DOCSLIB.ORG

Klamath Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2082)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

EXHIBIT B—PROJECT OPERATION AND RESOURCE UTILIZATION Klamath Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2082) PacifiCorp Portland, Oregon Version: February 2004 Copyright © 2004 by PacifiCorp Reproduction in whole or in part without the written consent of PacifiCorp is prohibited. CONTENTS Section Page B1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1-1 B1.1 EXISTING KLAMATH HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT OVERVIEW............... 1-2 B1.2 PROPOSED KLAMATH HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT OVERVIEW............. 1-2 B1.3 USBR KLAMATH IRRIGATION PROJECT ....................................................... 1-2 B2.0 FLOW REGULATION THROUGH EXISTING KLAMATH HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT .................................................................................. 2-1 B2.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 2-1 B2.2 FLOW REGULATION INTO AND OUT OF THE USBR PROJECT TO THE KLAMATH HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT............................................. 2-6 B2.3 FLOW REGULATION THROUGH THE PROJECT DURING SUMMER AND/OR BELOW AVERAGE WATER YEAR................................................ 2-7 B2.4 FLOW REGULATION THROUGH USBR AND KLAMATH HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS IN WINTER AND/OR HIGH WATER YEARS ...................................................................................... 2-7 B2.4.1 Project Flood Control............................................................................... 2-8 B2.5 OTHER OUT-OF-BASIN DIVERSIONS.............................................................. 2-8 B2.5.1 Rogue River Basin Irrigation Project....................................................... 2-8 B2.5.2 City of Yreka Municipal Water Supply ................................................... 2-9 B3.0 FLOW REGULATION THROUGH THE PROPOSED KLAMATH HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT .................................................................................. 3-1 B4.0 HYDROLOGY—EXISTING CONDITIONS................................................................ 4-1 B4.1 PROJECT AREA HYDROLOGIC DRAINAGE AREA AND FLOW REGIME.................................................................................................. 4-1 B4.2 EXISTING HYDROLOGY AND FLOW AVAILABILITY................................. 4-2 B4.2.1 Hydrologic Data Sources for the Project Area......................................... 4-2 B4.2.2 Average Daily Flow Rates ....................................................................... 4-3 B4.3 EXISTING INSTREAM FLOW RELEASES........................................................ 4-6 B5.0 HYDROLOGY—PROPOSED CONDITIONS.............................................................. 5-1 B6.0 LINK RIVER DAM .......................................................................................................... 6-1 B6.1 FACILITY OVERVIEW ........................................................................................ 6-1 B6.2 OWNERSHIP AND CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS ..................................... 6-1 B6.3 EXISTING OPERATIONS..................................................................................... 6-2 B6.4 FUTURE OPERATIONS ....................................................................................... 6-4 B7.0 EAST SIDE AND WEST SIDE DEVELOPMENTS..................................................... 7-1 B7.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 7-1 B7.2 EAST SIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW ........................................................ 7-1 B7.3 EAST SIDE POWERHOUSE CONTROL............................................................. 7-1 B7.3.1 Annual Plant Factor.................................................................................. 7-2 B7.3.2 Period of Critical Stream Flow, Average Annual Energy Production, and Dependable Capacity ........................................................................ 7-2 B7.3.3 Area-Capacity Curve and Rule Curve...................................................... 7-2 © February 2004 PacifiCorp Exhibit B.doc Exhibit B Page iii PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 2082 B7.3.4 Hydraulic Capacity................................................................................... 7-2 B7.3.5 Tailwater Rating Curve ............................................................................ 7-2 B7.3.6 Power Plant Capacity Versus Head Curve............................................... 7-2 B7.4 WEST SIDE FACILITY OVERVIEW................................................................... 7-2 B7.4.1 West Side Powerhouse Control................................................................ 7-7 B7.4.2 Annual Plant Factor.................................................................................. 7-7 B7.4.3 Period of Critical Stream Flow, Average Annual Energy Production, and Dependable Capacity ........................................................................ 7-7 B7.4.4 Area-Capacity Curve and Rule Curve...................................................... 7-7 B7.4.5 Hydraulic Capacity................................................................................... 7-9 B7.4.6 Tailwater Rating Curve ............................................................................ 7-9 B7.4.7 Power Plant Capacity Versus Head Curve............................................... 7-9 B7.5 EAST SIDE AND WEST SIDE DECOMMISSIONING....................................... 7-9 B8.0 KENO DEVELOPMENT................................................................................................. 8-1 B8.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 8-1 B8.2 DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW............................................................................. 8-1 B8.3 OWNERSHIP AND CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS ..................................... 8-1 B8.4 OPERATIONS........................................................................................................ 8-2 B8.4.1 Description of Plant Control .................................................................... 8-5 B8.4.2 Keno Drawdown ...................................................................................... 8-5 B9.0 J.C. BOYLE DEVELOPMENT....................................................................................... 9-1 B9.1 DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW............................................................................. 9-1 B9.2 OWNERSHIP AND CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION ....................................... 9-1 B9.3 OPERATIONS........................................................................................................ 9-1 B9.4 ANNUAL PLANT FACTOR ................................................................................. 9-4 B9.5 PERIOD OF CRITICAL STREAM FLOW, AVERAGE ANNUAL ENERGY PRODUCTION, AND DEPENDABLE CAPACITY......................................... 9-4 B9.6 AREA-CAPACITY CURVE AND RULE CURVE .............................................. 9-4 B9.7 HYDRAULIC CAPACITY .................................................................................... 9-4 B9.8 TAILWATER RATING CUR`VE.......................................................................... 9-9 B9.9 POWERPLANT CAPACITY VERSUS HEAD CURVE...................................... 9-9 B10.0 COPCO NO. 1 DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................... 10-1 B10.1 DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW......................................................................... 10-1 B10.2 OWNERSHIP AND CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION ................................... 10-1 B10.3 OPERATIONS.................................................................................................... 10-1 B10.4 ANNUAL PLANT FACTOR ............................................................................. 10-2 B10.5 PERIOD OF CRITICAL STREAM FLOW, AVERAGE ANNUAL ENERGY PRODUCTION, AND DEPENDABLE CAPACITY...................... 10-2 B10.6 AREA-CAPACITY CURVE AND OPERATING CURVE .............................. 10-2 B10.7 HYDRAULIC CAPACITY ................................................................................ 10-2 B10.8 TAILWATER RATING CURVE....................................................................... 10-2 B10.9 POWERPLANT CAPACITY VERSUS HEAD CURVE.................................. 10-2 B11.0 COPCO NO. 2 DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................... 11-1 B11.1 DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW......................................................................... 11-1 B11.2 OWNERSHIP AND CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION ................................... 11-1 © February 2004 PacifiCorp Exhibit B Page iv Exhibit B.doc PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 2082 B11.3 OPERATIONS.................................................................................................... 11-1 B11.4 ANNUAL PLANT FACTOR ............................................................................. 11-2 B11.5 PERIOD OF CRITICAL STREAM FLOW, AVERAGE ANNUAL ENERGY PRODUCTION, AND DEPENDABLE CAPACITY...................... 11-2 B11.6 AREA-CAPACITY CURVE AND RULE CURVE .......................................... 11-2 B11.7 HYDRAULIC CAPACITY ................................................................................ 11-2 B11.8 TAILWATER RATING CURVE....................................................................... 11-3 B11.9 POWERPLANT CAPACITY VERSUS HEAD CURVE.................................
Recommended publications
  • Plan of Management for Spring Creek Reservoir

    Plan of Management for Spring Creek Reservoir

    PLAN OF MANAGEMENT FOR SPRING CREEK RESERVOIR ORANGE CITY COUNCIL DATE OF ADOPTION: 3 December 2007 GENERAL MANAGER D07/15538 1. LAND COVERED UNDER THIS PLAN OF MANAGEMENT This Plan of Management applies to land comprising Spring Creek Reservoir as indicated on Map 1. Each parcel of land covered by this plan is detailed in Schedule 1 to the plan. 2. CATEGORY AND CLASSIFICATION OF LAND The land is classified as community land under the Local Government Act 1993 (“the Act”). The following community land categories apply to the land: • General Community Use • Natural Area - wetland The Natural Area category applies to that part of the dam and foreshores identified for the protection of bird habitats and breeding areas in the report prepared by Dr J Beard and Professor D Goldney in April 2000 to assess the potential for recreational activities on Spring Creek Reservoir as indicated in Map 2. 3. LAND OWNERSHIP The Land is owned by Orange City Council. 4. LOCATION & AREA The land comprises about 143.5 hectares of land adjacent to Lone Pine Avenue, Calton Road, Louie Lane and Shepherd Road in the locality of Summer Hill. The reservoir is located about 400 metres south of the edge of the Orange urban area defined by the Leewood Industrial Estate. 5. BACKGROUND Spring Creek Reservoir was constructed in 1931 at the confluence of the Gosling and Spring Creeks as the City’s third water supply reservoir after Gosling and Meadow Creek Reservoirs (Lake Canobolas). The reservoir was located downstream of Gosling Dam. The Spring Creek dam wall was raised in 1947 which increased the full supply level (FSL) by 1.8 metres.
  • The Case for Dam Removal on the Klamath S

    The Case for Dam Removal on the Klamath S

    Building The Case for Dam Removal on the Klamath S. Craig Tucker, Ph.D. Klamath Campaign Coordinator Karuk Tribe 12/12/03 Pacificorp, a subsidiary of the large multinational power corporation Scottish Power, is in the process of relicensing its Klamath River dams. Since hydropower dams are relicensed only once every 30-50 years, relicensing represents a once in a lifetime opportunity to change flow regimes or decommission dams. The Karuk Tribe believes that the removal of dams on the Klamath should be fully evaluated as dam removal appears to be key in the restoration of native fishes to the upper basin. Our position is supported by sound science and policy research. These dams contribute little to the energy supply1 The California Energy Commission (CEC) reviewed the energy affects of full or partial decommissioning. Their conclusions were that: “Because of the small capacity of the Klamath hydro units…removal of these units will not have a significant reliability impact on a larger regional scale.” The report went on to state: “…decommissioning is a feasible alternative from the perspective of impacts to statewide electricity resource adequacy and that replacement energy is available in the near term.” The National Academy of Science recommends a full evaluation of dam removal2 A recent report by the most prestigious scientific minds in America, the National Academy of Science, recommends that: “serious evaluation should be made of the benefits to coho salmon from the elimination of Dwinell Dam [on the Shasta River] and Iron Gate Dam on the grounds that these dams block substantial amounts of coho habitat…” The California State Water Resources Control Board calls for dam removal studies3 The California State Water Resources Control Board is one party involved in the relicensing of the Klamath Project.
  • Characterizing Tribal Cultural Landscapes, Volume II: Tribal Case

    Characterizing Tribal Cultural Landscapes, Volume II: Tribal Case

    OCS Study BOEM 2017-001 Characterizing Tribal Cultural Landscapes Volume II: Tribal Case Studies US Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Pacific OCS Region This page intentionally left blank. OCS Study BOEM 2017-001 Characterizing Tribal Cultural Landscapes Volume II: Tribal Case Studies David Ball Rosie Clayburn Roberta Cordero Briece Edwards Valerie Grussing Janine Ledford Robert McConnell Rebekah Monette Robert Steelquist Eirik Thorsgard Jon Townsend Prepared under BOEM-NOAA Interagency Agreement M12PG00035 by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 1305 East-West Highway, SSMC4 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Makah Tribe Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon Yurok Tribe National Marine Sanctuary Foundation US Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of National Marine Sanctuaries US Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Pacific OCS Region December 31, 2017 This page intentionally left blank. DISCLAIMER This study was funded, in part, by the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Pacific Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Region, Camarillo, CA, through Interagency Agreement Number M12PG00035 with the US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This report has been technically reviewed by BOEM and it has been approved for publication. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the US Government, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. REPORT AVAILABILITY This report can be downloaded from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s Recently Completed Environmental Studies – Pacific webpage at https://www.boem.gov/Pacific-Completed-Studies/.
  • Estimation of Stream Conditions in Tributaries of the Klamath River, Northern California

    Estimation of Stream Conditions in Tributaries of the Klamath River, Northern California

    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Arcata Fisheries Technical Report TR 2018-32 Estimation of Stream Conditions in Tributaries of the Klamath River, Northern California Christopher V. Manhard, Nicholas A. Som, Edward C. Jones, Russell W. Perry U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-7201 January 2018 Funding for this study was provided by a variety of sources including the Klamath River Fish Habitat Assessment Program administered by the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Falls Area Office. Disclaimer: The mention of trade names or commercial products in this report does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the Federal Government. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office Fisheries Program reports its study findings through two publication series. The Arcata Fisheries Data Series was established to provide timely dissemination of data to local managers and for inclusion in agency databases. Arcata Fisheries Technical Reports publish scientific findings from single and multi- year studies that have undergone more extensive peer review and statistical testing. Additionally, some study results are published in a variety of professional fisheries aquatic habitat conservation journals. To ensure consistency with Service policy relating to its online peer-reviewed journals, Arcata Fisheries Data Series and Technical Reports are distributed electronically and made available in the public domain. Paper copies are no longer circulated.
  • Link River Algae Removal Demonstration Project: Phase 1 Final Report

    Link River Algae Removal Demonstration Project: Phase 1 Final Report

    Klamath River Hydroelectric Project Interim Measures Implementation Committee: Interim Measure 11 Link River Algae Removal Demonstration Project: Phase 1 Final Report July 5, 2017 Prepared for: Portland, Oregon Prepared by: CH2M 2020 SW 4th Ave, Suite 300 Portland, Oregon 97201 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Conceptual Description of the Demonstration Project ....................................................................... 1 2.1 Location ......................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Proposed Demonstration Project Facilities and Operations ......................................................... 2 3 Assessment of Needed Permits and Regulatory Approvals................................................................. 4 3.1 Removal‐Fill Permit ....................................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Fish‐Related Regulatory Requirements ........................................................................................ 6 3.3 Other Regulatory Permits or Approvals ...................................................................................... 10 4 Assessment of Use and Disposal of Harvested Algae Material .......................................................... 10 5 Additional Considerations ..............................................................................................................
  • Indian Country Welcome To

    Indian Country Welcome To

    Travel Guide To OREGON Indian Country Welcome to OREGON Indian Country he members of Oregon’s nine federally recognized Ttribes and Travel Oregon invite you to explore our diverse cultures in what is today the state of Oregon. Hundreds of centuries before Lewis & Clark laid eyes on the Pacific Ocean, native peoples lived here – they explored; hunted, gathered and fished; passed along the ancestral ways and observed the ancient rites. The many tribes that once called this land home developed distinct lifestyles and traditions that were passed down generation to generation. Today these traditions are still practiced by our people, and visitors have a special opportunity to experience our unique cultures and distinct histories – a rare glimpse of ancient civilizations that have survived since the beginning of time. You’ll also discover that our rich heritage is being honored alongside new enterprises and technologies that will carry our people forward for centuries to come. The following pages highlight a few of the many attractions available on and around our tribal centers. We encourage you to visit our award-winning native museums and heritage centers and to experience our powwows and cultural events. (You can learn more about scheduled powwows at www.traveloregon.com/powwow.) We hope you’ll also take time to appreciate the natural wonders that make Oregon such an enchanting place to visit – the same mountains, coastline, rivers and valleys that have always provided for our people. Few places in the world offer such a diversity of landscapes, wildlife and culture within such a short drive. Many visitors may choose to visit all nine of Oregon’s federally recognized tribes.
  • Klamath River Fall Chinook Salmon Age-Specific Escapement, River Harvest, and Run Size Estimates, 2020 Run

    Klamath River Fall Chinook Salmon Age-Specific Escapement, River Harvest, and Run Size Estimates, 2020 Run

    1 Klamath River Fall Chinook Salmon Age-Specific Escapement, River Harvest, and Run Size Estimates, 2020 Run Klamath River Technical Team 15 February 2021 Summary The number of Klamath River fall Chinook Salmon returning to the Klamath River Basin (Basin) in 2020 was estimated to be: Run Size Age Number Proportion 2 9,077 0.17 3 37,820 0.69 4 7,579 0.14 5 8 0.00 Total 54,484 1.00 Preseason forecasts of the number of fall Chinook Salmon adults returning to the Basin and the corresponding post-season estimates are: Adults Preseason Postseason Sector Forecast Estimate Pre / Post Run Size 59,100 45,400 1.30 Fishery Mortality Tribal Harvest 8,600 5,200 1.65 Recreational Harvest 1,300 5,100 0.25 Drop-off Mortality 800 600 1.33 10,700 10,900 0.98 Escapement Hatchery Spawners 12,200 8,300 1.47 Natural Area Spawners 36,200 26,200 1.38 48,400 34,500 1.40 2 Introduction This report describes the data and methods used by the Klamath River Technical Team (KRTT) to estimate age-specific numbers of fall Chinook Salmon returning to the Basin in 2020. The estimates provided in this report are consistent with the Klamath Basin Megatable (CDFW 2021) and with the 2021 forecast of ocean stock abundance (KRTT 2021). Age-specific escapement estimates for 2020 and previous years, coupled with the coded-wire tag (CWT) recovery data from Basin hatchery stocks, allow for a cohort reconstruction of the hatchery and natural components of Klamath River fall Chinook Salmon (Goldwasser et al.
  • Water Allocation in the Klamath Reclamation Project (Oregon State

    Water Allocation in the Klamath Reclamation Project (Oregon State

    Oregon State University Extension Service Special Report 1037 December 2002 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 William S. Braunworth, Jr. Assistant Extension Agriculture Program Leader Oregon State University Teresa Welch Publications Editor Oregon State University Ron Hathaway Extension agriculture faculty, Klamath County Oregon State University Authors William Boggess, department head, Department of William K. Jaeger, associate professor of agricul- Agricultural and Resource Economics, Oregon tural and resource economics and Extension State University agricultural and resource policy specialist, Oregon State University William S. Braunworth, Jr., assistant Extension agricultural program leader, Oregon State Robert L. Jarvis, professor of fisheries and University wildlife, Oregon State University Susan Burke, researcher, Department of Agricul- Denise Lach, codirector, Center for Water and tural and Resource Economics, Oregon State Environmental Sustainability, Oregon State University University Harry L. Carlson, superintendent/farm advisor, Kerry Locke, Extension agriculture faculty, University of California Intermountain Research Klamath County, Oregon State University and Extension Center Jeff Manning, graduate student, Department of Patty Case, Extension family and community Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University development faculty, Klamath County, Oregon Reed Marbut, Oregon Water Resources
  • Water-Quality Data from Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon, 2009–10

    Water-Quality Data from Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon, 2009–10

    Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation Water-Quality Data from Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon, 2009–10 Open-File Report 2012–1142 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Meteorological and water quality monitoring site MDN on Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, with Mt. McLoughlin in the background. (Photograph by D. Blake Eldridge, U.S. Geological Survey, July 12, 2011.) Water-Quality Data from Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon, 2009–10 By D. Blake Eldridge, Sara L. Caldwell Eldridge, Liam N. Schenk, Dwight Q. Tanner, and Tamara M. Wood Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation Open-File Report 2012–1142 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012 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. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Suggested citation: Eldridge. D.B., Caldwell Eldridge, S.L., Schenk, L.N., Tanner, D.Q., and Wood, T.M., 2012, Water-quality data from Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon, 2009–10: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012–1142, 32 p. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
  • Here Were Also Three Unauthorized Releases of Water from Upper Klamath Lake

    Here Were Also Three Unauthorized Releases of Water from Upper Klamath Lake

    In the United States Court of Federal Claims Nos. 1-591L; 7-194C; 7-19401C; 7-19402C; 7-19403C; 7-19404C; 7-19405C; 7-19406C; 7-19407C; 7-19408C; 7-19409C; 7-19410C; 7-19411C; 7-19412C; 7-19413C; 7-19414C; 7-19415C; 7-19416C; 7-19417C; 7-19418C; 7-19419C; 7-19420C Filed: December 21, 2016 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * KLAMATH IRRIGATION, et al., and * JOHN ANDERSON FARMS, INC., * et al., * * Plaintiffs, * * v. * Water Rights; Physical vs. Regulatory UNITED STATES, * * Takings; Endangered Species Act; v. * Motions in Limine. * Defendant, * PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF * FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATIONS, * * Defendant-Intervenor. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Nancie G. Marzulla, Marzulla Law, LLC, Washington, DC for plaintiffs. With her was Roger G. Marzulla, Marzulla Law, LLC. Of counsel was William M. Ganong, Special Counsel, Klamath Irrigation District, Klamath Falls, OR. Kristine S. Tardiff, Trial Attorney, Natural Resources Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Concord, NH, for defendant. With her was John C. Cruden, Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and Stephen M. MacFarlane and Edward C. Thomas, Natural Resources Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice. Todd D. True, Earthjustice, Seattle, WA for defendant-intervenor. O P I N I O N HORN, J. FINDINGS OF FACT Before the court are the parties’ cross-motions in limine regarding the proper legal framework for analyzing plaintiffs’ takings claims in the above-captioned cases. Plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases are individual landowners, irrigation districts and similar government agencies, and private corporations in Oregon and California who allege that the defendant, acting through the United States Bureau of Reclamation, effected a taking of their alleged water rights in 2001.
  • Dispersal of Larval Suckers at the Williamson River Delta, Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, 2006–09

    Dispersal of Larval Suckers at the Williamson River Delta, Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, 2006–09

    Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation Dispersal of Larval Suckers at the Williamson River Delta, Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, 2006–09 Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5016 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Inset: Larval sucker from Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. (Photograph taken by Allison Estergard, Student, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 2011.) Top: Photograph taken from the air of the flooded Williamson River Delta, Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. (Photograph taken by Charles Erdman, Fisheries Technician, Williamson River Delta Preserve, Klamath Falls, Oregon, 2008.) Bottom left: Photograph of a pop net used by The Nature Conservancy to collect larval suckers in Upper Klamath Lake and the Williamson River Delta, Oregon. (Photograph taken by Heather Hendrixson, Director, Williamson River Delta Preserve, Klamath Falls, Oregon, 2006.) Bottom middle: Photograph of a larval trawl used by Oregon State University to collect larval suckers in Upper Klamath Lake and the Williamson River Delta, Oregon. (Photograph taken by David Simon, Senior Faculty Research Assistant, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 2010.) Bottom right: Photograph of a plankton net used by the U.S. Geological Survey to collect larval suckers in Upper Klamath Lake and the Williamson River Delta, Oregon. (Photographer unknown, Klamath Falls, Oregon, 2009.) Dispersal of Larval Suckers at the Williamson River Delta, Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, 2006–09 By Tamara M. Wood, U.S. Geological Survey, Heather A. Hendrixson, The Nature Conservancy, Douglas F. Markle, Oregon State University, Charles S. Erdman, The Nature Conservancy, Summer M. Burdick, U.S. Geological Survey, Craig M. Ellsworth, U.S. Geological Survey, and Norman L.
  • KLAMATH HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT [FERC No

    KLAMATH HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT [FERC No

    KLAMATH HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT [FERC No. 2082] REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY Copco No. 1, c1915 PacifiCorp Archives Photo for PacifiCorp, Portland, OR Prepared by George Kramer, M.S., HP Preservation Specialist Under contract to CH2M-Hill Corvallis, OR October 2003 App E-6E DOE 1_Cover.doc DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER Property Name: KLAMATH HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Date of Construction: 1903-1958 Address: N/A County: Klamath, Oregon Siskiyou, California Original Use: Hydroelectric Generation Current Use: Hydroelectric Generation Style: Utilitarian/Industrial Theme: Commerce/Industrial _____________________________________________________________________________________ PRIMARY SIGNIFICANCE: The resources of the Klamath Hydroelectric Project were built between 1903 and 1958 by the California Oregon Power Company and its various pioneer predecessors and are now owned and operated by PacifiCorp under Federal Energy Regulatory License No. 2082. The resources of the project are strongly associated with the early development of electricity in the southern Oregon and northern California region and played a significant role in the area’s economy both directly, as a part of a regionally-significant, locally-owned and operated, private utility, and indirectly, through the role that increased electrical capacity played in the expansion of the timber, agriculture, and recreation industries during the first six decades of the 20th century. The Klamath Hydroelectric Project is considered regionally significant and eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion “A” for its association with the industrial and economic development of southern Oregon and northern California. [See Statement of Significance, Page 19] Copco No. 1, Dam and Gatehouse, 2002 In my opinion, the property ___ meets ___ does not meet the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.