DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation of the Biological and Hydraulic Performance of the Portable Floating Fish Collector at Cougar Reservoir and Dam, Oregon, 2014

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluation of the Biological and Hydraulic Performance of the Portable Floating Fish Collector at Cougar Reservoir and Dam, Oregon, 2014 Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Evaluation of the Biological and Hydraulic Performance of the Portable Floating Fish Collector at Cougar Reservoir and Dam, Oregon, 2014 Open-File Report 2016–1003 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Photographs of the portable floating fish collector (PFFC) at Cougar Reservoir and Dam, Oregon, 2014. Clockwise from the top left: Temperature control tower, platforms suspending hydrophones, and the bow of the PFFC. Stern of the PFFC relative to the temperature control tower. Close up of the bow of the PFFC in front of the temperature control tower. Entrance to the PFFC during assembly. Photographs by Todd Pierce, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Gabriel Hansen and Philip Haner of the U.S. Geological Survey. Evaluation of the Biological and Hydraulic Performance of the Portable Floating Fish Collector at Cougar Reservoir and Dam, Oregon, 2014 By John W. Beeman, Scott D. Evans, Philip V. Haner, Hal C. Hansel, Amy C. Hansen, Gabriel S. Hansen, Tyson W. Hatton, Jamie M. Sprando, Collin D. Smith, and Noah S. Adams Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Open-File Report 2016-1003 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2016 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov/ or call 1–888–ASK–USGS (1–888–275–8747). For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Suggested citation: Beeman, J.W., Evans, S.D., Haner, P.V., Hansel, H.C., Hansen, A.C., Hansen, G.S., Hatton, T.W., Sprando, J.M., Smith, C.D., and Adams, N.S., 2016, Evaluation of the biological and hydraulic performance of the portable floating fish collector at Cougar Reservoir and Dam, Oregon, 2014: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016-1003, 127 p., http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3133/ofr20161003. ISSN 2331-1258 (online) Acknowledgments This study was completed with assistance from many people and organizations. The staff at Oregon State University and cooperators on the Wild Fish Surrogate Study provided the hatchery-origin study fish, and the staff at Leaburg Hatchery provided space and facilities for us to hold them. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers staff at Cougar Dam and Todd Pierce and Andrew Janos of the Willamette Valley Project were instrumental in coordinating our activities to install equipment and monitor the tagged fish near the dams, as were David Griffith, Bob Wertheimer, and Mary Karen Scullion at the Portland District office. The Oregon Department of Transportation, City of Salem, Multnomah County, and Union Pacific Railroad provided access to the Willamette River bridges. Our administrative and science colleagues at the Columbia River Research Laboratory (particularly Theresa Liedtke, Kyle Martens, Matthew Sholtis, and Nick Swyers) contributed greatly to this study. The report was improved by reviews of Gary Johnson and Toby Kock through the U.S. Geological Survey peer review program and Todd Pierce and Stephanie Burchfield through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers peer review program. This study was funded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under contract W66QKZ33384747. iii This page left intentionally blank iv Contents Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................................... iii Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Methods ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Dam Operations and Environmental Conditions ..................................................................................................... 6 Operation and Hydraulic Indicators of PFFC Performance ..................................................................................... 6 Operating Conditions and Treatment Schedule ................................................................................................... 6 Water Velocities .................................................................................................................................................. 8 PIT Interrogator ................................................................................................................................................... 8 Fish Collection by the PFFC ................................................................................................................................ 8 Acoustic- and PIT-Tag Telemetry ............................................................................................................................ 9 Transmitters ........................................................................................................................................................ 9 Handling, Tagging, and Release ......................................................................................................................... 9 Acoustic Telemetry Detection Systems ............................................................................................................. 12 Removing False-Positive Records..................................................................................................................... 14 Estimating Fish Positions .................................................................................................................................. 15 Travel Times ...................................................................................................................................................... 15 Depths in the Cul-de-sac ................................................................................................................................... 15 Temperature Selection ...................................................................................................................................... 15 Spatial Intensity of Use ...................................................................................................................................... 16 Behaviors near the PFFC Entrance ................................................................................................................... 17 Collection in the PFFC and Dam Passage ........................................................................................................ 17 Acoustic Cameras ................................................................................................................................................. 18 Surveillance Systems ........................................................................................................................................ 18 Data Processing ................................................................................................................................................ 19 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................................................... 20 Direction of Fish Travel ...................................................................................................................................... 21 Track Characteristics ......................................................................................................................................... 21 Spatial Fish Distribution ..................................................................................................................................... 21 Entrance and Rejection at the PFFC ................................................................................................................. 22 PFFC Collection Metrics .................................................................................................................................... 22 Results ...................................................................................................................................................................... 23 PFFC Operation and Data Collection Periods ....................................................................................................... 23 Dam Operations and Environmental Conditions ................................................................................................... 23 Operation and Hydraulic Indicators of PFFC Performance ................................................................................... 26 Operating Conditions and Treatment Schedule ................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • RISK ASSESSMENT of COUGAR DAM, MCKENZIE RIVER, OREGON Kevin S
    RISK ASSESSMENT OF COUGAR DAM, MCKENZIE RIVER, OREGON Kevin S. Richards, PhD Senior Advisor USACE Institute for Water Resources/Risk Management Center/East Division Date: 19 September 2019 “The views, opinions and findings contained in this report are those of the authors(s) and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy or decision, unless so designated by other official documentation.” 2 PRESENTATION OUTLINE 3 PRESENTATION OUTLINE – Project Background – Risk Assessment – Path Forward and Risk Reduction Measures 4 PROJECT BACKGROUND 5 PROJECT BACKGROUND Located in the Willamette River Basin, NW Oregon South Fork of the McKenzie River, 42 Miles East of Eugene/Springfield Conservation Pool 189,000 acre-feet (summer) and 51,000 acre-feet (winter) Purposes: Flood Risk Management, Hydropower, Water Quality, Water Supply Constructed in 1963 6 PROJECT BACKGROUND 7 PROJECT BACKGROUND - STRUCTURES Rockfill Embankment Dam Elevation Top of Dam, feet (NGVD29) 1,705 + Overbuild Length, feet 1,600 Maximum Height, feet 519 Outlet Works (Tunnel) Type 13.5-ft tunnel Size of Gates (Vertical Slide x2), feet 6.5 x 12.5 Design Discharge at Max Pool, cfs 12,050 Spillway (Gated Chute) Size of Gates (Tainter x2), feet 40 x 43.3 Design Discharge, ft3/s 76,140 Gross Crest Length, feet 89 Crest Elevation, feet (NGVD29) 1,656.75 Power Plant Penstock (x1) Diameter, feet 10.5 Number of Generating Units 2 Rated Capacity, MW 25 Reservoir Minimum Power Pool, feet (NGVD29) 1,516 Minimum Flood Control Pool, feet (NGVD29) 1,532 Maximum Conservation Pool, feet (NGVD29) 1,690 Maximum Pool, feet (NGVD29) 1,699 Operations Operated remotely from Lookout Point Dam approx.
    [Show full text]
  • Mckenzie River Sub-Basin Action Plan 2016-2026
    McKenzie River Sub-basin Strategic Action Plan for Aquatic and Riparian Conservation and Restoration, 2016-2026 MCKENZIE WATERSHED COUNCIL AND PARTNERS June 2016 Photos by Freshwaters Illustrated MCKENZIE RIVER SUB-BASIN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN June 2016 MCKENZIE RIVER SUB-BASIN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN June 2016 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The McKenzie Watershed Council thanks the many individuals and organizations who helped prepare this action plan. Partner organizations that contributed include U.S. Forest Service, Eugene Water & Electric Board, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, McKenzie River Trust, Upper Willamette Soil & Water Conservation District, Lane Council of Governments and Weyerhaeuser Company. Plan Development Team Johan Hogervorst, Willamette National Forest, U.S. Forest Service Kate Meyer, McKenzie River Ranger District, U.S. Forest Service Karl Morgenstern, Eugene Water & Electric Board Larry Six, McKenzie Watershed Council Nancy Toth, Eugene Water & Electric Board Jared Weybright, McKenzie Watershed Council Technical Advisory Group Brett Blundon, Bureau of Land Management – Eugene District Dave Downing, Upper Willamette Soil & Water Conservation District Bonnie Hammons, McKenzie River Ranger District, U.S. Forest Service Chad Helms, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jodi Lemmer, McKenzie River Trust Joe Moll, McKenzie River Trust Maryanne Reiter, Weyerhaeuser Company Kelly Reis, Springfield Office, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife David Richey, Lane Council of Governments Kirk Shimeall, Cascade Pacific Resource Conservation and Development Andy Talabere, Eugene Water & Electric Board Greg Taylor, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jeff Ziller, Springfield Office, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife MCKENZIE RIVER SUB-BASIN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN June 2016 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Influence of Cougar Reservoir Drawdown on Sediment and DDT Transport and Deposition in the Mckenzie River Basin, Oregon, Water Years 2002–04
    Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Influence of Cougar Reservoir Drawdown on Sediment and DDT Transport and Deposition in the McKenzie River Basin, Oregon, Water Years 2002–04 Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5164 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Front Cover: Cougar Reservoir near Terwilliger Hot Springs, Oregon. (Photograph taken by Chauncey Anderson, U.S. Geological Survey.) Back Cover: Cougar Reservoir withdrawal tower upon completion of construction in 2005. (Photograph from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.) Influence of Cougar Reservoir Drawdown on Sediment and DDT Transport and Deposition in the McKenzie River Basin, Oregon, Water Years 2002–04 By Chauncey W. Anderson Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5164 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2007 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS--the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Analyzing Dam Feasibility in the Willamette River Watershed
    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses Spring 6-8-2017 Analyzing Dam Feasibility in the Willamette River Watershed Alexander Cameron Nagel Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the Geography Commons, Hydrology Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Nagel, Alexander Cameron, "Analyzing Dam Feasibility in the Willamette River Watershed" (2017). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 4012. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.5896 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Analyzing Dam Feasibility in the Willamette River Watershed by Alexander Cameron Nagel A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geography Thesis Committee: Heejun Chang, Chair Geoffrey Duh Paul Loikith Portland State University 2017 i Abstract This study conducts a dam-scale cost versus benefit analysis in order to explore the feasibility of each the 13 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) commissioned dams in Oregon’s Willamette River network. Constructed between 1941 and 1969, these structures function in collaboration to comprise the Willamette River Basin Reservoir System (WRBRS). The motivation for this project derives from a growing awareness of the biophysical impacts that dam structures can have on riparian habitats. This project compares each of the 13 dams being assessed, to prioritize their level of utility within the system.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Screening Exemption Proposal
    BakerCounty MasonDamHydroelectricProject _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ FishScreeningExemptionProposal October2013 Introduction: Baker County is seeking an exemption from screening for the existing Mason Dam in the following proposal. On April 30, 2013 Baker County filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a new hydroelectric license at the existing Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) Mason Dam. Because of the addition of the hydroelectric project this triggers Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 498.301 through 351 screening criteria. The following proposal provides background describing the project, a summary of the project impacts from the Entrainment and Mortality report, Baker County’s proposed mitigation and an explanation of how those measures will provide resource protection. Background: Existing Project Mason Dam is located in Baker County, Oregon approximately 11 miles southwest of Baker City on State Highway 7(Figure1). Mason Dam was built by the BOR on the Powder River for irrigation, water delivery and flood control. Mason Dam was constructed from 1965 – 1968 and has a total height of 173 feet and a maximum hydraulic height of 157 feet. Phillips Reservoir is a 2,234 acre-reservoir that was formed by the construction of Mason Dam. The reservoir has a total storage capacity of 95,500 acre-feet and an active storage capacity of 90,500 acre-feet. Existing Operation Water is generally stored between October through March with some releases above the minimum flow starting to occur in late March through April. Irrigation season starts in May and runs through September. Releases average approximately 10 cubic feet per second (cfs) between October and January, increase to an average of 20 to 50 cfs during February and March, gradually increasing to 100 cfs during April to early-May.
    [Show full text]
  • Bull Trout (Salvelinus Confluentus) Population and Habitat Surveys in the Middle Fork Willamette and Mckenzie River Systems
    Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Population and Habitat Surveys in the Middle Fork Willamette and McKenzie River Systems Andrea Hope and Coulter Rose Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 3150 Main St. Springfield, OR 97478 November 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................... 1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA........................................................................................................... 2 McKenzie River Sub-Basin....................................................................................................................... 3 Middle Fork Willamette River Sub-Basin .................................................................................................. 4 METHODS .................................................................................................................................................... 4 Distribution Surveys and Population Estimates........................................................................................ 4 Juveniles............................................................................................................................................... 4 Adults...................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan (Hgmp)
    HATCHERY AND GENETIC MANAGEMENT PLAN (HGMP) Hatchery Program: McKenzie Hatchery Spring Chinook Salmon Species or Hatchery Stock: Spring Chinook Salmon (stock 23) Agency/Operator: US Army Corps of Engineers / Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Watershed and Region: McKenzie River, Willamette River, Columbia River Date Submitted: February 2016 Revised Draft Submitted: May 04, 2018 Date Last Updated: May 1, 2018 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan (HGMP) describes the current management of the McKenzie Hatchery Spring Chinook Program. This HGMP is required to initiate formal Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to allow for artificial propagation of threatened natural-origin fish from the Upper Willamette River (UWR) Spring Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU). There is a two-part purpose of the McKenzie Hatchery spring Chinook program: to provide ESA conservation benefits, consistent with survival and recovery of the ESU, and, to mitigate for habitat lost or made inaccessible by the construction and operation of Blue River and Cougar Dams, which will provide adult returns to help meet harvest objectives for the McKenzie River, lower basin, and ocean fisheries. Because the McKenzie Hatchery Spring Chinook Program provides important conservation and reintroduction benefits to the natural population, the broodstock will be managed as an integrated stock with the natural population in the McKenzie River. Natural-origin spring Chinook salmon will be regularly incorporated into the hatchery broodstock when conditions permit. Natural-origin spring Chinook integration will be performed at levels that minimize the impact to the natural population. Hatchery spring Chinook spawning naturally in the McKenzie River Basin will be managed at less than 10% proportion of hatchery origin spawners (pHOS) in the entire McKenzie subbasin excluding the intentional reintroduction area upstream Cougar Dam.
    [Show full text]
  • A Genetics-Based Evaluation of the Spring Chinook Salmon Reintroduction Program Above Cougar Dam, South Fork Mckenzie River, 2007- 2013
    A genetics-based evaluation of the spring Chinook salmon reintroduction program above Cougar Dam, South Fork McKenzie River, 2007- 2013 Prepared by: Michael A. Banks1, Nicholas M. Sard1, Kathleen G. O’Malley1, Dave P. Jacobson1, Michael Hogansen2, Kirk Schroeder 2 and Marc A. Johnson1,2 1Oregon State University, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Coastal Oregon Marine Experiment Station, Hatfield Marine Science Center, 2030 SE Marine Science Drive, Newport, Oregon 97365 2Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Upper Willamette Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation, Corvallis Research Laboratory, 28655 Highway 34, Corvallis, Oregon 97333 June 2014 Report Prepared for: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District – Willamette Valley Project 333 SW First Ave., Portland, Oregon 97204 1 List of Acronyms • AIC – Akaike information criterion • CI – Confidence interval • CRR – Cohort replacement rate • LSDR – Late season downstream release • ESA – Endangered Species Act • FDR – False discovery rate • GLM – Generalized linear model • GLMM – Generalized linear mixed-effects model • HCR – Head of Cougar Reservoir • HOR – Hatchery origin • HWE – Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium • LE – Linkage equilibrium • LOD – Likelihood-odds ratio • Ne – Effective population size • NOR – Natural origin • ODFW – Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife • PCR – Polymerase chain reaction • POPs – Parent-offspring pairs • RET – Reservoir entrance timing • RO – Regulating outlet • RRS – Relative reproductive success • RS – Reproductive success • TLF – Total lifetime
    [Show full text]
  • Mckenzie Subbasin Fish Operations Plan 2018 Chapter 4 –Mckenzie
    McKenzie Subbasin Fish Operations Plan 2018 Chapter 4 –McKenzie Subbasin Table of Contents 1. MCKENZIE SUB-BASIN OVERVIEW .................................................................................................. 1 2. FACILITIES ........................................................................................................................................ 5 2.1. Cougar Dam ..................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2. Blue River Dam ............................................................................................................................... 7 2.3. Cougar Fish Facility ......................................................................................................................... 7 3. DAM OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 7 3.1. Flow Management ........................................................................................................................... 7 3.2. Downstream Fish Passage ................................................................................................................ 9 3.3. Water Quality Management ........................................................................................................... 10 3.4. Spill Management .......................................................................................................................... 11 4. DAM
    [Show full text]
  • Spring Chinook Salmon Movement and Distribution in the South Fork Mckenzie River Above and Below Cougar Dam
    SPRING CHINOOK SALMON MOVEMENT AND DISTRIBUTION IN THE SOUTH FORK MCKENZIE RIVER ABOVE AND BELOW COUGAR DAM Jeremy D. Romer* Fred R. Monzyk Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Corvallis Research Lab [email protected] SOUTH FORK MCKENZIE RIVER, UPSTREAM OF COUGAR RESERVOIR Chinook - 2012 Subyearling Migration Timing Trap Installed Trap Removed Chinook - 2012 Emergence Timing and Size Precocious Males Chinook - 2012 Upper South Fk. McKenzie Abundance Estimates South Fork McKenzie River Above Cougar Reservoir Reservoir Sampling - 2012 Juvenile CHS Distribution in Cougar Reservoir Oneida Trap Nearshore Trap Lead Net 5 m x 0.9 m Lead Net 34 m x 3 m Box Dimensions 0.6 m x 0.6 m x 0.9 m Box Dimensions 2.4 m x 2.4 m x 2.4 m Reservoir Sampling - 2012 Longitudinal Distribution Lower Middle Upper Reservoir Chinook Distribution - 2012 Juvenile Distribution in Cougar Reservoir Number of Chinook Captured of Chinook Number Distance From Head of the Reservoir (m) Reservoir Chinook Distribution - 2012 Juvenile Distribution in Cougar Reservoir Cumulative Proportion Cumulative Head of Reservoir Dam Percent Shoreline Distance to the Dam Reservoir Chinook Distribution - 2012 Juvenile Distribution in Cougar Reservoir Largest fish in middle and lower sections. Equal size distribution throughout. Fork Length (mm) Length Fork Largest fish in middle and lower sections. Larger fish move offshore. Reservoir Section SCREW TRAPPING OPERATIONS BELOW COUGAR DAM Regulating Outlet Cougar Dam Tailrace Chinook Below Cougar Dam – 2012 Timing of Juvenile CHS captured Safety Mods Chinook Below Cougar Dam - 2012 Size and Brood Year (subyearling, yearling) 511 Safety Mods Cougar Dam Operations - 2012 Photo: USACE Cougar Dam Operations - 2012 December - Constant Flow, Majority RO Cougar Dam Operations - 2012 November - Day vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Native Fish Status Report – Volume II Willamette Bull Trout
    Oregon Native Fish Status Report – Volume II Willamette Bull Trout Existing Populations The Willamette Bull Trout SMU includes four existing populations and three classified as extinct (Table 1). Populations were identified according to those defined in the USFWS Willamette River Chapter of the Bull Trout Draft Recovery Plan (2004), Ratliff and Howell (1992), and review by ODFW biologists. Table 1. Populations, existence status, and life history for the Willamette Bull Trout SMU. Exist Population Description Life History No Clackamas Clackamas River and tributaries. No North Santiam North Santiam River and tributaries. No South Santiam South Santiam River and tributaries. Yes Trail Bridge McKenzie River above Trail Bridge Dam. Resident / Migratory Yes McKenzie Mouth to Trail Bridge Dam. Resident / Migratory Yes SF McKenzie South Fork McKenzie River above Cougar Dam. Migratory Yes MF Willamette Middle Fork Willamette River above Hills Creek Unknown Dam. The population in the Middle Fork Willamette River was classified as ‘probably extinct’ by Buchanan et al. (1997). In an effort to rehabilitate bull trout in the Middle Fork Willamette Basin, ODFW and USFS released more than 10,000 bull trout fry from the McKenzie River population (Anderson Creek) into cold water springs and tributaries above Hills Creek Dam from 1997 to 2004 (ODFW and USFW 1998, Taylor and Reasoner 2000, Seals and Reis 2003, ODFW unpublished data). ODFW and USFS biologists observed sub-adults and adult bull trout in 2003 and 2004 and there have been several confirmed sightings of bull trout reported by anglers (USFWS 2004). This review treats bull trout in the Middle Fork Willamette as an existing population.
    [Show full text]
  • Insights on the Hydrologic Impacts of Large Dams in Oregon.Pdf
    Dams in Oregon: impacts, opportunities and future directions Rose Wallick Chauncey Anderson, Stewart Rounds, Mackenzie Keith, Krista Jones USGS Oregon Water Science Center U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Dams in Oregon Dam Height More than 1,100 dams in state dam inventory 48 dams more than 100ft tall 10 dams more than 300 ft tall Cougar Dam is tallest – 519 ft Overview Purpose and environmental impacts of dams Strategies to address impacts . Removal, infrastructure modifications, operations Science insights from USGS studies Future directions U.S. has more than 87,000 documented dams Source: National Inventory of Dams, ttp://nid.usace.army.mil/ Detroit Dam, completed 1953, 463 ft Dams built perdecade Damsbuilt After Doyle et al. (2003) Cougar Dam, completed 1963, 519 ft Photographs courtesy USACE Purpose of dams Dams provide: . Hydropower . Flood control . Water storage . Navigation Middle Fork Willamette, USGS photo . Recreation . Other benefits Detroit Lake, Photo courtesy: https://www.detroitlakeoregon.org/ Environmental impacts of dams . Alter river flows, water temperature, water quality, trap sediment, carbon, nutrients in reservoirs . Block fish passage . Change ecosystems above and below dams . Support conditions that can lead to harmful algae blooms Cougar Reservoir, South Fork McKenzie, USGS photo Middle Fork Willamette River below Dexter Dam, USGS photo Motivating factors for removing, upgrading or re-operating dams Examples include: • Dams age, expensive to maintain safely • Facilities may not work as
    [Show full text]