internal memo between staff of the National Marine Fisheries Service dated September 27, 1996 which summarizes the issues of scientific disagreement related to the listing of three coho salmon as an endangered species Title: Scientific disagreement regarding coho salmon status under the ESA Author: Varanasi, Usha; Tillman, Michael Year: 1996, 2005 Internal memo between staff of the National Marine Fisheries Service dated September 27, 1996 which summarizes the issues of scientific disagreement related to the listing of three coho salmon as an endangered species Close

• 266. [Image] Questions and answers : five-year review of Klamath sucker populations

  	Fact sheet summarizing the reasons behind the five-year review of the issues surrounding the Klamath sucker fish
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Questions and answers : five-year review of Klamath sucker populations Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Year: 2004, 2005 Fact sheet summarizing the reasons behind the five-year review of the issues surrounding the Klamath sucker fish Title: Questions and answers : five-year review of Klamath sucker populations Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Year: 2004, 2005 Fact sheet summarizing the reasons behind the five-year review of the issues surrounding the Klamath sucker fish Close

• 267. [Image] Klamath Project 2001 biological opinion

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

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

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

• 269. [Image] Anomalies of larval and juvenile shortnose and Lost River suckers in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon

  	Abstract-Larval and juvenile shortnose {Chasmistes brevirostris) and Lost River (Deltistes luxatus) suckers from Upper Klamath Lake, OR, were examined to determine anomaly rates for fins, eyes, spinal ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Anomalies of larval and juvenile shortnose and Lost River suckers in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon Author: Plunkett, Steven R.; Snyder-Conn, Elaine Year: 2000, 2005 Abstract-Larval and juvenile shortnose {Chasmistes brevirostris) and Lost River (Deltistes luxatus) suckers from Upper Klamath Lake, OR, were examined to determine anomaly rates for fins, eyes, spinal column, vertebrae, and osteocranium, and their possible associations with water quality and pesticides. X-rays of 1,550 fish and 1,395 matching specimens, collected in 1993, were ranked on the severity of anomalies. One or more anomalies were observed in 15.9% of shortnose suckers and 8.2% of Lost River suckers. Anomaly rates exceeding 1.0%, greater than rates expected from high water quality systems, were observed for lordosis and scoliosis, and abnormalities of the vertebrae, opercula, and pectoral and pelvic fins in shortnose suckers, and abnormalities of vertebrae and opercula in Lost River suckers. The highest rates of anomalies were in vertebrae, pelvic fins, and opercula in shortnose suckers, and opercula and vertebrae in Lost River suckers. Shortnose suckers exhibited higher rates than Lost River suckers for almost all anomalies. Particular anomaly rates differed significantly among sites. There were also substantially more anomalies found in larvae and small juveniles than in larger juveniles. Based on the high anomaly rates observed in this study, it is possible that 0-aged sucker cohorts in Upper Klamath Lake are far more vulnerable to mortality. Title: Anomalies of larval and juvenile shortnose and Lost River suckers in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon Author: Plunkett, Steven R.; Snyder-Conn, Elaine Year: 2000, 2005 Abstract-Larval and juvenile shortnose {Chasmistes brevirostris) and Lost River (Deltistes luxatus) suckers from Upper Klamath Lake, OR, were examined to determine anomaly rates for fins, eyes, spinal column, vertebrae, and osteocranium, and their possible associations with water quality and pesticides. X-rays of 1,550 fish and 1,395 matching specimens, collected in 1993, were ranked on the severity of anomalies. One or more anomalies were observed in 15.9% of shortnose suckers and 8.2% of Lost River suckers. Anomaly rates exceeding 1.0%, greater than rates expected from high water quality systems, were observed for lordosis and scoliosis, and abnormalities of the vertebrae, opercula, and pectoral and pelvic fins in shortnose suckers, and abnormalities of vertebrae and opercula in Lost River suckers. The highest rates of anomalies were in vertebrae, pelvic fins, and opercula in shortnose suckers, and opercula and vertebrae in Lost River suckers. Shortnose suckers exhibited higher rates than Lost River suckers for almost all anomalies. Particular anomaly rates differed significantly among sites. There were also substantially more anomalies found in larvae and small juveniles than in larger juveniles. Based on the high anomaly rates observed in this study, it is possible that 0-aged sucker cohorts in Upper Klamath Lake are far more vulnerable to mortality. Close

• 270. [Image] Distribution and biology of suckers in Lower Klamath reservoirs : 1999 final report

  	Abstract The objectives of this two-year study (1998-1999) were to document distribution, abundance, age class structure, recruitment success, and habitat use by all life history stages of shortnose and ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Distribution and biology of suckers in Lower Klamath reservoirs : 1999 final report Author: Desjardins, Marc; Markle, Douglas F. Year: 2000, 2005 Abstract The objectives of this two-year study (1998-1999) were to document distribution, abundance, age class structure, recruitment success, and habitat use by all life history stages of shortnose and Lost River suckers in three lower Klamath River hydroelectric reservoirs (J. C. Boyle, Copco, and Iron Gate). Lost River sucker catches were sporadic (only 3 adult individuals total) and the focus of our analyses, therefore, shifted to shortnose suckers. Adult and larval suckers were found in all reservoirs both years. All life history stages (larvae, juveniles and adults) were found in J. C. Boyle during both years and in Copco in 1999. Juvenile suckers were not found in Copco in 1998. The number of adult shortnose suckers was highest in Copco reservoir (n=165), followed by J.C. Boyle (n=50) and Iron Gate (n=22). Larger and older individuals dominated Copco and Iron Gate reservoirs and little size structure was detected. J. C. Boyle tended to have smaller adult shortnose suckers and many size classes were present. Unidentifiable larval suckers were most abundant in Copco reservoir where historic spawning of shortnose suckers has been documented. Larval suckers in Copco and Iron Gate reservoirs were most abundant in mid to late June before quickly disappearing from catches. J. C. Boyle larval suckers peaked in mid July, attained larger sizes, and were caught later in the season. It appeared that recruitment of young-of-the-year suckers only occurred in J. C. Boyle with downstream reservoirs recruiting older individuals, perhaps those that had earlier recruited to J. C. Boyle. Tagging studies could clarify adult recruitment dynamics and an additional study of juvenile recruitment would be needed to confirm these patterns. Predation pressure may be somewhat reduced in J. C. Boyle in comparison to the other reservoirs as its fish community was dominated by native fishes while communities in Copco and Iron Gate reservoirs were dominated by exotic predators. J. C. Boyle also possessed proportionally more littoral habitat, which suggests it may provide a more stable environment for young fishes. However, our sampling was inadequate to demonstrate such relationships due to high variance in larval and juvenile catches and potentially confounding habitat variables. One such variable was water level fluctuations, which could interact with habitat and resource availability in complex ways. For example, water level fluctuations, presumed to have a negative impact, were greatest in J. C. Boyle. Extrapolation from the literature suggests it should have had the poorest habitat for larval and juvenile suckers, but our results indicated J. C. Boyle had the most young suckers. Additional study of the relationships between water level fluctuations, habitat availability, the exotic fish community, and juvenile sucker recruitment would be needed to better understand early life history ecology of endangered lake suckers in these systems. Title: Distribution and biology of suckers in Lower Klamath reservoirs : 1999 final report Author: Desjardins, Marc; Markle, Douglas F. Year: 2000, 2005 Abstract The objectives of this two-year study (1998-1999) were to document distribution, abundance, age class structure, recruitment success, and habitat use by all life history stages of shortnose and Lost River suckers in three lower Klamath River hydroelectric reservoirs (J. C. Boyle, Copco, and Iron Gate). Lost River sucker catches were sporadic (only 3 adult individuals total) and the focus of our analyses, therefore, shifted to shortnose suckers. Adult and larval suckers were found in all reservoirs both years. All life history stages (larvae, juveniles and adults) were found in J. C. Boyle during both years and in Copco in 1999. Juvenile suckers were not found in Copco in 1998. The number of adult shortnose suckers was highest in Copco reservoir (n=165), followed by J.C. Boyle (n=50) and Iron Gate (n=22). Larger and older individuals dominated Copco and Iron Gate reservoirs and little size structure was detected. J. C. Boyle tended to have smaller adult shortnose suckers and many size classes were present. Unidentifiable larval suckers were most abundant in Copco reservoir where historic spawning of shortnose suckers has been documented. Larval suckers in Copco and Iron Gate reservoirs were most abundant in mid to late June before quickly disappearing from catches. J. C. Boyle larval suckers peaked in mid July, attained larger sizes, and were caught later in the season. It appeared that recruitment of young-of-the-year suckers only occurred in J. C. Boyle with downstream reservoirs recruiting older individuals, perhaps those that had earlier recruited to J. C. Boyle. Tagging studies could clarify adult recruitment dynamics and an additional study of juvenile recruitment would be needed to confirm these patterns. Predation pressure may be somewhat reduced in J. C. Boyle in comparison to the other reservoirs as its fish community was dominated by native fishes while communities in Copco and Iron Gate reservoirs were dominated by exotic predators. J. C. Boyle also possessed proportionally more littoral habitat, which suggests it may provide a more stable environment for young fishes. However, our sampling was inadequate to demonstrate such relationships due to high variance in larval and juvenile catches and potentially confounding habitat variables. One such variable was water level fluctuations, which could interact with habitat and resource availability in complex ways. For example, water level fluctuations, presumed to have a negative impact, were greatest in J. C. Boyle. Extrapolation from the literature suggests it should have had the poorest habitat for larval and juvenile suckers, but our results indicated J. C. Boyle had the most young suckers. Additional study of the relationships between water level fluctuations, habitat availability, the exotic fish community, and juvenile sucker recruitment would be needed to better understand early life history ecology of endangered lake suckers in these systems. Close

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

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

• 272. [Image] Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds biennial report, 2001-2003

  	A GUIDE TO PART I - ESTABLISHING COMMON BASINS A GUIDE TO PART II - THE FOUR ELEMENTS OF THE OREGON PLAN THE OREGON PLAN - BASIN BY BASIN KEY TO BASIN LAYOUTS BASIN REPORTS North Coast Umpqua South Coast ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds biennial report, 2001-2003 Author: Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Year: 2003, 2005, 2004 A GUIDE TO PART I - ESTABLISHING COMMON BASINS A GUIDE TO PART II - THE FOUR ELEMENTS OF THE OREGON PLAN THE OREGON PLAN - BASIN BY BASIN KEY TO BASIN LAYOUTS BASIN REPORTS North Coast Umpqua South Coast Rogue Klamath Lakes Basin Owyhee-Malheur Powder Grande Ronde Umatilla John Day Deschutes Hood Lower Columbia Willamette FEDERAL CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION DATA THE OREGON PLAN - FOUR ELEMENTS AGENCY ACTIONS VOLUNTARY RESTORATION ACTIONS BY OREGONIANS MONITORING SCIENCE OVERSIGHT HI. THE OREGON PLAN-OBSERVATIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OWEB BOARD DATA SOURCES and CREDITS Title: Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds biennial report, 2001-2003 Author: Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Year: 2003, 2005, 2004 A GUIDE TO PART I - ESTABLISHING COMMON BASINS A GUIDE TO PART II - THE FOUR ELEMENTS OF THE OREGON PLAN THE OREGON PLAN - BASIN BY BASIN KEY TO BASIN LAYOUTS BASIN REPORTS North Coast Umpqua South Coast Rogue Klamath Lakes Basin Owyhee-Malheur Powder Grande Ronde Umatilla John Day Deschutes Hood Lower Columbia Willamette FEDERAL CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION DATA THE OREGON PLAN - FOUR ELEMENTS AGENCY ACTIONS VOLUNTARY RESTORATION ACTIONS BY OREGONIANS MONITORING SCIENCE OVERSIGHT HI. THE OREGON PLAN-OBSERVATIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OWEB BOARD DATA SOURCES and CREDITS Close

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

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

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

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

• 275. [Image] Evaluation of site specific restoration projects for the entire Klamath River basin

  	DOCS I 49.107: 89 ( 1.1) 89( 1.1) EVALUATION OF SITE SPECIFIC RESTORATION PROJECTS FOR THE ENTIRE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN. 1989 Klamath Field Review Comments The following comments are based primarily upon ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Evaluation of site specific restoration projects for the entire Klamath River basin Year: 1989, 2005 DOCS I 49.107: 89 ( 1.1) 89( 1.1) EVALUATION OF SITE SPECIFIC RESTORATION PROJECTS FOR THE ENTIRE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN. 1989 Klamath Field Review Comments The following comments are based primarily upon field observations made by Scott Downie and Andy Kier during the summer and autumn of 1989, Some of the review was made accompanied by personnel responsible for the projects and their comments are incorporated as well. In many streams individual project sites are linked and/ or similar in nature. This review generalizes these in its comments and ratings, but notes exceptions where required. Grades A- F were assigned, but like all grades lacking set criteria and good base- line information, they are somewhat subjective. Evaluations were based upon the observed or perceived physical response mf. de by the stream to the project, whether or not the project satisfied the objectives of the proposal, and whether or not the project appeared to have durable structure and function without maintenance or modification. Biological evaluation was impossible except to note observed fish at the time of the review. Cost effectiveness is again somewhat subjective without more front- end information, but based upon personal experience an attempt to measure product for cost entered into grade assignment. GENERAL: 1000, 1001, 1003: The racks on Bogus Crk, Scott R. & Shasta R were all operational Summer 1989. 1002: The Salmon R. weir operations were modified during our review period in response to public input: 1. The trap and weir will be staffed 24 hrs/ day. 2. Weir and trap operations will cease at 73 F. 3. Fishing will not be allowed below weir. 4. An alternate site will be developed ASAP. LOWER KLAMATH SUBBASIN: Ah Pah Creek ( 11006, 07, 08, 09, 10, 18-$ 123,928): A CCC, DFG, & Simpson Timber Co. project to provide improved access for adults into upper Ah Pah Crk., and to control sedimentation from failing banks in the treatment area. In Oct. 1989, the Hewitt Ramp structures were successfully passing coho and steelhead adults and juveni'es through a previous adult barrier section. Large wood and boulder cover elements had been placed in the associated pools. Treated banks were armored with rock filled gabions and planted with alder, willow and conifers. No evidence of sediment production to the stream from these treated slopes was observed. The workmanship and construction are sturdyand of high quality. Grade A. { Since we visited Ah Pah Crk. the day after the RNP bypass failure, the stream was loaded with suspended sediments) 1990 - Review Comments- Bluff Creek ( 11022, 23, 24, 31, 32-$ 212,000): Access provided through lower Bluff Crk's former barrier section is still passing adults and juveniles following the Feb. 1986 flood event. The boulder weirs and boulder clusters near the yearling rearing facility are providing limited spawning improvement, but they do contain pockets of gravel utilized by spawners. Both the weirs and clusters have provided some good quality summer rearing habitats, and also refuge areas during winter flows. Two cluster groups are now buried under large streambank failures. These events could have been exacerbated by the placement of the boulders too close to the now failed right bank. No large wood or brush cover elements were utilized in the structures, although some were available. Personnel explained that the extreme velocities and power at high discharges prevented incorporating these organic components into their instream structures on Bluff Crk, Grade C. Camp Creek ( 11029, 30-$ 125,000): Six boulder weirs were constructed by USFS to trap spawning gravels. Two of the six weirs are now scattered boulder clusters, having been rearranged by the stream. The surviving weirs have provided gravels and are being used by fish. The boulder groups, both designed and incidental, are providing some good quality rearing habitats and some pockets of gravel used for spawning salmonids. 3rade C. Cappell Creek ( 11027-$ 125,000): BIA artificial propagation project. Project has operated for one year. It has released 17,035 CWT Chinook. Typical of the lower river hatchery programs, securing desired numbers of late running chinook broodstocks is very difficult. A lot of money in terms of fry produced, but the facility start- up costs are now over and the annual cost will be much less than the initial investment. Grade C. Hunter Creek ( 11001, 11002, 11013-$ 19,328): A CCC, DFG, and Simpson project to improve Hunter Creek on a basin scale. CCC now have a thorough instream assessment and instream structure plan prepared by Clearwater Biostudies, inc. under contract to them. Instream structure work is now underway by CCC crews. The construction is of excellent quality and design. All upper stream barrier work is now completed. The dry lower reaches of the stream pose a dewatered, complete barrier to all adults running before early November in most years ( T. Payne, 1989). Some concern over future land management's effect on the stream in the event of a major flood occurrence. Grade B. McGarvey Creek ( 11025, 11014, 11003-$ 24,264): Status of the hatch box project is not known. The barrier work is all done and passing fish. Grade C. - Review Comments- Pecwan Creek ( 11021, 11036, 11028-$ 50,000): A total of 21,626 yearling chinook were released from 1982- 84 from this facility* They were from Iron Gate stocks and deemed not suitable for the restocking goals of the project area. Since 1985, the facility's production is not well documented, but 27,000 for the period 1985- 88 is estimated. None of the releases from this site have been CWT. The Pecwan site has been used as a broodstock source for Cappell Creek as well. Grade D. Red Cap Creek ( 11033, 34, 35-$ 70,000): USFS project has produced some impressive results. Failing banks have been armored and vegetated. A series of over thirty boulder weirs and clusters have provided some high quality spawning and rearing habitats. Large wood cover elements have been used somewhat in the project. The project reach is in a stream section of former generally poor habitats and low utilization by salmonids; they were abundant during our visits. There is a yearling pond adjacent to the treatment section. Grade A. Richardson Creek ( 11026-$ 25,200): This project removed a barrier to salmonids and is functional. Seemed expensive. Grade C. Salt Creek ( 11000, 11012-$ 18,944): CCC successfully stabilized failing banks. All barrier work is completed and functional. One of the few upslope erosion control projects in the review has controlled the sediment output from the roadway. There is a lot of product here for the money. Grade A. Surpur Creek ( 11005-$ 3,456): CCC removed barriers at a bargain price. Still functional. Grade A. Tarup Creek ( 11004, 11011, 11015, 16, 17-$ 77,024): CCC has a plan for the creek and instream treatments done under contract by Inter- Fluv Inc. The work outlined in the plan is now completed, and is of very high quality and design for the most part. The work involved barrier modification, instream structures, revegetation upslope as well in the riparian zone, and some upslope erosion control ( one site upslope was quite major, in fact). Tarup, regardless of all these improvements, has a low flow access problem in its delta. Grade B. Pine Creek ( 10019, 20-$- 0-): Not reviewed. Various streams ( 11019- 20-$ 550,000): This is the CCC operation fund for the Lower Klamath program. This ongoing general fund was not deemed suitable for field review or rating. However, our general observation of the CCC/ DFG Lower Klamath program has certainly produced a positive impression of their work and approach. - Review Comments- MIDDLE KLAMATH SUBBASIN: Beaver Creek ( 6000- 05, 6035, 6053, 6065, 6066-$ 124,400): The boulder cluster groups and weirs constructed on Beaver Creek are not well utilized at this time. Silts and sediments nave impacted the quality of the gravel associated with the structures to the extent that some cementing has occurred. Therefore, it is believed that utilization by spawners has also been effected. The structures designed for the provision of rearing habitats have done better, and some of course do both, some neither. Grade C, The rearing facility ( 6035) was closed in 1985, but there is now talk of re- opening it. 1980- 84 releases averaged 29,423 yearling chinook of Iron Gate origin. Grade C. The gravel seeding occurred in 1985 ( 6052) and no evaluation was considered possible in 1989, nor was any proffered by staff. The two screens ( 6065- 66) are functional, but require regular upkeep and periodic thorough maintenance. Grade B. Bluff Creek ( 6036-$- 0-): This is one of the Klamath system's highest production cooperative rearing facilities. It has averaged 66,462 chinook yearlings for the past three years. These fish are of Iron Gate origin. Although adult runs are up in Bluff Creek, there is little baseline data, and until the current brood no CWT's were done on the ponded fish. Grade B. Bogus Creek ( 6046- 47, 6053- 54, 6061-$ 94,750): Bogus Creek is heavily utilized by naturally spawning chinook of Iron Gate Hatchery origin as well as by stocks of its own. The projects designed to provide more and/ or better gravels for these fish have met with apparent success, since in almost all cases the projects are used by the spawners, but so is everything else. What that means in real incremental gains that can be credited to particular habitat treatments is therefore difficult to assess. CWT and DSM evaluation programs are ongoing. Grade C. Camp Creek ( 6037-$- 0-): This rearing facility switched from Iron Gate chinook stocks to natal stocks in 1987. Yearling releases dropped from an average of 27,533 to 14,573 after the change. This can be attributed to the difficulty in trapping adults in an open, high discharge system. Still, the fact that they are now utilizing later running stocks that are adapted to Camp Creek's flow regime and conditions counts for a great deal. The natal brood have been marked with alternating maxillary clips ( right one year, left the next) prior to release and some have been recovered as adults. Grade B+. China Creek ( 6008- 09-$ 9,300): Not reviewed. Report is that the access is good throughout the stream now. No report on the status of the structures. - Review Comments- Clear Creek ( 6010, 6068- 69-$ 66,400): Fish and Game's barrier removal is providing access successfully. Report is that access is good throughout Clear Creek at this time. Grade B. Coon Creek ( 6056-$ 30,000): This ladder passes steelhead, but DFG is not certain about coho. It also requires some light upkeep. Grade B. Cottonwood Creek ( 6049-$ 22,966): Gravel placed on these weirs needs to be re- seeded periodically at the cost of $ 2,000 each time. Grade D. ( 6057-$ 6,000): Not reviewed. ( 6055-$ 5,000): Ladder is on line and working well. Grade B. ( 6058- 60-$ 29,500): These screens are all on line and operational, but require light periodic maintenance which is conducted by the Yreka Screen Shop on a rotating basis. Grade B. ( 6070-$ 1,200): The potholes blasted to trap gravel have trapped sand instead, so the goal of creating spawning habitat was not met. However, fry usage and survival seem to be good in the resultant pools. Not a high cost project. Grade C. ( Total Cottonwood Creek budget: $ 64,666) Di1lon Creek ( 6071-$ 5,000): This functional project opened five miles of good habitat now utilized by steelhead and Chinook. Grade A. Doolittle Creek ( 6011-$ 2,300) : The treated log jam has not reformed and access is still good for steelhead. Grade C. Elk Creek ( 6012- 14-$ 41,000): The boulder weirs and clusters are now all installed and need flows for evaluation of performance. ( 6034, 6045-$ 10,000) : The washout pond has averaged 31,205 released Iron Gate chinook yearlings since 1984. Grade B. ( Total Elk Creek budget: $ 51,000) Grider Creek ( 6015- 16, 6038-$ 18,500): The falls are now passing fish successfully. Grade A. The boulder weirs have been successful in trapping spawning gravel and are being used by chinook. Grade A. The ponds have grown an average of 34,426 Iron Gate chinook yearlings since 1987. Grade B. Horse Creek ( 6062- 64, 6074-$ 35,000): The three screens are installed and operational, but require light maintenance. Yreka Screen Shop provides this on an alternating basis. Grade B. The log jam is no longer an access problem. Grade A. ( Extant diversion dam is a major problem on this creek) Humbug Creek ( 6017- 18-$ 5,300): The boulder weirs are not successful and are physically failing. Grade F. The log weirs have worked well and are providing spawning and rearing habitat. Grade A. In any event, ten miles of good quality habitat are blocked to salmonids by dredge tailings in lower Humbug Creek. - Review Comments- Independence Creek ( 6019-$ 5,000): The stream's mouth is still open and fish access it. Grade B. Indian Creek ( 6006, 6020- 28, 6039- 40, 6067, 6072~$ 200,600): AH modified former barriers are now passing fish. Grade A. The recent instream structures all appear to be performing to design; biological evaluation is underway now. Grade B. The spawning channel is used extensively by steelhead, and to a lesser extent by coho, but not by chinook. It is also a maintenance item ( ie. supplemental gravel). Grade D. The rearing ponds have averaged 74,134 Iron Gate yearlings since 1985. Grade B. Irving Creek ( 6029-$ 9,300): The use of small boulders to construct inadequately sized structures resulted in no net gain from this project. Grade F. Iron Gate Hatchery ( 6033-$-?-): The hatchery is modifying its operations to better cope with problems associated with temperatures, density, and release timing according to the hatchery manager. Grade C. Badger Flat and Tree of Heaven ( 6050- 51-$ 136,000): These spawning channels have both been unsuccessful due to design flaws. They require constant maintenance which is not possible during usage. Gravel seeding is an ongoing project. Grade F. Little Bogus Creek ( 6048-$ 20,000): These seeded weirs were not reviewed, but they are reported to be intensely utilized by spawners. However, some maintenance is also required. Pearch Creek ( 6041-$- 0-): These ponds are operated by the Orleans Rod and Gun Club and have good public involvement and educational value. About 9,000 steelhead of Salmon River origin are reared here. A lot of enthusiasm and local stocks. Grade A. Red Cap Creek ( 6042-$- 0-): This rearing pond has averaged 37,862 Iron Gate chinook yearlings since 1985 and is operated in a system that has also had significant habitat improvement projects recently completed. A CWT program would help evaluate both of these aspects of the Red Cap Creek endeavor. Grade B. Seiad Creek ( 6030- 31, 6073-$ 5,100): The barrier project has been successful. Grade A. The weir projects were not found and therefore not reviewed. Thompson Creek ( 6032, 6043-$ 5,000): The rearing ponds were closed in 1985. The instream structures were not reviewed. West Branch Creek ( 6007-$ 5,500): The weirs are used by steelhead for spawning, according to local observers; they seem functional. Grade C. - Review Comments- Wilson Creek ( 6007-$- 0-): This private rearing facility was not reviewed. According to locals, it is not in use at this time. SALMON RIVER: Black Bear Creek ( 5000-$ 11,000): This USFS project successfully provided access for steelhead into the creek, and it is currently being utilized. Grade A. Kelly Gulch ( 5002- 03-$ 9,500): This project was not reviewed, but USFS staff reported that the barrier was still not passing all fish attempting to access the system. Their evaluation is underway now. Knownothing Creek ( 5004- 06, 5021-$ 153,114): The removal of the diversion dams and other barriers resulted, in doubling the chinook and coho runs into the creek. Grade A. The weirs ( 5006*) were not completed at the time of the review. Delays were incurred because the rock was overshot resulting in boulders too small for the structures. Grade F. Nordheimer Creek ( 5007, 5008-$ 90,000): The log weirs ( 5007) failed. Grade F. The fishway ( 5008) is successful and passing fish. Grade A. Salmon River ( 5023, 5024-$ 8,000): This selective barrier was modified at a very reasonable cost and has improved access for al1 fish. Grade A. East Fork Salmon River ( 5013-$ 60,000): This project was not reviewed; USFS is evaluating now. South Fork Salmon River ( 5009- 12, 5014- 15, 5022, 5001-$ 176,200): ( 5009) This natal stock bioenhancement facility was located at a site with poor water temperature conditions for intense fish culture. Broodstock acquisition was also very difficult. The facility is now closed ( equipment will be relocated in the watershed, if possible). The project released 36,667 natal chinook smolts in the period from 1985 to 1987. Grade D. The boulder group projects were undergoing evaluation during the review period for biological response. The initial physical evaluation was not conclusive because many of the projects had not been subject to higher flows. Grade C. ( 5022) The " rough passage" area currently allows fish to pass without undue struggle. Grade B. ( 5001) The Blind Horse Creek weirs have not all been successful in providing spawning habitat. Many are trapping silt rather than spawning gravel. Rearing habitats are being provided by most of them, however. Grade D. - Review Comments- Specimen Creek ( 5016-$ 500): Steelhead now pass the treated log jam barrier. Another jam has formed above this site and requires monitoring and possible modification. Grade B. St. Claire Creek ( 5017- 20-$ 15,000): Steelhead now pass the modified barrier. The log weirs are holding gravel and in use by spawners. Juvenile cover is good associated with the weirs as well as the cover elements used in the project. The boulder weirs and clusters are also in place and in use. Grade A. SCOTT RIVER: Scott River and tribs. ( 4031- 4334 [ not inclusive]-$ 2, "* 15,810) : These Soil Conservation District projects primarily involved placing rip- rap armor at 304 different sites in the upper Scott system. Not all were reviewed, and although the rock is stable and in place, many were found to lack streamside vegetation that would provide important shade and cover for the stream and aquatic life. Some others were buried in decomposed granite, sand or silt and therefore had little benefit for fish by way of providing complex micro- habitats. The value of these projects would be much greater if some of these items were addressed. Grade C. French Creek ( 4001, 4016- 18-$ 32,100): The sediment check dam initially filled in one storm event. It was excavated but refilled during the next runoff event. A high maintenance approach that treats the symptoms of the watershed's chronic erosion problem. Grade F. The screens are all in place and functional, but are dependent upon periodic light upkeep provided by the Yreka Screen Shop. Grade B. Kelsey Creek ( 4002- 04-$ 147,500): The weirs work well and are used by all species for spawning and rearing. Grade A. The USFS spawning channel has not performed as hoped. Problems have occurred relating to channel liner failure. The average number of pairs using the channel during the period 1985- 88 were: nine chinook, three coho, and twelve steelhead. In 1989 no usage was observed. It is also a very costly installation. Grade D-. Kidder Creek ( 4020- 21-$ 26,000): Both screens are in place and functional, but are dependent upon periodic maintenance provided by the Yreka Screen Shop. Grade B. Patterson Creek ( 4019-$ 9,000): This screen is in place and functional, but is dependent upon periodic maintenance provided by the Yreka Screen Shop. Grade B. - Review Comments- Scott River ( 4005- 06, 4012- 15-$ 94,800): Although the gravels were ' cleaned' the sedimentation problem returned the next year, This treatment does not address the problem, but rather the symptoms and would require constant maintenance. Grade F. The boulder groups were not installed after gauging the rapid sedimentation rate. The four screens are in place and functional, but are dependent upon periodic maintenance provided by the Yreka Screen Shop. Grade B. East Fork Scott River ( 4010- 11-$ 20,000): These two screens are in place and functional, but are dependent upon periodic maintenance provided by the Yreka Screen Shop. Grade B. Shakleford Creek ( 4009, 4022- 4030 incl., 4323, 4329-$ 343,720): ( 4009) The bank armor was not surveyed, but is reported to be stabilizing the soft banks. The fishery benefits are not known, ( 4022- 30) These nine screens are in place and functional, but are dependent upon periodic maintenance provided by tne Yreka Screen Shop, Grade B. ( 4323, 4329) The rip- rap bank armor is in place, but needs vegetation and cover elements added to increase fishery values. Grade C. Thomkins Creek ( 4007- 08-$ 6,500): The weirs are installed but are not highly utilized because of the recruited fine sediments now accumulated on them. Grade D. The fishway has provided access and is currently functional. Grade B. SHASTA RIVER: Parks Creek ( 3018-$ 42,000): These four screens are in place and functional, but are dependent upon periodic maintenance provided by the Yreka Screen Shop. Grade B. Shasta River ( 3000- 04, 3005- 08, 3009- 17-$ 519,000): ( 3000- 04) These weirs have deteriorated over the past few years due to the use of undersized boulders in construction. Only about 10% of the effective structures remain. In 1989 only 32 redds were observed on the weirs. Very expensive ($ 363,000) spawning gravel. Grade D. The four fishways ( 3005- 08-$ 17,000) are all currently passing fish. Grade B. The nine screens ( 3009- 17-$ 139,000) are in place and functional, but are dependent upon periodic maintenance provided by the Yreka Screen Shop. Grade B. 12 0140402500 UPPER KLAMATH RIVER: Fal1 Creek ( 2000-$- 0-): The Fall Creek hatchery facility is on line and ready to augment Iron Gate's production. The site has very good water quality and can be instrumental in relieving crowding problems at Iron Gate. Title: Evaluation of site specific restoration projects for the entire Klamath River basin Year: 1989, 2005 DOCS I 49.107: 89 ( 1.1) 89( 1.1) EVALUATION OF SITE SPECIFIC RESTORATION PROJECTS FOR THE ENTIRE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN. 1989 Klamath Field Review Comments The following comments are based primarily upon field observations made by Scott Downie and Andy Kier during the summer and autumn of 1989, Some of the review was made accompanied by personnel responsible for the projects and their comments are incorporated as well. In many streams individual project sites are linked and/ or similar in nature. This review generalizes these in its comments and ratings, but notes exceptions where required. Grades A- F were assigned, but like all grades lacking set criteria and good base- line information, they are somewhat subjective. Evaluations were based upon the observed or perceived physical response mf. de by the stream to the project, whether or not the project satisfied the objectives of the proposal, and whether or not the project appeared to have durable structure and function without maintenance or modification. Biological evaluation was impossible except to note observed fish at the time of the review. Cost effectiveness is again somewhat subjective without more front- end information, but based upon personal experience an attempt to measure product for cost entered into grade assignment. GENERAL: 1000, 1001, 1003: The racks on Bogus Crk, Scott R. & Shasta R were all operational Summer 1989. 1002: The Salmon R. weir operations were modified during our review period in response to public input: 1. The trap and weir will be staffed 24 hrs/ day. 2. Weir and trap operations will cease at 73 F. 3. Fishing will not be allowed below weir. 4. An alternate site will be developed ASAP. LOWER KLAMATH SUBBASIN: Ah Pah Creek ( 11006, 07, 08, 09, 10, 18-$ 123,928): A CCC, DFG, & Simpson Timber Co. project to provide improved access for adults into upper Ah Pah Crk., and to control sedimentation from failing banks in the treatment area. In Oct. 1989, the Hewitt Ramp structures were successfully passing coho and steelhead adults and juveni'es through a previous adult barrier section. Large wood and boulder cover elements had been placed in the associated pools. Treated banks were armored with rock filled gabions and planted with alder, willow and conifers. No evidence of sediment production to the stream from these treated slopes was observed. The workmanship and construction are sturdyand of high quality. Grade A. { Since we visited Ah Pah Crk. the day after the RNP bypass failure, the stream was loaded with suspended sediments) 1990 - Review Comments- Bluff Creek ( 11022, 23, 24, 31, 32-$ 212,000): Access provided through lower Bluff Crk's former barrier section is still passing adults and juveniles following the Feb. 1986 flood event. The boulder weirs and boulder clusters near the yearling rearing facility are providing limited spawning improvement, but they do contain pockets of gravel utilized by spawners. Both the weirs and clusters have provided some good quality summer rearing habitats, and also refuge areas during winter flows. Two cluster groups are now buried under large streambank failures. These events could have been exacerbated by the placement of the boulders too close to the now failed right bank. No large wood or brush cover elements were utilized in the structures, although some were available. Personnel explained that the extreme velocities and power at high discharges prevented incorporating these organic components into their instream structures on Bluff Crk, Grade C. Camp Creek ( 11029, 30-$ 125,000): Six boulder weirs were constructed by USFS to trap spawning gravels. Two of the six weirs are now scattered boulder clusters, having been rearranged by the stream. The surviving weirs have provided gravels and are being used by fish. The boulder groups, both designed and incidental, are providing some good quality rearing habitats and some pockets of gravel used for spawning salmonids. 3rade C. Cappell Creek ( 11027-$ 125,000): BIA artificial propagation project. Project has operated for one year. It has released 17,035 CWT Chinook. Typical of the lower river hatchery programs, securing desired numbers of late running chinook broodstocks is very difficult. A lot of money in terms of fry produced, but the facility start- up costs are now over and the annual cost will be much less than the initial investment. Grade C. Hunter Creek ( 11001, 11002, 11013-$ 19,328): A CCC, DFG, and Simpson project to improve Hunter Creek on a basin scale. CCC now have a thorough instream assessment and instream structure plan prepared by Clearwater Biostudies, inc. under contract to them. Instream structure work is now underway by CCC crews. The construction is of excellent quality and design. All upper stream barrier work is now completed. The dry lower reaches of the stream pose a dewatered, complete barrier to all adults running before early November in most years ( T. Payne, 1989). Some concern over future land management's effect on the stream in the event of a major flood occurrence. Grade B. McGarvey Creek ( 11025, 11014, 11003-$ 24,264): Status of the hatch box project is not known. The barrier work is all done and passing fish. Grade C. - Review Comments- Pecwan Creek ( 11021, 11036, 11028-$ 50,000): A total of 21,626 yearling chinook were released from 1982- 84 from this facility* They were from Iron Gate stocks and deemed not suitable for the restocking goals of the project area. Since 1985, the facility's production is not well documented, but 27,000 for the period 1985- 88 is estimated. None of the releases from this site have been CWT. The Pecwan site has been used as a broodstock source for Cappell Creek as well. Grade D. Red Cap Creek ( 11033, 34, 35-$ 70,000): USFS project has produced some impressive results. Failing banks have been armored and vegetated. A series of over thirty boulder weirs and clusters have provided some high quality spawning and rearing habitats. Large wood cover elements have been used somewhat in the project. The project reach is in a stream section of former generally poor habitats and low utilization by salmonids; they were abundant during our visits. There is a yearling pond adjacent to the treatment section. Grade A. Richardson Creek ( 11026-$ 25,200): This project removed a barrier to salmonids and is functional. Seemed expensive. Grade C. Salt Creek ( 11000, 11012-$ 18,944): CCC successfully stabilized failing banks. All barrier work is completed and functional. One of the few upslope erosion control projects in the review has controlled the sediment output from the roadway. There is a lot of product here for the money. Grade A. Surpur Creek ( 11005-$ 3,456): CCC removed barriers at a bargain price. Still functional. Grade A. Tarup Creek ( 11004, 11011, 11015, 16, 17-$ 77,024): CCC has a plan for the creek and instream treatments done under contract by Inter- Fluv Inc. The work outlined in the plan is now completed, and is of very high quality and design for the most part. The work involved barrier modification, instream structures, revegetation upslope as well in the riparian zone, and some upslope erosion control ( one site upslope was quite major, in fact). Tarup, regardless of all these improvements, has a low flow access problem in its delta. Grade B. Pine Creek ( 10019, 20-$- 0-): Not reviewed. Various streams ( 11019- 20-$ 550,000): This is the CCC operation fund for the Lower Klamath program. This ongoing general fund was not deemed suitable for field review or rating. However, our general observation of the CCC/ DFG Lower Klamath program has certainly produced a positive impression of their work and approach. - Review Comments- MIDDLE KLAMATH SUBBASIN: Beaver Creek ( 6000- 05, 6035, 6053, 6065, 6066-$ 124,400): The boulder cluster groups and weirs constructed on Beaver Creek are not well utilized at this time. Silts and sediments nave impacted the quality of the gravel associated with the structures to the extent that some cementing has occurred. Therefore, it is believed that utilization by spawners has also been effected. The structures designed for the provision of rearing habitats have done better, and some of course do both, some neither. Grade C, The rearing facility ( 6035) was closed in 1985, but there is now talk of re- opening it. 1980- 84 releases averaged 29,423 yearling chinook of Iron Gate origin. Grade C. The gravel seeding occurred in 1985 ( 6052) and no evaluation was considered possible in 1989, nor was any proffered by staff. The two screens ( 6065- 66) are functional, but require regular upkeep and periodic thorough maintenance. Grade B. Bluff Creek ( 6036-$- 0-): This is one of the Klamath system's highest production cooperative rearing facilities. It has averaged 66,462 chinook yearlings for the past three years. These fish are of Iron Gate origin. Although adult runs are up in Bluff Creek, there is little baseline data, and until the current brood no CWT's were done on the ponded fish. Grade B. Bogus Creek ( 6046- 47, 6053- 54, 6061-$ 94,750): Bogus Creek is heavily utilized by naturally spawning chinook of Iron Gate Hatchery origin as well as by stocks of its own. The projects designed to provide more and/ or better gravels for these fish have met with apparent success, since in almost all cases the projects are used by the spawners, but so is everything else. What that means in real incremental gains that can be credited to particular habitat treatments is therefore difficult to assess. CWT and DSM evaluation programs are ongoing. Grade C. Camp Creek ( 6037-$- 0-): This rearing facility switched from Iron Gate chinook stocks to natal stocks in 1987. Yearling releases dropped from an average of 27,533 to 14,573 after the change. This can be attributed to the difficulty in trapping adults in an open, high discharge system. Still, the fact that they are now utilizing later running stocks that are adapted to Camp Creek's flow regime and conditions counts for a great deal. The natal brood have been marked with alternating maxillary clips ( right one year, left the next) prior to release and some have been recovered as adults. Grade B+. China Creek ( 6008- 09-$ 9,300): Not reviewed. Report is that the access is good throughout the stream now. No report on the status of the structures. - Review Comments- Clear Creek ( 6010, 6068- 69-$ 66,400): Fish and Game's barrier removal is providing access successfully. Report is that access is good throughout Clear Creek at this time. Grade B. Coon Creek ( 6056-$ 30,000): This ladder passes steelhead, but DFG is not certain about coho. It also requires some light upkeep. Grade B. Cottonwood Creek ( 6049-$ 22,966): Gravel placed on these weirs needs to be re- seeded periodically at the cost of $ 2,000 each time. Grade D. ( 6057-$ 6,000): Not reviewed. ( 6055-$ 5,000): Ladder is on line and working well. Grade B. ( 6058- 60-$ 29,500): These screens are all on line and operational, but require light periodic maintenance which is conducted by the Yreka Screen Shop on a rotating basis. Grade B. ( 6070-$ 1,200): The potholes blasted to trap gravel have trapped sand instead, so the goal of creating spawning habitat was not met. However, fry usage and survival seem to be good in the resultant pools. Not a high cost project. Grade C. ( Total Cottonwood Creek budget: $ 64,666) Di1lon Creek ( 6071-$ 5,000): This functional project opened five miles of good habitat now utilized by steelhead and Chinook. Grade A. Doolittle Creek ( 6011-$ 2,300) : The treated log jam has not reformed and access is still good for steelhead. Grade C. Elk Creek ( 6012- 14-$ 41,000): The boulder weirs and clusters are now all installed and need flows for evaluation of performance. ( 6034, 6045-$ 10,000) : The washout pond has averaged 31,205 released Iron Gate chinook yearlings since 1984. Grade B. ( Total Elk Creek budget: $ 51,000) Grider Creek ( 6015- 16, 6038-$ 18,500): The falls are now passing fish successfully. Grade A. The boulder weirs have been successful in trapping spawning gravel and are being used by chinook. Grade A. The ponds have grown an average of 34,426 Iron Gate chinook yearlings since 1987. Grade B. Horse Creek ( 6062- 64, 6074-$ 35,000): The three screens are installed and operational, but require light maintenance. Yreka Screen Shop provides this on an alternating basis. Grade B. The log jam is no longer an access problem. Grade A. ( Extant diversion dam is a major problem on this creek) Humbug Creek ( 6017- 18-$ 5,300): The boulder weirs are not successful and are physically failing. Grade F. The log weirs have worked well and are providing spawning and rearing habitat. Grade A. In any event, ten miles of good quality habitat are blocked to salmonids by dredge tailings in lower Humbug Creek. - Review Comments- Independence Creek ( 6019-$ 5,000): The stream's mouth is still open and fish access it. Grade B. Indian Creek ( 6006, 6020- 28, 6039- 40, 6067, 6072~$ 200,600): AH modified former barriers are now passing fish. Grade A. The recent instream structures all appear to be performing to design; biological evaluation is underway now. Grade B. The spawning channel is used extensively by steelhead, and to a lesser extent by coho, but not by chinook. It is also a maintenance item ( ie. supplemental gravel). Grade D. The rearing ponds have averaged 74,134 Iron Gate yearlings since 1985. Grade B. Irving Creek ( 6029-$ 9,300): The use of small boulders to construct inadequately sized structures resulted in no net gain from this project. Grade F. Iron Gate Hatchery ( 6033-$-?-): The hatchery is modifying its operations to better cope with problems associated with temperatures, density, and release timing according to the hatchery manager. Grade C. Badger Flat and Tree of Heaven ( 6050- 51-$ 136,000): These spawning channels have both been unsuccessful due to design flaws. They require constant maintenance which is not possible during usage. Gravel seeding is an ongoing project. Grade F. Little Bogus Creek ( 6048-$ 20,000): These seeded weirs were not reviewed, but they are reported to be intensely utilized by spawners. However, some maintenance is also required. Pearch Creek ( 6041-$- 0-): These ponds are operated by the Orleans Rod and Gun Club and have good public involvement and educational value. About 9,000 steelhead of Salmon River origin are reared here. A lot of enthusiasm and local stocks. Grade A. Red Cap Creek ( 6042-$- 0-): This rearing pond has averaged 37,862 Iron Gate chinook yearlings since 1985 and is operated in a system that has also had significant habitat improvement projects recently completed. A CWT program would help evaluate both of these aspects of the Red Cap Creek endeavor. Grade B. Seiad Creek ( 6030- 31, 6073-$ 5,100): The barrier project has been successful. Grade A. The weir projects were not found and therefore not reviewed. Thompson Creek ( 6032, 6043-$ 5,000): The rearing ponds were closed in 1985. The instream structures were not reviewed. West Branch Creek ( 6007-$ 5,500): The weirs are used by steelhead for spawning, according to local observers; they seem functional. Grade C. - Review Comments- Wilson Creek ( 6007-$- 0-): This private rearing facility was not reviewed. According to locals, it is not in use at this time. SALMON RIVER: Black Bear Creek ( 5000-$ 11,000): This USFS project successfully provided access for steelhead into the creek, and it is currently being utilized. Grade A. Kelly Gulch ( 5002- 03-$ 9,500): This project was not reviewed, but USFS staff reported that the barrier was still not passing all fish attempting to access the system. Their evaluation is underway now. Knownothing Creek ( 5004- 06, 5021-$ 153,114): The removal of the diversion dams and other barriers resulted, in doubling the chinook and coho runs into the creek. Grade A. The weirs ( 5006*) were not completed at the time of the review. Delays were incurred because the rock was overshot resulting in boulders too small for the structures. Grade F. Nordheimer Creek ( 5007, 5008-$ 90,000): The log weirs ( 5007) failed. Grade F. The fishway ( 5008) is successful and passing fish. Grade A. Salmon River ( 5023, 5024-$ 8,000): This selective barrier was modified at a very reasonable cost and has improved access for al1 fish. Grade A. East Fork Salmon River ( 5013-$ 60,000): This project was not reviewed; USFS is evaluating now. South Fork Salmon River ( 5009- 12, 5014- 15, 5022, 5001-$ 176,200): ( 5009) This natal stock bioenhancement facility was located at a site with poor water temperature conditions for intense fish culture. Broodstock acquisition was also very difficult. The facility is now closed ( equipment will be relocated in the watershed, if possible). The project released 36,667 natal chinook smolts in the period from 1985 to 1987. Grade D. The boulder group projects were undergoing evaluation during the review period for biological response. The initial physical evaluation was not conclusive because many of the projects had not been subject to higher flows. Grade C. ( 5022) The " rough passage" area currently allows fish to pass without undue struggle. Grade B. ( 5001) The Blind Horse Creek weirs have not all been successful in providing spawning habitat. Many are trapping silt rather than spawning gravel. Rearing habitats are being provided by most of them, however. Grade D. - Review Comments- Specimen Creek ( 5016-$ 500): Steelhead now pass the treated log jam barrier. Another jam has formed above this site and requires monitoring and possible modification. Grade B. St. Claire Creek ( 5017- 20-$ 15,000): Steelhead now pass the modified barrier. The log weirs are holding gravel and in use by spawners. Juvenile cover is good associated with the weirs as well as the cover elements used in the project. The boulder weirs and clusters are also in place and in use. Grade A. SCOTT RIVER: Scott River and tribs. ( 4031- 4334 [ not inclusive]-$ 2, "* 15,810) : These Soil Conservation District projects primarily involved placing rip- rap armor at 304 different sites in the upper Scott system. Not all were reviewed, and although the rock is stable and in place, many were found to lack streamside vegetation that would provide important shade and cover for the stream and aquatic life. Some others were buried in decomposed granite, sand or silt and therefore had little benefit for fish by way of providing complex micro- habitats. The value of these projects would be much greater if some of these items were addressed. Grade C. French Creek ( 4001, 4016- 18-$ 32,100): The sediment check dam initially filled in one storm event. It was excavated but refilled during the next runoff event. A high maintenance approach that treats the symptoms of the watershed's chronic erosion problem. Grade F. The screens are all in place and functional, but are dependent upon periodic light upkeep provided by the Yreka Screen Shop. Grade B. Kelsey Creek ( 4002- 04-$ 147,500): The weirs work well and are used by all species for spawning and rearing. Grade A. The USFS spawning channel has not performed as hoped. Problems have occurred relating to channel liner failure. The average number of pairs using the channel during the period 1985- 88 were: nine chinook, three coho, and twelve steelhead. In 1989 no usage was observed. It is also a very costly installation. Grade D-. Kidder Creek ( 4020- 21-$ 26,000): Both screens are in place and functional, but are dependent upon periodic maintenance provided by the Yreka Screen Shop. Grade B. Patterson Creek ( 4019-$ 9,000): This screen is in place and functional, but is dependent upon periodic maintenance provided by the Yreka Screen Shop. Grade B. - Review Comments- Scott River ( 4005- 06, 4012- 15-$ 94,800): Although the gravels were ' cleaned' the sedimentation problem returned the next year, This treatment does not address the problem, but rather the symptoms and would require constant maintenance. Grade F. The boulder groups were not installed after gauging the rapid sedimentation rate. The four screens are in place and functional, but are dependent upon periodic maintenance provided by the Yreka Screen Shop. Grade B. East Fork Scott River ( 4010- 11-$ 20,000): These two screens are in place and functional, but are dependent upon periodic maintenance provided by the Yreka Screen Shop. Grade B. Shakleford Creek ( 4009, 4022- 4030 incl., 4323, 4329-$ 343,720): ( 4009) The bank armor was not surveyed, but is reported to be stabilizing the soft banks. The fishery benefits are not known, ( 4022- 30) These nine screens are in place and functional, but are dependent upon periodic maintenance provided by tne Yreka Screen Shop, Grade B. ( 4323, 4329) The rip- rap bank armor is in place, but needs vegetation and cover elements added to increase fishery values. Grade C. Thomkins Creek ( 4007- 08-$ 6,500): The weirs are installed but are not highly utilized because of the recruited fine sediments now accumulated on them. Grade D. The fishway has provided access and is currently functional. Grade B. SHASTA RIVER: Parks Creek ( 3018-$ 42,000): These four screens are in place and functional, but are dependent upon periodic maintenance provided by the Yreka Screen Shop. Grade B. Shasta River ( 3000- 04, 3005- 08, 3009- 17-$ 519,000): ( 3000- 04) These weirs have deteriorated over the past few years due to the use of undersized boulders in construction. Only about 10% of the effective structures remain. In 1989 only 32 redds were observed on the weirs. Very expensive ($ 363,000) spawning gravel. Grade D. The four fishways ( 3005- 08-$ 17,000) are all currently passing fish. Grade B. The nine screens ( 3009- 17-$ 139,000) are in place and functional, but are dependent upon periodic maintenance provided by the Yreka Screen Shop. Grade B. 12 0140402500 UPPER KLAMATH RIVER: Fal1 Creek ( 2000-$- 0-): The Fall Creek hatchery facility is on line and ready to augment Iron Gate's production. The site has very good water quality and can be instrumental in relieving crowding problems at Iron Gate. Close

• 276. [Image] Klamath Basin GIS directory

  	The Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office (ERO) - Humboldt State University Geographic Information Systems Work Group (HSU-GIS Group) was established to support ERO's mission to develop an ecosystem ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath Basin GIS directory Year: 1995, 2005 The Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office (ERO) - Humboldt State University Geographic Information Systems Work Group (HSU-GIS Group) was established to support ERO's mission to develop an ecosystem restoration strategy for the Klamath Basin and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services responsibilities to the President's Forest Plan. Priorities for developing GIS seamless layers for the basin are established by ERO in consultation with bioregional cooperators : Fish & Wildlife Service-Klamath/Central Pacific Coastal Ecoregion, Forest Service - Regions 5 & 6, Bureau of Land Management- California & Oregon, Bureau of Mines, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Geological Survey, California & Oregon state agencies, tribal governments, and various other publics. Comprehensive seamless co-registered data layers are needed for bioregional research, planning and management. The needed GIS data layers include political & administrative boundaries; lithospheric,hydrographic & atmospheric elements; plant & animal community characteristics; socio-economic components; and descriptive landscape statistics including temporal dimensions. The ERO-HSU GIS Group's primary geographic domain is the 10.5 million acre Klamath Province as described in the President's Forest Plan for northern California & southern Oregon. The Province includes the Klamath -Trinity River hydrobasins as well as the Smith River watershed. While gathering and editing public domain data sets for the Klamath Province, the GIS Group has also compiled data layers for the larger Klamath Economic Zone which extends from the northern crest of the Rogue River watershed in Oregon southward to the southern crest of the Russian River watershed, just north of the San Francisco Bay area. The work of the ERO-HSU GIS Group is threefold: (1) development and dissemination of spatial analysis products with our first efforts directed at compiling existing information; (2) research on ecosystem assessment methodology; and (3) education & training of agency personnel and graduate students. The completed GIS layers and resulting map products are available upon request. By early 1996, an information dissemination mechanism will be in-place using the INTERNET as part of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure. The data development work is currently established at three scales: 1:100,000, 1:24,000 and 1:12,000. We have assembled small scale data layers (1:100,000) for the Klamath Province & the Klamath Economic Zone. In the near future, we will concentrate solely upon the more detailed GIS data layers at a medium scale (1:24,000), based on USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle maps. Subsequently, we will integrate stream habitat information at large scale Title: Klamath Basin GIS directory Year: 1995, 2005 The Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office (ERO) - Humboldt State University Geographic Information Systems Work Group (HSU-GIS Group) was established to support ERO's mission to develop an ecosystem restoration strategy for the Klamath Basin and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services responsibilities to the President's Forest Plan. Priorities for developing GIS seamless layers for the basin are established by ERO in consultation with bioregional cooperators : Fish & Wildlife Service-Klamath/Central Pacific Coastal Ecoregion, Forest Service - Regions 5 & 6, Bureau of Land Management- California & Oregon, Bureau of Mines, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Geological Survey, California & Oregon state agencies, tribal governments, and various other publics. Comprehensive seamless co-registered data layers are needed for bioregional research, planning and management. The needed GIS data layers include political & administrative boundaries; lithospheric,hydrographic & atmospheric elements; plant & animal community characteristics; socio-economic components; and descriptive landscape statistics including temporal dimensions. The ERO-HSU GIS Group's primary geographic domain is the 10.5 million acre Klamath Province as described in the President's Forest Plan for northern California & southern Oregon. The Province includes the Klamath -Trinity River hydrobasins as well as the Smith River watershed. While gathering and editing public domain data sets for the Klamath Province, the GIS Group has also compiled data layers for the larger Klamath Economic Zone which extends from the northern crest of the Rogue River watershed in Oregon southward to the southern crest of the Russian River watershed, just north of the San Francisco Bay area. The work of the ERO-HSU GIS Group is threefold: (1) development and dissemination of spatial analysis products with our first efforts directed at compiling existing information; (2) research on ecosystem assessment methodology; and (3) education & training of agency personnel and graduate students. The completed GIS layers and resulting map products are available upon request. By early 1996, an information dissemination mechanism will be in-place using the INTERNET as part of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure. The data development work is currently established at three scales: 1:100,000, 1:24,000 and 1:12,000. We have assembled small scale data layers (1:100,000) for the Klamath Province & the Klamath Economic Zone. In the near future, we will concentrate solely upon the more detailed GIS data layers at a medium scale (1:24,000), based on USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle maps. Subsequently, we will integrate stream habitat information at large scale Close

• 277. [Image] Water management and endangered species issues in the Klamath Basin : oversight field hearing before the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventh Congress, first session, June 16, 2001 in Klamath Falls, Oregon

  	"Serial no. 107-39."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Water management and endangered species issues in the Klamath Basin : oversight field hearing before the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventh Congress, first session, June 16, 2001 in Klamath Falls, Oregon Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Resources Year: 2002, 2005, 2004 "Serial no. 107-39." Title: Water management and endangered species issues in the Klamath Basin : oversight field hearing before the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventh Congress, first session, June 16, 2001 in Klamath Falls, Oregon Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Resources Year: 2002, 2005, 2004 "Serial no. 107-39." Close

• 278. [Image] Klamath Project : hearing before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Seventh Congress, first session to discuss Klamath Project operations and implementation of Public Law 106-498, March 21, 2001

  	CONTENTS STATEMENTS Page Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho 2693 Crawford, John, Farmer, on behalf of Klamath Water Users Association, Klamath Falls, OR 26951 Foreman, Allen, Chairman, Klamath ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath Project : hearing before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Seventh Congress, first session to discuss Klamath Project operations and implementation of Public Law 106-498, March 21, 2001 Author: United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Subcommittee on Water and Power Year: 2001, 2005, 2000 CONTENTS STATEMENTS Page Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho 2693 Crawford, John, Farmer, on behalf of Klamath Water Users Association, Klamath Falls, OR 26951 Foreman, Allen, Chairman, Klamath Indian Tribes, Chiloquin, OR 26923 Home, Alex J., Ph.D., Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley 26955 Marbut, Reed, Intergovernmental Coordinator, Oregon Water Resources De partment, Salem, OR 26931 McDonald, J. William, Acting Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Depart ment of the Interior 2697 Nicholson, Roger, President, Resource Conservancy, Fort Klamath, OR 26939 Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator from Oregon 2691 Spain, Glen H., Northwest Regional Director, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Eugene, OR 26940 Walden, Hon. Greg, U.S. Representative from Oregon 2693 Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from Oregon 2692 Title: Klamath Project : hearing before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Seventh Congress, first session to discuss Klamath Project operations and implementation of Public Law 106-498, March 21, 2001 Author: United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Subcommittee on Water and Power Year: 2001, 2005, 2000 CONTENTS STATEMENTS Page Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho 2693 Crawford, John, Farmer, on behalf of Klamath Water Users Association, Klamath Falls, OR 26951 Foreman, Allen, Chairman, Klamath Indian Tribes, Chiloquin, OR 26923 Home, Alex J., Ph.D., Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley 26955 Marbut, Reed, Intergovernmental Coordinator, Oregon Water Resources De partment, Salem, OR 26931 McDonald, J. William, Acting Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Depart ment of the Interior 2697 Nicholson, Roger, President, Resource Conservancy, Fort Klamath, OR 26939 Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator from Oregon 2691 Spain, Glen H., Northwest Regional Director, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Eugene, OR 26940 Walden, Hon. Greg, U.S. Representative from Oregon 2693 Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from Oregon 2692 Close

• 279. [Image] Integrated scientific assessment for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins

  	Abstract Quigley, Thomas M.; Haynes, Richard W.; Graham, Russell T., tech. eds. 1996. Integrated scientific assessment for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Integrated scientific assessment for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins Year: 1996, 2005, 2000 Abstract Quigley, Thomas M.; Haynes, Richard W.; Graham, Russell T., tech. eds. 1996. Integrated scientific assessment for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-382. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 303 p. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment.) The Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management for the Interior Columbia Basin links landscape, aquatic, terrestrial, social, and economic characterizations to describe biophysical and social systems. Integration was achieved through a framework built around six goals for ecosystem management and three different views of the future. These goals are: maintain evolutionary and ecological processes; manage for multiple ecological domains and evolutionary timeframes; maintain viable populations of native and desired non-native species; encourage social and economic resiliency; manage for places with definable values; and, manage to maintain a variety of ecosystem goods, services, and conditions that society wants. Ratings of relative ecological integrity and socioeconomic resiliency were used to make broad statements about ecosystem conditions in the Basin. Currently in the Basin high integrity and resiliency are found on 16 and 20 percent of the area, respectively. Low integrity and resiliency are found on 60 and 68 percent of the area. Different approaches to management can alter the risks to the assets of people living in the Basin and to the ecosystem itself. Continuation of current management leads to increasing risks while management approaches focusing on reserves or restoration result in trends that mostly stabilize or reduce risks. Even where ecological integrity is projected to improve with the application of active management, population increases and the pressures of expanding demands on resources may cause increasing trends in risk. Keywords: Ecosystem assessment, management and goals; ecological integrity; socio-economic resiliency; risk management Title: Integrated scientific assessment for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins Year: 1996, 2005, 2000 Abstract Quigley, Thomas M.; Haynes, Richard W.; Graham, Russell T., tech. eds. 1996. Integrated scientific assessment for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-382. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 303 p. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment.) The Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management for the Interior Columbia Basin links landscape, aquatic, terrestrial, social, and economic characterizations to describe biophysical and social systems. Integration was achieved through a framework built around six goals for ecosystem management and three different views of the future. These goals are: maintain evolutionary and ecological processes; manage for multiple ecological domains and evolutionary timeframes; maintain viable populations of native and desired non-native species; encourage social and economic resiliency; manage for places with definable values; and, manage to maintain a variety of ecosystem goods, services, and conditions that society wants. Ratings of relative ecological integrity and socioeconomic resiliency were used to make broad statements about ecosystem conditions in the Basin. Currently in the Basin high integrity and resiliency are found on 16 and 20 percent of the area, respectively. Low integrity and resiliency are found on 60 and 68 percent of the area. Different approaches to management can alter the risks to the assets of people living in the Basin and to the ecosystem itself. Continuation of current management leads to increasing risks while management approaches focusing on reserves or restoration result in trends that mostly stabilize or reduce risks. Even where ecological integrity is projected to improve with the application of active management, population increases and the pressures of expanding demands on resources may cause increasing trends in risk. Keywords: Ecosystem assessment, management and goals; ecological integrity; socio-economic resiliency; risk management Close

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

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

• 281. [Image] Dear concerned citizen

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

• 282. [Image] Forestry program for Oregon

  	This document sets forth the Board of Forestry's strategic vision for Oregon's forests for the next eight years
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Forestry program for Oregon Author: Oregon State Board of Forestry Year: 2003, 2005 This document sets forth the Board of Forestry's strategic vision for Oregon's forests for the next eight years Title: Forestry program for Oregon Author: Oregon State Board of Forestry Year: 2003, 2005 This document sets forth the Board of Forestry's strategic vision for Oregon's forests for the next eight years Close

• 283. [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

• 284. [Image] Environmental assessment : proposed additions to the Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge : Klamath County, Oregon and Siskiyou County, California

  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Environmental assessment : proposed additions to the Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge : Klamath County, Oregon and Siskiyou County, California Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Year: 1999, 2005 Title: Environmental assessment : proposed additions to the Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge : Klamath County, Oregon and Siskiyou County, California Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Year: 1999, 2005 Close

• 285. [Image] A framework for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins

  	Haynes, Richard W.; Graham, Russell T.; Quigley, Thomas M., tech. eds. 1996. A framework for ecosystem management in the Interior Columbia Basin including portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: A framework for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins Year: 1996, 2005 Haynes, Richard W.; Graham, Russell T.; Quigley, Thomas M., tech. eds. 1996. A framework for ecosystem management in the Interior Columbia Basin including portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-374. Portland, OR; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 66 p. A framework for ecosystem management is proposed. This framework assumes the purpose of ecosystem management is to maintain the integrity of ecosystems over time and space. It is based on four ecosystem principles: ecosystems are dynamic, can be viewed as hierarchies with temporal and spatial dimensions, have limits, and are relatively unpredictable. This approach recognizes that people are part of ecosystems and that stewardship must be able to resolve tough challenges including how to meet multiple demands with finite resources. The framework describes a general planning model for ecosystem management that has four iterative steps: monitoring, assessment, decision-making, and implementation. Since ecosystems cross jurisdictional lines, the implementation of the framework depends on partnerships among land managers, the scientific community, and stakeholders. It proposes that decision-making be based on information provided by the best available science and the most appropriate technologies for land management. Keywords: Ecosystem assessment, ecosystem principles, ecosystem management, planning models, management goals, risk analysis. Title: A framework for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins Year: 1996, 2005 Haynes, Richard W.; Graham, Russell T.; Quigley, Thomas M., tech. eds. 1996. A framework for ecosystem management in the Interior Columbia Basin including portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-374. Portland, OR; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 66 p. A framework for ecosystem management is proposed. This framework assumes the purpose of ecosystem management is to maintain the integrity of ecosystems over time and space. It is based on four ecosystem principles: ecosystems are dynamic, can be viewed as hierarchies with temporal and spatial dimensions, have limits, and are relatively unpredictable. This approach recognizes that people are part of ecosystems and that stewardship must be able to resolve tough challenges including how to meet multiple demands with finite resources. The framework describes a general planning model for ecosystem management that has four iterative steps: monitoring, assessment, decision-making, and implementation. Since ecosystems cross jurisdictional lines, the implementation of the framework depends on partnerships among land managers, the scientific community, and stakeholders. It proposes that decision-making be based on information provided by the best available science and the most appropriate technologies for land management. Keywords: Ecosystem assessment, ecosystem principles, ecosystem management, planning models, management goals, risk analysis. Close

• 286. [Image] Review of the hatchery measures in the Oregon plan for salmon and watersheds. Part I, Consistency of the Oregon plan with recommendations from recent scientific review panels

  	"December 10, 1998."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Review of the hatchery measures in the Oregon plan for salmon and watersheds. Part I, Consistency of the Oregon plan with recommendations from recent scientific review panels Author: Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (Or.) Year: 1998, 2005 "December 10, 1998." Title: Review of the hatchery measures in the Oregon plan for salmon and watersheds. Part I, Consistency of the Oregon plan with recommendations from recent scientific review panels Author: Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (Or.) Year: 1998, 2005 "December 10, 1998." Close

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

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

• 288. [Image] The scientific basis for artificial propagation in the recovery of wild anadromous salmonids in Oregon

  	"January 11, 2001."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The scientific basis for artificial propagation in the recovery of wild anadromous salmonids in Oregon Author: Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (Or.) Year: 2001, 2005 "January 11, 2001." Title: The scientific basis for artificial propagation in the recovery of wild anadromous salmonids in Oregon Author: Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (Or.) Year: 2001, 2005 "January 11, 2001." Close

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

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

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

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

• 291. [Image] Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended through December 2004)

  	"February 2005."; "Serial no. 109-A."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended through December 2004) Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Resources. Year: 2005 "February 2005."; "Serial no. 109-A." Title: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended through December 2004) Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Resources. Year: 2005 "February 2005."; "Serial no. 109-A." Close

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

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

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

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

• 294. [Image] Klamath River Basin issues and activities

  	Klamath River Basin Issues and Activities: An Overview Summary The Klamath River Basin, an area on the California-Oregon border, has become a focal point for local and national discussions on water ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath River Basin issues and activities Author: Kyna Powers Year: 2005, 2008, 2006 Klamath River Basin Issues and Activities: An Overview Summary The Klamath River Basin, an area on the California-Oregon border, has become a focal point for local and national discussions on water management and water scarcity. Water and species management issues were brought to the forefront when severe drought in 2001 exacerbated competition for scarce water resources and generated conflict among several interests - farmers, Indian tribes, commercial and sport fishermen, other recreationists, federal wildlife refuge managers, environmental groups, and state, local, and tribal governments. The conflicts over water distribution and allocation are physically and legally complex, reflecting the varied and sometimes competing uses of limited water supplies in the Basin. For management purposes, the Basin is divided at Iron Gate Dam into the Upper and Lower Basins. As is true in many regions in the West, the federal government plays a prominent role in the Klamath Basin's water management. This role stems from three primary activities: (1) the operation and management of the Bureau of Reclamation's Klamath Water Project and Central Valley Project (e.g., Trinity River dams); (2) management of federal lands in the Basin, including five national wildlife refuges, several national forests, and public lands; and (3) implementation of federal laws, such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Clean Water Act (CWA), and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Conflict was sparked in April of 2001 when the Bureau of Reclamation, which has supplied water to farms in the Upper Basin for nearly 100 years, announced that "no water [would] be available" for farms normally receiving water from the Upper Klamath Lake to avoid jeopardizing the existence of three fish species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA. While some water was subsequently made available to some farmers from other sources (e.g., wells and other Bureau sources), many farmers faced serious hardships. During Reclamation's operations in September of 2002, warm water temperatures and atypically low flows in the lower Klamath contributed to the death of at least 33,000 adult salmonids. This die-off damaged fish stocks and the tribes, commercial fishermen, and recreational anglers that catch Klamath fish. There have been many studies, Biological Opinions, and operating plans over recent years, all of which have been controversial. The events of 2001 and 2002 prompted renewed efforts to resolve water conflicts in the Klamath Basin. Congress has responded to the controversy in a number of ways, including holding oversight hearings and appropriating funds for activities in the area. This report provides an overview of recent conflict in the Klamath Basin, with an emphasis on activities in the Upper Basin, and summarizes some of the activities taking place to improve water supply reliability and fish survival. This report will be updated as events warrant. Title: Klamath River Basin issues and activities Author: Kyna Powers Year: 2005, 2008, 2006 Klamath River Basin Issues and Activities: An Overview Summary The Klamath River Basin, an area on the California-Oregon border, has become a focal point for local and national discussions on water management and water scarcity. Water and species management issues were brought to the forefront when severe drought in 2001 exacerbated competition for scarce water resources and generated conflict among several interests - farmers, Indian tribes, commercial and sport fishermen, other recreationists, federal wildlife refuge managers, environmental groups, and state, local, and tribal governments. The conflicts over water distribution and allocation are physically and legally complex, reflecting the varied and sometimes competing uses of limited water supplies in the Basin. For management purposes, the Basin is divided at Iron Gate Dam into the Upper and Lower Basins. As is true in many regions in the West, the federal government plays a prominent role in the Klamath Basin's water management. This role stems from three primary activities: (1) the operation and management of the Bureau of Reclamation's Klamath Water Project and Central Valley Project (e.g., Trinity River dams); (2) management of federal lands in the Basin, including five national wildlife refuges, several national forests, and public lands; and (3) implementation of federal laws, such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Clean Water Act (CWA), and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Conflict was sparked in April of 2001 when the Bureau of Reclamation, which has supplied water to farms in the Upper Basin for nearly 100 years, announced that "no water [would] be available" for farms normally receiving water from the Upper Klamath Lake to avoid jeopardizing the existence of three fish species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA. While some water was subsequently made available to some farmers from other sources (e.g., wells and other Bureau sources), many farmers faced serious hardships. During Reclamation's operations in September of 2002, warm water temperatures and atypically low flows in the lower Klamath contributed to the death of at least 33,000 adult salmonids. This die-off damaged fish stocks and the tribes, commercial fishermen, and recreational anglers that catch Klamath fish. There have been many studies, Biological Opinions, and operating plans over recent years, all of which have been controversial. The events of 2001 and 2002 prompted renewed efforts to resolve water conflicts in the Klamath Basin. Congress has responded to the controversy in a number of ways, including holding oversight hearings and appropriating funds for activities in the area. This report provides an overview of recent conflict in the Klamath Basin, with an emphasis on activities in the Upper Basin, and summarizes some of the activities taking place to improve water supply reliability and fish survival. This report will be updated as events warrant. Close

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

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

• 296. [Image] Evaluation of instream fish habitat restoration structures in Klamath River tributaries, 1988/1989

  	Annual Report For Interagency Agreement 14-16-0001-89508 EVALUATION OF INSTREAM FISH HABITAT RESTORATION STRUCTURES IN KLAMATH RIVER TRIBUTARIES 1988/1989 by A.D.Olson and J.R. West USDA-Forest Service, ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Evaluation of instream fish habitat restoration structures in Klamath River tributaries, 1988/1989 Author: Olson, A. D. Year: 1989, 2008, 2006 Annual Report For Interagency Agreement 14-16-0001-89508 EVALUATION OF INSTREAM FISH HABITAT RESTORATION STRUCTURES IN KLAMATH RIVER TRIBUTARIES 1988/1989 by A.D.Olson and J.R. West USDA-Forest Service, Klamath National Forest 1312 Fairlane Road, Yreka, CA 96097 ABSTRACT Ten instream fish habitat techniques were evaluated to determine which most effectively restored salmonid spawning and/or rearing conditions. Structure stability was estimated based on how intact each structure remained (by percent) and its age, we then projected useful life for each structure type. Cost in 1989 dollars was used to determine cost per unit habitat area provided. Observed use by spawners was used to estimate total number of redds per structure (over its life). Cost of providing spawning habitat (cost per redd) was calculated by dividing estimated total redds by structure cost. Habitats resulting from instream structures were classified using the modified Bisson method and we determined the influence zone of each structure using physical variables to define habitat area. Structures were biologically sampled using direct underwater observation techniques described by Hankin and Reeves1 (1989). Two person dive teams used a "two-pass" method to enumerate and classify salmonids by species and age-class (0+, 1+ or older juveniles, and adults), noting the presence of other species. Fish use of structure affected habitat (post-modification) was compared to use of habitats like those present prior to structure placement (pre-modification). Comparison of "pre-modification" and "post-modification" fish standing crops resulted in a "net fish difference" which was divided by structure cost, yielding "cost per fish reared11. Boulder weirs, the most expensive structures investigated, did not affect enough surface area to make cost per unit of affected habitat reasonable. Cabled cover logs and digger logs (lowest cost structures) were very cost effective at altering physical habitat condition. We believe cost of physically modifying habitat area is only one factor that is important enough to effect success or failure of a large scale habitat restoration program. Assuming all other factors are of equal weight, lowest cost structures can provide the "best value". Modification prescribed to restore stable spawning habitat needs close scrutiny. We believe it is essential to know how the existing habitat is used by spawners by conducting spawning area use surveys which identify redd location and quantify habitat available during each spawning period. Boulder deflectors were best utilized by Chinook salmon spawners, however chinook spawner use of "traditional" structures (weirs backfilled with gravel) was disappointing. Backfilling of instream structures with suitable gravel is a practice that should be discontinued. Steelhead spawner use of structures which result in "pocket water" type spawning areas were heavily used. This habitat configuration proved most desirable when woody object cover was readily available to the spawners. The highest steelhead spawner use was associated with boulder groups with wood and boulder/rootwad groups. We found rearing structures which provided high habitat and cover diversity received the best response from juvenile fish. We observed fish use over one summer and saw dramatic unpredictable use changes even through this short time period. Fish rearing needs during other seasons may differ substantially from summer needs, therefore, suitability of modified habitat probably also changes. Digger logs, one of the least costly and simplest structures, provided the best increase in fish standing crop (fish/m2) for the lowest cost. We believe digger logs were well used by rearing fish because they are one of the most natural restoration structures investigated. Other structures which were well used (small weirs, deflectors, and boulder groups with attached wood) also seem to closely duplicate naturally productive habitats. Higher velocity habitat types associated with boulder groups with wood, boulder rootwad groups, and boulder deflectors were selected by juvenile steelhead and chinook salmon. Providing overhead cover, especially if it extends into the water where it may also be used as object cover, seemed most valuable for juvenile steelhead and salmon if it was placed in a habitat type which would normally receive high fish use. Placement of object cover in slow velocity areas (pool and glide edges) had questionable value for summer rearing habitat restoration, however we do not know what value these structures may have during colder water high flow periods when fish seek slow velocity, densely-covered habitats. We defined the most cost effective method as one meeting restoration objectives, providing the greatest increase in fish use (per surface area or volume), over the longest time period, for the lowest cost. We rank structures evaluated in this study (from most cost-effective to least cost effective) as follows: Digger Logs, Boulder deflectors, Small Boulder Weirs, Boulder Groups with Woody Cover, Free Boulder Weirs, Large Boulder Weirs, Boulder Groups, Boulder/Rootwad Groups, Boulder/Rootwad Deflectors, Small Boulder Weirs, and Cabled Cover Logs. Title: Evaluation of instream fish habitat restoration structures in Klamath River tributaries, 1988/1989 Author: Olson, A. D. Year: 1989, 2008, 2006 Annual Report For Interagency Agreement 14-16-0001-89508 EVALUATION OF INSTREAM FISH HABITAT RESTORATION STRUCTURES IN KLAMATH RIVER TRIBUTARIES 1988/1989 by A.D.Olson and J.R. West USDA-Forest Service, Klamath National Forest 1312 Fairlane Road, Yreka, CA 96097 ABSTRACT Ten instream fish habitat techniques were evaluated to determine which most effectively restored salmonid spawning and/or rearing conditions. Structure stability was estimated based on how intact each structure remained (by percent) and its age, we then projected useful life for each structure type. Cost in 1989 dollars was used to determine cost per unit habitat area provided. Observed use by spawners was used to estimate total number of redds per structure (over its life). Cost of providing spawning habitat (cost per redd) was calculated by dividing estimated total redds by structure cost. Habitats resulting from instream structures were classified using the modified Bisson method and we determined the influence zone of each structure using physical variables to define habitat area. Structures were biologically sampled using direct underwater observation techniques described by Hankin and Reeves1 (1989). Two person dive teams used a "two-pass" method to enumerate and classify salmonids by species and age-class (0+, 1+ or older juveniles, and adults), noting the presence of other species. Fish use of structure affected habitat (post-modification) was compared to use of habitats like those present prior to structure placement (pre-modification). Comparison of "pre-modification" and "post-modification" fish standing crops resulted in a "net fish difference" which was divided by structure cost, yielding "cost per fish reared11. Boulder weirs, the most expensive structures investigated, did not affect enough surface area to make cost per unit of affected habitat reasonable. Cabled cover logs and digger logs (lowest cost structures) were very cost effective at altering physical habitat condition. We believe cost of physically modifying habitat area is only one factor that is important enough to effect success or failure of a large scale habitat restoration program. Assuming all other factors are of equal weight, lowest cost structures can provide the "best value". Modification prescribed to restore stable spawning habitat needs close scrutiny. We believe it is essential to know how the existing habitat is used by spawners by conducting spawning area use surveys which identify redd location and quantify habitat available during each spawning period. Boulder deflectors were best utilized by Chinook salmon spawners, however chinook spawner use of "traditional" structures (weirs backfilled with gravel) was disappointing. Backfilling of instream structures with suitable gravel is a practice that should be discontinued. Steelhead spawner use of structures which result in "pocket water" type spawning areas were heavily used. This habitat configuration proved most desirable when woody object cover was readily available to the spawners. The highest steelhead spawner use was associated with boulder groups with wood and boulder/rootwad groups. We found rearing structures which provided high habitat and cover diversity received the best response from juvenile fish. We observed fish use over one summer and saw dramatic unpredictable use changes even through this short time period. Fish rearing needs during other seasons may differ substantially from summer needs, therefore, suitability of modified habitat probably also changes. Digger logs, one of the least costly and simplest structures, provided the best increase in fish standing crop (fish/m2) for the lowest cost. We believe digger logs were well used by rearing fish because they are one of the most natural restoration structures investigated. Other structures which were well used (small weirs, deflectors, and boulder groups with attached wood) also seem to closely duplicate naturally productive habitats. Higher velocity habitat types associated with boulder groups with wood, boulder rootwad groups, and boulder deflectors were selected by juvenile steelhead and chinook salmon. Providing overhead cover, especially if it extends into the water where it may also be used as object cover, seemed most valuable for juvenile steelhead and salmon if it was placed in a habitat type which would normally receive high fish use. Placement of object cover in slow velocity areas (pool and glide edges) had questionable value for summer rearing habitat restoration, however we do not know what value these structures may have during colder water high flow periods when fish seek slow velocity, densely-covered habitats. We defined the most cost effective method as one meeting restoration objectives, providing the greatest increase in fish use (per surface area or volume), over the longest time period, for the lowest cost. We rank structures evaluated in this study (from most cost-effective to least cost effective) as follows: Digger Logs, Boulder deflectors, Small Boulder Weirs, Boulder Groups with Woody Cover, Free Boulder Weirs, Large Boulder Weirs, Boulder Groups, Boulder/Rootwad Groups, Boulder/Rootwad Deflectors, Small Boulder Weirs, and Cabled Cover Logs. Close

• 297. [Image] Influences of human activity on stream temperatures and existence of cold-water fish in streams with elevated temperature: report of a workshop: Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team, Corvallis, OR, October 5-6, 2000

  	Executive Summary The Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST) convened a panel of experts on stream temperature and fish ecology on October 5-6, 2000 for a scientific workshop on human influences ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Influences of human activity on stream temperatures and existence of cold-water fish in streams with elevated temperature: report of a workshop: Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team, Corvallis, OR, October 5-6, 2000 Author: Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (Oregon) Year: 2000, 2008, 2005 Executive Summary The Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST) convened a panel of experts on stream temperature and fish ecology on October 5-6, 2000 for a scientific workshop on human influences on stream temperature and responses by salmonids. The workshop was designed to review and discuss scientifically credible data and publications about 1) factors related to human activity that influence stream temperature and 2) behavioral, physical, and ecological mechanisms of cold water fish species for existing in streams with elevated temperatures. The goal of the workshop was to review empirical evidence and to identify points of agreement, disagreement, and knowledge gaps within the scientific community concerning the factors that influence stream temperature and fish responses to elevated temperatures. This information will assist the IMST in preparing a broader temperature report on Oregon's stream temperature water quality standards and their implementation. This report is prepared by the IMST. It was reviewed by workshop participants and revised by the IMST accordingly. The report includes abstracts of plenary presentations on factors that influence stream temperatures and fish responses, and the results of group discussions. The workshop participants focused on three main questions and were asked to list statements of agreement and disagreement, and to identify gaps in the scientific knowledge related to each question: ? How and where does riparian vegetation influence stream temperature? ? Do other changes in streams cause increases in stream temperature? ? How can apparently healthy fish populations exist in streams with temperatures higher than laboratory and field studies would indicate as healthy? The workshop participants provided answers to the questions in the form of bullets. The answers below represent the IMST's summation of the workshop findings and were reviewed by the participants. Several gaps in the scientific basis for specific questions or relationships were identified. The participants found no areas of disagreement for which technical information was available. They noted that any disagreements were not related to scientific interpretation, but were based on concerns or opinions about application, regulation, and management. How and where does riparian vegetation influence stream temperature? The influence of riparian vegetation on stream temperature is cumulative and complex, varying by site, over time, and across regions. Riparian vegetation can directly affect stream temperature by intercepting solar radiation and reducing stream heating. The influence of riparian shade in controlling temperature declines as streams widen in downstream reaches, but the role of riparian vegetation in providing water quality and fish habitat benefits continues to be important. Besides providing shade, riparian vegetation can also indirectly affect stream temperature by influencing microclimate, affecting channel morphology, affecting stream flow, influencing wind speed, affecting humidity, affecting soil temperature, using water, influencing air temperature, enhancing infiltration, and influencing thermal radiation. It is critical to know the site potential to understand what vegetation a site can support. There is not a good scientific understanding of how much vegetation shading is required to affect stream temperature. 1 This lack of understanding may be due to the spatial and temporal variability in landscape components, and the resulting variability in both the direct and indirect influences of vegetation on stream temperature. Therefore, it is difficult to generalize about the effects of vegetation on stream temperature. Do other changes in streams cause increases in stream temperature? The answer to this question is yes, other physical changes in the stream system can modify stream temperatures. Stream temperature is a product of complex interactions between geomorphology, soil, hydrology, vegetation, and climate within a watershed. Changes in these factors will result in changes in stream temperature. Human activities influence stream temperature by affecting one or more of four major components: riparian vegetation, channel morphology, hydrology, and surface/subsurface interactions. Stream systems vary substantially across the landscape, and site-specific information is critical to understanding stream temperature responses to human activities. How can apparently healthy fish populations exist in streams with temperatures higher than laboratory and field studies would indicate as healthy? Workshop participants identified several mechanisms that might explain the ability of fish populations to exist at higher than expected temperatures. The first mechanism was that the fish may have physiological adaptations to survive exposures to high temperatures. A second possibility was that stream habitats may contain cooler microhabitats that fish can occupy as refuge from higher temperatures. A third consideration is that ecological interactions may be different under differing thermal conditions resulting, for example, in changes in disease virulence or cumulative effects of stressors. Finally, since substantial differences exist between laboratory and field studies, it is difficult to apply results of laboratory studies to fish responses in the field. It is important to note that these proposed mechanisms are speculative and, as the list of gaps indicates, substantial experimental work is required to establish their influences on fish in different stream systems. Workshop Summaiy Workshop participants recognized gaps in the available science. Additional knowledge about human influences on stream temperatures and, consequently, influences on cold-water fish populations, will improve our ability to prevent further degradation of stream habitat and will enhance efforts geared towards the recovery of depressed fish populations. Even with these gaps, there was enough agreement on factors that influence stream temperature to indicate information is available to start developing and implementing management practices that are designed to reduce stream warming. It was suggested that managers should consider riparian vegetation, channel morphology, and hydrology, and should account for site differences. Title: Influences of human activity on stream temperatures and existence of cold-water fish in streams with elevated temperature: report of a workshop: Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team, Corvallis, OR, October 5-6, 2000 Author: Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (Oregon) Year: 2000, 2008, 2005 Executive Summary The Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST) convened a panel of experts on stream temperature and fish ecology on October 5-6, 2000 for a scientific workshop on human influences on stream temperature and responses by salmonids. The workshop was designed to review and discuss scientifically credible data and publications about 1) factors related to human activity that influence stream temperature and 2) behavioral, physical, and ecological mechanisms of cold water fish species for existing in streams with elevated temperatures. The goal of the workshop was to review empirical evidence and to identify points of agreement, disagreement, and knowledge gaps within the scientific community concerning the factors that influence stream temperature and fish responses to elevated temperatures. This information will assist the IMST in preparing a broader temperature report on Oregon's stream temperature water quality standards and their implementation. This report is prepared by the IMST. It was reviewed by workshop participants and revised by the IMST accordingly. The report includes abstracts of plenary presentations on factors that influence stream temperatures and fish responses, and the results of group discussions. The workshop participants focused on three main questions and were asked to list statements of agreement and disagreement, and to identify gaps in the scientific knowledge related to each question: ? How and where does riparian vegetation influence stream temperature? ? Do other changes in streams cause increases in stream temperature? ? How can apparently healthy fish populations exist in streams with temperatures higher than laboratory and field studies would indicate as healthy? The workshop participants provided answers to the questions in the form of bullets. The answers below represent the IMST's summation of the workshop findings and were reviewed by the participants. Several gaps in the scientific basis for specific questions or relationships were identified. The participants found no areas of disagreement for which technical information was available. They noted that any disagreements were not related to scientific interpretation, but were based on concerns or opinions about application, regulation, and management. How and where does riparian vegetation influence stream temperature? The influence of riparian vegetation on stream temperature is cumulative and complex, varying by site, over time, and across regions. Riparian vegetation can directly affect stream temperature by intercepting solar radiation and reducing stream heating. The influence of riparian shade in controlling temperature declines as streams widen in downstream reaches, but the role of riparian vegetation in providing water quality and fish habitat benefits continues to be important. Besides providing shade, riparian vegetation can also indirectly affect stream temperature by influencing microclimate, affecting channel morphology, affecting stream flow, influencing wind speed, affecting humidity, affecting soil temperature, using water, influencing air temperature, enhancing infiltration, and influencing thermal radiation. It is critical to know the site potential to understand what vegetation a site can support. There is not a good scientific understanding of how much vegetation shading is required to affect stream temperature. 1 This lack of understanding may be due to the spatial and temporal variability in landscape components, and the resulting variability in both the direct and indirect influences of vegetation on stream temperature. Therefore, it is difficult to generalize about the effects of vegetation on stream temperature. Do other changes in streams cause increases in stream temperature? The answer to this question is yes, other physical changes in the stream system can modify stream temperatures. Stream temperature is a product of complex interactions between geomorphology, soil, hydrology, vegetation, and climate within a watershed. Changes in these factors will result in changes in stream temperature. Human activities influence stream temperature by affecting one or more of four major components: riparian vegetation, channel morphology, hydrology, and surface/subsurface interactions. Stream systems vary substantially across the landscape, and site-specific information is critical to understanding stream temperature responses to human activities. How can apparently healthy fish populations exist in streams with temperatures higher than laboratory and field studies would indicate as healthy? Workshop participants identified several mechanisms that might explain the ability of fish populations to exist at higher than expected temperatures. The first mechanism was that the fish may have physiological adaptations to survive exposures to high temperatures. A second possibility was that stream habitats may contain cooler microhabitats that fish can occupy as refuge from higher temperatures. A third consideration is that ecological interactions may be different under differing thermal conditions resulting, for example, in changes in disease virulence or cumulative effects of stressors. Finally, since substantial differences exist between laboratory and field studies, it is difficult to apply results of laboratory studies to fish responses in the field. It is important to note that these proposed mechanisms are speculative and, as the list of gaps indicates, substantial experimental work is required to establish their influences on fish in different stream systems. Workshop Summaiy Workshop participants recognized gaps in the available science. Additional knowledge about human influences on stream temperatures and, consequently, influences on cold-water fish populations, will improve our ability to prevent further degradation of stream habitat and will enhance efforts geared towards the recovery of depressed fish populations. Even with these gaps, there was enough agreement on factors that influence stream temperature to indicate information is available to start developing and implementing management practices that are designed to reduce stream warming. It was suggested that managers should consider riparian vegetation, channel morphology, and hydrology, and should account for site differences. Close

• 298. [Image] Biological opinion Klamath Project operations

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

• 299. [Image] Final progress report for fisheries investigations on Blue Creek, tributary to Klamath River, northern California, FY 1993

  	FINAL PROGRESS REPORT FOR FISHERIES INVESTIGATIONS ON BLUE CREEK, TRIBUTARY TO K1AMATH RIVER, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA FY 1993 (October 1992 - September 1993) ABSTRACT The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Final progress report for fisheries investigations on Blue Creek, tributary to Klamath River, northern California, FY 1993 Author: Longenbaugh, Matthew H.; Chan, Jeffrey R. Year: 1994, 2008, 2005 FINAL PROGRESS REPORT FOR FISHERIES INVESTIGATIONS ON BLUE CREEK, TRIBUTARY TO K1AMATH RIVER, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA FY 1993 (October 1992 - September 1993) ABSTRACT The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Coastal California Fishery Resource Office (CCFRO) in Arcata, CA, was funded to investigate chinook salmon spawning use, juvenile salmonid emigration and characterize habitats in Blue Creek, Klamath Basin, CA. Investigations that began in October, 1988, have continued to date, with this reporting period covering Fiscal Year 1993 (FY 1993, October, 1992, through September, 1993). In addition, some information already presented in previous progress reports, FY 1989 - FY 1992, is summarized. In 1993, adult chinook spawner escapements were addressed by snorkel surveys of redds and carcasses. Spawner numbers were very low, with only 17 redds observed in fall/winter 1992-93. The peak count of adult chinook was 136 fish in early November. Emigrating juvenile s&lmonids were trapped at river kilometer (rkm) 3.35 with a screw trap and panel weir. The screw trapping period extended from April through July for a total of 91 trapping nights. Screw trap catches totaled 14,526 chinook, 912 steelhead and 69 coho. Chinook emigration was spread over the entire trapping period, with increases during mid-May, and from mid-June throughout July. A juvenile weir was operated 60 nights, and caught a total of 6,334 chinook, 992 steelhead, 49 coho salmon, and 0 juvenile cutthroat. The total index of production for emigrating chinook during the 1993 juvenile trapping period was 101,819. Chinook that were marked with coded-wire tags (n-12,299) were released, with other juvenile fish, into Blue Creek at rkm 3.3. Mean temperatures varied from 6.3 to 18.6 ?C and flows ranged from 0.91 cubic m/s (32 cubic feet/s) to 202.6 cubic m/s (7,160 cubic feet/s) during FY 1993. Extreme flows for FY 1993 were the lowest and highest observed by CCFRO since the project began in 1989, and lower than the previous low of the 13 years of record. Title: Final progress report for fisheries investigations on Blue Creek, tributary to Klamath River, northern California, FY 1993 Author: Longenbaugh, Matthew H.; Chan, Jeffrey R. Year: 1994, 2008, 2005 FINAL PROGRESS REPORT FOR FISHERIES INVESTIGATIONS ON BLUE CREEK, TRIBUTARY TO K1AMATH RIVER, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA FY 1993 (October 1992 - September 1993) ABSTRACT The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Coastal California Fishery Resource Office (CCFRO) in Arcata, CA, was funded to investigate chinook salmon spawning use, juvenile salmonid emigration and characterize habitats in Blue Creek, Klamath Basin, CA. Investigations that began in October, 1988, have continued to date, with this reporting period covering Fiscal Year 1993 (FY 1993, October, 1992, through September, 1993). In addition, some information already presented in previous progress reports, FY 1989 - FY 1992, is summarized. In 1993, adult chinook spawner escapements were addressed by snorkel surveys of redds and carcasses. Spawner numbers were very low, with only 17 redds observed in fall/winter 1992-93. The peak count of adult chinook was 136 fish in early November. Emigrating juvenile s&lmonids were trapped at river kilometer (rkm) 3.35 with a screw trap and panel weir. The screw trapping period extended from April through July for a total of 91 trapping nights. Screw trap catches totaled 14,526 chinook, 912 steelhead and 69 coho. Chinook emigration was spread over the entire trapping period, with increases during mid-May, and from mid-June throughout July. A juvenile weir was operated 60 nights, and caught a total of 6,334 chinook, 992 steelhead, 49 coho salmon, and 0 juvenile cutthroat. The total index of production for emigrating chinook during the 1993 juvenile trapping period was 101,819. Chinook that were marked with coded-wire tags (n-12,299) were released, with other juvenile fish, into Blue Creek at rkm 3.3. Mean temperatures varied from 6.3 to 18.6 ?C and flows ranged from 0.91 cubic m/s (32 cubic feet/s) to 202.6 cubic m/s (7,160 cubic feet/s) during FY 1993. Extreme flows for FY 1993 were the lowest and highest observed by CCFRO since the project began in 1989, and lower than the previous low of the 13 years of record. Close

• 300. [Image] Historical landscape overview of the upper Klamath River Canyon of Oregon and California

  	"Submitted to Klamath Falls Resource Area, Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview District, Klamath Falls, Oregon." ; "Contract no.: HAP032021."; Includes bibliographical references (p. 178-200)
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Historical landscape overview of the upper Klamath River Canyon of Oregon and California Author: Beckham, Stephen Dow Year: 2006, 2008, 2007 "Submitted to Klamath Falls Resource Area, Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview District, Klamath Falls, Oregon." ; "Contract no.: HAP032021."; Includes bibliographical references (p. 178-200) Title: Historical landscape overview of the upper Klamath River Canyon of Oregon and California Author: Beckham, Stephen Dow Year: 2006, 2008, 2007 "Submitted to Klamath Falls Resource Area, Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview District, Klamath Falls, Oregon." ; "Contract no.: HAP032021."; Includes bibliographical references (p. 178-200) Close