Search

Search Results

• 1. [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

• 2. [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

• 3. [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

• 4. [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

• 5. [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

• 6. [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

• 7. [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

• 8. [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

• 9. [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

• 10. [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

• 11. [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

• 12. [Image] Weather based technologies for residential irrigation scheduling: technical review report: prepared for Municipal Water District

  	"May 2004"
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Weather based technologies for residential irrigation scheduling: technical review report: prepared for Municipal Water District Year: 2004, 2005 "May 2004" Title: Weather based technologies for residential irrigation scheduling: technical review report: prepared for Municipal Water District Year: 2004, 2005 "May 2004" Close

• 13. [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

• 14. [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

• 15. [Image] Agricultural information on Klamath County irrigation

  	Pamphlet, compiled by the Klamath County Agricultural Agent, describing the history and status of the Klamath Project
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Agricultural information on Klamath County irrigation Author: Henderson, C.A. Year: 1930, 2005 Pamphlet, compiled by the Klamath County Agricultural Agent, describing the history and status of the Klamath Project Title: Agricultural information on Klamath County irrigation Author: Henderson, C.A. Year: 1930, 2005 Pamphlet, compiled by the Klamath County Agricultural Agent, describing the history and status of the Klamath Project Close

• 16. [Image] Results of a long-term aquifer at the Ron McVay Irrigation well, Klamath County, Oregon

  	Pages 14-18 blank; "OF - 02 - 004"
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Results of a long-term aquifer at the Ron McVay Irrigation well, Klamath County, Oregon Author: Zwart, Michael J. Year: 2002, 2005 Pages 14-18 blank; "OF - 02 - 004" Title: Results of a long-term aquifer at the Ron McVay Irrigation well, Klamath County, Oregon Author: Zwart, Michael J. Year: 2002, 2005 Pages 14-18 blank; "OF - 02 - 004" Close

• 17. [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

• 18. [Image] National irrigation as a social problem

  	Includes two scenic photos "The great gates on the Minidoka Project through which Snake River is now passing" and "From Smiley Heights, Redlands - the result of irrigation" ; The author of this article ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: National irrigation as a social problem Author: Newlands, Francis G. Year: 1906, 2005, 2004 Includes two scenic photos "The great gates on the Minidoka Project through which Snake River is now passing" and "From Smiley Heights, Redlands - the result of irrigation" ; The author of this article was the Senator of Nevada. Title: National irrigation as a social problem Author: Newlands, Francis G. Year: 1906, 2005, 2004 Includes two scenic photos "The great gates on the Minidoka Project through which Snake River is now passing" and "From Smiley Heights, Redlands - the result of irrigation" ; The author of this article was the Senator of Nevada. Close

• 19. [Image] Operations of the Reclamation Service in California

  	An article written by the first representative of the Reclamation Service after the Reclamation Act of 1902 was passed. This article includes a photo of the author, a map of the Yuma Project and two photos ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Operations of the Reclamation Service in California Author: Lippincott, J.B. Year: 1906, 2005, 2004 An article written by the first representative of the Reclamation Service after the Reclamation Act of 1902 was passed. This article includes a photo of the author, a map of the Yuma Project and two photos of the Yuma Project "Boating into camp at Laguna Dam" and "Construction work, Yuma Project" Title: Operations of the Reclamation Service in California Author: Lippincott, J.B. Year: 1906, 2005, 2004 An article written by the first representative of the Reclamation Service after the Reclamation Act of 1902 was passed. This article includes a photo of the author, a map of the Yuma Project and two photos of the Yuma Project "Boating into camp at Laguna Dam" and "Construction work, Yuma Project" Close

• 20. [Image] The necessity for irrigation

  	An article espousing the efficiency and benefits of irrigation in agriculture. Includes photos of "Waiting for water: scene on the Truckee-Carson Project" and "Irrigation in southern California"
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The necessity for irrigation Author: Pardee, George C. Year: 1906, 2005, 2004 An article espousing the efficiency and benefits of irrigation in agriculture. Includes photos of "Waiting for water: scene on the Truckee-Carson Project" and "Irrigation in southern California" Title: The necessity for irrigation Author: Pardee, George C. Year: 1906, 2005, 2004 An article espousing the efficiency and benefits of irrigation in agriculture. Includes photos of "Waiting for water: scene on the Truckee-Carson Project" and "Irrigation in southern California" Close

• 21. [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

• 22. [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

• 23. [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

• 24. [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

• 25. [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

• 26. [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

• 27. [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

• 28. [Image] Narrative history report of the Klamath Project land opening under Public Notice No. 47, 1948

  	Public Notice No. 47 of August 27, 1948, was prepared in conformity with recommendations for a standardized procedure made at the Salt Lake conference in March 1948; it opened to public entry 86 farm units ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Narrative history report of the Klamath Project land opening under Public Notice No. 47, 1948 Author: United State. Bureau of Reclamation Year: 1948, 2004 Public Notice No. 47 of August 27, 1948, was prepared in conformity with recommendations for a standardized procedure made at the Salt Lake conference in March 1948; it opened to public entry 86 farm units embracing 8,283 acres of irrigable land. Of nearly 24,000 application blanks sent out, 5,072 were returned during the simultaneous filing period. A five-man examining board placed 4,911 in the first priority group, 69 in the second priority group and rejected 91. The Regional Director reversed the action of the examining board in two instances making a total of 4,913 participating in the drawing. Applications were received from 39 states, the District of Columbia and the Territory of Alaska. California supplied 50% of all applications considered in the first priority group; Oregon supplied 27%; Utah supplied 6%; and the rest of the states supplied the remaining 17% The examining board interviewed 94 persons of 104 who were notified to appear for personal interviews after the drawing. Of those appearing for interviews, five refused to accept units in area "A" and three were rejectees whose appeals were later denied by the Regional Director. Of the ten who failed to appear for interview, five relinquished their award in writing; four were relegated to the end of their priority list, and one was the victim of an airplane accident. As the result of the drawing and subsequent interviews, 1.4% of the applicants from California 2.5% of the applicants from Oregon and 1.3% of the remaining applicants from other states were awarded farm units. Ten of the 39 states, from which applications were received, were represented in the settlement of the 86 farm units. Of the 23 who selected units in area "A", only two availed themselves of options to lease additional land in the Tulelake sump area* Apparently, because of high rental fees, the majority of the area "A" settlers could not afford to lease lands supplemental to their homestead. Therefore, since the development of area "A" lands will be a costly procedure, it is possible that in the future there may be cases of relin-quishment of units due to the homesteaders' inability to meet expenses. First unit was awarded on March 9, 1949; the last unit was awarded on June 20, 1949. Title: Narrative history report of the Klamath Project land opening under Public Notice No. 47, 1948 Author: United State. Bureau of Reclamation Year: 1948, 2004 Public Notice No. 47 of August 27, 1948, was prepared in conformity with recommendations for a standardized procedure made at the Salt Lake conference in March 1948; it opened to public entry 86 farm units embracing 8,283 acres of irrigable land. Of nearly 24,000 application blanks sent out, 5,072 were returned during the simultaneous filing period. A five-man examining board placed 4,911 in the first priority group, 69 in the second priority group and rejected 91. The Regional Director reversed the action of the examining board in two instances making a total of 4,913 participating in the drawing. Applications were received from 39 states, the District of Columbia and the Territory of Alaska. California supplied 50% of all applications considered in the first priority group; Oregon supplied 27%; Utah supplied 6%; and the rest of the states supplied the remaining 17% The examining board interviewed 94 persons of 104 who were notified to appear for personal interviews after the drawing. Of those appearing for interviews, five refused to accept units in area "A" and three were rejectees whose appeals were later denied by the Regional Director. Of the ten who failed to appear for interview, five relinquished their award in writing; four were relegated to the end of their priority list, and one was the victim of an airplane accident. As the result of the drawing and subsequent interviews, 1.4% of the applicants from California 2.5% of the applicants from Oregon and 1.3% of the remaining applicants from other states were awarded farm units. Ten of the 39 states, from which applications were received, were represented in the settlement of the 86 farm units. Of the 23 who selected units in area "A", only two availed themselves of options to lease additional land in the Tulelake sump area* Apparently, because of high rental fees, the majority of the area "A" settlers could not afford to lease lands supplemental to their homestead. Therefore, since the development of area "A" lands will be a costly procedure, it is possible that in the future there may be cases of relin-quishment of units due to the homesteaders' inability to meet expenses. First unit was awarded on March 9, 1949; the last unit was awarded on June 20, 1949. Close

• 29. [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

• 30. [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

• 31. [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

• 32. [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

• 33. [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

• 34. [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

• 35. [Image] The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 109th Congress conflicting values and difficult choices

  	IB10144 04-22-05 The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 109th Congress: Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices SUMMARY The 109th Congress is likely to consider various proposals to amend the ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 109th Congress conflicting values and difficult choices Author: Buck, Eugene H Year: 2006, 2008, 2005 IB10144 04-22-05 The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 109th Congress: Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices SUMMARY The 109th Congress is likely to consider various proposals to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; P.L. 93-205; 16 U.S.C. ??1531-1543 ). Major issues in recent years have included changing the role of science in decision-making, modifying critical habitat procedures, reducing conflicts with Department of Defense activities, incorporating further protection and incentives for property owners, and increasing protection of listed species, among others. In addition, many have advocated enacting as law some ESA regulations promulgated during the Clinton Administration. The ESA has been one of the more contentious environmental laws. This may stem from its strict substantive provisions, which can affect the use of both federal and non-federal lands and resources. Under the ESA, species of plants and animals (both vertebrate and invertebrate) can be listed as endangered or threatened according to assessments of their risk of extinction. Once a species is listed, powerful legal tools are available to aid its recovery and protect its habitat. The ESA may also be controversial because dwindling species are usually harbingers of broader ecosystem decline: the most common cause of listing species is habitat loss. The authorization for spending under the ESA expired on October 1, 1992. The prohibitions and requirements of the ESA remain in force, even in the absence of an authorization, and funds have been appropriated to implement the administrative provisions of the ESA in each subsequent fiscal year. In the 108th Congress, two bills were reported by the House Committee on Resources, but not enacted, that would have amended the ESA to modify scientific peer review and critical habitat procedures. Interior appropriations measures funded Fish and Wildlife Service programs related to endangered species (P.L. 108-108 provided $265 million for FY2004; P.L. 108-447 provided $262 million for FY2005). P.L. 108-136 (Defense authorization) included an ESA amendment to direct that critical habitat not be designated on military lands under certain conditions when Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans are in effect. P.L. 108-137 (Energy and Water appropriations) prohibited use of FY2004 or earlier funds to reduce water deliveries under existing contracts for ESA compliance for the silvery minnow on the Middle Rio Grande River unless water is obtained from a willing seller or lessor; this prohibition appears to have been made permanent by ?205 of Div. C of P.L. 108-447. P.L. 108-148 (Healthy Forests Act) authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects on BLM and national forest lands, including those containing habitat for listed species; directed establishment of a healthy forests reserve program to promote recovery of listed species; and directed the Secretary of the Interior to provide property rights assurances to landowners enrolled in the healthy forests reserve program. Congressional Research Service ? The Library of Congress CRS Title: The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 109th Congress conflicting values and difficult choices Author: Buck, Eugene H Year: 2006, 2008, 2005 IB10144 04-22-05 The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 109th Congress: Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices SUMMARY The 109th Congress is likely to consider various proposals to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; P.L. 93-205; 16 U.S.C. ??1531-1543 ). Major issues in recent years have included changing the role of science in decision-making, modifying critical habitat procedures, reducing conflicts with Department of Defense activities, incorporating further protection and incentives for property owners, and increasing protection of listed species, among others. In addition, many have advocated enacting as law some ESA regulations promulgated during the Clinton Administration. The ESA has been one of the more contentious environmental laws. This may stem from its strict substantive provisions, which can affect the use of both federal and non-federal lands and resources. Under the ESA, species of plants and animals (both vertebrate and invertebrate) can be listed as endangered or threatened according to assessments of their risk of extinction. Once a species is listed, powerful legal tools are available to aid its recovery and protect its habitat. The ESA may also be controversial because dwindling species are usually harbingers of broader ecosystem decline: the most common cause of listing species is habitat loss. The authorization for spending under the ESA expired on October 1, 1992. The prohibitions and requirements of the ESA remain in force, even in the absence of an authorization, and funds have been appropriated to implement the administrative provisions of the ESA in each subsequent fiscal year. In the 108th Congress, two bills were reported by the House Committee on Resources, but not enacted, that would have amended the ESA to modify scientific peer review and critical habitat procedures. Interior appropriations measures funded Fish and Wildlife Service programs related to endangered species (P.L. 108-108 provided $265 million for FY2004; P.L. 108-447 provided $262 million for FY2005). P.L. 108-136 (Defense authorization) included an ESA amendment to direct that critical habitat not be designated on military lands under certain conditions when Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans are in effect. P.L. 108-137 (Energy and Water appropriations) prohibited use of FY2004 or earlier funds to reduce water deliveries under existing contracts for ESA compliance for the silvery minnow on the Middle Rio Grande River unless water is obtained from a willing seller or lessor; this prohibition appears to have been made permanent by ?205 of Div. C of P.L. 108-447. P.L. 108-148 (Healthy Forests Act) authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects on BLM and national forest lands, including those containing habitat for listed species; directed establishment of a healthy forests reserve program to promote recovery of listed species; and directed the Secretary of the Interior to provide property rights assurances to landowners enrolled in the healthy forests reserve program. Congressional Research Service ? The Library of Congress CRS Close

• 36. [Image] Endangered species: difficult choices

  	IB10072 08-26-04 Endangered Species: Difficult Choices SUMMARY The 108th Congress is considering various proposals to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). Major issues in recent years ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Endangered species: difficult choices Author: Buck, Eugene H; Corn, M. Lynne (Mary Lynne), 1946-; Baldwin, Pamela Year: 2004, 2008, 2005 IB10072 08-26-04 Endangered Species: Difficult Choices SUMMARY The 108th Congress is considering various proposals to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). Major issues in recent years have included changing the role of science in decision-making, changing the role of critical habitat, reducing conflicts with Department of Defense activities, incorporating further protection for property owners, and increasing protection of listed species, among others. In addition, many have advocated including significant changes to ESA regulations made during the Clinton Administration in the law itself. The ESA has been one of the more contentious environmental laws. This may stem from its strict substantive provisions, which can affect the use of both federal and non-federal lands and resources. Under the ESA, certain species of plants and animals (both vertebrate and invertebrate) are listed as "endangered" or "threatened" according to assessments of their risk of extinction. Once a species is listed, powerful legal tools are available to aid its recovery and protect its habitat. The ESA may also be controversial because dwindling species are usually harbingers of resource scarcity: the most common cause of listing species is habitat loss. Recent efforts in the House would modify ESA provisions that designate critical habitat, and that provide for scientific peer review. The authorization for spending under the ESA expired on October 1, 1992. The prohibitions and requirements of the ESA remain in force, even in the absence of an authorization, and funds have been appropriated to imple- ment the administrative provisions of the ESA in each subsequent fiscal year. In the 108th Congress, two bills (H.R. 1662 and H.R. 2933) have been reported that would, respectively, address issues concerning scientific peer review and critical habitat. These bills may be brought to the House floor in September. Earlier, P.L. 108-108 (Interior appropriations) provided $265 million for FY2004 for programs related to endangered species. P.L. 108-136 (Defense authorization) included an ESA amendment to direct that critical habitat not be designated on military lands under certain conditions when Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans are in effect. P.L. 108-137 (Energy and Water appropriations) prohibited use of FY2004 or earlier funds to reduce water deliveries under existing contracts for ESA compliance for the silvery minnow on the Middle Rio Grande River unless water is obtained from a willing seller or lessor. The act also established an executive committee to oversee the Collaborative Program associated with this situation. P.L. 108-148 (Healthy Forests Act) authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects on BLM and national forest lands including those containing listed species habitat; directed establishment of a healthy forests reserve program to promote recovery of listed species; and directed the Secretary of the Interior to provide assurances to landowners whose enrollment in the healthy forests reserve program results in new conservation benefits for ESA-listed species. Title: Endangered species: difficult choices Author: Buck, Eugene H; Corn, M. Lynne (Mary Lynne), 1946-; Baldwin, Pamela Year: 2004, 2008, 2005 IB10072 08-26-04 Endangered Species: Difficult Choices SUMMARY The 108th Congress is considering various proposals to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). Major issues in recent years have included changing the role of science in decision-making, changing the role of critical habitat, reducing conflicts with Department of Defense activities, incorporating further protection for property owners, and increasing protection of listed species, among others. In addition, many have advocated including significant changes to ESA regulations made during the Clinton Administration in the law itself. The ESA has been one of the more contentious environmental laws. This may stem from its strict substantive provisions, which can affect the use of both federal and non-federal lands and resources. Under the ESA, certain species of plants and animals (both vertebrate and invertebrate) are listed as "endangered" or "threatened" according to assessments of their risk of extinction. Once a species is listed, powerful legal tools are available to aid its recovery and protect its habitat. The ESA may also be controversial because dwindling species are usually harbingers of resource scarcity: the most common cause of listing species is habitat loss. Recent efforts in the House would modify ESA provisions that designate critical habitat, and that provide for scientific peer review. The authorization for spending under the ESA expired on October 1, 1992. The prohibitions and requirements of the ESA remain in force, even in the absence of an authorization, and funds have been appropriated to imple- ment the administrative provisions of the ESA in each subsequent fiscal year. In the 108th Congress, two bills (H.R. 1662 and H.R. 2933) have been reported that would, respectively, address issues concerning scientific peer review and critical habitat. These bills may be brought to the House floor in September. Earlier, P.L. 108-108 (Interior appropriations) provided $265 million for FY2004 for programs related to endangered species. P.L. 108-136 (Defense authorization) included an ESA amendment to direct that critical habitat not be designated on military lands under certain conditions when Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans are in effect. P.L. 108-137 (Energy and Water appropriations) prohibited use of FY2004 or earlier funds to reduce water deliveries under existing contracts for ESA compliance for the silvery minnow on the Middle Rio Grande River unless water is obtained from a willing seller or lessor. The act also established an executive committee to oversee the Collaborative Program associated with this situation. P.L. 108-148 (Healthy Forests Act) authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects on BLM and national forest lands including those containing listed species habitat; directed establishment of a healthy forests reserve program to promote recovery of listed species; and directed the Secretary of the Interior to provide assurances to landowners whose enrollment in the healthy forests reserve program results in new conservation benefits for ESA-listed species. Close

• 37. [Image] Proceedings of second conference of engineers of the Reclamation service, with accompanying papers.

  	Conference was held at El Paso, Tex., November 14 to 18, 1904, and adjourned to Washington, D.C., where it was continued from January 9 to 14, 1905;
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Proceedings of second conference of engineers of the Reclamation service, with accompanying papers. Author: Newell, Frederick Haynes, 1862-1932 Year: 1905, 2008, 2005 Conference was held at El Paso, Tex., November 14 to 18, 1904, and adjourned to Washington, D.C., where it was continued from January 9 to 14, 1905; Title: Proceedings of second conference of engineers of the Reclamation service, with accompanying papers. Author: Newell, Frederick Haynes, 1862-1932 Year: 1905, 2008, 2005 Conference was held at El Paso, Tex., November 14 to 18, 1904, and adjourned to Washington, D.C., where it was continued from January 9 to 14, 1905; Close

• 38. [Image] The estimation of regional secondary benefits resulting from an improvement in water quality of Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon: an interindustry approach

  	AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF STEPHEN DOUGLAS REILING for the MASTER OF SCIENCE (Name) (Degree) in AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS presented on (Major) (Date) Title: THE ESTIMATION OF REGIONAL ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The estimation of regional secondary benefits resulting from an improvement in water quality of Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon: an interindustry approach Author: Reiling, Stephen Douglas Year: 1971, 2006, 2005 AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF STEPHEN DOUGLAS REILING for the MASTER OF SCIENCE (Name) (Degree) in AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS presented on (Major) (Date) Title: THE ESTIMATION OF REGIONAL SECONDARY BENEFITS RESULTING FROM AN IMPROVEMENT IN WATER QUALITY OF UPPER KLAMATH LAKE, OREGON; AN INTERINDUSTRY APPROACH Abstract approved^ Herbert H. Stoevener The primary objective of this study was to estimate the impact that an increase in recreational expenditures, resulting from water quality improvements of Klamath Lake, would have upon the Klamath County economy. As the sales of the economy expand to serve the needs of the recreationists, real benefits will be forthcoming to the businesses and households of the county in the forms of more business and higher incomes., To estimate the total impact of the increased volume of recreational expenditures that may be made in the economy, the economic relationships of the local economy h Title: The estimation of regional secondary benefits resulting from an improvement in water quality of Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon: an interindustry approach Author: Reiling, Stephen Douglas Year: 1971, 2006, 2005 AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF STEPHEN DOUGLAS REILING for the MASTER OF SCIENCE (Name) (Degree) in AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS presented on (Major) (Date) Title: THE ESTIMATION OF REGIONAL SECONDARY BENEFITS RESULTING FROM AN IMPROVEMENT IN WATER QUALITY OF UPPER KLAMATH LAKE, OREGON; AN INTERINDUSTRY APPROACH Abstract approved^ Herbert H. Stoevener The primary objective of this study was to estimate the impact that an increase in recreational expenditures, resulting from water quality improvements of Klamath Lake, would have upon the Klamath County economy. As the sales of the economy expand to serve the needs of the recreationists, real benefits will be forthcoming to the businesses and households of the county in the forms of more business and higher incomes., To estimate the total impact of the increased volume of recreational expenditures that may be made in the economy, the economic relationships of the local economy h Close

• 39. [Image] Water Symposium: Symposium before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Ninth Congress, First Session, on Water Issues, April 5, 2005

  	iii; 99p.; "Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources"; Distributed to some depository libraries in microfiche
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Water Symposium: Symposium before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Ninth Congress, First Session, on Water Issues, April 5, 2005 Author: Water Symposium (2005: Washington, D.C.) Year: 2005, 2006 iii; 99p.; "Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources"; Distributed to some depository libraries in microfiche Title: Water Symposium: Symposium before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Ninth Congress, First Session, on Water Issues, April 5, 2005 Author: Water Symposium (2005: Washington, D.C.) Year: 2005, 2006 iii; 99p.; "Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources"; Distributed to some depository libraries in microfiche Close

• 40. [Image] EPA 314 clean lakes program: phase I diagnostic/feasibility project: Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon

  	SUMMARY PROBLEM DEFINITION Upper Klamath Lake, a 90,000 acre body of water located in south-central Oregon, is eutrophic and has reached a stage where summer algal and macrophyte productivity causes ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: EPA 314 clean lakes program: phase I diagnostic/feasibility project: Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon Author: Klamath Consulting Service, Inc Year: 1983, 2006, 2005 SUMMARY PROBLEM DEFINITION Upper Klamath Lake, a 90,000 acre body of water located in south-central Oregon, is eutrophic and has reached a stage where summer algal and macrophyte productivity causes severe aesthetic problems and often renders the lake unusable as a recreational site. The problem is a natural one; it has not been caused by man's carelessness and cannot be turned around by regulation. Upper Klamath Lake is quite shallow, warming rapidly in the summer, and the waters carry a naturally occurring high nutrient load. Algal growth is extensive, predominently APHANEZOMENON FLOS-AQUAE, a blue-green algae prevalent in eutrophic waters. These organisms form dense mats that become very odorous as they decay. Numerous macrophytes (aquatic weeds) are indigenous to the lake, but the major problem is with P0TAM06ET0N CRISPUS, which forms long floating fonds that tangle boat motors and prevent passage. The Pelican Bay channel has an extensive growth of this weed. Title: EPA 314 clean lakes program: phase I diagnostic/feasibility project: Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon Author: Klamath Consulting Service, Inc Year: 1983, 2006, 2005 SUMMARY PROBLEM DEFINITION Upper Klamath Lake, a 90,000 acre body of water located in south-central Oregon, is eutrophic and has reached a stage where summer algal and macrophyte productivity causes severe aesthetic problems and often renders the lake unusable as a recreational site. The problem is a natural one; it has not been caused by man's carelessness and cannot be turned around by regulation. Upper Klamath Lake is quite shallow, warming rapidly in the summer, and the waters carry a naturally occurring high nutrient load. Algal growth is extensive, predominently APHANEZOMENON FLOS-AQUAE, a blue-green algae prevalent in eutrophic waters. These organisms form dense mats that become very odorous as they decay. Numerous macrophytes (aquatic weeds) are indigenous to the lake, but the major problem is with P0TAM06ET0N CRISPUS, which forms long floating fonds that tangle boat motors and prevent passage. The Pelican Bay channel has an extensive growth of this weed. Close

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

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

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

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

• 43. [Image] Klamath County, Oregon: its resources and advantages, its present and its future; a land of great pines, hardy cattle, wonderful lakes and temperate climate; its productive land needs thousands of people for its proper development

  	24 p.; ill.; Title from cover
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath County, Oregon: its resources and advantages, its present and its future; a land of great pines, hardy cattle, wonderful lakes and temperate climate; its productive land needs thousands of people for its proper development Author: Pierce, Joseph G. Year: 1900, 2006, 2005 24 p.; ill.; Title from cover Title: Klamath County, Oregon: its resources and advantages, its present and its future; a land of great pines, hardy cattle, wonderful lakes and temperate climate; its productive land needs thousands of people for its proper development Author: Pierce, Joseph G. Year: 1900, 2006, 2005 24 p.; ill.; Title from cover Close

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

  	5 p.; Caption title; "November 13, 2001."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath Basin Emergency Operation and Maintenance Refund Act of 2001 : report (to accompany H.R. 2828) Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Resources Year: 2001, 2006 5 p.; Caption title; "November 13, 2001." Title: Klamath Basin Emergency Operation and Maintenance Refund Act of 2001 : report (to accompany H.R. 2828) Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Resources Year: 2001, 2006 5 p.; Caption title; "November 13, 2001." Close

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 48. [Image] Water resources data. Oregon. Water Year 2003

  	Cover title; Chiefly tables
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Water resources data. Oregon. Water Year 2003 Author: Geological Survey (U.S.). Water Resources Division Year: 2003, 2005 Cover title; Chiefly tables Title: Water resources data. Oregon. Water Year 2003 Author: Geological Survey (U.S.). Water Resources Division Year: 2003, 2005 Cover title; Chiefly tables Close

• 49. [Image] Reclamation accomplishments, 1905-1953, Klamath Project, Oregon-California

  	SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Klamath Project is a $13 million Federal investment in water resource development, About 200,000 acres are irrigated and gross crop production (has exceeded $17 million each year ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Reclamation accomplishments, 1905-1953, Klamath Project, Oregon-California Author: Strantz, Maurice K. Year: 1953, 2005 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Klamath Project is a $13 million Federal investment in water resource development, About 200,000 acres are irrigated and gross crop production (has exceeded $17 million each year over the past 7 years. The Project encompasses the largest single block of irrigated land in the area and includes nearly half the three-county total irrigated area and one quarter of the cropland. Agriculture and manufacturing directly contribute half the three-county personal income and provide half the jobs. Klamath Project accounts for five-sixths of the gross income from crops, and half the total agricultural production in the three-county area. Personal income from project crops is estimated at $10.6 mil1ion in 1948. Recent crop production on the project supports directly or indirectly about $25 million in local personal income. Federal contribution for irrigation to repay costs without interest to date amounts to about $10.8 million. Annual personal income generated by project in the postwar years equals this assistance Project gross crop production of nearly $300 million over 46 years. Project farm income supports substantial portion of area retail trade and contributes to transportation and other services. Project agriculture in past 10 years increased its support to the economy and has helped offset the declines in the lumber industry. Without the project only about 50,000 irrigated acres would have been developed and the agricultural economy would have produced crops worth only about l/7th as large as at present. Reclamation development tends to maintain a stable prosperous economy in the three-county area. Title: Reclamation accomplishments, 1905-1953, Klamath Project, Oregon-California Author: Strantz, Maurice K. Year: 1953, 2005 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Klamath Project is a $13 million Federal investment in water resource development, About 200,000 acres are irrigated and gross crop production (has exceeded $17 million each year over the past 7 years. The Project encompasses the largest single block of irrigated land in the area and includes nearly half the three-county total irrigated area and one quarter of the cropland. Agriculture and manufacturing directly contribute half the three-county personal income and provide half the jobs. Klamath Project accounts for five-sixths of the gross income from crops, and half the total agricultural production in the three-county area. Personal income from project crops is estimated at $10.6 mil1ion in 1948. Recent crop production on the project supports directly or indirectly about $25 million in local personal income. Federal contribution for irrigation to repay costs without interest to date amounts to about $10.8 million. Annual personal income generated by project in the postwar years equals this assistance Project gross crop production of nearly $300 million over 46 years. Project farm income supports substantial portion of area retail trade and contributes to transportation and other services. Project agriculture in past 10 years increased its support to the economy and has helped offset the declines in the lumber industry. Without the project only about 50,000 irrigated acres would have been developed and the agricultural economy would have produced crops worth only about l/7th as large as at present. Reclamation development tends to maintain a stable prosperous economy in the three-county area. Close

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

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

• 51. [Image] Western water resource issues

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

• 52. [Image] Mid-term evaluation of the Klamath River Basin Fisheries Restoration Program

  	"April, 1999."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Mid-term evaluation of the Klamath River Basin Fisheries Restoration Program Year: 1999, 2005 "April, 1999." Title: Mid-term evaluation of the Klamath River Basin Fisheries Restoration Program Year: 1999, 2005 "April, 1999." Close

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

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

• 54. [Image] Water quality and nutrient loading in the Klamath River between Keno, Oregon and Seiad Valley, California from 1996-1998

  	ABSTRACT A water quality study was performed in the mainstem Klamath River from Keno, Oregon to Seiad Valley, California during 1996 through 1998. Four sites within the study area were continuously ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Water quality and nutrient loading in the Klamath River between Keno, Oregon and Seiad Valley, California from 1996-1998 Author: Campbell, S. G Year: 2001, 2007, 2005 ABSTRACT A water quality study was performed in the mainstem Klamath River from Keno, Oregon to Seiad Valley, California during 1996 through 1998. Four sites within the study area were continuously monitored using multiparameter recorders. Water quality sampling was also performed at these four locations in 1996 and 1997. Additional water quality sampling sites were added in 1998 for a total of 8 locations between Keno and Seiad. Temperature ranged from near zero ?C to >25 ?C with cooler temperatures in early spring and fall, and maximum temperatures occurring in July and August of each year. Dissolved oxygen concentration ranged from near zero mg/L to >13 mg/L with highest DO occurring in early spring and fall and lowest DO occurring in mid-summer. Air temperature was generally highly correlated with water temperature with r values ranging from 0.8 to 0.9 during the study period from 1996-1998. Water temperature in the study area exceeded chronic (>16?C) and acute (>22?C) criteria for salmonids during the summer months. Although chronic DO (<7 mg/L) criteria were exceeded throughout most of the study area during the summer, in the free-flowing river below Iron Gate Dam the acute DO (<5.5 mg/L) criteria were not exceeded. Nonpoint source pollution in the form of agricultural return flows, industrial, or sewage effluent entering the stream may have resulted in higher ammonia and total organic nitrogen concentrations at the upstream locations in the Klamath River study area (Keno and J.C. Boyle Powerplant). Nitrification of ammonia and organic nitrogen seemed to result in higher concentrations of nitrate in the downstream Klamath River (Iron Gate Dam). Total phosphorus concentration stayed relatively stable through the reservoirs in the study area, but decreased in the downstream direction between Iron Gate Dam and Seiad. Ortho-phosphorus concentrations increased longitudinally through the reservoirs, then decreased in the downstream direction between Iron Gate Dam and Seiad. An increase in ortho-phosphorus concentration can indicate internal cycling occurring in the reservoirs as well as photosynthesis. On an annual basis total phosphorus loading increased longitudinally from up- to downstream between Keno and Seiad. The increase was statistically significant (p = .03) indicating that the reservoirs in series in the Klamath River study area do not function as a nutrient sink. However, during the summer there was no statistically significant difference in total P loading when Keno, Iron Gate and Seiad locations were compared, therefore, the reservoirs may act as a nutrient sink seasonally. The Klamath River study locations were generally nitrogen limited, although at Keno, a regular change from N limitation to P limitation occurred during the fall of all three years of the study. When the Klamath River annual nutrient loading values are compared to other rivers in the vicinity, the Carson, Truckee, and Long Tom Rivers also appear to be nutrient enriched. The Carson and South Yamhill Rivers seem to be N limited systems and the Wood, Long Tom, Snake and Truckee Rivers seem to be P limited systems. Implementing management strategies for reservoir operations to improve water quality and reduce nutrient concentration or loading in the Klamath River study area to benefit anadromous fisheries may be difficult and expensive. However, improving the thermal regime in spring to benefit YOY salmonids may be possible as is short-term relief in fate summer for over-summering species. Decreases in nutrient concentration or loading accomplished through best management practices in the water shed may allow general protection of water resources in the Klamath Basin for future needs. Title: Water quality and nutrient loading in the Klamath River between Keno, Oregon and Seiad Valley, California from 1996-1998 Author: Campbell, S. G Year: 2001, 2007, 2005 ABSTRACT A water quality study was performed in the mainstem Klamath River from Keno, Oregon to Seiad Valley, California during 1996 through 1998. Four sites within the study area were continuously monitored using multiparameter recorders. Water quality sampling was also performed at these four locations in 1996 and 1997. Additional water quality sampling sites were added in 1998 for a total of 8 locations between Keno and Seiad. Temperature ranged from near zero ?C to >25 ?C with cooler temperatures in early spring and fall, and maximum temperatures occurring in July and August of each year. Dissolved oxygen concentration ranged from near zero mg/L to >13 mg/L with highest DO occurring in early spring and fall and lowest DO occurring in mid-summer. Air temperature was generally highly correlated with water temperature with r values ranging from 0.8 to 0.9 during the study period from 1996-1998. Water temperature in the study area exceeded chronic (>16?C) and acute (>22?C) criteria for salmonids during the summer months. Although chronic DO (<7 mg/L) criteria were exceeded throughout most of the study area during the summer, in the free-flowing river below Iron Gate Dam the acute DO (<5.5 mg/L) criteria were not exceeded. Nonpoint source pollution in the form of agricultural return flows, industrial, or sewage effluent entering the stream may have resulted in higher ammonia and total organic nitrogen concentrations at the upstream locations in the Klamath River study area (Keno and J.C. Boyle Powerplant). Nitrification of ammonia and organic nitrogen seemed to result in higher concentrations of nitrate in the downstream Klamath River (Iron Gate Dam). Total phosphorus concentration stayed relatively stable through the reservoirs in the study area, but decreased in the downstream direction between Iron Gate Dam and Seiad. Ortho-phosphorus concentrations increased longitudinally through the reservoirs, then decreased in the downstream direction between Iron Gate Dam and Seiad. An increase in ortho-phosphorus concentration can indicate internal cycling occurring in the reservoirs as well as photosynthesis. On an annual basis total phosphorus loading increased longitudinally from up- to downstream between Keno and Seiad. The increase was statistically significant (p = .03) indicating that the reservoirs in series in the Klamath River study area do not function as a nutrient sink. However, during the summer there was no statistically significant difference in total P loading when Keno, Iron Gate and Seiad locations were compared, therefore, the reservoirs may act as a nutrient sink seasonally. The Klamath River study locations were generally nitrogen limited, although at Keno, a regular change from N limitation to P limitation occurred during the fall of all three years of the study. When the Klamath River annual nutrient loading values are compared to other rivers in the vicinity, the Carson, Truckee, and Long Tom Rivers also appear to be nutrient enriched. The Carson and South Yamhill Rivers seem to be N limited systems and the Wood, Long Tom, Snake and Truckee Rivers seem to be P limited systems. Implementing management strategies for reservoir operations to improve water quality and reduce nutrient concentration or loading in the Klamath River study area to benefit anadromous fisheries may be difficult and expensive. However, improving the thermal regime in spring to benefit YOY salmonids may be possible as is short-term relief in fate summer for over-summering species. Decreases in nutrient concentration or loading accomplished through best management practices in the water shed may allow general protection of water resources in the Klamath Basin for future needs. Close

• 55. [Image] Restoring Harmony in the Klamath Basin

  	"January 2003."; Includes bibliographical references (p. 25-28)
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Restoring Harmony in the Klamath Basin Author: Meiners, Roger E; Kosnik, Lea-Rachel D., 1972- Year: 2003, 2007, 2005 "January 2003."; Includes bibliographical references (p. 25-28) Title: Restoring Harmony in the Klamath Basin Author: Meiners, Roger E; Kosnik, Lea-Rachel D., 1972- Year: 2003, 2007, 2005 "January 2003."; Includes bibliographical references (p. 25-28) Close

• 56. [Image] Klamath Indian Forest

  	CONTENTS Page S. 3594 1 Department reports: Agriculture 2 Interior 1 STATEMENTS Crow, John O., Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Indian Affairs, ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath Indian Forest Author: United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on Public Lands Year: 1972, 2008, 2006 CONTENTS Page S. 3594 1 Department reports: Agriculture 2 Interior 1 STATEMENTS Crow, John O., Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Depart ment of the Interior 14 Dellenback, Hon. John, a U.S. Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon 11 Hatfield, Hon. Mark, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon 3 McGuire, John R., Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture 16 Packwood, Hon. Bob, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon 4 COMMUNICATIONS Tupiing, W. Lloyd, Washington representative, Sierra Club: Letter to Senator Jackson, June 21, 1972 21 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION "Budget Choppers Loose in Forest," by Bill Robertson, Journal corre spondent, from the Oregonian, Portland (Oreg.), May 17, 1972 9 "Klamath Forest Now Seems Lost to Developers Unless Public Starts 1 Sounding Off," by Phil Cogswell, of the Oregonian staff, from the Oregonian, Portland (Oreg.), April 26, 1972 6 Proposed purchase of the Klamath Indian Forest __ 20 "Rape of the Land," from the Eugene Register-Guard, Eugene (Oreg.), April 26, 1972 8 "State Congressmen Enter Forest Bill," by Phil Cogswell, of the Oregonian staff, from the Oregonian, Portland (Oreg.), May 9, 1972 9 "U.S. Urged To Buy Klamath Lands," by Phil Cogswell, of the Oregonian staff, from the Oregonian, Portland (Oreg.), April 27, 1972 8 "White House Says 'No'," by A. Robert Smith, Washington correspond ent, from the Oregon Statesman, Salem (Oreg.), April 22, 1972 6 (III) Title: Klamath Indian Forest Author: United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on Public Lands Year: 1972, 2008, 2006 CONTENTS Page S. 3594 1 Department reports: Agriculture 2 Interior 1 STATEMENTS Crow, John O., Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Depart ment of the Interior 14 Dellenback, Hon. John, a U.S. Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon 11 Hatfield, Hon. Mark, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon 3 McGuire, John R., Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture 16 Packwood, Hon. Bob, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon 4 COMMUNICATIONS Tupiing, W. Lloyd, Washington representative, Sierra Club: Letter to Senator Jackson, June 21, 1972 21 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION "Budget Choppers Loose in Forest," by Bill Robertson, Journal corre spondent, from the Oregonian, Portland (Oreg.), May 17, 1972 9 "Klamath Forest Now Seems Lost to Developers Unless Public Starts 1 Sounding Off," by Phil Cogswell, of the Oregonian staff, from the Oregonian, Portland (Oreg.), April 26, 1972 6 Proposed purchase of the Klamath Indian Forest __ 20 "Rape of the Land," from the Eugene Register-Guard, Eugene (Oreg.), April 26, 1972 8 "State Congressmen Enter Forest Bill," by Phil Cogswell, of the Oregonian staff, from the Oregonian, Portland (Oreg.), May 9, 1972 9 "U.S. Urged To Buy Klamath Lands," by Phil Cogswell, of the Oregonian staff, from the Oregonian, Portland (Oreg.), April 27, 1972 8 "White House Says 'No'," by A. Robert Smith, Washington correspond ent, from the Oregon Statesman, Salem (Oreg.), April 22, 1972 6 (III) Close

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

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

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

  	"February 1994." ; "Much of this document was taken directly from, or based on, the Bureau of Land Management's earlier studies of the Klamath River: the Final eligibility and suitability report for the ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath wild and scenic river eligibility report and environmental assessment : Klamath River, Oregon : draft Author: United States. National Park Service. Pacific Northwest Region Year: 1994, 2004 "February 1994." ; "Much of this document was taken directly from, or based on, the Bureau of Land Management's earlier studies of the Klamath River: the Final eligibility and suitability report for the Upper Klamath wild and scenic river study and the Draft Klamath Falls area resource management plan and environmental impact statement. This assessment also borrowed heavily from the Final environmental impact statement for the Salt Caves hydroelectric project prepared by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission."-p.i ; "State of Oregon application, Section 2(a)(ii) National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act." Title: Klamath wild and scenic river eligibility report and environmental assessment : Klamath River, Oregon : draft Author: United States. National Park Service. Pacific Northwest Region Year: 1994, 2004 "February 1994." ; "Much of this document was taken directly from, or based on, the Bureau of Land Management's earlier studies of the Klamath River: the Final eligibility and suitability report for the Upper Klamath wild and scenic river study and the Draft Klamath Falls area resource management plan and environmental impact statement. This assessment also borrowed heavily from the Final environmental impact statement for the Salt Caves hydroelectric project prepared by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission."-p.i ; "State of Oregon application, Section 2(a)(ii) National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act." Close

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

  	"BLM/OR/WA/PL-02/038+1792"--P. [2] of cover; Cover title; Includes bibliographical references (v. 2, p. 219-228) and index
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Draft upper Klamath River management plan environmental impact statement and resource management plan amendments. Volume 2 - Appendices Author: United States. Bureau of Land Management. Klamath Falls Resource Area Office Year: 2003, 2004 "BLM/OR/WA/PL-02/038+1792"--P. [2] of cover; Cover title; Includes bibliographical references (v. 2, p. 219-228) and index Title: Draft upper Klamath River management plan environmental impact statement and resource management plan amendments. Volume 2 - Appendices Author: United States. Bureau of Land Management. Klamath Falls Resource Area Office Year: 2003, 2004 "BLM/OR/WA/PL-02/038+1792"--P. [2] of cover; Cover title; Includes bibliographical references (v. 2, p. 219-228) and index Close

• 60. [Image] Water availability for Oregon's rivers and streams: Volume 2; Technical guide and appendixes

  	Title from cover; "May 1991"
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Water availability for Oregon's rivers and streams: Volume 2; Technical guide and appendixes Author: Robison, E. George Year: 1991, 2004 Title from cover; "May 1991" Title: Water availability for Oregon's rivers and streams: Volume 2; Technical guide and appendixes Author: Robison, E. George Year: 1991, 2004 Title from cover; "May 1991" Close

• 61. [Image] Water resources data. Oregon. Water Year 2002

  	PREFACEThe annual Oregon hydrologic data report is one of a series of annual reports that document hydrologic data gathered from the U.S. Geological Survey's surface- and ground-water data-collection networks ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Water resources data. Oregon. Water Year 2002 Author: Geological Survey (U.S.). Water Resources Division Year: 2002, 2004 PREFACEThe annual Oregon hydrologic data report is one of a series of annual reports that document hydrologic data gathered from the U.S. Geological Survey's surface- and ground-water data-collection networks in each State, Puerto Rico, and the Trust Territories. These records of streamflow, ground-water levels, and quality of water provide the hydrologic information needed by State, local and Federal agencies, and the private sector for developing and managing our Nation's land and water resources.The report is the culmination of a concerted effort by dedicated personnel of the U.S. Geological Survey who collected, compiled, analyzed, verified, and organized the data, and who edited and assembled the reports. In addition to the authors, who had primary responsibility for assuring that the information contained herein is accurate, complete, and adheres to Geological Survey policy and established guidelines, the following individuals contributed significantly to the collection, processing, and tabulation of the data: Title: Water resources data. Oregon. Water Year 2002 Author: Geological Survey (U.S.). Water Resources Division Year: 2002, 2004 PREFACEThe annual Oregon hydrologic data report is one of a series of annual reports that document hydrologic data gathered from the U.S. Geological Survey's surface- and ground-water data-collection networks in each State, Puerto Rico, and the Trust Territories. These records of streamflow, ground-water levels, and quality of water provide the hydrologic information needed by State, local and Federal agencies, and the private sector for developing and managing our Nation's land and water resources.The report is the culmination of a concerted effort by dedicated personnel of the U.S. Geological Survey who collected, compiled, analyzed, verified, and organized the data, and who edited and assembled the reports. In addition to the authors, who had primary responsibility for assuring that the information contained herein is accurate, complete, and adheres to Geological Survey policy and established guidelines, the following individuals contributed significantly to the collection, processing, and tabulation of the data: Close

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

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

• 63. [Image] Nutrients in the nation's waters : too much of a good thing?

  	Includes bibliographical references (p. 22)
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Nutrients in the nation's waters : too much of a good thing? Author: Mueller, David K. Year: 1996, 2004 Includes bibliographical references (p. 22) Title: Nutrients in the nation's waters : too much of a good thing? Author: Mueller, David K. Year: 1996, 2004 Includes bibliographical references (p. 22) Close

• 64. [Image] Klamath irrigation district suit bill. Hearings, sixty-ninth Congress, first session

  	CONTENTS Page. Bill S. 3189 2 Bill H. R. 9493 3 Letter from Secretary of the Interior 3 Statement of- Lawrence A. Liljeqvist, assistant attorney general of Oregon 7, 87,101 Herman Phleger, counsel ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath irrigation district suit bill. Hearings, sixty-ninth Congress, first session Author: United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation Year: 1926, 2004 CONTENTS Page. Bill S. 3189 2 Bill H. R. 9493 3 Letter from Secretary of the Interior 3 Statement of- Lawrence A. Liljeqvist, assistant attorney general of Oregon 7, 87,101 Herman Phleger, counsel for California-Oregon Power Co 19 Fred D. Fletcher, attorney at law, 16 Loomis Building, Klamath Falls, Oreg 50 R. E. Bradbury, director Klamath irrigation district, Klamath Falls, Oreg 65 P. W. Dent, assistant commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Depart ment of Interior 82 Documents and telegrams in favor of bill 106 Telegrams opposed to bill 123 Telegrams and documents opposed to interference with present contracts- 126 Letter and opinion of attorney general of Oregon to Hon. N. J. Sinnott 29 Section 5791, Oregon Laws 33 Chapter 5, Laws of Oregon, 1905, ceding act 34 Contract between United States and California-Oregon Power Co. of February 24, 1917 35 Letter of attorney of Klamath irrigation district to Hon. N. J. Sinnott 39 Statement of Klamath irrigation district 66 Title: Klamath irrigation district suit bill. Hearings, sixty-ninth Congress, first session Author: United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation Year: 1926, 2004 CONTENTS Page. Bill S. 3189 2 Bill H. R. 9493 3 Letter from Secretary of the Interior 3 Statement of- Lawrence A. Liljeqvist, assistant attorney general of Oregon 7, 87,101 Herman Phleger, counsel for California-Oregon Power Co 19 Fred D. Fletcher, attorney at law, 16 Loomis Building, Klamath Falls, Oreg 50 R. E. Bradbury, director Klamath irrigation district, Klamath Falls, Oreg 65 P. W. Dent, assistant commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Depart ment of Interior 82 Documents and telegrams in favor of bill 106 Telegrams opposed to bill 123 Telegrams and documents opposed to interference with present contracts- 126 Letter and opinion of attorney general of Oregon to Hon. N. J. Sinnott 29 Section 5791, Oregon Laws 33 Chapter 5, Laws of Oregon, 1905, ceding act 34 Contract between United States and California-Oregon Power Co. of February 24, 1917 35 Letter of attorney of Klamath irrigation district to Hon. N. J. Sinnott 39 Statement of Klamath irrigation district 66 Close

• 65. [Image] The Klamath Project

  	"Seventh draft"; Includes bibliographical references and index
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Klamath Project Author: Stene, Eric A. Year: 1994, 2004 "Seventh draft"; Includes bibliographical references and index Title: The Klamath Project Author: Stene, Eric A. Year: 1994, 2004 "Seventh draft"; Includes bibliographical references and index Close

• 66. [Image] Report on payment capacity for Tule Lake irrigation district, Klamath Project

  	SUMMARY To provide a basis for negotiations of a repayment contract with an irrigation district representing the water users of the Tule Lake Division of the Klamath Project, this report has been prepared. ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Report on payment capacity for Tule Lake irrigation district, Klamath Project Author: Best, R.R. Year: 1948, 2004 SUMMARY To provide a basis for negotiations of a repayment contract with an irrigation district representing the water users of the Tule Lake Division of the Klamath Project, this report has been prepared. It covers past, present, and anticipated future agricultural and economic conditions and substantiates the proposed district's capacity to repay construction costs for irrigation water as well as to meet operation and maintenance charges It has been prepared according to procedures and policies established pursuant to the Federal Reclamation laws (Act of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388, and acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto.) In general, a representative farm budget method of analysis was employed to determine the payment capacity* Gross income of the land was based upon average per acre yields in the area and 1939-44 prices received. Prices of certain crops were adjusted further in accordance with long term outlook for these crops. From the gross income, all farm operating and retention expenses, including cultural and harvesting costs, taxes, insurance, depreciation and replacement, interest on investment, and a reasonable allowance for family living predicated upon the same base period (1939-44) have been subtracted to arrive at payment capacity. Individual consideration has been given to the block of land entered prior to 1948 (the major portion of the area), the lands of the Coppock Bay Area which are principally Class 2, and the undeveloped lands of the area just south of Malin, Oregon, Area C, Plate 1. The annual payment capacity of the irrigable lands entered prior to 1914-8, is determined to be approximately $50 per acre. The Class 2 lands of the Coppock Bay Area are shown to have a payment capacity of $21 per acre, as a result of slightly higher operating costs and probable lower yield or quality of certain crops. For the undeveloped area just south of Malin, Area C of Plate 1, the payment capacity is determined at $18 per acre after development to the extent expected under settlement and development plans currently being formulated The weighted average payment capacity for these areas is calculated to be $26.25 per acre. There is no need for a development period for the lands of the Tule Lake Division, except for the latter area as indicated above. Furthermore, after liberal allowance for farming costs and a reasonable family living, the resulting payment capacities appear to be well in excess of any annual installments likely to be considered necessary for repayment of the District's construction obligation and operation and maintenance charges. Title: Report on payment capacity for Tule Lake irrigation district, Klamath Project Author: Best, R.R. Year: 1948, 2004 SUMMARY To provide a basis for negotiations of a repayment contract with an irrigation district representing the water users of the Tule Lake Division of the Klamath Project, this report has been prepared. It covers past, present, and anticipated future agricultural and economic conditions and substantiates the proposed district's capacity to repay construction costs for irrigation water as well as to meet operation and maintenance charges It has been prepared according to procedures and policies established pursuant to the Federal Reclamation laws (Act of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388, and acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto.) In general, a representative farm budget method of analysis was employed to determine the payment capacity* Gross income of the land was based upon average per acre yields in the area and 1939-44 prices received. Prices of certain crops were adjusted further in accordance with long term outlook for these crops. From the gross income, all farm operating and retention expenses, including cultural and harvesting costs, taxes, insurance, depreciation and replacement, interest on investment, and a reasonable allowance for family living predicated upon the same base period (1939-44) have been subtracted to arrive at payment capacity. Individual consideration has been given to the block of land entered prior to 1948 (the major portion of the area), the lands of the Coppock Bay Area which are principally Class 2, and the undeveloped lands of the area just south of Malin, Oregon, Area C, Plate 1. The annual payment capacity of the irrigable lands entered prior to 1914-8, is determined to be approximately $50 per acre. The Class 2 lands of the Coppock Bay Area are shown to have a payment capacity of $21 per acre, as a result of slightly higher operating costs and probable lower yield or quality of certain crops. For the undeveloped area just south of Malin, Area C of Plate 1, the payment capacity is determined at $18 per acre after development to the extent expected under settlement and development plans currently being formulated The weighted average payment capacity for these areas is calculated to be $26.25 per acre. There is no need for a development period for the lands of the Tule Lake Division, except for the latter area as indicated above. Furthermore, after liberal allowance for farming costs and a reasonable family living, the resulting payment capacities appear to be well in excess of any annual installments likely to be considered necessary for repayment of the District's construction obligation and operation and maintenance charges. Close

• 67. [Image] Resolving the Klamath

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

• 68. [Image] Klamath Indians payments. Hearings before the Committee on Indian Affairs, House of Representatives, Seventy-fifth Congress, first session, on H. R. 6071, to credit the Klamath Indian tribal funds with certain amounts heretofore expended from tribal funds on irrigation works of the Klamath Reservation, Oregon, May 13, 1937

  	CONTENTS Statement of 14 Page Boyd J. Jackson___________________________________________ 4 S. M. Dodd_______________________________________________ ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath Indians payments. Hearings before the Committee on Indian Affairs, House of Representatives, Seventy-fifth Congress, first session, on H. R. 6071, to credit the Klamath Indian tribal funds with certain amounts heretofore expended from tribal funds on irrigation works of the Klamath Reservation, Oregon, May 13, 1937 Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Indian Affairs Year: 1937, 2004 CONTENTS Statement of 14 Page Boyd J. Jackson___________________________________________ 4 S. M. Dodd_______________________________________________ 5 B. L. Wilkinson___________________________________________ 6 R. P. Wan Lass____________________________________________ 9 Title: Klamath Indians payments. Hearings before the Committee on Indian Affairs, House of Representatives, Seventy-fifth Congress, first session, on H. R. 6071, to credit the Klamath Indian tribal funds with certain amounts heretofore expended from tribal funds on irrigation works of the Klamath Reservation, Oregon, May 13, 1937 Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Indian Affairs Year: 1937, 2004 CONTENTS Statement of 14 Page Boyd J. Jackson___________________________________________ 4 S. M. Dodd_______________________________________________ 5 B. L. Wilkinson___________________________________________ 6 R. P. Wan Lass____________________________________________ 9 Close

• 69. [Image] Economic assessment of the Klamath as a wild and scenic river

  	Recreational use and economic impact of the Salt Caves segment of the Klamath River have been consistently understated. Various citizens and the local press have suggested about 2,000 people use this ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Economic assessment of the Klamath as a wild and scenic river Author: Ward, John G. Year: 1987, 2004 Recreational use and economic impact of the Salt Caves segment of the Klamath River have been consistently understated. Various citizens and the local press have suggested about 2,000 people use this segment each year for rafting and an equal number for fishing. Representatives of Resource Management Inc. and various public officials and citizens have estimated annual revenues from the Salt Caves segment of the Klamath River at "less than $4 00,000" to "$500,000 per year". In the interest of building a broader discussion base, the following preliminary economic assessment of the Klamath River canyon has been developed. Background data and estimates are developed for rafting, fishing, and hunting. It is hoped this analysis will help support a more relevant Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy consequences statement in the Klamath County Comprehensive Plan. Results of the economic assessment for 1986 are summarized below. River use is nearly double the reported levels, and the economic impact of the Salt Caves segment of the Klamath River is over $2.5 million annually. The river now supports 98 jobs through direct, indirect and induced effects, half of them in Oregon. Another 3 00 jobs are partially supported when Oregon and California rafting firms use the river. Title: Economic assessment of the Klamath as a wild and scenic river Author: Ward, John G. Year: 1987, 2004 Recreational use and economic impact of the Salt Caves segment of the Klamath River have been consistently understated. Various citizens and the local press have suggested about 2,000 people use this segment each year for rafting and an equal number for fishing. Representatives of Resource Management Inc. and various public officials and citizens have estimated annual revenues from the Salt Caves segment of the Klamath River at "less than $4 00,000" to "$500,000 per year". In the interest of building a broader discussion base, the following preliminary economic assessment of the Klamath River canyon has been developed. Background data and estimates are developed for rafting, fishing, and hunting. It is hoped this analysis will help support a more relevant Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy consequences statement in the Klamath County Comprehensive Plan. Results of the economic assessment for 1986 are summarized below. River use is nearly double the reported levels, and the economic impact of the Salt Caves segment of the Klamath River is over $2.5 million annually. The river now supports 98 jobs through direct, indirect and induced effects, half of them in Oregon. Another 3 00 jobs are partially supported when Oregon and California rafting firms use the river. Close

• 70. [Image] Klamath Project : historic operation

  	"November 2000."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Klamath Project : historic operation Author: United States. Bureau of Reclamation. Klamath Basin Area Office Year: 2000, 2005 "November 2000." Title: Klamath Project : historic operation Author: United States. Bureau of Reclamation. Klamath Basin Area Office Year: 2000, 2005 "November 2000." Close

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

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

• 72. [Image] 1946 Land Opening - Robert L. Smith, a new landowner, inspects his new land

  	KP-1387-R2 - Klamath Project. 1946 Land Opening. Robert L. Smith, Number One man the drawing for the 1946 land opening, photographed as he stands by the gate leading to the farm which he chose to homestead; ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: 1946 Land Opening - Robert L. Smith, a new landowner, inspects his new land Author: United States. Bureau of Reclamation, Fluharty, J.E. Year: 1947, 2006, 2005 KP-1387-R2 - Klamath Project. 1946 Land Opening. Robert L. Smith, Number One man the drawing for the 1946 land opening, photographed as he stands by the gate leading to the farm which he chose to homestead; March 14, 1947; Photo by J. E. Fluharty Title: 1946 Land Opening - Robert L. Smith, a new landowner, inspects his new land Author: United States. Bureau of Reclamation, Fluharty, J.E. Year: 1947, 2006, 2005 KP-1387-R2 - Klamath Project. 1946 Land Opening. Robert L. Smith, Number One man the drawing for the 1946 land opening, photographed as he stands by the gate leading to the farm which he chose to homestead; March 14, 1947; Photo by J. E. Fluharty Close

• 73. [Image] A caterpillar is leveling land on the Kelley Ranch near Malin, Oregon

  	KP-1196-R2 - Klamath Project. Region II. Because of the great demand for food and consequent high prices that can be secured from the sale of produce, it is now possible to bring large areas of land into ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: A caterpillar is leveling land on the Kelley Ranch near Malin, Oregon Author: United States. Bureau of Reclamation, Fluharty, J.E. Year: 1946, 2006, 2005 KP-1196-R2 - Klamath Project. Region II. Because of the great demand for food and consequent high prices that can be secured from the sale of produce, it is now possible to bring large areas of land into production by leveling this land for irrigated farming. In this case the D-8 caterpillar is pulling a 18-yard carryall that is leveling the sand dunes 10 feet high. This photograph was made on the Kelley Ranch near Malin, Oregon in the Klamath Project; June 25, 1946; Photo by J. E. Fluharty Title: A caterpillar is leveling land on the Kelley Ranch near Malin, Oregon Author: United States. Bureau of Reclamation, Fluharty, J.E. Year: 1946, 2006, 2005 KP-1196-R2 - Klamath Project. Region II. Because of the great demand for food and consequent high prices that can be secured from the sale of produce, it is now possible to bring large areas of land into production by leveling this land for irrigated farming. In this case the D-8 caterpillar is pulling a 18-yard carryall that is leveling the sand dunes 10 feet high. This photograph was made on the Kelley Ranch near Malin, Oregon in the Klamath Project; June 25, 1946; Photo by J. E. Fluharty Close

• 74. [Image] Reports of explorations and surveys to ascertain the most practicable and economical route for a railroad from the Missisippi River to the Pacific Ocean / made under the direction of the Secretary of War, in 1853-4, according to acts of Congress of March 3, 1853, May 31, 1854, and August 5, 1854.

  	Following is a digital file of the Report of Lieut. Henry L. Abbot, Corps of Topographical Engineers upon Explorations for a Railroad Route from the Sacramento Valley to the Columbia River, made by Lieut. ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Reports of explorations and surveys to ascertain the most practicable and economical route for a railroad from the Missisippi River to the Pacific Ocean / made under the direction of the Secretary of War, in 1853-4, according to acts of Congress of March 3, 1853, May 31, 1854, and August 5, 1854. Author: United States. War Department Year: 1857, 2006, 2005 Following is a digital file of the Report of Lieut. Henry L. Abbot, Corps of Topographical Engineers upon Explorations for a Railroad Route from the Sacramento Valley to the Columbia River, made by Lieut. R. S. Williamson, Corps of Topographical Engineers, Assisted by Lieut. Henry L. Abbot, Corps of Topographical Engineers. This book was printed in 1855 and is volume six in the serial titled Reports of Explorations and Surveys, to Ascertain the Most Practicable and Economical Route for a Railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean. ; ill.; maps (some col.); Also known as: Pacific railroad surveys; Due to the delicate nature of this antique book and the physical stress created by scanning, only the portions relevant to the Klamath Basin were selected for scanning. Title: Reports of explorations and surveys to ascertain the most practicable and economical route for a railroad from the Missisippi River to the Pacific Ocean / made under the direction of the Secretary of War, in 1853-4, according to acts of Congress of March 3, 1853, May 31, 1854, and August 5, 1854. Author: United States. War Department Year: 1857, 2006, 2005 Following is a digital file of the Report of Lieut. Henry L. Abbot, Corps of Topographical Engineers upon Explorations for a Railroad Route from the Sacramento Valley to the Columbia River, made by Lieut. R. S. Williamson, Corps of Topographical Engineers, Assisted by Lieut. Henry L. Abbot, Corps of Topographical Engineers. This book was printed in 1855 and is volume six in the serial titled Reports of Explorations and Surveys, to Ascertain the Most Practicable and Economical Route for a Railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean. ; ill.; maps (some col.); Also known as: Pacific railroad surveys; Due to the delicate nature of this antique book and the physical stress created by scanning, only the portions relevant to the Klamath Basin were selected for scanning. Close

• 75. [Image] Annual program summary 2004

  	Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - FY2004 Table of Contents ANNUAL PROGRAM SUMMARY 1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Summary of Accomplishments 3 3.0 Budget and Employment 6 4.0 Land ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Annual program summary 2004 Author: United States. Bureau of Land Management. Klamath Falls Resource Area Office District Year: 2005 Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - FY2004 Table of Contents ANNUAL PROGRAM SUMMARY 1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Summary of Accomplishments 3 3.0 Budget and Employment 6 4.0 Land Use Allocations within the Klamath Falls Resource Area 6 Late-Successional Reserves and Assessments 8 Matrix 8 5.0 Aquatic Conservation Strategy 9 Riparian Reserves 9 Watershed Analysis and Key Watersheds 9 Watershed Restoration 10 Roads 10 Riparian Habitat Enhancement 10 Stream Restoration 11 6.0 Air Quality 11 7.0 Water and Soils 11 Water - Project Implementation 11 Soils - Project Implementation 12 Water - Inventory and Monitoring 12 Soils -Inventory and Monitoring 13 State-listed Clean Water Act 303d Streams 13 RMP Best Management Practices 13 8.0 Terrestrial Species and Habitat Management 14 Survey and Manage Species 14 Threatened/Endangered Species 14 Northern Spotted Owl 14 Bald Eagle 14 Special Status Species-Animals 15 Peregrine Falcon 15 Yellow Rails 15 Bats 15 Northern Goshawk 15 Oregon Spotted Frog 15 Sage Grouse 16 vii Klamath Falls Resource Area Mollusks 16 Great Gray Owl 16 Special Status Species - Plants 16 Other Species of Concern 17 Neotropical Migratory Landbirds 17 Terrestrial Habitat Management 17 Nest Sites, Activity Centers, and Rookeries 17 Big Game Habitat 19 9.0 Aquatic Species and Habitat Management 19 Threatened/Endangered Species 19 Lost River and Shortnose Suckers 19 Bull Trout 20 Endangered Species Act Consultation 20 Aquatic Habitat Restoration 20 Klamath River Hydroelectric Facility Relicensing 21 10.0 Pathogen, Disease, and Pest Management 21 11.0 Weed Management 22 Inventories 22 Control 22 12.0 Special Areas/Management 23 Wild and Scenic Rivers 23 Wilderness 23 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 23 Tunnel Creek Special Botanical Area 24 Klamath Canyon ACEC 24 Old Baldy Research Natural Area 24 Wood River Wetland ACEC 24 Environmental Education Areas 25 13.0 Cultural Resources 26 14.0 Visual Resources 26 15.0 Rural Interface Areas 26 16.0 Socioeconomic Conditions 27 Jobs-in-the-Woods 28 17.0 Environmental Justice 30 18.0 Recreation 30 Recreation Pipeline Restoration Funds 30 Recreation Projects 31 viii Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - FY2004 Recreation Fee Demonstration Project 31 Status of Recreation Plans 32 Volunteer Activities 32 Tourism 33 19.0 Forest Management and Timber Resources 33 Silvicultural Prescriptions 33 Timber Sale Planning 34 FY 2004 Timber Sale Accomplishments 34 Status of Sold & Awarded Klamath Falls RMP Timber Sales 35 Forest Development Activities 39 Stewardship Contracting 42 20.0 Special Forest Products 42 21.0 Energy and Minerals 43 22.0 Land Tenure Adjustments 44 23.0 Access and Rights-of-Way 45 24.0 Transportation and Roads 45 25.0 Hazardous Materials 46 26.0 Wildfire/Fuels Management 46 27.0 Law Enforcement 47 28.0 Rangeland Resources / Grazing Management 48 Fiscal Year 2004 Summary 49 Fiscal Years 1996-2004 Summary 50 Wild Horse Management 51 29.0 Cadastral Survey 52 30.0 Education and Outreach 52 31.0 Research 56 32.0 Coordination and Consultation 58 Federal Agencies 58 State of Oregon 58 Counties 59 Cities 59 Tribes 59 IX Klamath Falls Resource Area Watershed Councils 59 Chartered Advisory Groups 60 Other Local Coordination and Cooperation 61 33.0 National Environmental Policy Act Analysis and Documentation 63 NEPA documentation 63 Klamath Falls Resource Area Environmental Documentation 63 Protests and Appeals 63 34.0 Plan Evaluations 64 Third Year Evaluation 64 Eighth Year Evaluation 64 35.0 Plan Maintenance 65 36.0 Plan Amendments 72 Plan Revision 76 MONITORING REPORT Introduction 79 All Land Use Allocations 83 Late-Successional Reserves 86 Matrix 88 Riparian Reserves 92 Air Quality 95 Water and Soils 96 Terrestrial Species Habitat 101 Special Status and SEIS Special Attention Species Habitat 106 Aquatic Species Habitat 110 Noxious Weeds 112 Special Areas 113 Wild and Scenic Rivers 115 Cultural Resources Including American Indian Values 116 Visual Resources 118 Rural Interface Areas 119 Socioeconomic Conditions 120 Recreation 121 Forest Management and Timber Resources 121 Special Forest/Natural Products 122 Wildfire / Fuels Management 124 Rangeland Resources / Grazing Management 124 GLOSSARY/ACRONYMS 129 Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - FY2004 List of Tables Table 2.1 - Summary of Resource Management Actions, Directions, and Accomplishments 4 Table 2.1 - Summary of Resource Management Actions, Directions, and Accomplishments (Cont.).5 Table 3.1 - Resource Area Budget Fiscal Year 2004 6 Table 4.1 - Land Use Allocation 8 Table 5.1 - Watershed Analysis Schedule 10 Table 5.2-Watershed Analysis Status Fiscal Year 2004 10 Table 6.1 -Air Quality Management Fiscal Year 2004 11 Table 7.1 - Watershed Activity Fiscal Year 2004 12 Table 7.2 - KFRA Clean Water Act 303(d) Water Bodies 13 Table 8.1a - BLM /KFRA Special Status Species Designations Summary -Animals 18 Table 8.1b - BLM (KFRA) Special Status Species Designations Summary - Plants 18 Table 8.2 - Terrestrial Habitat Monitoring Fiscal Year 2004 18 Table 8.3 - Monitoring for Nest Sites, Activity Centers, Rookeries, Special Habitats 18 Table 9.1 -Aquatic Habitat/ Fish Passage Management Fiscal Year 2004 19 Table 11.1 - Managed Weed Species 20 Table 12.1 - Special Management Areas 25 Table 13.1 - Cultural Resources Management Fiscal Year 2004 26 Table 16.1 - Total Payments in Lieu of Taxes and Acres by County for FY 2004 28 Table 16.2 - O&C Payments To Counties FY 2004 29 Table 16.3 - Jobs in the Woods Program Fiscal Year 2004 29 Table 18.1 - Recreation Statistics Fiscal Year 2004 30 Table 18.2 - Recreation Fee Demonstration Project Fiscal Year 2004 32 Table 19.1 - Klamath Falls Timber Sale Volume (MBF) and Acres FY 2004 35 Table 19.2-Timber Volume Sold in FY 2004 36 Table 19.3 - Harvest Activity for FY 2004 36 Table 19.4 - Planned Timber Sales (FY 2005 & 2006) 36 Table 19.5 - Status of Sold and Awarded Timber Sales 37 Table 19.6 - Summary of Volume Sold 38 Table 19.7 -Volume and Acres Sold by Allocations 38 Table 19.8 - Timber Sales Sold by Harvest Types 38 Table 19.9 - Timber Sale Acres Sold by Age Class 39 Table 19.10 - Forest Development Activities 41 Table 20.1 - Special Forest Products Fiscal Year 2004 43 Table 21.1 - Energy and Minerals Management Fiscal Year 2004 44 Table 22.1 - Land Use Tenure Adjustments Fiscal Year 2004 45 Table 24.1 - Roads and Transportation Management Fiscal Year 2004 45 Table 25.1 - Hazardous Materials Management Fiscal Year 2004 46 Table 26.1 - Fire and Fuels Management Fiscal Year 2004 46 Table 27.1 - Law Enforcement Fiscal Year 2004 47 Table 28.1 - Range Resources Management Fiscal Year 2004 48 Table 29.1 -Cadastral Survey Summary Fiscal Year 2004 52 Table 30.1 - Environmental Education/Outreach Program Summary FY2004 54 Table 30.2 - Environmental Education/Outreach Special Events FY2004 55 Table 30.3 - Environmental Education/Outreach Programs & Tours FY 2004 56 Table 32.1 - Challenge Cost Share Fiscal Year 2004 62 XI Klamath Falls Resource Area Table 33.1 - NEPA Analyses and Documentation Fiscal Year 2004 64 Table 36.1 - Redefined Survey and Manage Categories 74 Table M.I - Projects Monitored FY 2004 80 Table M-2 - FY 2004 Implementation Monitoring Selection Categories 81 Table M-3 - Comparison of Projected vs. Actual Harvest Volume (MMBF)/Acres to Date 82 Table M-4 - Timber Sale Volume and Acres Offered (Entire Resource Area) 83 Table M-5 - Timber Sale Monitoring Summary 89 Table M-6 - Post Treatment Stand Characteristics for West Grenada Timber Sale - FY 2004 90 Table M-7 - Status of Watershed Analysis 98 List of Figures Figure 1 - General Location Map 2 Figure 2 - KFRA Land Allocations 7 Xll Title: Annual program summary 2004 Author: United States. Bureau of Land Management. Klamath Falls Resource Area Office District Year: 2005 Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - FY2004 Table of Contents ANNUAL PROGRAM SUMMARY 1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Summary of Accomplishments 3 3.0 Budget and Employment 6 4.0 Land Use Allocations within the Klamath Falls Resource Area 6 Late-Successional Reserves and Assessments 8 Matrix 8 5.0 Aquatic Conservation Strategy 9 Riparian Reserves 9 Watershed Analysis and Key Watersheds 9 Watershed Restoration 10 Roads 10 Riparian Habitat Enhancement 10 Stream Restoration 11 6.0 Air Quality 11 7.0 Water and Soils 11 Water - Project Implementation 11 Soils - Project Implementation 12 Water - Inventory and Monitoring 12 Soils -Inventory and Monitoring 13 State-listed Clean Water Act 303d Streams 13 RMP Best Management Practices 13 8.0 Terrestrial Species and Habitat Management 14 Survey and Manage Species 14 Threatened/Endangered Species 14 Northern Spotted Owl 14 Bald Eagle 14 Special Status Species-Animals 15 Peregrine Falcon 15 Yellow Rails 15 Bats 15 Northern Goshawk 15 Oregon Spotted Frog 15 Sage Grouse 16 vii Klamath Falls Resource Area Mollusks 16 Great Gray Owl 16 Special Status Species - Plants 16 Other Species of Concern 17 Neotropical Migratory Landbirds 17 Terrestrial Habitat Management 17 Nest Sites, Activity Centers, and Rookeries 17 Big Game Habitat 19 9.0 Aquatic Species and Habitat Management 19 Threatened/Endangered Species 19 Lost River and Shortnose Suckers 19 Bull Trout 20 Endangered Species Act Consultation 20 Aquatic Habitat Restoration 20 Klamath River Hydroelectric Facility Relicensing 21 10.0 Pathogen, Disease, and Pest Management 21 11.0 Weed Management 22 Inventories 22 Control 22 12.0 Special Areas/Management 23 Wild and Scenic Rivers 23 Wilderness 23 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 23 Tunnel Creek Special Botanical Area 24 Klamath Canyon ACEC 24 Old Baldy Research Natural Area 24 Wood River Wetland ACEC 24 Environmental Education Areas 25 13.0 Cultural Resources 26 14.0 Visual Resources 26 15.0 Rural Interface Areas 26 16.0 Socioeconomic Conditions 27 Jobs-in-the-Woods 28 17.0 Environmental Justice 30 18.0 Recreation 30 Recreation Pipeline Restoration Funds 30 Recreation Projects 31 viii Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - FY2004 Recreation Fee Demonstration Project 31 Status of Recreation Plans 32 Volunteer Activities 32 Tourism 33 19.0 Forest Management and Timber Resources 33 Silvicultural Prescriptions 33 Timber Sale Planning 34 FY 2004 Timber Sale Accomplishments 34 Status of Sold & Awarded Klamath Falls RMP Timber Sales 35 Forest Development Activities 39 Stewardship Contracting 42 20.0 Special Forest Products 42 21.0 Energy and Minerals 43 22.0 Land Tenure Adjustments 44 23.0 Access and Rights-of-Way 45 24.0 Transportation and Roads 45 25.0 Hazardous Materials 46 26.0 Wildfire/Fuels Management 46 27.0 Law Enforcement 47 28.0 Rangeland Resources / Grazing Management 48 Fiscal Year 2004 Summary 49 Fiscal Years 1996-2004 Summary 50 Wild Horse Management 51 29.0 Cadastral Survey 52 30.0 Education and Outreach 52 31.0 Research 56 32.0 Coordination and Consultation 58 Federal Agencies 58 State of Oregon 58 Counties 59 Cities 59 Tribes 59 IX Klamath Falls Resource Area Watershed Councils 59 Chartered Advisory Groups 60 Other Local Coordination and Cooperation 61 33.0 National Environmental Policy Act Analysis and Documentation 63 NEPA documentation 63 Klamath Falls Resource Area Environmental Documentation 63 Protests and Appeals 63 34.0 Plan Evaluations 64 Third Year Evaluation 64 Eighth Year Evaluation 64 35.0 Plan Maintenance 65 36.0 Plan Amendments 72 Plan Revision 76 MONITORING REPORT Introduction 79 All Land Use Allocations 83 Late-Successional Reserves 86 Matrix 88 Riparian Reserves 92 Air Quality 95 Water and Soils 96 Terrestrial Species Habitat 101 Special Status and SEIS Special Attention Species Habitat 106 Aquatic Species Habitat 110 Noxious Weeds 112 Special Areas 113 Wild and Scenic Rivers 115 Cultural Resources Including American Indian Values 116 Visual Resources 118 Rural Interface Areas 119 Socioeconomic Conditions 120 Recreation 121 Forest Management and Timber Resources 121 Special Forest/Natural Products 122 Wildfire / Fuels Management 124 Rangeland Resources / Grazing Management 124 GLOSSARY/ACRONYMS 129 Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - FY2004 List of Tables Table 2.1 - Summary of Resource Management Actions, Directions, and Accomplishments 4 Table 2.1 - Summary of Resource Management Actions, Directions, and Accomplishments (Cont.).5 Table 3.1 - Resource Area Budget Fiscal Year 2004 6 Table 4.1 - Land Use Allocation 8 Table 5.1 - Watershed Analysis Schedule 10 Table 5.2-Watershed Analysis Status Fiscal Year 2004 10 Table 6.1 -Air Quality Management Fiscal Year 2004 11 Table 7.1 - Watershed Activity Fiscal Year 2004 12 Table 7.2 - KFRA Clean Water Act 303(d) Water Bodies 13 Table 8.1a - BLM /KFRA Special Status Species Designations Summary -Animals 18 Table 8.1b - BLM (KFRA) Special Status Species Designations Summary - Plants 18 Table 8.2 - Terrestrial Habitat Monitoring Fiscal Year 2004 18 Table 8.3 - Monitoring for Nest Sites, Activity Centers, Rookeries, Special Habitats 18 Table 9.1 -Aquatic Habitat/ Fish Passage Management Fiscal Year 2004 19 Table 11.1 - Managed Weed Species 20 Table 12.1 - Special Management Areas 25 Table 13.1 - Cultural Resources Management Fiscal Year 2004 26 Table 16.1 - Total Payments in Lieu of Taxes and Acres by County for FY 2004 28 Table 16.2 - O&C Payments To Counties FY 2004 29 Table 16.3 - Jobs in the Woods Program Fiscal Year 2004 29 Table 18.1 - Recreation Statistics Fiscal Year 2004 30 Table 18.2 - Recreation Fee Demonstration Project Fiscal Year 2004 32 Table 19.1 - Klamath Falls Timber Sale Volume (MBF) and Acres FY 2004 35 Table 19.2-Timber Volume Sold in FY 2004 36 Table 19.3 - Harvest Activity for FY 2004 36 Table 19.4 - Planned Timber Sales (FY 2005 & 2006) 36 Table 19.5 - Status of Sold and Awarded Timber Sales 37 Table 19.6 - Summary of Volume Sold 38 Table 19.7 -Volume and Acres Sold by Allocations 38 Table 19.8 - Timber Sales Sold by Harvest Types 38 Table 19.9 - Timber Sale Acres Sold by Age Class 39 Table 19.10 - Forest Development Activities 41 Table 20.1 - Special Forest Products Fiscal Year 2004 43 Table 21.1 - Energy and Minerals Management Fiscal Year 2004 44 Table 22.1 - Land Use Tenure Adjustments Fiscal Year 2004 45 Table 24.1 - Roads and Transportation Management Fiscal Year 2004 45 Table 25.1 - Hazardous Materials Management Fiscal Year 2004 46 Table 26.1 - Fire and Fuels Management Fiscal Year 2004 46 Table 27.1 - Law Enforcement Fiscal Year 2004 47 Table 28.1 - Range Resources Management Fiscal Year 2004 48 Table 29.1 -Cadastral Survey Summary Fiscal Year 2004 52 Table 30.1 - Environmental Education/Outreach Program Summary FY2004 54 Table 30.2 - Environmental Education/Outreach Special Events FY2004 55 Table 30.3 - Environmental Education/Outreach Programs & Tours FY 2004 56 Table 32.1 - Challenge Cost Share Fiscal Year 2004 62 XI Klamath Falls Resource Area Table 33.1 - NEPA Analyses and Documentation Fiscal Year 2004 64 Table 36.1 - Redefined Survey and Manage Categories 74 Table M.I - Projects Monitored FY 2004 80 Table M-2 - FY 2004 Implementation Monitoring Selection Categories 81 Table M-3 - Comparison of Projected vs. Actual Harvest Volume (MMBF)/Acres to Date 82 Table M-4 - Timber Sale Volume and Acres Offered (Entire Resource Area) 83 Table M-5 - Timber Sale Monitoring Summary 89 Table M-6 - Post Treatment Stand Characteristics for West Grenada Timber Sale - FY 2004 90 Table M-7 - Status of Watershed Analysis 98 List of Figures Figure 1 - General Location Map 2 Figure 2 - KFRA Land Allocations 7 Xll Close

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

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

• 77. [Image] Effects of the drought on small business and agriculture : hearings before the Select Committee on Small Business, United States Senate, Ninety-fifth Congress, first session ... Klamath Falls, Oreg., August 16, 1977, Burns, Oreg., August 17, 1977

  	CONTENTS Statement of?©ag!, Anklin, William 2620 115 Barnett, Hon. Leo, Judge, Gilliam County, Oreg 2620 196 Chapman, James, president, Klamath Cattlemen's Association, Inc., Klamath Falls, Oreg ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Effects of the drought on small business and agriculture : hearings before the Select Committee on Small Business, United States Senate, Ninety-fifth Congress, first session ... Klamath Falls, Oreg., August 16, 1977, Burns, Oreg., August 17, 1977 Author: United States. Congress. Senate. Select Committee on Small Business Year: 1977, 2005, 2004 CONTENTS Statement of?©ag!, Anklin, William 2620 115 Barnett, Hon. Leo, Judge, Gilliam County, Oreg 2620 196 Chapman, James, president, Klamath Cattlemen's Association, Inc., Klamath Falls, Oreg 269 112 Cockram, Fred J., president, Oregon Dairymen's Association 2620 116 Cody, Jim, District Director, Farmers Home Administration, Port land, Oreg 2620 184 Eisgruber, Ludwig M., professor and head of the Department of Agri cultural and Resource Economics, School of Agriculture, Oregon State University 2620 118 Flitcraft, Hon. George C, Mayor, city of Klamath Falls, Klamath Falls, Oreg 2620 1 Fujii, Howard, manager, Public Affairs, Oregon Farm Bureau Fed eration 2620 170 Gift, Lloyd 2620 110 Goertzen, Victor, Assistant District Director, Management Assistance, Boise District Office, U.S. Small Business Administration 2620 189 Graham, Jack, coordinator, Agricultural Drought Office, State of Oregon 2620 174 Hagelstein, Fred, assistant director, Oregon State University Exten sion Service, Corvallis, Oreg 2620 39 Hawkins, Bert, president, Oregon Cattlemen's Association, Ontario, Oreg 2620 5 Hernandez, Richard, Associate Administrator for Operation- U.S. Small Business Administration, accompanied by J. Don Chapman, District Director, Portland District Office, SBA 2620 74 Huff, Bert, regional vice president, First National Bank of Oregon, Portland, Oreg 2620 129 Johnson, Samuel, member of the legislature, Klamath County, Oreg 2620 5 Langley, Dwight, representing Baker County Livestock Association, Baker, Oreg 2620 157 Mayer, William H., Regional Director, Federal Disaster Assistance Administration, Region 10, Seattle, Wash 2620 94 Miller, Tad, president, Oregon Wheat Growers League, Pendleton, Oreg., accompanied by Wes Grilley 2620 160 Nicholson, Mr 2620 110 Otley, Charles, past president, Oregon Cattlemen's Association 2620 196 Ross, Bill, first vice president, Oregon Cattlemen's Association 2620 146 Sehorn, Talbert D., State Executive Director, Agricultural Stabiliza tion and Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 2620 103 Sitz, James H., president, Harney County Stockgrowers, Drewsey, Oreg 2620 197 Skinner, Bob, president, Malheur County Livestock Association 2620 151 Smith, Earl, member, State Department of Agriculture, Salem, Oreg 2620 140 Storms, Murl W., State Director, Oregon State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oreg 2620 65 Thorne, Raymond P., Board of County Commissioners, County Commissioners Chambers, Klamath County Courthouse Annex, Klamath Falls, Oreg 2620 2 White, Hon. Dale, County Judge for Harney County, Burns, Oreg- 2620 134 Williams, Gary, representing the Oregon Wool Growers Association._ 21 Zinn, Thomas G., Wasco County Extension Agent, Oregon State Uni versity Extension Service 2620 48 (in) IV APPENDIX Statement of Edward Peile, president, Jackson County Stockmen's As- sociation 2620 201 Statement of Mike Hanley, Jordan Valley, Oreg 2620 201 Statement of Gene Officer, president, Grant County Stockgrowers Asso ciation, Canyon City, Oreg 2620 204 HEARING DATES August 16, 1977: Afternoon session 2620 1 August 17,1977: Afternoon session 2620 133 Title: Effects of the drought on small business and agriculture : hearings before the Select Committee on Small Business, United States Senate, Ninety-fifth Congress, first session ... Klamath Falls, Oreg., August 16, 1977, Burns, Oreg., August 17, 1977 Author: United States. Congress. Senate. Select Committee on Small Business Year: 1977, 2005, 2004 CONTENTS Statement of?©ag!, Anklin, William 2620 115 Barnett, Hon. Leo, Judge, Gilliam County, Oreg 2620 196 Chapman, James, president, Klamath Cattlemen's Association, Inc., Klamath Falls, Oreg 269 112 Cockram, Fred J., president, Oregon Dairymen's Association 2620 116 Cody, Jim, District Director, Farmers Home Administration, Port land, Oreg 2620 184 Eisgruber, Ludwig M., professor and head of the Department of Agri cultural and Resource Economics, School of Agriculture, Oregon State University 2620 118 Flitcraft, Hon. George C, Mayor, city of Klamath Falls, Klamath Falls, Oreg 2620 1 Fujii, Howard, manager, Public Affairs, Oregon Farm Bureau Fed eration 2620 170 Gift, Lloyd 2620 110 Goertzen, Victor, Assistant District Director, Management Assistance, Boise District Office, U.S. Small Business Administration 2620 189 Graham, Jack, coordinator, Agricultural Drought Office, State of Oregon 2620 174 Hagelstein, Fred, assistant director, Oregon State University Exten sion Service, Corvallis, Oreg 2620 39 Hawkins, Bert, president, Oregon Cattlemen's Association, Ontario, Oreg 2620 5 Hernandez, Richard, Associate Administrator for Operation- U.S. Small Business Administration, accompanied by J. Don Chapman, District Director, Portland District Office, SBA 2620 74 Huff, Bert, regional vice president, First National Bank of Oregon, Portland, Oreg 2620 129 Johnson, Samuel, member of the legislature, Klamath County, Oreg 2620 5 Langley, Dwight, representing Baker County Livestock Association, Baker, Oreg 2620 157 Mayer, William H., Regional Director, Federal Disaster Assistance Administration, Region 10, Seattle, Wash 2620 94 Miller, Tad, president, Oregon Wheat Growers League, Pendleton, Oreg., accompanied by Wes Grilley 2620 160 Nicholson, Mr 2620 110 Otley, Charles, past president, Oregon Cattlemen's Association 2620 196 Ross, Bill, first vice president, Oregon Cattlemen's Association 2620 146 Sehorn, Talbert D., State Executive Director, Agricultural Stabiliza tion and Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 2620 103 Sitz, James H., president, Harney County Stockgrowers, Drewsey, Oreg 2620 197 Skinner, Bob, president, Malheur County Livestock Association 2620 151 Smith, Earl, member, State Department of Agriculture, Salem, Oreg 2620 140 Storms, Murl W., State Director, Oregon State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oreg 2620 65 Thorne, Raymond P., Board of County Commissioners, County Commissioners Chambers, Klamath County Courthouse Annex, Klamath Falls, Oreg 2620 2 White, Hon. Dale, County Judge for Harney County, Burns, Oreg- 2620 134 Williams, Gary, representing the Oregon Wool Growers Association._ 21 Zinn, Thomas G., Wasco County Extension Agent, Oregon State Uni versity Extension Service 2620 48 (in) IV APPENDIX Statement of Edward Peile, president, Jackson County Stockmen's As- sociation 2620 201 Statement of Mike Hanley, Jordan Valley, Oreg 2620 201 Statement of Gene Officer, president, Grant County Stockgrowers Asso ciation, Canyon City, Oreg 2620 204 HEARING DATES August 16, 1977: Afternoon session 2620 1 August 17,1977: Afternoon session 2620 133 Close

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

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

• 79. [Image] The Oregon conservation strategy

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

• 80. [Image] Water-quality data from 2002 to 2003 and analysis of data gaps for development of total maximum daily loads in the Lower Klamath River basin, California

  	By Lorraine E. Flint, Alan L. Flint, Debra S. Curry, Stewart A. Rounds, and Micelis C. Doyle Abstract The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) collected water? quality data during 2002 and 2003 In ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Water-quality data from 2002 to 2003 and analysis of data gaps for development of total maximum daily loads in the Lower Klamath River basin, California Author: Flint, Lorraine E.; Flint, Alan L.; Curry, Debra S.; Rounds, Stewart A.; Doyle, Micelis C. Year: 2004, 2006, 2005 By Lorraine E. Flint, Alan L. Flint, Debra S. Curry, Stewart A. Rounds, and Micelis C. Doyle Abstract The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) collected water? quality data during 2002 and 2003 In the Lower Klamath River Basin, in northern California, to support studies of river conditions as they pertain to the viability of Chinook and Coho salmon and endangered suckers. To address the data needs of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board for the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), water temperature, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, and pH were continuously monitored at sites on the Klamath, Trinity, Shasta, and Lost Rivers. Water-quality samples were collected and analyzed for selected nutrients, organic carbon, chlorophyll-a, pheophytin-a, and trace elements. Sediment oxygen demand was measured on the Shasta River. Results of analysis of the data collected were used to identify locations in the Lower Klamath River Basin and periods of time during 200 Title: Water-quality data from 2002 to 2003 and analysis of data gaps for development of total maximum daily loads in the Lower Klamath River basin, California Author: Flint, Lorraine E.; Flint, Alan L.; Curry, Debra S.; Rounds, Stewart A.; Doyle, Micelis C. Year: 2004, 2006, 2005 By Lorraine E. Flint, Alan L. Flint, Debra S. Curry, Stewart A. Rounds, and Micelis C. Doyle Abstract The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) collected water? quality data during 2002 and 2003 In the Lower Klamath River Basin, in northern California, to support studies of river conditions as they pertain to the viability of Chinook and Coho salmon and endangered suckers. To address the data needs of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board for the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), water temperature, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, and pH were continuously monitored at sites on the Klamath, Trinity, Shasta, and Lost Rivers. Water-quality samples were collected and analyzed for selected nutrients, organic carbon, chlorophyll-a, pheophytin-a, and trace elements. Sediment oxygen demand was measured on the Shasta River. Results of analysis of the data collected were used to identify locations in the Lower Klamath River Basin and periods of time during 200 Close

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

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

• 82. [Image] Upper Klamath Basin : opportunities for conserving and sustaining natural resources on private lands

  	1 i California Oregon Cover Photo: Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge at sunset Tupper Ansel Blake/ USFWS Map Detail Area: Upper Klamath River Basin ii T he Klamath River Basin presents numerous ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Upper Klamath Basin : opportunities for conserving and sustaining natural resources on private lands Author: United States. Natural Resources Conservation Service Year: 2004, 2005 1 i California Oregon Cover Photo: Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge at sunset Tupper Ansel Blake/ USFWS Map Detail Area: Upper Klamath River Basin ii T he Klamath River Basin presents numerous challenges as well as opportunities for its many water users. For years, farmers and ranchers in the basin have recognized the vital role they play in the health of their watershed. Working with conservation districts, the Natural Resources Conservation Service ( NRCS) and others, land managers continue to proactively find ways to enhance natural resources in the basin, benefiting wildlife and the environment. However, as it has across the western United States, drought hit home in the Klamath for those who depend on every drop of water to sustain their livelihood, culture and community. In the spring of 2001, the combination of drought and the impact of the Endangered Species Act triggered a shutdown of irrigation water during the growing season, drying up water resources to more than 2,000 farms and ranches. NRCS, in cooperation with local conservation districts, provided a quick infusion of technical assistance and $ 2 million in cost- share funding for cover crops through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program. As cover crops took hold, the seeds of a long- term solution took root in the NRCS/ conservation district partnership. The ability of the local office to receive funding, engage community members and other partners, plan resource improvements, implement actions, and monitor success proved to be an invaluable asset for the community. Helping private landowners develop and apply practical, common- sense solutions to complex resource issues will be the challenge of the conservation partnership well into the future. USDA, in concert with the locally led conservation districts, will continue to play a critical role by delivering technical and financial assistance to Klamath Basin farmers and ranchers. The Rapid Subbasin Assessments that follow are the first step in that process. The assessments are designed to help local decision- makers determine where investments in conservation will best benefit wildlife habitat, agriculture and other land uses in a compatible manner. It is our goal to provide a comprehensive overview of resource challenges and opportunities in the basin, and help decision- makers to prioritize their investments in areas that will best sustain multiple use of natural resources in the basin now and in the future. Sincerely, Robert J. Graham Charles W. Bell, State Conservationist State Conservationist Oregon NRCS California NRCS iii iv Table of Contents Map of the Upper Klamath Basin ................................ i Letter from OR and CA State Conservationists .......... ii Overview of the Upper Klamath Basin ........................ 1 Background ................................................................................... 1 Upper Klamath Basin Description ............................................ 2 The Role of Agriculture in the Basin ........................................ 3 Rapid Subbasin Assessments ...................................................... 4 Private Lands Conservation Accomplishments ...................... 6 Summary of Conservation Opportunities ............................... 7 Water Conservation ...................................................................... 8 Improving Water Quality ........................................................... 10 Increasing Water Storage/ Yield ............................................... 11 Enhancing Fish and Wildlife Habitat ...................................... 12 Overview of Conservation Effectiveness .............................. 13 Comparative Benefit: Water Demand ..................................... 15 Comparative Benefit: Water Quality ....................................... 15 Comparative Benefit: Water Storage/ Yield ............................ 16 Comparative Benefit: Habitat/ Fish Survival .......................... 16 Sprague River Subbasin .............................................. 18 Resource Concerns & Conservation Accomplishments ...... 19 Conservation Opportunities ..................................................... 20 Williamson River Subbasin ......................................... 22 Resource Concerns & Conservation Accomplishments ...... 23 Priority Conservation Opportunities ....................................... 24 Upper Klamath Lake Subbasin .................................. 26 Resource Concerns & Conservation Accomplishments ...... 27 Priority Conservation Opportunities ....................................... 28 Upper Lost River Subbasin ......................................... 30 Resource Concerns & Conservation Accomplishments ...... 31 Priority Conservation Opportunities ....................................... 32 Middle Lost River Subbasin ....................................... 34 Resource Concerns & Conservation Accomplishments ...... 35 Priority Conservation Opportunities ....................................... 36 Tulelake Subbasin ...................................................... 38 Resource Concerns & Conservation Accomplishments ...... 39 Priority Conservation Opportunities ....................................... 40 Butte Valley Subbasin ................................................. 42 Resource Concerns & Conservation Accomplishments ...... 43 Priority Conservation Opportunities ....................................... 44 Upper Klamath River East Subbasin .......................... 46 Resource Concerns & Conservation Accomplishments ...... 47 Priority Conservation Opportunities ....................................... 48 1 Overview of the Upper Klamath Basin Upper Klamath Basin Quick Facts • The Upper Klamath Basin includes the Klamath, Williamson, Sprague, Lost, and Wood rivers, among others • Several state and federal wildlife refuges are a part of the Upper Klamath Basin • Migratory birds like the American White Pelican and the Red- necked Grebe use croplands in the Klamath Basin as a stop on the Pacific Flyway • Deer and elk graze on wheat and barley fields and pheasants use both crop and rangelands for their nesting and feeding grounds Background In a landscape formed by seemingly endless cycles of drought and flood, it’s no wonder that for hundreds of years, competition for water has dominated the landscape of the West. Stretching across southern Oregon and northern California, the Klamath Basin has become synonymous with the water challenges that western water users face. As one example, agricultural commodities that need irrigation water to thrive – providing Americans with the cheapest domestic food supply in the world, face competition from the critical water needs of sucker fish, salmon and other threatened and endangered species. While that competition is understandable, more and more, conservation leaders in all industries have come to recognize that these water needs aren’t necessarily at odds with one another, and can in fact be compatible. While an example of the challenges today’s agricultural producers and conservationists face, the Klamath Basin has emerged as an example of how diverse interests can work together successfully. 2 Overview of the Upper Klamath Basin Upper Klamath Basin Description The Upper Klamath Basin is an area of high desert, wetlands, and the Klamath River. The river extends 250 miles from its headwaters at Upper Klamath Lake in south central Oregon to the west coast of northern California. The Upper Klamath Basin includes the US Bureau of Reclamation’s ( USBR) Klamath Project Area and the drainage area above Irongate Dam on the Klamath River. The basin’s lakes, marshes, and wetlands host an abundance of plant and animal species and include national wildlife refuges, parks, and forests. Agricultural production began around the turn of the 20th century, and with the creation of the Klamath Irrigation District in 1905, water diversions for irrigation began in earnest. A portion of these irrigated lands are in the USBR’s irrigation project. The ‘ project area,’ as it is commonly called, includes 188,000 of the 502,000 acres of private irrigated land in the basin. This includes lands leased from the various wildlife refuges that are supplied with water by the USBR. Privately irrigated acreages can vary from year to year, depending on USBR contracts and annual cropping cycles. In comparison, the majority of the private irrigated land - about 314,000 acres - in the basin is located outside the project area. Upper Klamath Basin Quick Facts: • Over 2.2 million acres are privately owned in the Upper Klamath Basin • 188,000 of the irrigated acres are in the US Bureau of Reclamation’s Irrigation Project • Approximately 502,000 acres of privately owned lands are irrigated • 314,000 acres of irrigated lands are outside the Project area 3 Overview of the Upper Klamath Basin The Role of Agriculture in the Basin Agricultural lands play a key role in a healthy ecosystem. Located on the Pacific Flyway, migratory birds like the American White Pelican and the Red- Necked Grebe use croplands in the Klamath Basin as an important feeding and resting stop. Deer graze on wheat and barley fields, and pheasants use both crop and rangelands for their nesting and feeding grounds. Progressive conservation leaders recognize that farming and fish and wildlife habitat are not mutually exclusive. Well- maintained farmland creates fish and wildlife habitat, contributing to a healthy watershed. They also recognize that opportunities will always exist to improve the condition of natural resources in the basin. To address those opportunities, conservation leaders in Oregon’s Klamath Falls Soil and Water Conservation District and California’s Lava Beds/ Butte Valley Resource Conservation District have proactively identified four key priorities tied to natural resource conservation. The districts asked experts at the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service to help them develop a plan to determine what could be done on- farm to conserve water, increase water storage, improve water quality, and enhance fish and wildlife habitat. While so much of the attention to date in the Klamath Basin has been focused on water demand, these conservation leaders recognize demand is only one piece of the puzzle. Comprehensive solutions must also address water quality, storage and wildlife habitat. Conservation District Priorities 1) Conserve Water 2) Increase Water Storage 3) Improve Water Quality 4) Enhance Fish & Wildlife Habitat 4 Rapid Subbasin Assessments Conserving natural resources is the ultimate goal throughout the basin, and its success hinges on long- term solutions. At the request of local conservation districts, NRCS undertook an 18- month study of resource concerns, challenges and opportunities throughout the Upper Klamath Basin. The study was not intended to provide a detailed, quantitative analysis of the impacts of conservation work, but rather, to provide an initial estimate of where conservation investments would best address the districts’ four priority resource concerns. Beginning in the spring of 2002, NRCS planners collected information to enable the conservation districts, agencies, organizations, farmers, ranchers and others to make informed decisions in a timely manner about conservation and resource management in the basin. These Rapid Subbasin Assessments are intended to help leaders set priorities and determine the best actions to achieve their goals. As a part of the rapid subbasin assessment process, eight subbasins were delineated ( see map at left). A watershed planning team traveled through each subbasin, inventorying agricultural areas, identifying conservation opportunities and current levels of resource management, and estimating the impacts of these opportunities on the Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin 5 Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin conservation districts’ priority resource concerns. They focused their recommendations on areas that would provide the best benefit to the wide array of stakeholders in the Upper Klamath Basin. They also identified a number of socio- economic factors that must be taken into consideration when helping producers adapt to new management styles and conservation activities. Through NRCS, conservation districts and other federal, state and local entities, private land managers are working to identify ways they can more efficiently use – and share – the water they need. In the face of increasingly complex and politically polarized circumstances, a clear purpose and direction has arisen. The commitment of the local conservation partnership to identify the impacts of water shortages and to find solutions that will improve natural resource conservation will be key to the long- term viability of both endangered species and industries in the Upper Klamath Basin. The information that follows provides a summary of the conservation challenges and opportunities that NRCS staff found in their assessment. Recommendations for where financial and other resources can best be invested to improve natural resources, while sustaining the economy of the Upper Klamath Basin, are also identified. 6 Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin Private Lands Conservation Accomplishments One component necessary to understanding future conservation opportunities in the basin is to recognize the current conservation work of private land managers. An indicator of these efforts is the work that has been undertaken in partnership with NRCS and the local conservation districts. In federal fiscal years 2002 and 2003, Upper Klamath Basin farmers and ranchers improved resource conditions on 18,877 acres of privately owned agricultural lands, with assistance from NRCS and the conservation districts. During this time, private land managers have worked with the conservation districts in the basin to: • improve the condition of 11,800 acres of grazing lands • conserve water and improve water quality on 13,656 acres • restore and establish 4,138 acres of wetlands and riparian areas • improve 281 acres of forest stands • establish resource management systems on 1,351 acres of cropland These conservation efforts were accomplished with a combination of private, state and federal funding. 7 Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin Summary of Conservation Opportunities In addition to recognizing current conservation activities, the assessments define what can be accomplished with a strong conservation partnership in the Upper Klamath Basin. All too often, the debate about multi- use of water in the basin has focused on ways to reduce water demand. However, the basin’s many water users - including fish and wildlife - benefit just as much from improvements to water quality, water storage and wildlife habitat. Taken together, the recommendations that follow seek to utilize a comprehensive approach to all four resource priorities - with the goal of contributing to a sustainable, multi- use water system. While quantification of the results of conservation work in these four areas is difficult, there is no question that a comprehensive approach to natural resource improvement in the Upper Klamath Basin will result in accumulative long- term benefits for endangered fish species, wildlife habitat, agriculture, urban and other water uses. Agriculture cannot undertake these efforts alone. Private landowners and the general public both benefit from natural resources conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin. Because of this, public and private sources of funding from in and outside the region are necessary. Solutions of this magnitude also come with other social, political, and cultural costs. Upper Klamath Basin Quick Facts: • 1,400 farm families live in the Upper Klamath Basin • The Upper Klamath Basin is home to sucker fish, bull trout and redband trout 8 Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin For example, all stakeholders in the Upper Klamath Basin need to identify and address social, economic, and cultural resource- based values they have historically enjoyed. Politically, there must be resolution and agreement on water rights, endangered species, and water quality. Water Conservation Because few water use measurements have been taken in the past, it is difficult to quantify where specific water efficiencies can be gained. Throughout the Upper Klamath Basin, water that leaves one irrigated field generally re- enters streams or enters the groundwater, providing the opportunity for it to be utilized again later. Because of this, water delivery systems both in and outside the USBR project area are generally efficient. As a result, the most significant benefit of reducing water demand on individual farms is an improvement in water quality and reduction in water temperatures, rather than an increase in available water. 9 Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin Conservation measures that reduce water demand on private agricultural lands can be accomplished in a variety of ways. New technologies for managing when and where water is applied on crop and pasture lands will help to ensure that water is only applied when it is of the best benefit to the plant. Water conservation opportunities include improving irrigation water-use efficiency, retaining and conserving drainage water, and making use of new technologies that more accurately forecast the impacts of drought and floods. The subbasin assessments indicate an opportunity to conserve water and improve water quality on 130,000 acres of irrigated lands within the USBR project. Outside the project area there is an opportunity for water conservation on approximately 220,000 irrigated acres. If all potential conservation practices are implemented on all irrigated lands, on- farm water use efficiency could increase by up to 25 percent in the Upper Klamath Basin. A potential two to five percent increase in water yield could be achieved by increasing management in upland range and forestland areas. In all cases, these are preliminary estimates and require validation. This estimate does not account for evaporation, transpiration, seepage or other loses that may occur at the sites receiving conserved water nor does it evaluate irrigation delivery or conveyance efficiencies. Tupper Ansel Blake/ USFWS 10 Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin This level of water conservation cannot be reached without a concerted federal/ state/ private partnership that works together to apply water conservation practices in targeted areas throughout the Upper Klamath Basin. Improving Water Quality Water quality has a direct impact on many fish and wildlife species. Within the Upper Klamath Basin, most rivers and lakes do not meet federally mandated Clean Water Act standards for temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, or other pollutants. Water quality is affected by water temperature, low in- stream flows and the condition of adjacent land riparian areas, among other items. Private landowners are just one of many groups who have an opportunity to improve water quality throughout the basin. Water quality improvement opportunities on private agricultural lands in the basin range from improving the management of livestock near streams and rivers to utilizing new technologies that track pest and weed cycles to ensure that pesticides are only applied when they will be most effective. Water conservation practices that reduce tailwater runoff from irrigated fields can provide extensive improvements in water quality. 11 Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin Increasing Water Storage/ Yield In recent years, drought has been a large contributing factor to reduced water levels in the Upper Klamath Basin. One solution to address low water flows would be to store water for times of water shortage. There are at least two challenges to this solution: finding a place to store water and finding water to store. To evaluate this option, potential storage values were calculated for 41 years of record from 1961 to 2002. This analysis reinforced the observation that, as has been seen in recent years, drought years normally occur in a multi- year cycle. Because of this, in the years where extra water is most needed, it is often not available from previous years to store. One promising, small- scale, water storage solution may lie in subsurface irrigation water storage in suitable locations, such as the Tulelake Subbasin. In this scenario, there exists a potential to store water in the soil profile and reduce irrigation water demand during the irrigation season. Another option for subsurface storage of water includes the restoration of streams and their surrounding wetlands and riparian areas. This can increase the “ sponge” effect allowing for the slow release of water through the long, dry summer months. Tupper Ansel Blake/ USFWS 12 Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin Enhancing Fish and Wildlife Habitat The Upper Klamath Basin is home to a wide variety of aquatic and terrestrial species of wildlife and fish. Much of the water used in the Klamath wildlife refuges and associated marshes, ponds, streams and wetlands originates in the Upper Klamath Lake Subbasin. The Klamath Basin wildlife refuges provide a stopover for 85 percent of the ducks, geese, and other birds that migrate through the Pacific Flyway from Alaska to South America. Streams in the Upper Klamath Basin provide spawning and rearing habitat to threatened and endangered suckers and bull trout, as well as redband trout, which is listed as a species of concern by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Several streams are highly valued “ catch and release” sport fisheries. There is high landowner and public interest in restoring and maintaining riparian habitat along these streams. Many of the conservation opportunities outlined under water conservation and water quality provide direct benefits to fish and wildlife as well. In addition, creating and restoring wetland areas, planting trees and developing wildlife habitat along the edges of crop fields all contribute to enhancing wildlife habitat in the basin. Tupper Ansel Blake/ USFWS 13 Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin Overview of Conservation Effectiveness In order for the Upper Klamath Basin to successfully move forward with solutions, agriculturists, environmentalists, Tribes, government agencies, organizations, and others need to develop unified leadership to arrive at a common vision for the future. In addition, stakeholders and others must commit to a long- term investment of public and private funding as well as other resources. Based on the Upper Klamath Basin Rapid Subbasin Assessments, the Oregon and California NRCS planning staff rated the potential benefit of recommended conservation practices and resource management systems based on the conservation districts’ four resource priorities. Many state and federal agencies have invested in conservation work throughout the basin. While the recommendations in this document focus on private land and agriculture, the assessments can also be applied to help prioritize conservation practices on other land uses basin- wide. Overall, based on the planning team’s analysis, conservation activities in the Sprague River Subbasin would produce the greatest benefit, and conservation practices in the Upper Klamath River East Subbasin would yield the least Tupper Ansel Blake/ USFWS overall benefit based on the conservation district’s priorities. 14 Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin While recognizing that any science- based conservation focus in the Upper Klamath Basin would be beneficial, the charts on pages 18- 19 specifically focus on work that can be accomplished on private lands. They provide a breakdown of recommended conservation practices on each of the conservation districts’ priorities by subbasin. For example, the water demand chart shows that investing in conservation practices in the Sprague River Subbasin has the greatest potential for reducing agriculture’s water demand by implementing improved irrigation practices. The Sprague also provides the best opportunity to address water quality and wildlife habitat. Investment in conservation activities in the Tulelake and the Upper Klamath Lake subbasins offers the greatest potential to address water storage/ yield. Investing in Conservation: Enabling farmers, ranchers and other private land managers to successfully address the four resource priorities will require: • The adoption of conservation on 350,000 acres of private farmland, range, and forests, • Financial resources estimated at $ 200 million for installation and another $ 27 million annually to operate, and • Twenty or more years to complete with the current financial and technical resources available. Tupper Ansel Blake/ USFWS 15 Water Demand Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices by Subbasin Upper Klamath River East Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Williamson Upper Klamath Lake Upper Lost River Butte Valley Middle Lost River Tulelake Sprague Sprague Upper Klamath Lake Williamson Butte Valley Tulelake Middle Lost River Upper Lost River Upper Klamath River East Water Quality Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices by Subbasin Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Comparative Benefit: Water Demand The chart at left provides an overview of the comparative benefit by subbasin of various conservation practices that reduce water demand. Based on research completed by NRCS planning staff, the greatest potential to reduce water demand exists by implementing irrigation and riparian/ wetland conservation practices in the Sprague Subbasin. This is followed by implementing agronomic and irrigation conservation practices in Tulelake. There is no measurable water demand benefit achieved by implementing conservation practices in the Upper Klamath River East Subbasin. Comparative Benefit: Water Quality The chart at left provides an overview of the comparative benefit by subbasin of various conservation practices that improve water quality. Based on research completed by NRCS planning staff, the greatest potential to improve water quality occurs when riparian/ wetland, grazing and irrigation conservation practices are implemented in the Sprague Subbasin. In comparison, no measurable water quality benefits are achieved by implementing conservation practices in Butte Valley or the Upper Klamath River East subbasins. Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin 16 Wildlife Habitat Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices by Subbasin Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Williamson Sprague Butte Valley Tulelake Middle Lost River Upper Lost River Upper Klamath Lake Upper Klamath River East Upper Klamath River East Williamson Sprague Upper Klamath Lake Tulelake Middle Lost River Upper Lost River Butte Valley Water Storage Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices by Subbasin Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Comparative Benefit: Water Storage/ Yield The chart at right provides an overview of the comparative benefit by subbasin of various conservation practices that enhance water storage and yield. Based on research completed by NRCS planning staff, the greatest potential to enhance water storage and yield occurs by implementing riparian/ wetland, forest and range conservation practices in the Upper Klamath Lake Subbasin. In comparison, the Tulelake Subbasin gains water yield through agronomic practices like subsurface drains to allow for winter irrigation. Overall, implementing forest and range practices in most subbasins will result in greater water yield within the soil profile and water table. Comparative Benefit: Habitat/ Fish Survival The chart at right provides an overview of the comparative benefit by subbasin of various conservation practices that improve wildlife habitat and fish survival. Based on research completed by NRCS planning staff, the greatest potential to improve habitat is in the Sprague Subbasin, using wetland/ riparian, forest, range and irrigation practices. In comparison, no measurable habitat benefits are achieved by implementing additional conservation practices in the Middle Lost River, Tulelake, Butte Valley or Upper Klamath River subbasins. Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin 17 Tim McCabe/ NRCS 18 The Sprague River Subbasin is located 25 miles northeast of Klamath Falls and covers approximately 1.02 million acres. Forested mountain ridges enclose the Sprague River Valley, which includes large marshes, meadows and irrigated pasture. Juniper and sagebrush steppes dominate rangeland. Irrigated Pasture is the predominant land use in the Sprague River Valley. Approximately 65 percent of the water used for irrigation is diverted from streams, and 35 percent is pumped from wells. Flooding is the most common form of irrigation. Most diversions do not have fish screens and lack devices to measure water deliveries. Overall irrigation application efficiencies are low. Private forest and rangelands in the Sprague River subbasin are generally used for livestock grazing. Most forest stands are significantly overstocked with trees, and rangeland has been heavily encroached by Western Juniper. Pasture condition is generally poor to fair. The riparian areas within pastures have little to no riparian vegetation and high, eroding banks. Wildlife habitat in most of the upper reaches of the Sprague River and its major tributaries appears to be fairly stable, indicating good watershed condition. However, there are considerable habitat improvements that can be made in the lower portion of the basin. Sprague River Subbasin Water & Wetlands: 2,949 Range: 137,869 Irrigated Pasture/ Grass Hay: 81,650 Forest/ Mixed: 240,050 Sprague River Subbasin Agricultural Land Use/ Cover 19 Resource Concerns Water quality is the major resource concern in the Sprague River Subbasin, directly impacting fish and wildlife habitat throughout the Upper Klamath Basin. Lost River and shortnose suckers, interior redband and bull trout are key fish species present in the subbasin. All species are listed as Endangered Species Act threatened, candidate, or species of concern. The Sprague River has been identified as an important stream for both spawning and rearing habitat for suckers. Loss of riparian habitat, fish entrapment and fish migration impediments have also been identified as resource concerns in the Sprague River Subbasin. Conservation Accomplishments In the Sprague River Subbasin during the last two years, significant conservation progress has been made. With assistance from NRCS and local conservation districts, land managers have improved the condition of 2,153 acres of grazing land, improved irrigation water management on 903 acres of irrigated land, and have restored 1,644 acres of riparian and wetlands areas. Fencing and riparian area restoration has been initiated or installed by private land managers with assistance from NRCS, US Fish & Wildlife Service and others on approximately 50 miles of stream and several thousand additional riparian and wetland acres. Sprague River Subbasin Land Ownership Private Lands 448,200 Public Lands 573,100 Total Land Area: 1,021,300 Irrigated Acres USBR Project: 0 Non- USBR: 61,600 Total: 61,600 20 Conservation Opportunities Water Quality & Wildlife Habitat: Riparian restoration can be accomplished by converting pastures to permanent riparian wildlife lands or establishing riparian vegetation. Riparian pasture units should be managed as a part of an overall grazing plan with cross- fencing and off- stream water for livestock. Forest stands should be managed to ensure optimum health of both the trees and grazed understory. Thinning overstocked trees and controlling juniper on rangelands are both effective management opportunities. Water Demand: Irrigation water management, including measuring water use and scheduling irrigation will help managers to maintain base river flows through late summer and early fall. Efficiencies can also be gained by leveling land, lining or piping irrigation ditches and incorporating tailwater recovery systems. Conversion from flood to sprinkler irrigation is also beneficial. Sprague River Subbasin Sprague River Subbasin Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices Water Demand Wildlife Habitat Water Storage Water Quality Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Conservation Investment Projected Conservation Acres to be Treated* Irrigated Land ............ 34,500 Range & Forestland 164,400 Wildlife Habitat ........... 2,400 Estimated Installation Cost Irrigated Land .......................$ 10,948,000 Range & Forestland .......................$ 31,305,000 Wildlife Habitat .........................$ 4,779,000 Estimated Annual Operation, Maintenance & Management Cost Irrigated Land .........................$ 1,768,000 Range & Forestland .........................$ 1,665,000 Wildlife Habitat ............................$ 133,000 * Based on conservation need and projected participation rates. 21 Tim McCabe/ NRCS 22 Covering about 928,000 acres, the Williamson River Subbasin is the principal tributary for Upper Klamath Lake. Combined, the Williamson and Sprague River subbasins make up 79 percent of the lake’s total drainage area. The Winema National Forest and Klamath Falls National Wildlife Refuge account for most of the public land in the subbasin. Irrigated pasture is the dominant private agricultural land use. Pasture is almost entirely flood irrigated. Ninety percent is diverted from streams, while groundwater supplies ten percent. Most diversions do not have fish screens and lack devices to measure water deliveries. Although overall irrigation application efficiency is low, additional water in the water table helps to subirrigate pastures. In addition, the proximity of these pastures to rivers and streams allows most excess diverted water to return to the system for reuse. Private forest and rangelands make up most of the private land in the basin. Approximately 80 percent of forestlands are used for grazing. Private forestland is in poor to fair condition; over half of the stands are significantly overstocked with trees. Wildlife habitat has faced considerable degradation in the past. Of the 48 miles of stream that are degraded in the subbasin, restoration efforts have been initiated on approximately 23 miles. Williamson River Subbasin Water & Wetlands: 19,700 Range: 2,600 Irrigated Pasture/ Grass Hay: 81,650 Forest/ Mixed: 225,300 Williamson River Subbasin Agricultural Land Use/ Cover Irrigated Alfalfa: 1,100 23 Water quality relating to elevated stream temperatures is a major resource concern in the Williamson River Subbasin, directly impacting fish and wildlife habitat throughout the Upper Klamath Basin. In 1988, when the Lost River and Shortnose suckers were listed as endangered, the Williamson and Sprague River runs were estimated to have declined by as much as 95 percent during the previous twenty- year period. Important sucker habitat has diminished by nearly 50 percent in the lower reaches and near the mouth of the Williamson River. This has reduced the amount of larval sucker spawning and rearing habitat. Conservation Accomplishments Significant conservation progress has been made in this subbasin. Land managers have improved 500 acres of grazing lands, 1,000 acres of irrigated lands, 235 acres of forestlands and have restored 112 acres of riparian and wetland areas. Heightened landowner awareness of resource concerns and increasing agency, organization, and individual efforts will help this trend to continue. Of the 48 miles of stream that are degraded in the subbasin, private land managers are working with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and others to restore 23 miles. The Nature Conservancy is restoring approximately 3,200 acres of wetlands, and plans to restore another 3,411 acres at the mouth of the Williamson River. Williamson River Subbasin Resource Concerns Land Ownership Private Lands 309,400 Public Lands 618,800 Total Land Area: 928,200 Irrigated Acres USBR Project: 0 Non- USBR: 65,100 Total: 65,100 24 Williamson River Subbasin Williamson River Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices Water Demand Wildlife Habitat Water Storage Water Quality Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Wildlife Habitat & Water Quality: Riparian area and wetland habitat restoration and management provide the best opportunity to improve water quality in the Williamson River Subbasin. This can be accomplished by converting lands from irrigated agriculture to wildlife habitat or creating riparian pasture systems. Wetland and riparian areas still utilize water. However, this work may reduce total water demand depending on how lands are managed. Water Demand: Thinning forest stands and managing grazing areas by adding cross fences and off- stream water for livestock can yield more water to meet downstream needs. This will also result in enhanced wildlife habitat and improved water quality in area streams. In addition, forest stand improvements reduce the potential for catastrophic fire. Priority Conservation Opportunities Conservation Investment Projected Conservation Acres to be Treated* Irrigated Land ............ 52,300 Range & Forestland ... 71,200 Wildlife Habitat .............. 200 Estimated Installation Cost Irrigated Land .......................$ 12,863,000 Range & Forestland .......................$ 17,290,000 Wildlife Habitat ............................$ 338,000 Estimated Annual Operation, Maintenance & Management Cost Irrigated Land .........................$ 2,663,000 Range & Forestland ............................$ 669,000 Wildlife Habitat ..............................$ 11,000 * Based on conservation need and projected participation rates. 25 Tupper Ansel Blake/ USFWS 26 The Upper Klamath Lake Subbasin covers 465,300 acres from Crater Lake to the outlet of Upper Klamath Lake into the Link River. Historically, some 43,000 acres of wetlands surrounded Agency and Upper Klamath Lake. Today, 17,000 acres have been preserved as part of the Upper Klamath Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Another 11,000 acres have been acquired for restoration. Irrigated agriculture is primarily pasture. Livestock are generally stocker cattle, who graze between April and November. Pasture condition is generally fair. Most livestock obtain water from streams and ditches. Irrigation water is diverted from streams or pumped from the lake. Most diversions do not have fish screens or devices to measure water. Although overall irrigation application efficiency is low, the additional water raises the water table and subirrigated pastures. Some acreages of hay and cereal crops are grown, and irrigation efficiencies are higher than for pasture. However, most require maintenance and re- leveling. Forestlands are primarily pine and mixed fir and hemlock. Most private lands in the subbasin are forest or rangelands, with approximately 80 percent used for grazing. More than half of the forest stands are significantly overstocked with trees. Wildlife habitat varies in condition. Of 70 total miles, 21 miles of streamside riparian areas are in good condition and another 12 miles are being restored. Upper Klamath Lake Subbasin Water & Wetlands: 76,568 Range: 2,404 Irrigated Pasture/ Grass Hay: 48,856 Forest/ Mixed: 100,311 Upper Klamath Lake Subbasin Agricultural Land Use/ Cover Irrigated Crop/ Alfalfa: 3,396 27 Resource Concerns Water quality in the Upper Klamath Lake is a major resource concern, affecting subbasin fish survival, with phosphorus loading as the greatest factor. The loss of wetland vegetation around the lake has also been linked to lower survival rates for endangered suckers. The lower reaches of the Wood River and Sevenmile Creek provide some rearing habitat for larval and juvenile suckers. The Wood River, Sevenmile Creek and their tributaries support populations of bull and interior redband trout. A highly valued “ catch and release” sport fishery occurs on the Wood River and several of its tributaries. There is significant interest in enhancing riparian habitat along these streams to protect and promote these fisheries. Conservation Accomplishments In the Upper Klamath Lake Subbasin during the last two years, some conservation progress has been made. With assistance from NRCS and local conservation districts, land managers have improved 12 acres of grazing lands and improved water quality and quantity on 12 acres of irrigated land. Several thousand more acres of wetland restoration are in the process of being planned or implemented around Upper Klamath Lake. Upper Klamath Lake Subbasin Land Ownership Private Lands 235,100 Public Lands 230,200 Total Land Area: 465,300 Irrigated Acres USBR Project: 0 Non- USBR: 52,300 Total: 52,300 28 Priority Conservation Opportunities Water Quality: The most effective conservation includes practices that restore riparian areas, improve grazing management and increase irrigation efficiency. This can be accomplished by either converting pastures to permanent wildlife habitat or by creating riparian pastures. While most pastures are being inefficiently irrigated, conditions do not warrant extensive changes from current flood irrigation systems since water is reused or enters the soil profile Water Storage: In the Upper Klamath Lake Subbasin, the potential for non- traditional water storage presents a unique conservation opportunity. Restoring drained wetlands, still farmed around Upper Klamath Lake, could produce positive benefits for all four resource concerns. By actively managing areas for both seasonal wetlands and farming, water can be both filtered to improve water quality and stored in wetland areas for future use. Upper Klamath Lake Subbasin Upper Klamath Lake Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices Water Demand Wildlife Habitat Water Storage Water Quality Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Conservation Investment Projected Conservation Acres to be Treated* Irrigated Land ............ 42,500 Range & Forestland ... 36,300 Wildlife Habitat ........... 2,900 Estimated Installation Cost Irrigated Land .......................$ 10,462,000 Range & Forestland .........................$ 7,254,000 Wildlife Habitat .........................$ 4,113,000 Estimated Annual Operation, Maintenance & Management Cost Irrigated Land .........................$ 2,017,000 Range & Forestland ............................$ 308,000 Wildlife Habitat ............................$ 130,000 * Based on conservation need and projected participation rates. 29 Table of Contents Tupper Ansel Blake/ USFWS 30 Irrigated Crop 4,209 The Lost River Subbasin originates above Clear Lake and passes through several agricultural valleys, ending in Tulelake. The valley once supported a vast network of wet meadows and marshes. This subbasin covers approximately 1.2 million acres and is split from the Middle Lost River Subbasin near Olene. Irrigated agriculture generally occurs in the warmer valleys. Flood is the most common pasture irrigation method, with about 50 percent of the water coming from the USBR project. Pasture condition is fair, and most pastures have not been renovated or re- leveled for some time. Maintenance would increase the efficiencies of 60 to 80 percent of the systems. Alfalfa is customarily sprinkler- irrigated and well- managed. Although irrigation efficiencies are higher than for pasture, many sprinkler systems still need upgrading. Several irrigated crops are grown in the subbasin including cereal grains, potatoes, and strawberry plants. Forestland, range and pasture are grazed by livestock. Rangelands are comprised of juniper and sagebrush steppes. Forestlands are generally mixed conifer. Livestock operations include cow/ calf, stockers and dairies. Confined livestock operations are located throughout the subbasin. The location and duration of confinement may pose a potential risk to water quality. Seven dairies located within the subbasin have existing liquid and dry livestock waste storage facilities. Upper Lost River Subbasin Water & Wetlands 13,250 Range 72,630 Irrigated Pasture/ Grass Hay 41,352 Forest/ Mixed 204,420 Upper Lost River Subbasin Agricultural Land Use/ Cover Irrigated Alfalfa 38,943 31 Resource Concerns Wildlife habitat and water quality are two of the major resource concerns in the subbasin. High water temperatures are usually linked to lack of shade, irrigation return flow or other warm water inputs. As measured by total phosphorus, water quality appears to be gradually improving over the last 10 to 20 years. While agriculture is the dominant land use in this subbasin, other sources of phosphorus and other pollutants exist. Sewage treatment outfalls, on- site sewage disposal systems, wildlife, and natural inputs also contribute nutrients and other pollutants to the system. While historically the river had significant fish runs, it currently supports only a small population of Shortnose and Lost River suckers. Conservation Accomplishments In the Upper Lost River Subbasin during the last two years, significant conservation progress has been made. With assistance from NRCS and local conservation districts, land managers have improved resource conditions on 234 acres of croplands and 5,282 acres of grazing lands, and have improved their management of irrigation water on 5,596 acres of irrigated lands. In addition, 846 acres of riparian and wetland areas have been restored. Upper Lost River Subbasin Land Ownership Private Lands 407,500 Public Lands 771,300 Total Land Area: 1,178,800 Irrigated Acres USBR Project: 40,400 Non- USBR: 44,100 Total: 84,500 32 Priority Conservation Opportunities Water Quality: Rotating livestock through smaller pastures will increase forage production, reduce soil compaction and improve water quality. On cropland, integrated pest management, irrigation scheduling, increasing crop residue or installing filter strips will minimize risks associated with some pesticides used on cereal grains, potatoes, onions and other crops. Implementing practices like diverting clean water before it flows through livestock confinement areas near water sources, will reduce the risk of polluted runoff. Water Demand: On both surface-irrigated pastures and cropland areas, there are opportunities for land leveling or smoothing, lining or piping irrigation delivery ditches, upgrading irrigation systems and developing tailwater recovery systems to improve water use efficiency. Upper Lost River Subbasin Upper Lost River Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices Water Demand Wildlife Habitat Water Storage Water Quality Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Conservation Investment Projected Conservation Acres to be Treated* Irrigated Land ............ 58,100 Range & Forestland 147,400 Wildlife Habitat ........... 1,200 Estimated Installation Cost Irrigated Land .......................$ 10,993,000 Range & Forestland .......................$ 20,397,000 Wildlife Habitat .........................$ 1,945,000 Estimated Annual Operation, Maintenance & Management Cost Irrigated Land .........................$ 3,667,000 Range & Forestland .........................$ 1,384,000 Wildlife Habitat ..............................$ 66,000 * Based on conservation need and projected participation rates. 33 Gary Kramer/ NRCS 34 The Middle Lost River Subbasin covers 454,500 acres and is the center of the USBR Klamath Project. Farms near Klamath Falls tend to be smaller, indicating part- time or hobby operations. The area includes 12 irrigation districts and leased lands on the Lower Klamath Wildlife Refuge that receive water supplied by the USBR Klamath Project. Public lands include the refuge, and parts of Modoc and Klamath national forests. Irrigated agriculture includes pasture, alfalfa, cereal grain, potatoes, onions and mint. Roughly 70 percent is irrigated with USBR- supplied water; the rest is obtained from groundwater, individual surface water rights or special USBR contracts. Many fields are either flood or sprinkler irrigated depending on the year and crop. Most farm irrigation diversions lack a means to measure water delivery. Livestock operations include several dairies and cattle feeding operations. Substantial range acreage is used for livestock grazing. Pasture condition is fair and most pastures have not been renovated or re- leveled for some time. Pastures associated with smaller livestock operations in and around Klamath Falls appear to be in the most need of improved pastures and irrigation systems. Wildlife habitat: Ten river miles are in relatively good riparian condition given the river is used for conveying irrigation water. Some 13 miles of stream lack adequate riparian vegetation and streambank protection. Middle Lost River Subbasin Water & Wetlands 10,766 Range 121,713 Irrigated Pasture/ Grass Hay 40,230 Middle Lost River Subbasin Agricultural Land Use/ Cover Irrigated Alfalfa 34,866 Irrigated Crop 41,837 35 Resource Concerns The primary concern is maintaining a reliable water supply that meets the needs of all users. Drought conditions and increased competition for available water have increased economic, social, political and environmental concerns and uncertainty over the future. Habitat and water quality are two additional major resource concerns in the subbasin. High water temperatures are usually linked to lack of shade, irrigation return flow or other warm water inputs. As measured by total phosphorus, water quality appears to be gradually improving. Agriculture is the dominant land use in this subbasin, but other pollutant sources exist. While the river had significant historic fish runs, it currently supports only a small sucker population. Conservation Accomplishments In the last two years, the Middle Lost River Subbasin has seen significant conservation progress. With assistance from NRCS and local conservation districts, land managers have improved the condition of natural resources on 489 acres of cropland and 3,521 grazing land acres. In addition, 564 acres of riparian and wetland areas have been restored, and water use efficiency has been increased on 3,731 acres of irrigated lands. Middle Lost River Subbasin Land Ownership Private Lands 272,900 Public Lands 181,600 Total Land Area: 454,500 Irrigated Acres USBR Project: 84,700 Non- USBR: 32,300 Total: 117,000 36 Priority Conservation Opportunities Water Demand: Providing irrigators with water measurement tools and training on irrigation scheduling would improve their ability to apply irrigation water more efficiently. Highly effective conservation measures on hay and cropland should focus on updating existing irrigation systems and improving irrigation water management. Water Quality: The use of grazing systems that rotate livestock through smaller pastures will increase forage production, reduce soil compaction and improve water quality. While fishery benefits from restoring riparian areas are minimal, streamside buffers will improve water quality and provide habitat for other wildlife. On cropland, integrated pest management, irrigation scheduling, increasing crop residue or installing filter strips will minimize risks associated with some pesticides used on cereal grains, potatoes, onions and other crops. Middle Lost River Subbasin Middle Lost River Subbasin Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices Water Demand Wildlife Habitat Water Storage Water Quality Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Conservation Investment Projected Conservation Acres to be Treated* Irrigated Land ............ 80,400 Range & Forestland ... 85,200 Wildlife Habitat .............. 400 Estimated Installation Cost Irrigated Land .......................$ 18,859,000 Range & Forestland .........................$ 6,797,000 Wildlife Habitat ............................$ 195,000 Estimated Annual Operation, Maintenance & Management Cost Irrigated Land .........................$ 5,585,000 Range & Forestland ............................$ 902,000 Wildlife Habitat ................................$ 8,000 * Based on conservation need and projected participation rates. 37 38 The Tulelake Subbasin covers 296,600 acres, bordered by the J Canal and the Lava Beds National Monument. The Tulelake Irrigation District and the Tulelake National Wildlife Refuge receive water from the USBR Klamath Project. Tulelake is a remnant of historic Lake Modoc that once connected the subbasin with both Lower and Upper Klamath Lake. The Lost River watershed was once a closed basin. Runoff flowed into Tulelake and evaporated. Pumping plants and drains constructed as a part of the project have provided an outlet from Tulelake, which now functions as an open basin. Irrigated agriculture is generally supplied by the USBR. Alfalfa, grain, potatoes, onions, mint and pasture are the principal crops. Fields are flood or sprinkler irrigated depending on the year and crop. Often diversions lack devices to measure water delivery. Pasture condition is fair, and most have not been renovated for some time. Groundwater provides 40- 50 percent of water for irrigated pastures, and most excess water is reused. Rangeland is the other significant land use. Most ranches are cow/ calf operations that have winter holdings in the subbasin. Rangelands are generally encroached with juniper. Wildlife habitat along the Lost River has reeds and bullrush, providing some habitat for waterfowl and songbirds. Suckers have been located in the river and Tulelake; however, it is not known whether they are successfully reproducing. There are few opportunities to improve habitat along this heavily manipulated reach of the river. Tulelake Subbasin Water & Wetlands 13,285 Range 36,229 Irrigated Pasture/ Grass Hay 4,050 Tulelake Subbasin Agricultural Land Use/ Cover Irrigated Alfalfa 12,334 Irrigated Crop 48,481 Forest/ Mixed 4,492 39 Resource Concerns The Tulelake Subbasin is at the tail- end of the USBR Klamath Project. Irrigators depend on water- use decisions made by fellow irrigators and resource managers for their irrigation needs. Drought and increased competition for water leads to the primary resource concern in the basin - a reliable supply of water to meet agriculture, wildlife and other resource needs. Water quality deteriorates as it moves through the USBR project. As measured by total phosphorus, water quality appears to be gradually improving. Agriculture is the dominant land use in this subbasin, but other sources of phosphorus and other pollutants exist. The presence of ESA- listed suckers creates concerns for improving habitat and water quality. The two national wildlife refuges support large waterfowl populations. Farmland on the refuges is leased to farmers to supply grain for waterfowl and shorebirds. These populations depend on refuges, leased lands and adjacent farms during the fall and spring migratory periods. Both refuges depend upon tailwater from the USBR project to maintain their marshes and ponds. Conservation Accomplishments In the Tulelake Subbasin during the last two years, significant conservation progress has been made. With assistance from NRCS and local conservation districts, local land managers have improved the condition of natural resources on 72 cropland acres and 1,854 irrigated land acres, and have restored 21 acres of riparian and wetland areas. Tulelake Subbasin Land Ownership Private Lands 131,600 Public Lands 165,000 Total Land Area: 296,600 Irrigated Acres USBR Project: 62,600 Non- USBR: 2,200 Total: 64,800 40 Priority Conservation Opportunities Water Demand: On hay and croplands, upgrading existing irrigation systems and improving irrigation water management will decrease water demand. Subsurface drainage could be added before re- establishing alfalfa stands, permitting better control of water table and soil moisture levels. During years that alfalfa fields are rotated to grain, winter flooding or pre- season irrigation could be used to reduce water demand. Water Storage/ Yield: Adding subsurface drainage may be the most significant practice to implement on cropland acres. Subsurface drains would allow farmers to winter flood or pre-irrigate fields, thereby reducing their demand for water during the irrigation season. If pre- irrigated, farmers could grow a cereal crop even if water deliveries are cut off during drought years. In addition, juniper control on rangelands will yield additional water to meet downstream needs. Tulelake Subbasin Tulelake Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices Water Demand Wildlife Habitat Water Storage Water Quality Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Conservation Investment Projected Conservation Acres to be Treated* Irrigated Land ............ 45,400 Range & Forestland ... 28,500 Wildlife Habitat ........... 1,700 Estimated Installation Cost Irrigated Land .......................$ 18,263,000 Range & Forestland .........................$ 1,741,000 Wildlife Habitat ............................$ 298,000 Estimated Annual Operation, Maintenance & Management Cost Irrigated Land .........................$ 2,590,000 Range & Forestland ............................$ 257,000 Wildlife Habitat ..............................$ 25,000 * Based on conservation need and projected participation rates. 41 Tupper Ansel Blake/ USFWS 42 The Butte Valley Subbasin lies southwest of Lower Klamath Lake. While part of the Upper Klamath Basin, it is an internal drainage basin with only an artificial outlet. Groundwater flows from west to east out of the subbasin under the Mahogany Mountains toward the lake. A channel and pump plant were built to remove floodwaters. This channel is used infrequently and for only short durations. The Klamath National Forest, Butte Valley National Grassland, and the Butte Valley Wildlife Area make up the majority of the public lands. Irrigated agriculture includes alfalfa hay as the predominate crop. Cereal grains, potatoes and strawberry plants are also grown. Crops are usually sprinkler irrigated, and sprinklers are well maintained. Few irrigators measure water applied or schedule irrigation. Cattle operations graze irrigated pastures and meadows scattered throughout the subbasin along with range and forestlands. Pastures are generally flood irrigated and are supplied by streams. Most farm irrigation diversions lack water measuring devices. Mixed conifer forests are found at higher elevations and are generally operated as industrial forests. Range sites are dominated by Western Juniper and are generally in poor condition. Wildlife habitat is generally wetlands in the state wildlife refuge or on national grasslands. Approximately 26 miles of streams on private lands have inadequate riparian vegetation. Butte Valley Subbasin Water & Wetlands 9,488 Range 73,891 Irrigated Pasture/ Grass Hay 10,355 Butte Valley Subbasin Agricultural Land Use/ Cover Irrigated Alfalfa 30,361 Irrigated Crop 11,490 Forest/ Mixed 52,031 43 Butte Valley Subbasin Resource Concerns The expense of deepening wells and pumping from deeper elevations for irrigation water is a major resource concern. Generally, streams in the upper portions of the subbasin support good populations of Brown and Rainbow trout. The Tulelake National Wildlife Refuge and Lower Klamath Lake National Wildlife Refuge support large populations of migratory and permanent waterfowl. Farmland on the refuges is leased to area farmers to supply grain for the waterfowl and shorebirds. The large bird populations depend on the refuges, leased lands and adjacent farms throughout the fall and spring migratory periods for habitat. Both refuges depend upon tailwater from the USBR project to maintain their marshes and ponds. Conservation Accomplishments In the Butte Valley Subbasin during the last two years, some conservation progress has been made. With assistance from NRCS and local conservation districts, local land managers have restored 27 acres of riparian and wetland areas in the last two years. Land Ownership Private Lands 188,400 Public Lands 199,700 Total Land Area: 388,100 Irrigated Acres USBR Project: 0 Non- USBR: 52,300 Total: 52,300 44 Butte Valley Subbasin Butte Valley Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices Water Demand Wildlife Habitat Water Storage Water Quality Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Priority Conservation Opportunities Water Demand: Butte Valley is an internal drainage basin. Other than limited contributions to groundwater in the Upper Klamath Basin, reductions in water demand only benefit the subbasin. Sprinkler- irrigated hay, cereal crops and row crops dominate land use on the better soils. Highly effective conservation on hay and cropland should focus on improving the overall irrigation efficiency of existing systems. This can be accomplished by upgrading systems and scheduling irrigation. An estimated 40 percent of the existing systems would benefit from maintenance. On controlled flood irrigated pastures, there are opportunities for land leveling or smoothing, lining or piping delivery ditches, and recovering tailwater. Additional water savings and water quality benefits could be gained by converting existing surface irrigation to sprinklers if power is available and affordable. On rangelands, juniper control and improved grazing management are the primary conservation opportunities. Conservation Investment Projected Conservation Acres to be Treated* Irrigated Land ............ 35,000 Range & Forestland ... 49,400 Wildlife Habitat ................ 55 Estimated Installation Cost Irrigated Land .........................$ 6,652,000 Range & Forestland .........................$ 5,243,000 Wildlife Habitat ............................$ 109,000 Estimated Annual Operation, Maintenance & Management Cost Irrigated Land .........................$ 1,569,000 Range & Forestland ............................$ 625,000 Wildlife Habitat ................................$ 3,000 * Based on conservation need and projected participation rates. 45 46 The Upper Klamath River East Subbasin covers the Klamath River drainage between Iron Gate and Keno dams. Nearly half of the area is in public ownership. Iron Gate and Copco reservoirs are used extensively for recreational fishing, boating and camping. Whitewater rafting and kayaking are popular below the KC Boyle Dam. The KC Boyle, Copco and Iron Gate dams are used and regulated for power generation. Irrigated agriculture occurs on only 4,000 acres of pasture. Only a few isolated ranches are located in this subbasin. Cattle operations rotate grazing of irrigated pastures with significant acreage of grazed range and forest. Pastures are surface irrigated with a mix of controlled and flood irrigation. All irrigation water is diverted from the river or tributary streams. Most farm irrigation diversions lack devices to measure water. Even though overall irrigation application efficiency is low, the proximity of irrigated pastures to the river allows most excess water diverted to be reused downstream. Private forest and rangelands make up most of the private land, nearly all of which is used for livestock grazing. Much of the rangeland is in poor condition, with heavy juniper encroachment. More than half of the forest stands are overstocked with trees. Wildlife habitat along riparian areas is generally in good condition. Of the 12 miles of riparian areas surveyed, five would benefit from some restoration. Upper Klamath River East Subbasin Water & Wetlands 4,552 Forestlands 195,516 Irrigated Pasture/ Grass Hay 4,044 Upper Klamath River East Subbasin Agricultural Land Use/ Cover Range 52,366 47 Upper Klamath River East Subbasin Resource Concerns The need to increase water availability to downstream users is the main resource concern along this stretch of the river. Water withdrawals are insignificant along this stretch of the river. Salmon and steelhead are blocked at Iron Gate Dam from upstream passage. Several resident trout species exist, supporting a recreational fishery. Conservation Accomplishments In the Klamath River East Subbasin during the last two years, some conservation progress has been made. With assistance from NRCS and local conservation districts, land managers have improved the condition of natural resources on 56 acres of cropland, 332 acres of grazing land, and 560 acres of irrigated lands. They have also improved forestland health on 46 acres and have restored 924 acres of riparian and wetland areas. Land Ownership Private Lands 256,500 Public Lands 162,900 Total Land Area: 419,400 Irrigated Acres USBR Project: 0 Non- USBR: 4,000 Total: 4,000 48 Upper Klamath River East Subbasin Upper Klamath River East Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices Water Demand Wildlife Habitat Water Quality Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Priority Conservation Opportunities Water Demand/ Yield: Juniper control, thinning forest stands, managing grazing lands by cross- fencing and providing off- stream water for livestock will improve hydrologic conditions, yielding more water to meet downstream needs. This will also improve forage production, habitat condition and water quality in area streams, as well as reduce the opportunity for a catastrophic fire. There are opportunities for land smoothing and tailwater recovery systems to improve overall irrigation efficiency and effectiveness. Additional water savings and water quality benefits would be gained by converting from surface irrigation to sprinklers if power is available and affordable. Conservation Investment Projected Conservation Acres to be Treated* Irrigated Land .............. 1,700 Range & Forestland ... 44,800 Wildlife Habitat .................. 5 Estimated Installation Cost Irrigated Land ............................$ 454,000 Range & Forestland .........................$ 4,769,000 Wildlife Habitat ..............................$ 13,000 Estimated Annual Operation, Maintenance & Management Cost Irrigated Land ..............................$ 86,000 Range & Forestland ............................$ 406,000 Wildlife Habitat .......................................$ 0 * Based on conservation need and projected participation rates. 49 USDA Nondiscrimination Statement “ The U. S. Department of Agriculture ( USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. ( Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information ( Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at ( 202) 720- 2600 ( voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326- W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250- 9410, or call ( 202) 720- 5964 ( voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.” 50 Upper Klamath Basin 51 Developed by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service September, 2004 Title: Upper Klamath Basin : opportunities for conserving and sustaining natural resources on private lands Author: United States. Natural Resources Conservation Service Year: 2004, 2005 1 i California Oregon Cover Photo: Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge at sunset Tupper Ansel Blake/ USFWS Map Detail Area: Upper Klamath River Basin ii T he Klamath River Basin presents numerous challenges as well as opportunities for its many water users. For years, farmers and ranchers in the basin have recognized the vital role they play in the health of their watershed. Working with conservation districts, the Natural Resources Conservation Service ( NRCS) and others, land managers continue to proactively find ways to enhance natural resources in the basin, benefiting wildlife and the environment. However, as it has across the western United States, drought hit home in the Klamath for those who depend on every drop of water to sustain their livelihood, culture and community. In the spring of 2001, the combination of drought and the impact of the Endangered Species Act triggered a shutdown of irrigation water during the growing season, drying up water resources to more than 2,000 farms and ranches. NRCS, in cooperation with local conservation districts, provided a quick infusion of technical assistance and $ 2 million in cost- share funding for cover crops through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program. As cover crops took hold, the seeds of a long- term solution took root in the NRCS/ conservation district partnership. The ability of the local office to receive funding, engage community members and other partners, plan resource improvements, implement actions, and monitor success proved to be an invaluable asset for the community. Helping private landowners develop and apply practical, common- sense solutions to complex resource issues will be the challenge of the conservation partnership well into the future. USDA, in concert with the locally led conservation districts, will continue to play a critical role by delivering technical and financial assistance to Klamath Basin farmers and ranchers. The Rapid Subbasin Assessments that follow are the first step in that process. The assessments are designed to help local decision- makers determine where investments in conservation will best benefit wildlife habitat, agriculture and other land uses in a compatible manner. It is our goal to provide a comprehensive overview of resource challenges and opportunities in the basin, and help decision- makers to prioritize their investments in areas that will best sustain multiple use of natural resources in the basin now and in the future. Sincerely, Robert J. Graham Charles W. Bell, State Conservationist State Conservationist Oregon NRCS California NRCS iii iv Table of Contents Map of the Upper Klamath Basin ................................ i Letter from OR and CA State Conservationists .......... ii Overview of the Upper Klamath Basin ........................ 1 Background ................................................................................... 1 Upper Klamath Basin Description ............................................ 2 The Role of Agriculture in the Basin ........................................ 3 Rapid Subbasin Assessments ...................................................... 4 Private Lands Conservation Accomplishments ...................... 6 Summary of Conservation Opportunities ............................... 7 Water Conservation ...................................................................... 8 Improving Water Quality ........................................................... 10 Increasing Water Storage/ Yield ............................................... 11 Enhancing Fish and Wildlife Habitat ...................................... 12 Overview of Conservation Effectiveness .............................. 13 Comparative Benefit: Water Demand ..................................... 15 Comparative Benefit: Water Quality ....................................... 15 Comparative Benefit: Water Storage/ Yield ............................ 16 Comparative Benefit: Habitat/ Fish Survival .......................... 16 Sprague River Subbasin .............................................. 18 Resource Concerns & Conservation Accomplishments ...... 19 Conservation Opportunities ..................................................... 20 Williamson River Subbasin ......................................... 22 Resource Concerns & Conservation Accomplishments ...... 23 Priority Conservation Opportunities ....................................... 24 Upper Klamath Lake Subbasin .................................. 26 Resource Concerns & Conservation Accomplishments ...... 27 Priority Conservation Opportunities ....................................... 28 Upper Lost River Subbasin ......................................... 30 Resource Concerns & Conservation Accomplishments ...... 31 Priority Conservation Opportunities ....................................... 32 Middle Lost River Subbasin ....................................... 34 Resource Concerns & Conservation Accomplishments ...... 35 Priority Conservation Opportunities ....................................... 36 Tulelake Subbasin ...................................................... 38 Resource Concerns & Conservation Accomplishments ...... 39 Priority Conservation Opportunities ....................................... 40 Butte Valley Subbasin ................................................. 42 Resource Concerns & Conservation Accomplishments ...... 43 Priority Conservation Opportunities ....................................... 44 Upper Klamath River East Subbasin .......................... 46 Resource Concerns & Conservation Accomplishments ...... 47 Priority Conservation Opportunities ....................................... 48 1 Overview of the Upper Klamath Basin Upper Klamath Basin Quick Facts • The Upper Klamath Basin includes the Klamath, Williamson, Sprague, Lost, and Wood rivers, among others • Several state and federal wildlife refuges are a part of the Upper Klamath Basin • Migratory birds like the American White Pelican and the Red- necked Grebe use croplands in the Klamath Basin as a stop on the Pacific Flyway • Deer and elk graze on wheat and barley fields and pheasants use both crop and rangelands for their nesting and feeding grounds Background In a landscape formed by seemingly endless cycles of drought and flood, it’s no wonder that for hundreds of years, competition for water has dominated the landscape of the West. Stretching across southern Oregon and northern California, the Klamath Basin has become synonymous with the water challenges that western water users face. As one example, agricultural commodities that need irrigation water to thrive – providing Americans with the cheapest domestic food supply in the world, face competition from the critical water needs of sucker fish, salmon and other threatened and endangered species. While that competition is understandable, more and more, conservation leaders in all industries have come to recognize that these water needs aren’t necessarily at odds with one another, and can in fact be compatible. While an example of the challenges today’s agricultural producers and conservationists face, the Klamath Basin has emerged as an example of how diverse interests can work together successfully. 2 Overview of the Upper Klamath Basin Upper Klamath Basin Description The Upper Klamath Basin is an area of high desert, wetlands, and the Klamath River. The river extends 250 miles from its headwaters at Upper Klamath Lake in south central Oregon to the west coast of northern California. The Upper Klamath Basin includes the US Bureau of Reclamation’s ( USBR) Klamath Project Area and the drainage area above Irongate Dam on the Klamath River. The basin’s lakes, marshes, and wetlands host an abundance of plant and animal species and include national wildlife refuges, parks, and forests. Agricultural production began around the turn of the 20th century, and with the creation of the Klamath Irrigation District in 1905, water diversions for irrigation began in earnest. A portion of these irrigated lands are in the USBR’s irrigation project. The ‘ project area,’ as it is commonly called, includes 188,000 of the 502,000 acres of private irrigated land in the basin. This includes lands leased from the various wildlife refuges that are supplied with water by the USBR. Privately irrigated acreages can vary from year to year, depending on USBR contracts and annual cropping cycles. In comparison, the majority of the private irrigated land - about 314,000 acres - in the basin is located outside the project area. Upper Klamath Basin Quick Facts: • Over 2.2 million acres are privately owned in the Upper Klamath Basin • 188,000 of the irrigated acres are in the US Bureau of Reclamation’s Irrigation Project • Approximately 502,000 acres of privately owned lands are irrigated • 314,000 acres of irrigated lands are outside the Project area 3 Overview of the Upper Klamath Basin The Role of Agriculture in the Basin Agricultural lands play a key role in a healthy ecosystem. Located on the Pacific Flyway, migratory birds like the American White Pelican and the Red- Necked Grebe use croplands in the Klamath Basin as an important feeding and resting stop. Deer graze on wheat and barley fields, and pheasants use both crop and rangelands for their nesting and feeding grounds. Progressive conservation leaders recognize that farming and fish and wildlife habitat are not mutually exclusive. Well- maintained farmland creates fish and wildlife habitat, contributing to a healthy watershed. They also recognize that opportunities will always exist to improve the condition of natural resources in the basin. To address those opportunities, conservation leaders in Oregon’s Klamath Falls Soil and Water Conservation District and California’s Lava Beds/ Butte Valley Resource Conservation District have proactively identified four key priorities tied to natural resource conservation. The districts asked experts at the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service to help them develop a plan to determine what could be done on- farm to conserve water, increase water storage, improve water quality, and enhance fish and wildlife habitat. While so much of the attention to date in the Klamath Basin has been focused on water demand, these conservation leaders recognize demand is only one piece of the puzzle. Comprehensive solutions must also address water quality, storage and wildlife habitat. Conservation District Priorities 1) Conserve Water 2) Increase Water Storage 3) Improve Water Quality 4) Enhance Fish & Wildlife Habitat 4 Rapid Subbasin Assessments Conserving natural resources is the ultimate goal throughout the basin, and its success hinges on long- term solutions. At the request of local conservation districts, NRCS undertook an 18- month study of resource concerns, challenges and opportunities throughout the Upper Klamath Basin. The study was not intended to provide a detailed, quantitative analysis of the impacts of conservation work, but rather, to provide an initial estimate of where conservation investments would best address the districts’ four priority resource concerns. Beginning in the spring of 2002, NRCS planners collected information to enable the conservation districts, agencies, organizations, farmers, ranchers and others to make informed decisions in a timely manner about conservation and resource management in the basin. These Rapid Subbasin Assessments are intended to help leaders set priorities and determine the best actions to achieve their goals. As a part of the rapid subbasin assessment process, eight subbasins were delineated ( see map at left). A watershed planning team traveled through each subbasin, inventorying agricultural areas, identifying conservation opportunities and current levels of resource management, and estimating the impacts of these opportunities on the Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin 5 Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin conservation districts’ priority resource concerns. They focused their recommendations on areas that would provide the best benefit to the wide array of stakeholders in the Upper Klamath Basin. They also identified a number of socio- economic factors that must be taken into consideration when helping producers adapt to new management styles and conservation activities. Through NRCS, conservation districts and other federal, state and local entities, private land managers are working to identify ways they can more efficiently use – and share – the water they need. In the face of increasingly complex and politically polarized circumstances, a clear purpose and direction has arisen. The commitment of the local conservation partnership to identify the impacts of water shortages and to find solutions that will improve natural resource conservation will be key to the long- term viability of both endangered species and industries in the Upper Klamath Basin. The information that follows provides a summary of the conservation challenges and opportunities that NRCS staff found in their assessment. Recommendations for where financial and other resources can best be invested to improve natural resources, while sustaining the economy of the Upper Klamath Basin, are also identified. 6 Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin Private Lands Conservation Accomplishments One component necessary to understanding future conservation opportunities in the basin is to recognize the current conservation work of private land managers. An indicator of these efforts is the work that has been undertaken in partnership with NRCS and the local conservation districts. In federal fiscal years 2002 and 2003, Upper Klamath Basin farmers and ranchers improved resource conditions on 18,877 acres of privately owned agricultural lands, with assistance from NRCS and the conservation districts. During this time, private land managers have worked with the conservation districts in the basin to: • improve the condition of 11,800 acres of grazing lands • conserve water and improve water quality on 13,656 acres • restore and establish 4,138 acres of wetlands and riparian areas • improve 281 acres of forest stands • establish resource management systems on 1,351 acres of cropland These conservation efforts were accomplished with a combination of private, state and federal funding. 7 Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin Summary of Conservation Opportunities In addition to recognizing current conservation activities, the assessments define what can be accomplished with a strong conservation partnership in the Upper Klamath Basin. All too often, the debate about multi- use of water in the basin has focused on ways to reduce water demand. However, the basin’s many water users - including fish and wildlife - benefit just as much from improvements to water quality, water storage and wildlife habitat. Taken together, the recommendations that follow seek to utilize a comprehensive approach to all four resource priorities - with the goal of contributing to a sustainable, multi- use water system. While quantification of the results of conservation work in these four areas is difficult, there is no question that a comprehensive approach to natural resource improvement in the Upper Klamath Basin will result in accumulative long- term benefits for endangered fish species, wildlife habitat, agriculture, urban and other water uses. Agriculture cannot undertake these efforts alone. Private landowners and the general public both benefit from natural resources conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin. Because of this, public and private sources of funding from in and outside the region are necessary. Solutions of this magnitude also come with other social, political, and cultural costs. Upper Klamath Basin Quick Facts: • 1,400 farm families live in the Upper Klamath Basin • The Upper Klamath Basin is home to sucker fish, bull trout and redband trout 8 Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin For example, all stakeholders in the Upper Klamath Basin need to identify and address social, economic, and cultural resource- based values they have historically enjoyed. Politically, there must be resolution and agreement on water rights, endangered species, and water quality. Water Conservation Because few water use measurements have been taken in the past, it is difficult to quantify where specific water efficiencies can be gained. Throughout the Upper Klamath Basin, water that leaves one irrigated field generally re- enters streams or enters the groundwater, providing the opportunity for it to be utilized again later. Because of this, water delivery systems both in and outside the USBR project area are generally efficient. As a result, the most significant benefit of reducing water demand on individual farms is an improvement in water quality and reduction in water temperatures, rather than an increase in available water. 9 Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin Conservation measures that reduce water demand on private agricultural lands can be accomplished in a variety of ways. New technologies for managing when and where water is applied on crop and pasture lands will help to ensure that water is only applied when it is of the best benefit to the plant. Water conservation opportunities include improving irrigation water-use efficiency, retaining and conserving drainage water, and making use of new technologies that more accurately forecast the impacts of drought and floods. The subbasin assessments indicate an opportunity to conserve water and improve water quality on 130,000 acres of irrigated lands within the USBR project. Outside the project area there is an opportunity for water conservation on approximately 220,000 irrigated acres. If all potential conservation practices are implemented on all irrigated lands, on- farm water use efficiency could increase by up to 25 percent in the Upper Klamath Basin. A potential two to five percent increase in water yield could be achieved by increasing management in upland range and forestland areas. In all cases, these are preliminary estimates and require validation. This estimate does not account for evaporation, transpiration, seepage or other loses that may occur at the sites receiving conserved water nor does it evaluate irrigation delivery or conveyance efficiencies. Tupper Ansel Blake/ USFWS 10 Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin This level of water conservation cannot be reached without a concerted federal/ state/ private partnership that works together to apply water conservation practices in targeted areas throughout the Upper Klamath Basin. Improving Water Quality Water quality has a direct impact on many fish and wildlife species. Within the Upper Klamath Basin, most rivers and lakes do not meet federally mandated Clean Water Act standards for temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, or other pollutants. Water quality is affected by water temperature, low in- stream flows and the condition of adjacent land riparian areas, among other items. Private landowners are just one of many groups who have an opportunity to improve water quality throughout the basin. Water quality improvement opportunities on private agricultural lands in the basin range from improving the management of livestock near streams and rivers to utilizing new technologies that track pest and weed cycles to ensure that pesticides are only applied when they will be most effective. Water conservation practices that reduce tailwater runoff from irrigated fields can provide extensive improvements in water quality. 11 Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin Increasing Water Storage/ Yield In recent years, drought has been a large contributing factor to reduced water levels in the Upper Klamath Basin. One solution to address low water flows would be to store water for times of water shortage. There are at least two challenges to this solution: finding a place to store water and finding water to store. To evaluate this option, potential storage values were calculated for 41 years of record from 1961 to 2002. This analysis reinforced the observation that, as has been seen in recent years, drought years normally occur in a multi- year cycle. Because of this, in the years where extra water is most needed, it is often not available from previous years to store. One promising, small- scale, water storage solution may lie in subsurface irrigation water storage in suitable locations, such as the Tulelake Subbasin. In this scenario, there exists a potential to store water in the soil profile and reduce irrigation water demand during the irrigation season. Another option for subsurface storage of water includes the restoration of streams and their surrounding wetlands and riparian areas. This can increase the “ sponge” effect allowing for the slow release of water through the long, dry summer months. Tupper Ansel Blake/ USFWS 12 Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin Enhancing Fish and Wildlife Habitat The Upper Klamath Basin is home to a wide variety of aquatic and terrestrial species of wildlife and fish. Much of the water used in the Klamath wildlife refuges and associated marshes, ponds, streams and wetlands originates in the Upper Klamath Lake Subbasin. The Klamath Basin wildlife refuges provide a stopover for 85 percent of the ducks, geese, and other birds that migrate through the Pacific Flyway from Alaska to South America. Streams in the Upper Klamath Basin provide spawning and rearing habitat to threatened and endangered suckers and bull trout, as well as redband trout, which is listed as a species of concern by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Several streams are highly valued “ catch and release” sport fisheries. There is high landowner and public interest in restoring and maintaining riparian habitat along these streams. Many of the conservation opportunities outlined under water conservation and water quality provide direct benefits to fish and wildlife as well. In addition, creating and restoring wetland areas, planting trees and developing wildlife habitat along the edges of crop fields all contribute to enhancing wildlife habitat in the basin. Tupper Ansel Blake/ USFWS 13 Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin Overview of Conservation Effectiveness In order for the Upper Klamath Basin to successfully move forward with solutions, agriculturists, environmentalists, Tribes, government agencies, organizations, and others need to develop unified leadership to arrive at a common vision for the future. In addition, stakeholders and others must commit to a long- term investment of public and private funding as well as other resources. Based on the Upper Klamath Basin Rapid Subbasin Assessments, the Oregon and California NRCS planning staff rated the potential benefit of recommended conservation practices and resource management systems based on the conservation districts’ four resource priorities. Many state and federal agencies have invested in conservation work throughout the basin. While the recommendations in this document focus on private land and agriculture, the assessments can also be applied to help prioritize conservation practices on other land uses basin- wide. Overall, based on the planning team’s analysis, conservation activities in the Sprague River Subbasin would produce the greatest benefit, and conservation practices in the Upper Klamath River East Subbasin would yield the least Tupper Ansel Blake/ USFWS overall benefit based on the conservation district’s priorities. 14 Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin While recognizing that any science- based conservation focus in the Upper Klamath Basin would be beneficial, the charts on pages 18- 19 specifically focus on work that can be accomplished on private lands. They provide a breakdown of recommended conservation practices on each of the conservation districts’ priorities by subbasin. For example, the water demand chart shows that investing in conservation practices in the Sprague River Subbasin has the greatest potential for reducing agriculture’s water demand by implementing improved irrigation practices. The Sprague also provides the best opportunity to address water quality and wildlife habitat. Investment in conservation activities in the Tulelake and the Upper Klamath Lake subbasins offers the greatest potential to address water storage/ yield. Investing in Conservation: Enabling farmers, ranchers and other private land managers to successfully address the four resource priorities will require: • The adoption of conservation on 350,000 acres of private farmland, range, and forests, • Financial resources estimated at $ 200 million for installation and another $ 27 million annually to operate, and • Twenty or more years to complete with the current financial and technical resources available. Tupper Ansel Blake/ USFWS 15 Water Demand Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices by Subbasin Upper Klamath River East Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Williamson Upper Klamath Lake Upper Lost River Butte Valley Middle Lost River Tulelake Sprague Sprague Upper Klamath Lake Williamson Butte Valley Tulelake Middle Lost River Upper Lost River Upper Klamath River East Water Quality Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices by Subbasin Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Comparative Benefit: Water Demand The chart at left provides an overview of the comparative benefit by subbasin of various conservation practices that reduce water demand. Based on research completed by NRCS planning staff, the greatest potential to reduce water demand exists by implementing irrigation and riparian/ wetland conservation practices in the Sprague Subbasin. This is followed by implementing agronomic and irrigation conservation practices in Tulelake. There is no measurable water demand benefit achieved by implementing conservation practices in the Upper Klamath River East Subbasin. Comparative Benefit: Water Quality The chart at left provides an overview of the comparative benefit by subbasin of various conservation practices that improve water quality. Based on research completed by NRCS planning staff, the greatest potential to improve water quality occurs when riparian/ wetland, grazing and irrigation conservation practices are implemented in the Sprague Subbasin. In comparison, no measurable water quality benefits are achieved by implementing conservation practices in Butte Valley or the Upper Klamath River East subbasins. Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin 16 Wildlife Habitat Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices by Subbasin Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Williamson Sprague Butte Valley Tulelake Middle Lost River Upper Lost River Upper Klamath Lake Upper Klamath River East Upper Klamath River East Williamson Sprague Upper Klamath Lake Tulelake Middle Lost River Upper Lost River Butte Valley Water Storage Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices by Subbasin Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Comparative Benefit: Water Storage/ Yield The chart at right provides an overview of the comparative benefit by subbasin of various conservation practices that enhance water storage and yield. Based on research completed by NRCS planning staff, the greatest potential to enhance water storage and yield occurs by implementing riparian/ wetland, forest and range conservation practices in the Upper Klamath Lake Subbasin. In comparison, the Tulelake Subbasin gains water yield through agronomic practices like subsurface drains to allow for winter irrigation. Overall, implementing forest and range practices in most subbasins will result in greater water yield within the soil profile and water table. Comparative Benefit: Habitat/ Fish Survival The chart at right provides an overview of the comparative benefit by subbasin of various conservation practices that improve wildlife habitat and fish survival. Based on research completed by NRCS planning staff, the greatest potential to improve habitat is in the Sprague Subbasin, using wetland/ riparian, forest, range and irrigation practices. In comparison, no measurable habitat benefits are achieved by implementing additional conservation practices in the Middle Lost River, Tulelake, Butte Valley or Upper Klamath River subbasins. Conservation in the Upper Klamath Basin 17 Tim McCabe/ NRCS 18 The Sprague River Subbasin is located 25 miles northeast of Klamath Falls and covers approximately 1.02 million acres. Forested mountain ridges enclose the Sprague River Valley, which includes large marshes, meadows and irrigated pasture. Juniper and sagebrush steppes dominate rangeland. Irrigated Pasture is the predominant land use in the Sprague River Valley. Approximately 65 percent of the water used for irrigation is diverted from streams, and 35 percent is pumped from wells. Flooding is the most common form of irrigation. Most diversions do not have fish screens and lack devices to measure water deliveries. Overall irrigation application efficiencies are low. Private forest and rangelands in the Sprague River subbasin are generally used for livestock grazing. Most forest stands are significantly overstocked with trees, and rangeland has been heavily encroached by Western Juniper. Pasture condition is generally poor to fair. The riparian areas within pastures have little to no riparian vegetation and high, eroding banks. Wildlife habitat in most of the upper reaches of the Sprague River and its major tributaries appears to be fairly stable, indicating good watershed condition. However, there are considerable habitat improvements that can be made in the lower portion of the basin. Sprague River Subbasin Water & Wetlands: 2,949 Range: 137,869 Irrigated Pasture/ Grass Hay: 81,650 Forest/ Mixed: 240,050 Sprague River Subbasin Agricultural Land Use/ Cover 19 Resource Concerns Water quality is the major resource concern in the Sprague River Subbasin, directly impacting fish and wildlife habitat throughout the Upper Klamath Basin. Lost River and shortnose suckers, interior redband and bull trout are key fish species present in the subbasin. All species are listed as Endangered Species Act threatened, candidate, or species of concern. The Sprague River has been identified as an important stream for both spawning and rearing habitat for suckers. Loss of riparian habitat, fish entrapment and fish migration impediments have also been identified as resource concerns in the Sprague River Subbasin. Conservation Accomplishments In the Sprague River Subbasin during the last two years, significant conservation progress has been made. With assistance from NRCS and local conservation districts, land managers have improved the condition of 2,153 acres of grazing land, improved irrigation water management on 903 acres of irrigated land, and have restored 1,644 acres of riparian and wetlands areas. Fencing and riparian area restoration has been initiated or installed by private land managers with assistance from NRCS, US Fish & Wildlife Service and others on approximately 50 miles of stream and several thousand additional riparian and wetland acres. Sprague River Subbasin Land Ownership Private Lands 448,200 Public Lands 573,100 Total Land Area: 1,021,300 Irrigated Acres USBR Project: 0 Non- USBR: 61,600 Total: 61,600 20 Conservation Opportunities Water Quality & Wildlife Habitat: Riparian restoration can be accomplished by converting pastures to permanent riparian wildlife lands or establishing riparian vegetation. Riparian pasture units should be managed as a part of an overall grazing plan with cross- fencing and off- stream water for livestock. Forest stands should be managed to ensure optimum health of both the trees and grazed understory. Thinning overstocked trees and controlling juniper on rangelands are both effective management opportunities. Water Demand: Irrigation water management, including measuring water use and scheduling irrigation will help managers to maintain base river flows through late summer and early fall. Efficiencies can also be gained by leveling land, lining or piping irrigation ditches and incorporating tailwater recovery systems. Conversion from flood to sprinkler irrigation is also beneficial. Sprague River Subbasin Sprague River Subbasin Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices Water Demand Wildlife Habitat Water Storage Water Quality Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Conservation Investment Projected Conservation Acres to be Treated* Irrigated Land ............ 34,500 Range & Forestland 164,400 Wildlife Habitat ........... 2,400 Estimated Installation Cost Irrigated Land .......................$ 10,948,000 Range & Forestland .......................$ 31,305,000 Wildlife Habitat .........................$ 4,779,000 Estimated Annual Operation, Maintenance & Management Cost Irrigated Land .........................$ 1,768,000 Range & Forestland .........................$ 1,665,000 Wildlife Habitat ............................$ 133,000 * Based on conservation need and projected participation rates. 21 Tim McCabe/ NRCS 22 Covering about 928,000 acres, the Williamson River Subbasin is the principal tributary for Upper Klamath Lake. Combined, the Williamson and Sprague River subbasins make up 79 percent of the lake’s total drainage area. The Winema National Forest and Klamath Falls National Wildlife Refuge account for most of the public land in the subbasin. Irrigated pasture is the dominant private agricultural land use. Pasture is almost entirely flood irrigated. Ninety percent is diverted from streams, while groundwater supplies ten percent. Most diversions do not have fish screens and lack devices to measure water deliveries. Although overall irrigation application efficiency is low, additional water in the water table helps to subirrigate pastures. In addition, the proximity of these pastures to rivers and streams allows most excess diverted water to return to the system for reuse. Private forest and rangelands make up most of the private land in the basin. Approximately 80 percent of forestlands are used for grazing. Private forestland is in poor to fair condition; over half of the stands are significantly overstocked with trees. Wildlife habitat has faced considerable degradation in the past. Of the 48 miles of stream that are degraded in the subbasin, restoration efforts have been initiated on approximately 23 miles. Williamson River Subbasin Water & Wetlands: 19,700 Range: 2,600 Irrigated Pasture/ Grass Hay: 81,650 Forest/ Mixed: 225,300 Williamson River Subbasin Agricultural Land Use/ Cover Irrigated Alfalfa: 1,100 23 Water quality relating to elevated stream temperatures is a major resource concern in the Williamson River Subbasin, directly impacting fish and wildlife habitat throughout the Upper Klamath Basin. In 1988, when the Lost River and Shortnose suckers were listed as endangered, the Williamson and Sprague River runs were estimated to have declined by as much as 95 percent during the previous twenty- year period. Important sucker habitat has diminished by nearly 50 percent in the lower reaches and near the mouth of the Williamson River. This has reduced the amount of larval sucker spawning and rearing habitat. Conservation Accomplishments Significant conservation progress has been made in this subbasin. Land managers have improved 500 acres of grazing lands, 1,000 acres of irrigated lands, 235 acres of forestlands and have restored 112 acres of riparian and wetland areas. Heightened landowner awareness of resource concerns and increasing agency, organization, and individual efforts will help this trend to continue. Of the 48 miles of stream that are degraded in the subbasin, private land managers are working with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and others to restore 23 miles. The Nature Conservancy is restoring approximately 3,200 acres of wetlands, and plans to restore another 3,411 acres at the mouth of the Williamson River. Williamson River Subbasin Resource Concerns Land Ownership Private Lands 309,400 Public Lands 618,800 Total Land Area: 928,200 Irrigated Acres USBR Project: 0 Non- USBR: 65,100 Total: 65,100 24 Williamson River Subbasin Williamson River Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices Water Demand Wildlife Habitat Water Storage Water Quality Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Wildlife Habitat & Water Quality: Riparian area and wetland habitat restoration and management provide the best opportunity to improve water quality in the Williamson River Subbasin. This can be accomplished by converting lands from irrigated agriculture to wildlife habitat or creating riparian pasture systems. Wetland and riparian areas still utilize water. However, this work may reduce total water demand depending on how lands are managed. Water Demand: Thinning forest stands and managing grazing areas by adding cross fences and off- stream water for livestock can yield more water to meet downstream needs. This will also result in enhanced wildlife habitat and improved water quality in area streams. In addition, forest stand improvements reduce the potential for catastrophic fire. Priority Conservation Opportunities Conservation Investment Projected Conservation Acres to be Treated* Irrigated Land ............ 52,300 Range & Forestland ... 71,200 Wildlife Habitat .............. 200 Estimated Installation Cost Irrigated Land .......................$ 12,863,000 Range & Forestland .......................$ 17,290,000 Wildlife Habitat ............................$ 338,000 Estimated Annual Operation, Maintenance & Management Cost Irrigated Land .........................$ 2,663,000 Range & Forestland ............................$ 669,000 Wildlife Habitat ..............................$ 11,000 * Based on conservation need and projected participation rates. 25 Tupper Ansel Blake/ USFWS 26 The Upper Klamath Lake Subbasin covers 465,300 acres from Crater Lake to the outlet of Upper Klamath Lake into the Link River. Historically, some 43,000 acres of wetlands surrounded Agency and Upper Klamath Lake. Today, 17,000 acres have been preserved as part of the Upper Klamath Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Another 11,000 acres have been acquired for restoration. Irrigated agriculture is primarily pasture. Livestock are generally stocker cattle, who graze between April and November. Pasture condition is generally fair. Most livestock obtain water from streams and ditches. Irrigation water is diverted from streams or pumped from the lake. Most diversions do not have fish screens or devices to measure water. Although overall irrigation application efficiency is low, the additional water raises the water table and subirrigated pastures. Some acreages of hay and cereal crops are grown, and irrigation efficiencies are higher than for pasture. However, most require maintenance and re- leveling. Forestlands are primarily pine and mixed fir and hemlock. Most private lands in the subbasin are forest or rangelands, with approximately 80 percent used for grazing. More than half of the forest stands are significantly overstocked with trees. Wildlife habitat varies in condition. Of 70 total miles, 21 miles of streamside riparian areas are in good condition and another 12 miles are being restored. Upper Klamath Lake Subbasin Water & Wetlands: 76,568 Range: 2,404 Irrigated Pasture/ Grass Hay: 48,856 Forest/ Mixed: 100,311 Upper Klamath Lake Subbasin Agricultural Land Use/ Cover Irrigated Crop/ Alfalfa: 3,396 27 Resource Concerns Water quality in the Upper Klamath Lake is a major resource concern, affecting subbasin fish survival, with phosphorus loading as the greatest factor. The loss of wetland vegetation around the lake has also been linked to lower survival rates for endangered suckers. The lower reaches of the Wood River and Sevenmile Creek provide some rearing habitat for larval and juvenile suckers. The Wood River, Sevenmile Creek and their tributaries support populations of bull and interior redband trout. A highly valued “ catch and release” sport fishery occurs on the Wood River and several of its tributaries. There is significant interest in enhancing riparian habitat along these streams to protect and promote these fisheries. Conservation Accomplishments In the Upper Klamath Lake Subbasin during the last two years, some conservation progress has been made. With assistance from NRCS and local conservation districts, land managers have improved 12 acres of grazing lands and improved water quality and quantity on 12 acres of irrigated land. Several thousand more acres of wetland restoration are in the process of being planned or implemented around Upper Klamath Lake. Upper Klamath Lake Subbasin Land Ownership Private Lands 235,100 Public Lands 230,200 Total Land Area: 465,300 Irrigated Acres USBR Project: 0 Non- USBR: 52,300 Total: 52,300 28 Priority Conservation Opportunities Water Quality: The most effective conservation includes practices that restore riparian areas, improve grazing management and increase irrigation efficiency. This can be accomplished by either converting pastures to permanent wildlife habitat or by creating riparian pastures. While most pastures are being inefficiently irrigated, conditions do not warrant extensive changes from current flood irrigation systems since water is reused or enters the soil profile Water Storage: In the Upper Klamath Lake Subbasin, the potential for non- traditional water storage presents a unique conservation opportunity. Restoring drained wetlands, still farmed around Upper Klamath Lake, could produce positive benefits for all four resource concerns. By actively managing areas for both seasonal wetlands and farming, water can be both filtered to improve water quality and stored in wetland areas for future use. Upper Klamath Lake Subbasin Upper Klamath Lake Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices Water Demand Wildlife Habitat Water Storage Water Quality Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Conservation Investment Projected Conservation Acres to be Treated* Irrigated Land ............ 42,500 Range & Forestland ... 36,300 Wildlife Habitat ........... 2,900 Estimated Installation Cost Irrigated Land .......................$ 10,462,000 Range & Forestland .........................$ 7,254,000 Wildlife Habitat .........................$ 4,113,000 Estimated Annual Operation, Maintenance & Management Cost Irrigated Land .........................$ 2,017,000 Range & Forestland ............................$ 308,000 Wildlife Habitat ............................$ 130,000 * Based on conservation need and projected participation rates. 29 Table of Contents Tupper Ansel Blake/ USFWS 30 Irrigated Crop 4,209 The Lost River Subbasin originates above Clear Lake and passes through several agricultural valleys, ending in Tulelake. The valley once supported a vast network of wet meadows and marshes. This subbasin covers approximately 1.2 million acres and is split from the Middle Lost River Subbasin near Olene. Irrigated agriculture generally occurs in the warmer valleys. Flood is the most common pasture irrigation method, with about 50 percent of the water coming from the USBR project. Pasture condition is fair, and most pastures have not been renovated or re- leveled for some time. Maintenance would increase the efficiencies of 60 to 80 percent of the systems. Alfalfa is customarily sprinkler- irrigated and well- managed. Although irrigation efficiencies are higher than for pasture, many sprinkler systems still need upgrading. Several irrigated crops are grown in the subbasin including cereal grains, potatoes, and strawberry plants. Forestland, range and pasture are grazed by livestock. Rangelands are comprised of juniper and sagebrush steppes. Forestlands are generally mixed conifer. Livestock operations include cow/ calf, stockers and dairies. Confined livestock operations are located throughout the subbasin. The location and duration of confinement may pose a potential risk to water quality. Seven dairies located within the subbasin have existing liquid and dry livestock waste storage facilities. Upper Lost River Subbasin Water & Wetlands 13,250 Range 72,630 Irrigated Pasture/ Grass Hay 41,352 Forest/ Mixed 204,420 Upper Lost River Subbasin Agricultural Land Use/ Cover Irrigated Alfalfa 38,943 31 Resource Concerns Wildlife habitat and water quality are two of the major resource concerns in the subbasin. High water temperatures are usually linked to lack of shade, irrigation return flow or other warm water inputs. As measured by total phosphorus, water quality appears to be gradually improving over the last 10 to 20 years. While agriculture is the dominant land use in this subbasin, other sources of phosphorus and other pollutants exist. Sewage treatment outfalls, on- site sewage disposal systems, wildlife, and natural inputs also contribute nutrients and other pollutants to the system. While historically the river had significant fish runs, it currently supports only a small population of Shortnose and Lost River suckers. Conservation Accomplishments In the Upper Lost River Subbasin during the last two years, significant conservation progress has been made. With assistance from NRCS and local conservation districts, land managers have improved resource conditions on 234 acres of croplands and 5,282 acres of grazing lands, and have improved their management of irrigation water on 5,596 acres of irrigated lands. In addition, 846 acres of riparian and wetland areas have been restored. Upper Lost River Subbasin Land Ownership Private Lands 407,500 Public Lands 771,300 Total Land Area: 1,178,800 Irrigated Acres USBR Project: 40,400 Non- USBR: 44,100 Total: 84,500 32 Priority Conservation Opportunities Water Quality: Rotating livestock through smaller pastures will increase forage production, reduce soil compaction and improve water quality. On cropland, integrated pest management, irrigation scheduling, increasing crop residue or installing filter strips will minimize risks associated with some pesticides used on cereal grains, potatoes, onions and other crops. Implementing practices like diverting clean water before it flows through livestock confinement areas near water sources, will reduce the risk of polluted runoff. Water Demand: On both surface-irrigated pastures and cropland areas, there are opportunities for land leveling or smoothing, lining or piping irrigation delivery ditches, upgrading irrigation systems and developing tailwater recovery systems to improve water use efficiency. Upper Lost River Subbasin Upper Lost River Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices Water Demand Wildlife Habitat Water Storage Water Quality Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Conservation Investment Projected Conservation Acres to be Treated* Irrigated Land ............ 58,100 Range & Forestland 147,400 Wildlife Habitat ........... 1,200 Estimated Installation Cost Irrigated Land .......................$ 10,993,000 Range & Forestland .......................$ 20,397,000 Wildlife Habitat .........................$ 1,945,000 Estimated Annual Operation, Maintenance & Management Cost Irrigated Land .........................$ 3,667,000 Range & Forestland .........................$ 1,384,000 Wildlife Habitat ..............................$ 66,000 * Based on conservation need and projected participation rates. 33 Gary Kramer/ NRCS 34 The Middle Lost River Subbasin covers 454,500 acres and is the center of the USBR Klamath Project. Farms near Klamath Falls tend to be smaller, indicating part- time or hobby operations. The area includes 12 irrigation districts and leased lands on the Lower Klamath Wildlife Refuge that receive water supplied by the USBR Klamath Project. Public lands include the refuge, and parts of Modoc and Klamath national forests. Irrigated agriculture includes pasture, alfalfa, cereal grain, potatoes, onions and mint. Roughly 70 percent is irrigated with USBR- supplied water; the rest is obtained from groundwater, individual surface water rights or special USBR contracts. Many fields are either flood or sprinkler irrigated depending on the year and crop. Most farm irrigation diversions lack a means to measure water delivery. Livestock operations include several dairies and cattle feeding operations. Substantial range acreage is used for livestock grazing. Pasture condition is fair and most pastures have not been renovated or re- leveled for some time. Pastures associated with smaller livestock operations in and around Klamath Falls appear to be in the most need of improved pastures and irrigation systems. Wildlife habitat: Ten river miles are in relatively good riparian condition given the river is used for conveying irrigation water. Some 13 miles of stream lack adequate riparian vegetation and streambank protection. Middle Lost River Subbasin Water & Wetlands 10,766 Range 121,713 Irrigated Pasture/ Grass Hay 40,230 Middle Lost River Subbasin Agricultural Land Use/ Cover Irrigated Alfalfa 34,866 Irrigated Crop 41,837 35 Resource Concerns The primary concern is maintaining a reliable water supply that meets the needs of all users. Drought conditions and increased competition for available water have increased economic, social, political and environmental concerns and uncertainty over the future. Habitat and water quality are two additional major resource concerns in the subbasin. High water temperatures are usually linked to lack of shade, irrigation return flow or other warm water inputs. As measured by total phosphorus, water quality appears to be gradually improving. Agriculture is the dominant land use in this subbasin, but other pollutant sources exist. While the river had significant historic fish runs, it currently supports only a small sucker population. Conservation Accomplishments In the last two years, the Middle Lost River Subbasin has seen significant conservation progress. With assistance from NRCS and local conservation districts, land managers have improved the condition of natural resources on 489 acres of cropland and 3,521 grazing land acres. In addition, 564 acres of riparian and wetland areas have been restored, and water use efficiency has been increased on 3,731 acres of irrigated lands. Middle Lost River Subbasin Land Ownership Private Lands 272,900 Public Lands 181,600 Total Land Area: 454,500 Irrigated Acres USBR Project: 84,700 Non- USBR: 32,300 Total: 117,000 36 Priority Conservation Opportunities Water Demand: Providing irrigators with water measurement tools and training on irrigation scheduling would improve their ability to apply irrigation water more efficiently. Highly effective conservation measures on hay and cropland should focus on updating existing irrigation systems and improving irrigation water management. Water Quality: The use of grazing systems that rotate livestock through smaller pastures will increase forage production, reduce soil compaction and improve water quality. While fishery benefits from restoring riparian areas are minimal, streamside buffers will improve water quality and provide habitat for other wildlife. On cropland, integrated pest management, irrigation scheduling, increasing crop residue or installing filter strips will minimize risks associated with some pesticides used on cereal grains, potatoes, onions and other crops. Middle Lost River Subbasin Middle Lost River Subbasin Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices Water Demand Wildlife Habitat Water Storage Water Quality Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Conservation Investment Projected Conservation Acres to be Treated* Irrigated Land ............ 80,400 Range & Forestland ... 85,200 Wildlife Habitat .............. 400 Estimated Installation Cost Irrigated Land .......................$ 18,859,000 Range & Forestland .........................$ 6,797,000 Wildlife Habitat ............................$ 195,000 Estimated Annual Operation, Maintenance & Management Cost Irrigated Land .........................$ 5,585,000 Range & Forestland ............................$ 902,000 Wildlife Habitat ................................$ 8,000 * Based on conservation need and projected participation rates. 37 38 The Tulelake Subbasin covers 296,600 acres, bordered by the J Canal and the Lava Beds National Monument. The Tulelake Irrigation District and the Tulelake National Wildlife Refuge receive water from the USBR Klamath Project. Tulelake is a remnant of historic Lake Modoc that once connected the subbasin with both Lower and Upper Klamath Lake. The Lost River watershed was once a closed basin. Runoff flowed into Tulelake and evaporated. Pumping plants and drains constructed as a part of the project have provided an outlet from Tulelake, which now functions as an open basin. Irrigated agriculture is generally supplied by the USBR. Alfalfa, grain, potatoes, onions, mint and pasture are the principal crops. Fields are flood or sprinkler irrigated depending on the year and crop. Often diversions lack devices to measure water delivery. Pasture condition is fair, and most have not been renovated for some time. Groundwater provides 40- 50 percent of water for irrigated pastures, and most excess water is reused. Rangeland is the other significant land use. Most ranches are cow/ calf operations that have winter holdings in the subbasin. Rangelands are generally encroached with juniper. Wildlife habitat along the Lost River has reeds and bullrush, providing some habitat for waterfowl and songbirds. Suckers have been located in the river and Tulelake; however, it is not known whether they are successfully reproducing. There are few opportunities to improve habitat along this heavily manipulated reach of the river. Tulelake Subbasin Water & Wetlands 13,285 Range 36,229 Irrigated Pasture/ Grass Hay 4,050 Tulelake Subbasin Agricultural Land Use/ Cover Irrigated Alfalfa 12,334 Irrigated Crop 48,481 Forest/ Mixed 4,492 39 Resource Concerns The Tulelake Subbasin is at the tail- end of the USBR Klamath Project. Irrigators depend on water- use decisions made by fellow irrigators and resource managers for their irrigation needs. Drought and increased competition for water leads to the primary resource concern in the basin - a reliable supply of water to meet agriculture, wildlife and other resource needs. Water quality deteriorates as it moves through the USBR project. As measured by total phosphorus, water quality appears to be gradually improving. Agriculture is the dominant land use in this subbasin, but other sources of phosphorus and other pollutants exist. The presence of ESA- listed suckers creates concerns for improving habitat and water quality. The two national wildlife refuges support large waterfowl populations. Farmland on the refuges is leased to farmers to supply grain for waterfowl and shorebirds. These populations depend on refuges, leased lands and adjacent farms during the fall and spring migratory periods. Both refuges depend upon tailwater from the USBR project to maintain their marshes and ponds. Conservation Accomplishments In the Tulelake Subbasin during the last two years, significant conservation progress has been made. With assistance from NRCS and local conservation districts, local land managers have improved the condition of natural resources on 72 cropland acres and 1,854 irrigated land acres, and have restored 21 acres of riparian and wetland areas. Tulelake Subbasin Land Ownership Private Lands 131,600 Public Lands 165,000 Total Land Area: 296,600 Irrigated Acres USBR Project: 62,600 Non- USBR: 2,200 Total: 64,800 40 Priority Conservation Opportunities Water Demand: On hay and croplands, upgrading existing irrigation systems and improving irrigation water management will decrease water demand. Subsurface drainage could be added before re- establishing alfalfa stands, permitting better control of water table and soil moisture levels. During years that alfalfa fields are rotated to grain, winter flooding or pre- season irrigation could be used to reduce water demand. Water Storage/ Yield: Adding subsurface drainage may be the most significant practice to implement on cropland acres. Subsurface drains would allow farmers to winter flood or pre-irrigate fields, thereby reducing their demand for water during the irrigation season. If pre- irrigated, farmers could grow a cereal crop even if water deliveries are cut off during drought years. In addition, juniper control on rangelands will yield additional water to meet downstream needs. Tulelake Subbasin Tulelake Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices Water Demand Wildlife Habitat Water Storage Water Quality Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Conservation Investment Projected Conservation Acres to be Treated* Irrigated Land ............ 45,400 Range & Forestland ... 28,500 Wildlife Habitat ........... 1,700 Estimated Installation Cost Irrigated Land .......................$ 18,263,000 Range & Forestland .........................$ 1,741,000 Wildlife Habitat ............................$ 298,000 Estimated Annual Operation, Maintenance & Management Cost Irrigated Land .........................$ 2,590,000 Range & Forestland ............................$ 257,000 Wildlife Habitat ..............................$ 25,000 * Based on conservation need and projected participation rates. 41 Tupper Ansel Blake/ USFWS 42 The Butte Valley Subbasin lies southwest of Lower Klamath Lake. While part of the Upper Klamath Basin, it is an internal drainage basin with only an artificial outlet. Groundwater flows from west to east out of the subbasin under the Mahogany Mountains toward the lake. A channel and pump plant were built to remove floodwaters. This channel is used infrequently and for only short durations. The Klamath National Forest, Butte Valley National Grassland, and the Butte Valley Wildlife Area make up the majority of the public lands. Irrigated agriculture includes alfalfa hay as the predominate crop. Cereal grains, potatoes and strawberry plants are also grown. Crops are usually sprinkler irrigated, and sprinklers are well maintained. Few irrigators measure water applied or schedule irrigation. Cattle operations graze irrigated pastures and meadows scattered throughout the subbasin along with range and forestlands. Pastures are generally flood irrigated and are supplied by streams. Most farm irrigation diversions lack water measuring devices. Mixed conifer forests are found at higher elevations and are generally operated as industrial forests. Range sites are dominated by Western Juniper and are generally in poor condition. Wildlife habitat is generally wetlands in the state wildlife refuge or on national grasslands. Approximately 26 miles of streams on private lands have inadequate riparian vegetation. Butte Valley Subbasin Water & Wetlands 9,488 Range 73,891 Irrigated Pasture/ Grass Hay 10,355 Butte Valley Subbasin Agricultural Land Use/ Cover Irrigated Alfalfa 30,361 Irrigated Crop 11,490 Forest/ Mixed 52,031 43 Butte Valley Subbasin Resource Concerns The expense of deepening wells and pumping from deeper elevations for irrigation water is a major resource concern. Generally, streams in the upper portions of the subbasin support good populations of Brown and Rainbow trout. The Tulelake National Wildlife Refuge and Lower Klamath Lake National Wildlife Refuge support large populations of migratory and permanent waterfowl. Farmland on the refuges is leased to area farmers to supply grain for the waterfowl and shorebirds. The large bird populations depend on the refuges, leased lands and adjacent farms throughout the fall and spring migratory periods for habitat. Both refuges depend upon tailwater from the USBR project to maintain their marshes and ponds. Conservation Accomplishments In the Butte Valley Subbasin during the last two years, some conservation progress has been made. With assistance from NRCS and local conservation districts, local land managers have restored 27 acres of riparian and wetland areas in the last two years. Land Ownership Private Lands 188,400 Public Lands 199,700 Total Land Area: 388,100 Irrigated Acres USBR Project: 0 Non- USBR: 52,300 Total: 52,300 44 Butte Valley Subbasin Butte Valley Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices Water Demand Wildlife Habitat Water Storage Water Quality Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Priority Conservation Opportunities Water Demand: Butte Valley is an internal drainage basin. Other than limited contributions to groundwater in the Upper Klamath Basin, reductions in water demand only benefit the subbasin. Sprinkler- irrigated hay, cereal crops and row crops dominate land use on the better soils. Highly effective conservation on hay and cropland should focus on improving the overall irrigation efficiency of existing systems. This can be accomplished by upgrading systems and scheduling irrigation. An estimated 40 percent of the existing systems would benefit from maintenance. On controlled flood irrigated pastures, there are opportunities for land leveling or smoothing, lining or piping delivery ditches, and recovering tailwater. Additional water savings and water quality benefits could be gained by converting existing surface irrigation to sprinklers if power is available and affordable. On rangelands, juniper control and improved grazing management are the primary conservation opportunities. Conservation Investment Projected Conservation Acres to be Treated* Irrigated Land ............ 35,000 Range & Forestland ... 49,400 Wildlife Habitat ................ 55 Estimated Installation Cost Irrigated Land .........................$ 6,652,000 Range & Forestland .........................$ 5,243,000 Wildlife Habitat ............................$ 109,000 Estimated Annual Operation, Maintenance & Management Cost Irrigated Land .........................$ 1,569,000 Range & Forestland ............................$ 625,000 Wildlife Habitat ................................$ 3,000 * Based on conservation need and projected participation rates. 45 46 The Upper Klamath River East Subbasin covers the Klamath River drainage between Iron Gate and Keno dams. Nearly half of the area is in public ownership. Iron Gate and Copco reservoirs are used extensively for recreational fishing, boating and camping. Whitewater rafting and kayaking are popular below the KC Boyle Dam. The KC Boyle, Copco and Iron Gate dams are used and regulated for power generation. Irrigated agriculture occurs on only 4,000 acres of pasture. Only a few isolated ranches are located in this subbasin. Cattle operations rotate grazing of irrigated pastures with significant acreage of grazed range and forest. Pastures are surface irrigated with a mix of controlled and flood irrigation. All irrigation water is diverted from the river or tributary streams. Most farm irrigation diversions lack devices to measure water. Even though overall irrigation application efficiency is low, the proximity of irrigated pastures to the river allows most excess water diverted to be reused downstream. Private forest and rangelands make up most of the private land, nearly all of which is used for livestock grazing. Much of the rangeland is in poor condition, with heavy juniper encroachment. More than half of the forest stands are overstocked with trees. Wildlife habitat along riparian areas is generally in good condition. Of the 12 miles of riparian areas surveyed, five would benefit from some restoration. Upper Klamath River East Subbasin Water & Wetlands 4,552 Forestlands 195,516 Irrigated Pasture/ Grass Hay 4,044 Upper Klamath River East Subbasin Agricultural Land Use/ Cover Range 52,366 47 Upper Klamath River East Subbasin Resource Concerns The need to increase water availability to downstream users is the main resource concern along this stretch of the river. Water withdrawals are insignificant along this stretch of the river. Salmon and steelhead are blocked at Iron Gate Dam from upstream passage. Several resident trout species exist, supporting a recreational fishery. Conservation Accomplishments In the Klamath River East Subbasin during the last two years, some conservation progress has been made. With assistance from NRCS and local conservation districts, land managers have improved the condition of natural resources on 56 acres of cropland, 332 acres of grazing land, and 560 acres of irrigated lands. They have also improved forestland health on 46 acres and have restored 924 acres of riparian and wetland areas. Land Ownership Private Lands 256,500 Public Lands 162,900 Total Land Area: 419,400 Irrigated Acres USBR Project: 0 Non- USBR: 4,000 Total: 4,000 48 Upper Klamath River East Subbasin Upper Klamath River East Comparative Benefit of Applied Conservation Practices Water Demand Wildlife Habitat Water Quality Riparian/ Wetland Agronomic Forest & Range Grazing Irrigation Conservation Practices Priority Conservation Opportunities Water Demand/ Yield: Juniper control, thinning forest stands, managing grazing lands by cross- fencing and providing off- stream water for livestock will improve hydrologic conditions, yielding more water to meet downstream needs. This will also improve forage production, habitat condition and water quality in area streams, as well as reduce the opportunity for a catastrophic fire. There are opportunities for land smoothing and tailwater recovery systems to improve overall irrigation efficiency and effectiveness. Additional water savings and water quality benefits would be gained by converting from surface irrigation to sprinklers if power is available and affordable. Conservation Investment Projected Conservation Acres to be Treated* Irrigated Land .............. 1,700 Range & Forestland ... 44,800 Wildlife Habitat .................. 5 Estimated Installation Cost Irrigated Land ............................$ 454,000 Range & Forestland .........................$ 4,769,000 Wildlife Habitat ..............................$ 13,000 Estimated Annual Operation, Maintenance & Management Cost Irrigated Land ..............................$ 86,000 Range & Forestland ............................$ 406,000 Wildlife Habitat .......................................$ 0 * Based on conservation need and projected participation rates. 49 USDA Nondiscrimination Statement “ The U. S. Department of Agriculture ( USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. ( Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information ( Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at ( 202) 720- 2600 ( voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326- W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250- 9410, or call ( 202) 720- 5964 ( voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.” 50 Upper Klamath Basin 51 Developed by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service September, 2004 Close

• 83. [Image] Soils of the Klamath Indian Reservation; interim report, June 11, 1958

  	TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I INTRODUCTION 18 - 11 History and ethnology 18 Irrigated area table 19 Cultural geography 19 General physiographic features 262e . .3 Physiographic areas and farming 1d CLIMATE ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Soils of the Klamath Indian Reservation; interim report, June 11, 1958 Author: United States. Bureau of Indian Affairs Year: 1958, 2005, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I INTRODUCTION 18 - 11 History and ethnology 18 Irrigated area table 19 Cultural geography 19 General physiographic features 262e . .3 Physiographic areas and farming 1d CLIMATE 182 - 18 Climatic table, Sprague River, Oregon 185 Precipitation table , Chiloquin, Oregon 186 Temperature table, Chiloquin, Oregon 187 Climatic table, Fort Klamath, Oregon 188 VEGETATION 189 - 25 GEOLOGY 196 - 51 Hydrography: rivers, lakes, marshes, ground water 196 Relief and geological formations. 262e .32 Diatomite - tuff formation 262e . 1c4 Pliocene sediments of the Modoc Point area 262e.. 37 Faulted tuff formation 1c9 Pumice tuff formation.. 1d0 Pumice mantle and pumice flows ........ 262e.... .........40 Table of chemical analyses of pumice and scoria 1d5 Geology Map 262e . 262e 221 BIBLIOGRAPHY 262e 262e...52 PART II DESCRIPTIONS OF SOILS 223 - 60 Classification and survey 262e 262e.. 262e... 53 Soil profile and nomenclature. .... 262e...53 Chestnut Soils 262e 224 "Western" Brown Forest Soils 225 Regosol Soils . . 262e. 262e......56 Solonetz Soils 262e.....57 Halomorphic Soils 262e 228 Hydromorphic Soils 262e... 229 Soil Association Map 262e 229 KEY TO SOIL SERIES 262e61 - 63 SOIL SERIES AND MAPPING UNIT DESCRIPTIONS 134 ~ 254 APPENDIX 1955 - 297 Soil Series and mapping unit index. 2620. . . . 255 Glossary of terms 263f 262e. . . . 272 Table of soil analyses (Oregon State College)... 1989 Table of irrigation water quality (Oregon State College) 1990 Table of conductivity and reaction. . . . 1991 Table of resistance of saturated paste 262e296 Title: Soils of the Klamath Indian Reservation; interim report, June 11, 1958 Author: United States. Bureau of Indian Affairs Year: 1958, 2005, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I INTRODUCTION 18 - 11 History and ethnology 18 Irrigated area table 19 Cultural geography 19 General physiographic features 262e . .3 Physiographic areas and farming 1d CLIMATE 182 - 18 Climatic table, Sprague River, Oregon 185 Precipitation table , Chiloquin, Oregon 186 Temperature table, Chiloquin, Oregon 187 Climatic table, Fort Klamath, Oregon 188 VEGETATION 189 - 25 GEOLOGY 196 - 51 Hydrography: rivers, lakes, marshes, ground water 196 Relief and geological formations. 262e .32 Diatomite - tuff formation 262e . 1c4 Pliocene sediments of the Modoc Point area 262e.. 37 Faulted tuff formation 1c9 Pumice tuff formation.. 1d0 Pumice mantle and pumice flows ........ 262e.... .........40 Table of chemical analyses of pumice and scoria 1d5 Geology Map 262e . 262e 221 BIBLIOGRAPHY 262e 262e...52 PART II DESCRIPTIONS OF SOILS 223 - 60 Classification and survey 262e 262e.. 262e... 53 Soil profile and nomenclature. .... 262e...53 Chestnut Soils 262e 224 "Western" Brown Forest Soils 225 Regosol Soils . . 262e. 262e......56 Solonetz Soils 262e.....57 Halomorphic Soils 262e 228 Hydromorphic Soils 262e... 229 Soil Association Map 262e 229 KEY TO SOIL SERIES 262e61 - 63 SOIL SERIES AND MAPPING UNIT DESCRIPTIONS 134 ~ 254 APPENDIX 1955 - 297 Soil Series and mapping unit index. 2620. . . . 255 Glossary of terms 263f 262e. . . . 272 Table of soil analyses (Oregon State College)... 1989 Table of irrigation water quality (Oregon State College) 1990 Table of conductivity and reaction. . . . 1991 Table of resistance of saturated paste 262e296 Close

• 84. [Image] Status of Oregon's bull trout : distribution, life history, limiting factors, management considerations, and status

  	EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Limited historical references indicate that bull trout Salvelinus confluentus in Oregon were once widely spread throughout at least 12 basins in the Klamath River and Columbia River ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Status of Oregon's bull trout : distribution, life history, limiting factors, management considerations, and status Author: Buchanan, David V; Hanson, Mary L; Hooton, Robert M Year: 1997, 2007, 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Limited historical references indicate that bull trout Salvelinus confluentus in Oregon were once widely spread throughout at least 12 basins in the Klamath River and Columbia River systems. No bull trout have been observed in Oregon's coastal systems. A total of 69 bull trout populations in 12 basins are currently identified in Oregon. A comparison of the 1991 bull trout status (Ratliff and Ho well 1992) to the revised 1996 status found that 7 populations were newly discovered and 1 population showed a positive or upgraded status while 22 populations showed a negative or downgraded status. The general downgrading of 32% of Oregon's bull trout populations appears largely due to increased survey efforts and increased survey accuracy rather than reduced numbers or distribution. However, three populations in the upper Klamath Basin, two in the Walla Walla Basin, and one in the Willamette Basin showed decreases in estimated population abundance or distribution. Some Oregon river basins have bull trout populations at extreme risk of extinction. This statewide status review listed only 19% of the bull trout populations in Oregon with a ulow risk of extinction" or "of special concern." Therefore, 81% of Oregon's bull trout populations are considered to be at a "moderate risk of extinction," "high risk of extinction," or "probably extinct." Populations in the Hood, Klamath, and Powder basins, as well as the Odell Lake population in the Deschutes basin, which contain only a few remaining bull trout, are examples of populations having a "moderate" or "high risk" of extinction. Approximately 55% of current bull trout distribution occurs on lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service. A much smaller proportion occurs on Bureau of Land Management managed lands (2%). Only 16% of current bull trout distribution occurs within a protected area defined as Wilderness, Wild and Scenic River, or within a National Park. The Northwest Forest Plan, Inland Native Fish Strategy, and Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California have provided increased protection for bull trout habitat depending on their scope and geographic areas affected, and the extent to which they are being effectively implemented in watersheds containing bull trout. Recent reduction in timber production on National Forests (up to 50% in western Oregon National Forests and over 30% in eastern Oregon National Forests) should help improve riparian and stream habitat conditions for bull trout. The remaining bull trout distribution occurs on private, state, or tribal owned lands. A comparison of approximately 39 locations throughout the state with protective angling regulations on bull trout (in some areas more than one bull trout population is protected by one regulation) shows that all state managed areas were upgraded in a protective angling status or at least maintained in 1996 compared to 1989. Restrictive angling regulations prohibit angler harvest of all bull trout populations in Oregon except for one in the Deschutes Basin. Restrictive bull trout angling regulation changes (including the elimination of bull Vll trout harvest in all spawning areas) may be the major reasons why the Metolius River/Lake Billy Chinook and mainstem McKenzie River populations have shown significant increases in abundance. Statewide stocking of non-native brook trout, including the high lakes stocking program, has been discontinued in locations where managers believe brook trout could migrate downstream and potentially interact with native bull trout. Hatchery stocking of legal rainbow trout to promote recreational fisheries has been discontinued in most locations near bull trout populations to avoid incidental catch of bull trout. The spatial and temporal distributions of bull trout reported for each river basin in this status report should be used as an accurate baseline for fisheries managers. Current distribution and relative change of distribution should be useful indicators of population health and status. The GIS maps in this report provide a template to add new layers of data such as critical spawning and juvenile rearing areas, or as a method to compare distribution changes through time. Length frequency data are presented for most Oregon bull trout populations. This should provide estimates for the presence of multiple age classes and the percent of fluvial size life history component. Vlll Title: Status of Oregon's bull trout : distribution, life history, limiting factors, management considerations, and status Author: Buchanan, David V; Hanson, Mary L; Hooton, Robert M Year: 1997, 2007, 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Limited historical references indicate that bull trout Salvelinus confluentus in Oregon were once widely spread throughout at least 12 basins in the Klamath River and Columbia River systems. No bull trout have been observed in Oregon's coastal systems. A total of 69 bull trout populations in 12 basins are currently identified in Oregon. A comparison of the 1991 bull trout status (Ratliff and Ho well 1992) to the revised 1996 status found that 7 populations were newly discovered and 1 population showed a positive or upgraded status while 22 populations showed a negative or downgraded status. The general downgrading of 32% of Oregon's bull trout populations appears largely due to increased survey efforts and increased survey accuracy rather than reduced numbers or distribution. However, three populations in the upper Klamath Basin, two in the Walla Walla Basin, and one in the Willamette Basin showed decreases in estimated population abundance or distribution. Some Oregon river basins have bull trout populations at extreme risk of extinction. This statewide status review listed only 19% of the bull trout populations in Oregon with a ulow risk of extinction" or "of special concern." Therefore, 81% of Oregon's bull trout populations are considered to be at a "moderate risk of extinction," "high risk of extinction," or "probably extinct." Populations in the Hood, Klamath, and Powder basins, as well as the Odell Lake population in the Deschutes basin, which contain only a few remaining bull trout, are examples of populations having a "moderate" or "high risk" of extinction. Approximately 55% of current bull trout distribution occurs on lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service. A much smaller proportion occurs on Bureau of Land Management managed lands (2%). Only 16% of current bull trout distribution occurs within a protected area defined as Wilderness, Wild and Scenic River, or within a National Park. The Northwest Forest Plan, Inland Native Fish Strategy, and Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California have provided increased protection for bull trout habitat depending on their scope and geographic areas affected, and the extent to which they are being effectively implemented in watersheds containing bull trout. Recent reduction in timber production on National Forests (up to 50% in western Oregon National Forests and over 30% in eastern Oregon National Forests) should help improve riparian and stream habitat conditions for bull trout. The remaining bull trout distribution occurs on private, state, or tribal owned lands. A comparison of approximately 39 locations throughout the state with protective angling regulations on bull trout (in some areas more than one bull trout population is protected by one regulation) shows that all state managed areas were upgraded in a protective angling status or at least maintained in 1996 compared to 1989. Restrictive angling regulations prohibit angler harvest of all bull trout populations in Oregon except for one in the Deschutes Basin. Restrictive bull trout angling regulation changes (including the elimination of bull Vll trout harvest in all spawning areas) may be the major reasons why the Metolius River/Lake Billy Chinook and mainstem McKenzie River populations have shown significant increases in abundance. Statewide stocking of non-native brook trout, including the high lakes stocking program, has been discontinued in locations where managers believe brook trout could migrate downstream and potentially interact with native bull trout. Hatchery stocking of legal rainbow trout to promote recreational fisheries has been discontinued in most locations near bull trout populations to avoid incidental catch of bull trout. The spatial and temporal distributions of bull trout reported for each river basin in this status report should be used as an accurate baseline for fisheries managers. Current distribution and relative change of distribution should be useful indicators of population health and status. The GIS maps in this report provide a template to add new layers of data such as critical spawning and juvenile rearing areas, or as a method to compare distribution changes through time. Length frequency data are presented for most Oregon bull trout populations. This should provide estimates for the presence of multiple age classes and the percent of fluvial size life history component. Vlll Close

• 85. [Image] Federal Register - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status of the Shortnose Sucker and the Lost River Sucker

  	The Service determines endangered status for the shortnose sucker [Chasmistes brevirostris) and Lost River sucker [Deltistes luxatus), fishes restricted to the Klamath Basin of south-central Oregon and ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Federal Register - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status of the Shortnose Sucker and the Lost River Sucker Author: Williams, Jack E. Year: 1988, 2008, 2005 The Service determines endangered status for the shortnose sucker [Chasmistes brevirostris) and Lost River sucker [Deltistes luxatus), fishes restricted to the Klamath Basin of south-central Oregon and north-central California. Dams, draining of marshes, diversion of rivers and dredging of lakes have reduced the range and numbers of both species by more than 95 percent. Remaining populations are composed of older individuals with little or no successful recruitment for many years. Both species are jeopardized by continued loss of habitat, hybridization with more common closely related species, competition and predation by exotic species, and insularization of remaining habitats. This rule implements the protection provided by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, for the shortnose sucker and Lost River sucker Title: Federal Register - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status of the Shortnose Sucker and the Lost River Sucker Author: Williams, Jack E. Year: 1988, 2008, 2005 The Service determines endangered status for the shortnose sucker [Chasmistes brevirostris) and Lost River sucker [Deltistes luxatus), fishes restricted to the Klamath Basin of south-central Oregon and north-central California. Dams, draining of marshes, diversion of rivers and dredging of lakes have reduced the range and numbers of both species by more than 95 percent. Remaining populations are composed of older individuals with little or no successful recruitment for many years. Both species are jeopardized by continued loss of habitat, hybridization with more common closely related species, competition and predation by exotic species, and insularization of remaining habitats. This rule implements the protection provided by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, for the shortnose sucker and Lost River sucker Close

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

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

• 87. [Image] Ousterhout Vineyard

  	Ousterhout Vineyard, shown here with Agate Ridge in the background, employs a lyre trellis system.
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Ousterhout Vineyard Author: MJ Daspit; Eric Weisinger, Ousterhout Wine & Vineyard (Or.) Ousterhout Vineyard, shown here with Agate Ridge in the background, employs a lyre trellis system. Title: Ousterhout Vineyard Author: MJ Daspit; Eric Weisinger, Ousterhout Wine & Vineyard (Or.) Ousterhout Vineyard, shown here with Agate Ridge in the background, employs a lyre trellis system. Close

• 88. [Image] John Ousterhout, Rogue Valley wine pioneer

  	John Ousterhout farmed turkeys for many years before trying viticulture. In 1970 he planted his vineyard from cuttings supplied by Porter Lombard, head of Oregon State University’s Hanley Road Research ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: John Ousterhout, Rogue Valley wine pioneer Author: MJ Daspit; Eric Weisinger, Ousterhout Wine & Vineyard (Or.) John Ousterhout farmed turkeys for many years before trying viticulture. In 1970 he planted his vineyard from cuttings supplied by Porter Lombard, head of Oregon State University’s Hanley Road Research Station. Soon he had 11.5 acres planted to Semillon, Pinot Blanc and Sauvignon Blanc. Ousterhout is shown having got his tractor stuck in the mud while clearing brush at the edge of the vineyard. Title: John Ousterhout, Rogue Valley wine pioneer Author: MJ Daspit; Eric Weisinger, Ousterhout Wine & Vineyard (Or.) John Ousterhout farmed turkeys for many years before trying viticulture. In 1970 he planted his vineyard from cuttings supplied by Porter Lombard, head of Oregon State University’s Hanley Road Research Station. Soon he had 11.5 acres planted to Semillon, Pinot Blanc and Sauvignon Blanc. Ousterhout is shown having got his tractor stuck in the mud while clearing brush at the edge of the vineyard. Close

• 89. [Image] John Ousterhout and the Family Tractor

  	The size of the family tractor was one reason why John Ousterhout planted his grapes in wide rows.
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: John Ousterhout and the Family Tractor Author: Ousterhout Wine & Vineyard (Or.), John Ousterhout Year: 2000 The size of the family tractor was one reason why John Ousterhout planted his grapes in wide rows. Title: John Ousterhout and the Family Tractor Author: Ousterhout Wine & Vineyard (Or.), John Ousterhout Year: 2000 The size of the family tractor was one reason why John Ousterhout planted his grapes in wide rows. Close

• 90. [Image] John Ousterhout and Gretchen Hunter

  	John Ousterhout and daughter Gretchen Hunter stand in front of a row of Sauvignon Blanc.
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: John Ousterhout and Gretchen Hunter Author: Ousterhout Wine & Vineyard (Or.), Maureen Battistella Year: 2014 John Ousterhout and daughter Gretchen Hunter stand in front of a row of Sauvignon Blanc. Title: John Ousterhout and Gretchen Hunter Author: Ousterhout Wine & Vineyard (Or.), Maureen Battistella Year: 2014 John Ousterhout and daughter Gretchen Hunter stand in front of a row of Sauvignon Blanc. Close

• 91. [Image] Old Vines, Inverted Lyre

  	Old vines at Ousterhout Vineyard showing John's Inverted Lyre trellis system, and the horizontal positioning made possible by their wide rows.
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Old Vines, Inverted Lyre Author: Ousterhout Wine & Vineyard (Or.), Maureen Battistella Year: 2014 Old vines at Ousterhout Vineyard showing John's Inverted Lyre trellis system, and the horizontal positioning made possible by their wide rows. Title: Old Vines, Inverted Lyre Author: Ousterhout Wine & Vineyard (Or.), Maureen Battistella Year: 2014 Old vines at Ousterhout Vineyard showing John's Inverted Lyre trellis system, and the horizontal positioning made possible by their wide rows. Close

• 92. [Image] Early Season Vines

  	Early season vines at Ousterhout Vineyard, clearly showing the inverted Lyre trellis system and wide planting rows.
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Early Season Vines Author: Ousterhout Wine & Vineyard (Or.), John Ousterhout Year: 1980 Early season vines at Ousterhout Vineyard, clearly showing the inverted Lyre trellis system and wide planting rows. Title: Early Season Vines Author: Ousterhout Wine & Vineyard (Or.), John Ousterhout Year: 1980 Early season vines at Ousterhout Vineyard, clearly showing the inverted Lyre trellis system and wide planting rows. Close

• 93. [Image] Ice on the Vines

  	Cold and ice are frequent problems on Jackson County's Agate Desert; John Ousterhout and Gretchen Hunter participated in climate monitoring trials.
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Ice on the Vines Author: Ousterhout Wine & Vineyard (Or.), John Ousterhout Year: 1987 Cold and ice are frequent problems on Jackson County's Agate Desert; John Ousterhout and Gretchen Hunter participated in climate monitoring trials. Title: Ice on the Vines Author: Ousterhout Wine & Vineyard (Or.), John Ousterhout Year: 1987 Cold and ice are frequent problems on Jackson County's Agate Desert; John Ousterhout and Gretchen Hunter participated in climate monitoring trials. Close

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

  	The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds Biennial Report 2005-2007. This is the sixth report on the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. The report provides an update on the accomplishments and continuing ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds biennial report, 2005-2007 Author: Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Year: 2006, 2007 The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds Biennial Report 2005-2007. This is the sixth report on the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. The report provides an update on the accomplishments and continuing efforts of people throughout Oregon to improve and protect clean water and recover and maintain healthy populations offish and wildlife in our watersheds. The Oregon Plan is unique because it engages communities in the restoration and long-term stewardship of their watersheds. This extraordinary effort encourages local partnerships and voluntary actions to improve the conditions of our watersheds. Over the years, these actions have made Oregon a national leader in local cooperative conservation. This report collects project and condition data, voluntary private lands restoration information, and agency program accomplishments under the Oregon Plan. Consistent with the past two reports, this document continues to provide specific data on each of the state's fifteen reporting basins. A new element to this report is the inclusion of stories about the people, partnerships, and on-the-ground projects that are benefiting watersheds and communities across the state. Thanks to the many Oregon Plan partners who contributed to this report. Thomas M. Byler Executive Director Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Title: Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds biennial report, 2005-2007 Author: Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Year: 2006, 2007 The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds Biennial Report 2005-2007. This is the sixth report on the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. The report provides an update on the accomplishments and continuing efforts of people throughout Oregon to improve and protect clean water and recover and maintain healthy populations offish and wildlife in our watersheds. The Oregon Plan is unique because it engages communities in the restoration and long-term stewardship of their watersheds. This extraordinary effort encourages local partnerships and voluntary actions to improve the conditions of our watersheds. Over the years, these actions have made Oregon a national leader in local cooperative conservation. This report collects project and condition data, voluntary private lands restoration information, and agency program accomplishments under the Oregon Plan. Consistent with the past two reports, this document continues to provide specific data on each of the state's fifteen reporting basins. A new element to this report is the inclusion of stories about the people, partnerships, and on-the-ground projects that are benefiting watersheds and communities across the state. Thanks to the many Oregon Plan partners who contributed to this report. Thomas M. Byler Executive Director Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Close

• 95. [Image] The Water Report - Taking and water rights: constitutional & contractual remedies for government takings

  	Only portions of issues of The Water Report are available in the Klamath Waters Digital Library. See the full report at http://www.thewaterreport.com/
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Water Report - Taking and water rights: constitutional & contractual remedies for government takings Author: Envirotech Publications Year: 2005 Only portions of issues of The Water Report are available in the Klamath Waters Digital Library. See the full report at http://www.thewaterreport.com/ Title: The Water Report - Taking and water rights: constitutional & contractual remedies for government takings Author: Envirotech Publications Year: 2005 Only portions of issues of The Water Report are available in the Klamath Waters Digital Library. See the full report at http://www.thewaterreport.com/ Close

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

  	Only portions of issues of The Water Report are available in the Klamath Waters Digital Library. See the full report at http://www.thewaterreport.com/
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Water Report - Hydro relicensing OR/CA: fish passage Author: Envirotech Publications Year: 2006, 2008 Only portions of issues of The Water Report are available in the Klamath Waters Digital Library. See the full report at http://www.thewaterreport.com/ Title: The Water Report - Hydro relicensing OR/CA: fish passage Author: Envirotech Publications Year: 2006, 2008 Only portions of issues of The Water Report are available in the Klamath Waters Digital Library. See the full report at http://www.thewaterreport.com/ Close

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

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

• 98. [Image] Suggestions to homesteaders and persons desiring to make homestead entries

  	Cover title; At head of title: Department of the Interior, General Land Office
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Suggestions to homesteaders and persons desiring to make homestead entries Author: United States. General Land Office Year: 1926, 2008, 2005 Cover title; At head of title: Department of the Interior, General Land Office Title: Suggestions to homesteaders and persons desiring to make homestead entries Author: United States. General Land Office Year: 1926, 2008, 2005 Cover title; At head of title: Department of the Interior, General Land Office Close

• 99. [Image] Official annual, Medford District, Ninth Corps Area, Civilian Conservation Corps.

  	Annual; Description based on: 1938 issue; Cover title
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Official annual, Medford District, Ninth Corps Area, Civilian Conservation Corps. Author: Civilian Conservation Corps (U.S.). Medford District Year: 1938, 2008, 2006 Annual; Description based on: 1938 issue; Cover title Title: Official annual, Medford District, Ninth Corps Area, Civilian Conservation Corps. Author: Civilian Conservation Corps (U.S.). Medford District Year: 1938, 2008, 2006 Annual; Description based on: 1938 issue; Cover title Close

• 100. [Article] Hedonic Analysis of Housing Prices Near the Portland Urban Growth Boundary, 1978-1990

  The cornerstones of Oregon's 1973 Senate Bill 100 are the preservation of farm, forest, and other resource lands and the containment of urban development within urban growth boundaries (UCB). The UCB is ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Hedonic Analysis of Housing Prices Near the Portland Urban Growth Boundary, 1978-1990 Author: Alkadi, Abdullah Year: 1996 The cornerstones of Oregon's 1973 Senate Bill 100 are the preservation of farm, forest, and other resource lands and the containment of urban development within urban growth boundaries (UCB). The UCB is a boundary around each incorporated city containing enough land to meet projected needs until the year 2000. The Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), charged with adopting and implementing state planning policy, sought to keep UGBs small enough to contain urban sprawl. To avoid the potential effects of land price inflation, LCDC allowed UGBs to include more land supply than the forecasted demand. The Portland-Metropolitan region was allowed to have a 15.3-percent surplus. Policy makers are unsure what effect UGBs have on housing costs. The common belief is that by restricting the amount of land available for residential construction the market drives prices up. Contrasting opinions suggest that by substituting low-density with high-density development, per-unit construction costs are lower, thus reducing the costs of owning a home. Efforts to dispel some of the mystery about the relationship between UGBs and housing prices are needed. The objective of this research is to provide empirical evidence of the relationship between the Portland-Metropolitan area's UGB and housing prices. The study uses a hedonic model to conduct a time-series analysis for the years 1978 to 1990 for Washington County. This study found no relationship between housing price and the imposition of the UGB. In fact, the rate of increase in price for single-family housing after UGB implementation was found to be much less than before. Proximity as measured by distance of sale to the UGB was the only variable that was associated with a higher rate of increase in housing prices. All of these results, with the exception of those related to proximity, were unexpected but may be explained by several factors: imposition of the Metropolitan Housing Rule in 1981, a severe recession during the 1980s, and excess land supply. These influences do not support a conclusion that UGBs lead to an increase in housing prices, at least prior to 1990, when the UGB did not constrain the supply of land. Title: Hedonic Analysis of Housing Prices Near the Portland Urban Growth Boundary, 1978-1990 Author: Alkadi, Abdullah Year: 1996 The cornerstones of Oregon's 1973 Senate Bill 100 are the preservation of farm, forest, and other resource lands and the containment of urban development within urban growth boundaries (UCB). The UCB is a boundary around each incorporated city containing enough land to meet projected needs until the year 2000. The Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), charged with adopting and implementing state planning policy, sought to keep UGBs small enough to contain urban sprawl. To avoid the potential effects of land price inflation, LCDC allowed UGBs to include more land supply than the forecasted demand. The Portland-Metropolitan region was allowed to have a 15.3-percent surplus. Policy makers are unsure what effect UGBs have on housing costs. The common belief is that by restricting the amount of land available for residential construction the market drives prices up. Contrasting opinions suggest that by substituting low-density with high-density development, per-unit construction costs are lower, thus reducing the costs of owning a home. Efforts to dispel some of the mystery about the relationship between UGBs and housing prices are needed. The objective of this research is to provide empirical evidence of the relationship between the Portland-Metropolitan area's UGB and housing prices. The study uses a hedonic model to conduct a time-series analysis for the years 1978 to 1990 for Washington County. This study found no relationship between housing price and the imposition of the UGB. In fact, the rate of increase in price for single-family housing after UGB implementation was found to be much less than before. Proximity as measured by distance of sale to the UGB was the only variable that was associated with a higher rate of increase in housing prices. All of these results, with the exception of those related to proximity, were unexpected but may be explained by several factors: imposition of the Metropolitan Housing Rule in 1981, a severe recession during the 1980s, and excess land supply. These influences do not support a conclusion that UGBs lead to an increase in housing prices, at least prior to 1990, when the UGB did not constrain the supply of land. Close