DOCSLIB.ORG

Malheur River Subbasin Assessment and Management Plan for Fish and Wildlife Mitigation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Malheur River Subbasin Assessment and Management Plan for Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Malheur River Subbasin Assessment and Management Plan For Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Appendix A, Part 2 – Aquatic Assessment Malheur Watershed Council And Burns Paiute Tribe May, 2004 Prepared with assistance of: Watershed Professionals Network, LLC Malheur River Subbasin Assessment and Management Plan For Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Appendix A, Part 2 –Assessment Aquatic 1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 7 2 FOCAL SPECIES CHARACTERIZATION AND STATUS ...................................... 8 2.1 NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE FISH AND WILDLIFE SPECIES OF ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE .......................8 2.1.1 Pacific lamprey ........................................................................................................................8 2.1.2 Mountain whitefish...................................................................................................................8 2.1.3 Other fish species....................................................................................................................8 2.2 BULL TROUT (SALVELINUS CONFLUENTUS): CURRENT POPULATION DATA AND STATUS...................10 2.2.1 Bull Trout: Abundance...........................................................................................................11 2.2.2 Bull Trout: Capacity ...............................................................................................................13 2.2.3 Bull Trout: Productivity ..........................................................................................................14 2.2.4 Bull Trout: Life History Diversity ............................................................................................14 2.2.5 Bull Trout: Carrying Capacity ................................................................................................15 2.2.6 Bull Trout: Population Trend and Risk Assessment..............................................................17 2.2.7 Bull Trout: Unique Population Units ......................................................................................18 2.2.8 Bull Trout: Life History Characteristics of Unique Populations..............................................18 2.2.9 Bull Trout: Genetic Integrity of Unique Populations ..............................................................20 2.2.10 Bull Trout: Estimate of Historic Status ..............................................................................21 2.3 BULL TROUT DISTRIBUTION ..........................................................................................................22 2.3.1 Bull Trout: Current Distribution/Spatial Diversity...................................................................22 2.3.2 Bull Trout: Historic Distribution..............................................................................................24 2.3.3 Bull Trout: Identification of Differences in Distribution Due to Human Disturbance..............24 2.4 REDBAND TROUT (ONCORHYNCHUS MYKISS): CURRENT POPULATION DATA AND STATUS ...............25 2.4.1 Redband Trout: Abundance ..................................................................................................25 2.4.2 Redband Trout: Capacity ......................................................................................................27 2.4.3 Redband Trout: Productivity..................................................................................................28 2.4.4 Redband Trout: Life History Diversity ...................................................................................28 2.4.5 Carrying Capacity..................................................................................................................29 2.4.6 Redband Trout: Population Trend and Risk Assessment .....................................................31 2.4.7 Redband Trout: Unique Population Units..............................................................................31 2.4.8 Redband Trout: Life History Characteristics of Unique Populations.....................................31 2.4.9 Redband Trout: Genetic Integrity of Unique Populations......................................................32 2.4.10 Redband Trout: Estimate of Historic Status......................................................................32 2.5 REDBAND TROUT DISTRIBUTION ...................................................................................................34 2.5.1 Redband Trout: Current Distribution/spatial Diversity...........................................................34 2.5.2 Redband Trout: Historic Distribution .....................................................................................35 2.5.3 Redband Trout: Identification of Differences in Distribution Due to Human Disturbance .....35 2.6 CHINOOK SALMON (ONCORHYNCHUS TSHAWYTSCHA): CURRENT POPULATION DATA AND STATUS ..37 2.6.1 Chinook Salmon: Abundance................................................................................................37 2.6.2 Chinook Salmon: Capacity ....................................................................................................37 2.6.3 Chinook Salmon: Productivity ...............................................................................................37 2.6.4 Chinook Salmon: Life History Diversity .................................................................................38 2.6.5 Chinook Salmon: Carrying Capacity .....................................................................................38 Malheur River Subbasin i Management Plan May, 2004 2.6.6 Chinook Salmon: Population Trend and Risk Assessment...................................................39 2.6.7 Chinook Salmon: Unique Population Units ...........................................................................40 2.6.8 Chinook Salmon: Life History Characteristics of Unique Populations...................................40 2.6.9 Chinook Salmon: Genetic Integrity of Unique Populations ...................................................40 2.6.10 Chinook Salmon: Estimate of Historic Status ..................................................................41 2.7 CHINOOK SALMON DISTRIBUTION..................................................................................................42 2.7.1 Chinook Salmon: Current Distribution/spatial Diversity.........................................................42 2.7.2 Chinook Salmon: Historic Distribution...................................................................................42 2.7.3 Chinook Salmon: Identification of Differences in Distribution Due to Human Disturbance...43 2.8 DESCRIPTION OF AQUATIC INTRODUCTIONS, ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION AND CAPTIVE BREEDING PROGRAMS ...............................................................................................................................................44 2.8.1 Aquatic Introductions: Current Situation................................................................................44 2.8.2 Aquatic Introductions: Historic Situation................................................................................45 2.8.3 Aquatic Introductions: Affect of Straying/Ecologic Consequences .......................................45 2.8.4 Artificial Production: Current..................................................................................................46 2.8.5 Artificial Production: Historic..................................................................................................46 2.8.6 Artificial Production: Affect of Straying/ecologic Consequences...........................................46 2.8.7 Relationship Between Naturally and Artificially-Produced Populations ................................47 2.9 HARVEST IN THE SUBBASIN...........................................................................................................48 3 AQUATIC ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................... 50 3.1 OVERVIEW OF QHA METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................51 3.1.1 Subbasin Effects Not Addressed by QHA.............................................................................53 3.2 REACH SELECTION AND FOCAL SPECIES RANGE ...........................................................................54 3.3 CURRENT AND HISTORIC HABITAT CONDITIONS .............................................................................55 3.4 AQUATIC SPECIES HYPOTHESIS....................................................................................................58 3.5 REFERENCE AND CURRENT CONDITIONS, AND LIMITING FACTORS, AT THE WATERSHED SCALE .......61 3.5.1 Main Malheur Watershed1 ....................................................................................................61 3.5.2 Upper Malheur Watershed ....................................................................................................71 3.5.3 Willow Creek Watershed .......................................................................................................79 3.5.4 Bully Creek Watershed..........................................................................................................84 3.5.5 North Fork Malheur Watershed.............................................................................................91 3.5.6 South Fork Malheur Watershed ............................................................................................97 3.6 SUMMARY
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Oregon Historic Trails Report Book (1998)
    i ,' o () (\ ô OnBcox HrsroRrc Tnans Rpponr ô o o o. o o o o (--) -,J arJ-- ö o {" , ã. |¡ t I o t o I I r- L L L L L (- Presented by the Oregon Trails Coordinating Council L , May,I998 U (- Compiled by Karen Bassett, Jim Renner, and Joyce White. Copyright @ 1998 Oregon Trails Coordinating Council Salem, Oregon All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America. Oregon Historic Trails Report Table of Contents Executive summary 1 Project history 3 Introduction to Oregon's Historic Trails 7 Oregon's National Historic Trails 11 Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail I3 Oregon National Historic Trail. 27 Applegate National Historic Trail .41 Nez Perce National Historic Trail .63 Oregon's Historic Trails 75 Klamath Trail, 19th Century 17 Jedediah Smith Route, 1828 81 Nathaniel Wyeth Route, t83211834 99 Benjamin Bonneville Route, 1 833/1 834 .. 115 Ewing Young Route, 1834/1837 .. t29 V/hitman Mission Route, 184l-1847 . .. t4t Upper Columbia River Route, 1841-1851 .. 167 John Fremont Route, 1843 .. 183 Meek Cutoff, 1845 .. 199 Cutoff to the Barlow Road, 1848-1884 217 Free Emigrant Road, 1853 225 Santiam Wagon Road, 1865-1939 233 General recommendations . 241 Product development guidelines 243 Acknowledgements 241 Lewis & Clark OREGON National Historic Trail, 1804-1806 I I t . .....¡.. ,r la RivaÌ ï L (t ¡ ...--."f Pðiräldton r,i " 'f Route description I (_-- tt |".
    [Show full text]
  • Timing of In-Water Work to Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources
    OREGON GUIDELINES FOR TIMING OF IN-WATER WORK TO PROTECT FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES June, 2008 Purpose of Guidelines - The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, (ODFW), “The guidelines are to assist under its authority to manage Oregon’s fish and wildlife resources has updated the following guidelines for timing of in-water work. The guidelines are to assist the the public in minimizing public in minimizing potential impacts to important fish, wildlife and habitat potential impacts...”. resources. Developing the Guidelines - The guidelines are based on ODFW district fish “The guidelines are based biologists’ recommendations. Primary considerations were given to important fish species including anadromous and other game fish and threatened, endangered, or on ODFW district fish sensitive species (coded list of species included in the guidelines). Time periods were biologists’ established to avoid the vulnerable life stages of these fish including migration, recommendations”. spawning and rearing. The preferred work period applies to the listed streams, unlisted upstream tributaries, and associated reservoirs and lakes. Using the Guidelines - These guidelines provide the public a way of planning in-water “These guidelines provide work during periods of time that would have the least impact on important fish, wildlife, and habitat resources. ODFW will use the guidelines as a basis for the public a way of planning commenting on planning and regulatory processes. There are some circumstances where in-water work during it may be appropriate to perform in-water work outside of the preferred work period periods of time that would indicated in the guidelines. ODFW, on a project by project basis, may consider variations in climate, location, and category of work that would allow more specific have the least impact on in-water work timing recommendations.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Water-Resources Activities of the U.S. Geological Survey in Oregon: Fiscal Year 1993 Compiled by Douglas B
    Summary of Water-Resources Activities of the U.S. Geological Survey in Oregon: Fiscal Year 1993 Compiled by Douglas B. Lee, Thelma D. Parks, and Steven W. Winkler U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 93-493 Portland, Oregon 1993 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ROBERT M. HIRSCH, Acting Director The use of brand or product names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. Copies of this report can For additional information be purchased from: write to: U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Earth Science Information Center U.S. Geological Survey, WRD Open-File Reports Section 10615 S.E. Cherry Blossom Drive Box25286, MS 517 Portland, Oregon 97216 Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 CONTENTS Page Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1 Mission of the U.S. Geological Survey.......................................................................................... 2 Mission of the Water Resources Division..................................................................................... 2 Cooperating agencies...................................................................................................................... 4 Collection of water-resources data................................................................................................ 4 Surface-water data...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Malheur Plan
    Malheur River Subbasin Assessment and Management Plan For Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Appendix B: Program Inventory Malheur Watershed Council And Burns Paiute Tribe May, 2004 Prepared with assistance of: Watershed Professionals Network, LLC Malheur River Subbasin Assessment and Management Plan For Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Appendix B: Program Inventory 1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 1 2 INVENTORY OF EXISTING ACTIVITIES................................................................ 2 2.1 EXISTING LEGAL PROTECTION ........................................................................................................2 2.2 EXISTING PLANS ............................................................................................................................5 2.3 EXISTING MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.............................................................................................12 2.4 EXISTING RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION PROJECTS...............................................................19 2.5 GAP ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PROTECTIONS, PLANS, PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS.......................29 3 REFERENCES....................................................................................................... 33 4 APPENDIX B-1...................................................................................................... 34 List of Tables Table 1. Malheur River water quality targets and load allocations. .............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Reducing Water Pollution in the Malheur River Basin and the Middle Snake-Payette Subbasin
    Fact Sheet Reducing Water Pollution in the Malheur River Basin and Middle Snake-Payette Subbasin Background Water quality problems identified The Malheur River is located in southeast Section 303d of the federal Clean Water act Oregon. It is a tributary of the Snake River, requires each state to develop a list of water which forms the border between Oregon and bodies that do not meet water quality standards, Idaho. This fact sheet summarizes DEQ’s efforts and submit this list to the U.S. Environmental Eastern Region to reduce pollution in the Malheur River and its Protection Agency. The list is updated every 700 SE Emigrant, tributaries, as well as nearby small streams two years. A number of streams in the Malheur Suite 330 which drain directly into the Snake River. River Basin and Middle Snake-Payette Subbasin Pendleton, OR 97801 are listed as “water quality limited” for bacteria, Phone: (541) 276-4063 Fax: (541) 278-0168 The Malheur River Basin is approximately 4,700 chlorophyll-a, toxics (the pesticides DDT and Contact: John Dadoly square miles in size. Most of the Malheur River Dieldrin), dissolved oxygen, and temperature. www.deq.state.or.us Basin is located in northern Malheur County, The 303(d) listings for bacteria, chlorophyll, and with the northern and western portions located in toxics are found in the Lower Malheur and its Baker, Grant, and Harney Counties. Elevations major tributaries, Bully Creek and Willow range from approximately 8,600 feet on the Creek. Bacteria 303(d) listings also occur in southern flank of Strawberry Mountain in the Jacobson and Shepherd Gulches in the Middle northwest portion of the basin, to approximately Snake-Payette Subbasin.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia River Basin Climate Impact Assessment Final Report
    RECLAMATION Managing Water in the West West-Wide Climate Risk Assessment Columbia River Basin Climate Impact Assessment Final Report \ / --~-- U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Regional Office March 2016 Mission Statements The U.S. Department of the Interior protects America’s natural resources and heritage, honors our cultures and tribal communities, and supplies the energy to power our future. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Photographs on front cover: The shrub-steppe around Grand Coulee Dam, parched desert soil, a crop field with rain clouds, and snow covered mountain peaks. These images represent the varied ecosystems in the Columbia River Basin. West-Wide Climate Risk Assessment Columbia River Basin Climate Impact Assessment Final Report Prepared for United States Congress Prepared by U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Policy and Administration Denver, Colorado March 2016 Notes Regarding this West-Wide Climate Risk Assessment – Impact Assessment The Columbia River Basin Impact Assessment is a reconnaissance-level assessment of the potential hydrologic impacts of climate change in the Columbia River Basin. For this study, it was necessary to isolate the impacts of climate change from other changes that may occur within the basin. Therefore, Reclamation has assumed that current water operations by all water management entities in the Columbia River Basin would continue unchanged in the future. This assessment does not consider any operational changes that may or may not be made by basin stakeholders in the future and does not reflect the position of any entity regarding future operational changes.
    [Show full text]
  • Plugs Or Flood-Makers? the Unstable Landslide
    Geomorphology 248 (2015) 237–251 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Geomorphology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geomorph Plugs or flood-makers? The unstable landslide dams of eastern Oregon E.B. Safran a,⁎, J.E. O'Connor b,L.L.Elyc, P.K. House d,G.Grante,K.Harrityf,1,K.Croallf,1,E.Jonesf,1 a Environmental Studies Program, Lewis & Clark College, MSC 55, 0615 SW Palatine Hill Road, Portland, OR 97219, USA b U.S. Geological Survey, Geology, Minerals, Energy, and Geophysics Science Center, 2130 SW 5th Avenue, Portland, OR 97201, USA c Department of Geological Sciences, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA 98926, USA d U.S. Geological Survey, Geology, Minerals, Energy, and Geophysics Science Center, 2255 N. Gemini Drive, Flagstaff, AZ 86001, USA e U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA f Lewis & Clark College, 0615 SW Palatine Hill Road, Portland, OR 97219, USA article info abstract Article history: Landslides into valley bottoms can affect longitudinal profiles of rivers, thereby influencing landscape evolution Received 25 November 2014 through base-level changes. Large landslides can hinder river incision by temporarily damming rivers, but cata- Received in revised form 26 June 2015 strophic failure of landslide dams may generate large floods that could promote incision. Dam stability therefore Accepted 26 June 2015 strongly modulates the effects of landslide dams and might be expected to vary among geologic settings. Here, Available online 8 July 2015 we investigate the morphometry, stability, and effects on adjacent channel profiles of 17 former and current landslide dams in eastern Oregon.
    [Show full text]
  • Malheur River Basin TMDL and WQMP
    Water Quality Report Malheur River Basin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) September 2010 Last Updated: 09/2010 DEQ 10-WQ-023 This report prepared by: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 811 SW 6th Avenue Portland, OR 97204 1-800-452-4011 www.oregon.gov/deq Primary Authors: John Dadoly and Ryan Michie For more information contact: John Dadoly, Basin Coordinator 700 SE Emigrant Avenue, Suite 330 Pendleton, OR 97801 (541) 278-4616 [email protected] Cheryll Hutchens-Woods, Water Quality Manager Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 700 SE Emigrant Avenue, Suite 330 Pendleton, OR 97801 (541) 278-4619 [email protected] Eugene Foster, Manager of Watershed Management Section Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 811 SW 6th Avenue Portland, OR 97204 (503) 229-5325 [email protected] Malheur River Basin TMDL September 2010 Table of Contents Executive Summary Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 2 Scope of TMDL Chapter 3 Basin Assessment Chapter 4 Pollutant Sources Chapter 5 Summary of Current and Past Pollution Control Efforts Chapter 6 Dissolved Oxygen, Chlorophyll a, pH, and Phosphorus Chapter 7 Bacteria Chapter 8 Pesticides Chapter 9 Temperature Water Quality Management Plan Appendix A Bacteria TMDL Technical Information Appendix B Temperature TMDL Technical Data Appendix C Baseline Beneficial Use Status of the Malheur River Basin Appendix D Quality Assurance Project Plan/Sample & Analysis Plan: Malheur River Basin TMDL Nutrient Water Quality Study
    [Show full text]
  • Or Wilderness Protection in the Blue Mountain Ecoregion Have Been Identified by the Nature Conservancy As Vital to Protect Biodiversity in the Area
    172 OREGON WILD Neither Cascades nor Rockies, but With Attributes of Both Blue Mountains Ecoregion xtending from Oregon’s East Cascades Slopes and Foothills to the from 30 to 130 days depending on elevation. The forests are home to Rocky Mountain intersection of Oregon, Idaho and Washington, the 15.3 million acres elk, mule deer, black bear, cougar, bobcat, coyote, beaver, marten, raccoon, fisher, of the Blue Mountains Ecoregion in Oregon are a conglomeration of pileated woodpecker, golden eagle, chickadee and nuthatch, as well as various species Emountain ranges, broad plateaus, sparse valleys, spectacular river canyons of hawks, woodpeckers, owls and songbirds. Wolves, long absent from Oregon, are and deep gorges. The highest point is the Matterhorn that rises to 9,832 making their return to the state in this ecoregion. Individuals from packs reintroduced feet in the Wallowa Mountains. The ecoregion extends into southeastern Washington in nearby Idaho are dispersing into Oregon. Fish species include bull and rainbow and west central Idaho. trout, along with numerous stocks of Pacific salmon species. Most of the mountain ranges in the Blue Mountains Ecoregion are volcanic. The Depending on precipitation, aspect, soil type, elevation, fire history and other Crooked River separates the Maury Mountains from the Ochoco Mountains, which are factors, one generally finds various combinations of Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, lodge- separated from the Aldrich Mountains by the South Fork John Day River. The Aldrich pole, western larch, juniper and Engelmann spruce throughout the Blue Mountains. Mountains are separated from the Strawberry Mountain Range by Canyon Creek. Beginning approximately at the Lower Deschutes River and rising eastward, the These ranges generally run east-west.
    [Show full text]
  • Bull Trout Biological Assessment May 2017
    Bull Trout Biological Assessment United States Department of May 2017 Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Bluebucket, Dollar Basin, and Northwest Region Star Glade Allotments Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest Grant, and Harney Counties, Oregon Page 1 of 165 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD- 3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation in the Blue Mountains Region
    1 Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation in the Blue Mountains Region Editors Jessica E. Halofsky is a research ecologist, University of Washington, College of the Environment, School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, Box 352100, Seattle, WA 98195- 2100; David. L. Peterson is a senior research biological scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 400 N. 34th St., Suite 201, Seattle, WA 98103. 2 Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation in the Blue Mountains Region J.E. Halofsky and D.L. Peterson Editors U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Portland, Oregon General Technical Report PNW-GTR-xxxx Month year 3 Abstract Halofsky, J.E.; Peterson, D.L., eds. 2016. Climate change vulnerability and adaptation in the Blue Mountains. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-xxx. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Xxx p. The Blue Mountains Adaptation Partnership (BMAP) is a science-management partnership consisting of Malheur National Forest, Umatilla National Forest, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, the U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station and Pacific Northwest Region, the University of Washington, and the Climate Impacts Research Consortium at Oregon State University. These organizations worked together over a period of two years to identify climate change issues relevant to resource management in the Blue Mountains region and to find solutions that can minimize negative effects of climate change and facilitate transition of diverse ecosystems to a warmer climate. The BMAP provided education, conducted a climate change vulnerability assessment, and developed adaptation options for federal agencies that manage 2.1 million hectares in northeast Oregon, southeast Washington, and a small portion of southwest Idaho.
    [Show full text]
  • Malheur River Basin TMDL Response to Public Comments
    MALHEUR RIVER BASIN TMDL AND WATER QUALITY MANGEMENT PLAN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS September 2010 This page intentionally left blank. Malheur River Basin TMDL & WQMP: Response To Comments September 2010 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 2 2. Background ............................................................................................................................................. 2 3. Response to Comments ......................................................................................................................... 3 Response to Jim Bentz’s Comments ........................................................................................................ 3 Responses to BLM Vale and Burns District Comments ............................................................................ 4 Response to Bureau of Reclamation Comments .................................................................................... 20 Response to EPA Region 10 Comments ................................................................................................ 25 Response to Ken Freese’s Comments .................................................................................................... 25 Response to Harney County Court Comments ....................................................................................... 26 Response to Harney Watershed Council Comments .............................................................................
    [Show full text]