DOCSLIB.ORG

E4.0 FISH RESOURCES This Chapter of the Klamath Hydroelectric Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

E4.0 FISH RESOURCES This chapter of the Klamath Hydroelectric Project (Project) (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] Project No. 2082) Exhibit E provides a report on the fish resources potentially affected by the Project as stipulated in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations: Title 18 Section 4.51(f)(3). The report must discuss fish, wildlife, and botanical resources in the vicinity of the Project and the impact of the Project on those resources. The report must be prepared in consultation with any state agency with responsibility for fish, wildlife, and botanical resources, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service (if the Project may affect anadromous fish resources subject to that agency’s jurisdiction), and any other state or federal agency with managerial authority over any part of the Project lands. Consultation must be documented by appending to the report a letter from each agency consulted that indicates the nature, extent, and results of the consultation. The report must include: (i) A description of the fish, wildlife, and botanical resources of the project and its vicinity, and of downstream areas affected by the project, including identification of any species listed as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (See 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12) (ii) A description of any measures or facilities recommended by the agencies consulted for the mitigation of impacts on fish, wildlife, and botanical resources, or for the protection or improvement of those resources (iii) A statement of any existing measures or facilities to be continued or maintained and any measures or facilities proposed by the applicant for the mitigation of impacts on fish, wildlife, and botanical resources, or for the protection or improvement of such resources, including an explanation of why the applicant has rejected any measures or facilities recommended by an agency and described under paragraph (f)(3)(ii) of this section (iv) A description of any anticipated continuing impact on fish, wildlife, and botanical resources of continued operation of the project, and the incremental impact of proposed new development of project works or changes in project operation, and (v) The following materials and information regarding the measures and facilities identified under paragraph (f)(3)(iii) of this section: (A) Functional design drawings of any fish passage and collection facilities, indicating whether the facilities depicted are existing or proposed (these drawings must conform to the specifications of Sec. 4.39 regarding dimensions of full-sized prints, scale, and legibility) (B) A description of operation and maintenance procedures for any existing or proposed measures or facilities © February 2004 PacifiCorp Exhibit E Fish Resources.DOC Exhibit E Page 4-1 PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 2082 (C) An implementation or construction schedule for any proposed measures or facilities, showing the intervals following issuance of a license when implementation of the measures or construction of the facilities would be commenced and completed (D) An estimate of the costs of construction, operation, and maintenance, of any proposed facilities, and of implementation of any proposed measures, including a statement of the sources and extent of financing; and (E) A map or drawing that conforms to the size, scale, and legibility requirements of Sec. 4.39 showing by the use of shading, cross-hatching, or other symbols the identity and location of any measures or facilities, and indicating whether each measure or facility is existing or proposed (the map or drawings in this exhibit may be consolidated). A Fish Resources Final Technical Report (FTR) has been prepared to provide the detailed analysis of the fish resources issues. The information in this chapter of Exhibit E provides an overview and summary of the information contained in the Fish Resources FTR, which is incorporated by reference. E4.1 HISTORICAL FISH RESOURCES IN THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN This section describes historical fish resources and results of previous fisheries investigations in the Project study area. It also describes some of the general attributes of the fish assemblages that are present. The discussion begins with a general overview of the Project area and its fish assemblages, then describes the fish resources in the proposed Project river reaches, reservoirs, and major tributaries. The area of focus for this Exhibit does not include the East Side and West Side developments (Link River area) and the Keno Development (Keno reservoir and Keno reach). These developments are not part of the proposed Project. E4.1.1 Project Study Area The Project study area contains six river reaches and six reservoirs on the mainstem Klamath River, extending from river mile (RM) 282.3 at Upper Klamath Lake/Agency Lake in Oregon to the Klamath River downstream of Iron Gate dam at RM 190.1 in California. Table E4.1-1 lists and briefly describes the six river reaches and six reservoirs, proceeding downstream from Upper Klamath Lake/Agency Lake, as well as important tributaries in the study area upstream and downstream of Iron Gate dam. Upper Klamath Lake/Agency Lake and the Klamath River downstream of Iron Gate dam represent the upper and lower bounds of the Project study area. Their inclusion in the study area is important because of the interconnected nature of fisheries and the effects upstream and downstream factors can have on fisheries in the study area. Historical fisheries descriptions and assessments presented in the following text address the 38.2-mile-long segment of the Klamath River and important tributaries (Spencer, Shovel, and Fall creeks) between the top of the J.C. Boyle reservoir at RM 228.3 and Iron Gate dam at RM 190.1 (the proposed Project area). This segment consists of 23 miles of river reaches and 15.2 miles of reservoirs. It contains four of the five generating facilities associated with PacifiCorp’s proposed Project. The fifth generating facility is located on Fall Creek, a tributary entering the Klamath River at RM 196.3. Historical fisheries descriptions also include, as relevant to the Project, the 190-mile-long reach of the Klamath River downstream of Iron Gate dam and its major tributaries (Shasta, Scott, © February 2004 PacifiCorp Exhibit E Page 4-2 Exhibit E Fish Resources.DOC PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 2082 Salmon, and Trinity rivers). This portion of the study area is of particular interest because of the effects flow regimes, water quality, and fish passage barriers associated with the Project may have on downstream fisheries and aquatic habitat. Table E4.1-1. River reaches, reservoirs, and major tributaries proceeding downstream within the Klamath Hydroelectric Project study area. River Reach (RR), Reservoir Approximate (R), or Tributary (T) River Mile (RM) Description and Location Upper Klamath Lake/Agency RM 254.3 – 282.3 Approximately 28 miles from upper end of Agency Lake Lake (R) to Link River dam on Upper Klamath Lake Wood River (T) RM 282.3 Tributary to Agency Lake at RM 282.3 Williamson River (T) RM 272.3 Tributary to Upper Klamath Lake at RM 272.3 Link River (RR) RM 254.3 – 253.1 1.2 miles long, connecting Upper Klamath Lake to Lake Ewauna on Klamath River Keno Reservoir (Lake Ewauna) RM 253.1 – 233.0 20.1 miles long from headwaters of Lake Ewauna to Keno (R) dam Klamath River – Keno Reach RM 233.0 – 228.3 4.7 miles long, between Keno dam and headwaters of (RR) J.C. Boyle reservoir J.C. Boyle Reservoir (R) RM 228.3 – 224.7 3.6 miles from headwaters to J.C. Boyle dam Spencer Creek (T) RM 227.6 Tributary to J.C. Boyle reservoir at RM 227.6 Klamath River – J.C. Boyle RM 224.7 – 220.4 4.3 miles long, between J.C. Boyle dam and J.C. Boyle Bypass Reach (RR) powerhouse Klamath River – J.C. Boyle RM 220.4 – 203.1 17.3 miles long, between J.C. Boyle powerhouse and Peaking Reach (RR) Copco No. 1 reservoir Oregon/California Border RM 209.3 State line in J.C. Boyle peaking reach at RM 209.3 Shovel Creek (T) RM 206.5 Tributary to J.C. Boyle peaking reach at RM 206.5 Long Prairie Creek (T) RM 203.3 Tributary to J.C. Boyle peaking reach at RM 203.3 Copco No. 1 Reservoir (R) RM 203.1 – 198.6 4.5 miles from headwaters to Copco No. 1 dam and powerhouse Copco No. 2 Reservoir (R) RM 198.6 – 198.3 0.3 mile from Copco No. 1 dam and Powerhouse to Copco No. 2 dam Klamath River – Copco No. 2 RM 198.3 – 196.9 1.4 miles long, between Copco No. 2 dam and Copco No. Bypass Reach (RR) 2 powerhouse Iron Gate Reservoir (R) RM 196.9 – 190.1 6.8 miles from headwaters and Copco No. 2 powerhouse to Iron Gate dam Fall Creek (T) RM 196.3 Tributary to Iron Gate reservoir at RM 196.3 Jenny Creek (T) RM 194.0 Tributary to Iron Gate reservoir at RM 194.0 Klamath River (RR) RM 190.1 – 0.0 190.1 miles from Iron Gate dam to Klamath River mouth Shasta River (T) RM 176.6 Tributary to Klamath River at RM 176.6 Scott River (T) RM 143.0 Tributary to Klamath River at RM 143.0 Salmon River (T) RM 66.0 Tributary to Klamath River at RM 66.0 Trinity River (T) RM 40 Tributary to Klamath River at approximately RM 40 © February 2004 PacifiCorp Exhibit E Fish Resources.DOC Exhibit E Page 4-3 PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 2082 E4.1.2 Overview Table E4.1-2 lists fish species reported to occur in the Klamath River and reservoirs upstream of Iron Gate dam (City of Klamath Falls, 1986; PacifiCorp, 2000).
Recommended publications
  • TO: Jeff Nettleton, Area Manager, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 6600 Washburn Way Klamath Falls, OR 97603-9365 Gene R. Souza

    TO: Jeff Nettleton, Area Manager, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 6600 Washburn Way Klamath Falls, OR 97603-9365 Gene R. Souza

    TO: Jeff Nettleton, Area Manager, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 6600 Washburn Way Klamath Falls, OR 97603-9365 Gene R. Souza, Klamath Irrigation District 6640 KID Lane Klamath Falls, OR 97603 John Sample, PacifiCorp 823 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 2000 Portland, OR 97232 Cc: Michael Gheleta Nathan Reitmann FROM: Thomas M. Byler, Director Oregon Water Resources Department DATE: April 16, 2020 NOTIFICATION OF DISPUTE AND INVESTIGATION IN AID OF DISTRIBUTION You are hereby NOTIFIED of a petition by the Klamath Irrigation District (“KID”) for an order from the Oregon Water Resources Department (“Department” or “OWRD”) to immediately take exclusive charge of the Upper Klamath Lake (“UKL”) reservoir to “ensure that stored water is not released out of UKL reservoir through the Link River Dam except to meet the needs of secondary water right holders calling upon the source until the irrigation season ends on October 31, 2020.” You are hereby NOTIFIED that a dispute exists as provided in Oregon Revised Statutes (“ORS”) 540.210. Jeff Nettleton, USBOR Gene R. Souza, KID John, Sample, Pacificorp April 16, 2020 Page 2 NOW THEREFORE, the Department commences this investigation in aid of distribution and division of water according to the relative and respective rights of the various users from the UKL. AUTHORITIES A. Distribution of Water from Irrigation Ditches and Reservoirs “Whenever any water users from any ditch or reservoir either among themselves or with the owner thereof, are unable to agree relative to the distribution or division of water through
  • Fishway Ladder

    Fishway Ladder

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS A. Fishway B. Riverwalk C. DNR Compliance with NR 333 D. Dam Removal E. Property Issues F. Fish and Aquatic Life G. Wildlife H. Recreational Use A. Fishway 1. What is the estimated cost to build a fishway at Bridge Street dam? The engineering consultant, Bonestroo, has estimated the cost at $1.3 million per the NOAA grant. 2. If the fishway is constructed next year, will it have to be rebuilt when the dam needs to be removed and replaced? Essentially no. Most of the fishway is a separate upstream structure and will not be impacted by demolition and construction of a new dam. The fishway entrance area may need to be modified if a new dam is installed or if the dam abutments are altered. 3. Why is the fishway being constructed on the west bank of the river? The west bank allows land owned by the Village of Grafton to be used for a portion of the channel alignment. Furthermore, the heaviest construction will likely be in the area currently owned by the Village (penetration of the west dam abutment). Other advantages include the appeal to tourists able to view fish entering and ascending the fishway from the riverwalk, and the known presence of shallow bedrock helping assure good foundation characteristics. Furthermore, the historic mill race crosses the area, and a portion of the mill race alignment may assist with fishway construction. 4. How long will it take to complete the construction of the fishway? The fishway will be completed by late fall of 2010.
  • Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria 2019

    Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria 2019

    FISH PASSAGE ENGINEERING DESIGN CRITERIA 2019 37.2’ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Region June 2019 Fish and Aquatic Conservation, Fish Passage Engineering Ecological Services, Conservation Planning Assistance United States Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5 FISH PASSAGE ENGINEERING DESIGN CRITERIA June 2019 This manual replaces all previous editions of the Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5 Suggested citation: USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2019. Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria. USFWS, Northeast Region R5, Hadley, Massachusetts. USFWS R5 Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria June 2019 USFWS R5 Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria June 2019 Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x List of Equations ............................................................................................................................ xi List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................ xii 1 Scope of this Document ....................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Role of the USFWS Region 5 Fish Passage Engineering ............................................
  • 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
  • Fish Passage Profiles Evaluation Report

    Fish Passage Profiles Evaluation Report

    Potter Valley Project Ad Hoc Committee Fish Passage Profiles Evaluation Report December 2019 Developed by the Fish Passage Working Group Fish Passage Working Group Report Contributors Scenarios and Options Subgroup Scoring Subgroup Craig Addley (Consultant to PG&E) Craig Addley (Consultant to PG&E) Joshua Fuller (NMFS) Joshua Fuller (NMFS) Paul Kubicek (PG&E) Damon Goodman (USFWS) Jon Mann (CDFW) Paul Kubicek (PG&E) David Manning (Sonoma Water) Jon Mann (CDFW) Scott McBain (Consultant to RVIT) David Manning (Sonoma Water) Darren Mierau (CalTrout) Scott McBain (Consultant to RVIT) Steve Thomas (NMFS) Darren Mierau (CalTrout) Allen Renger (CDFW) Steve Thomas (NMFS) Larry Wise (PG&E) The scenarios subgroup developed the conceptual passage scenarios and options. The scoring subgroup developed and used a passage scoring matrix to evaluate the passage options. Facilitation Team Facilitators Gina Bartlett and Stephanie Horii of Consensus Building Institute assisted the subgroups to document the process and compile results into this final report. 2 Executive Summary Background and Purpose The Potter Valley Project on the Eel River is a set of hydroelectric facilities that includes two large dams (Scott and Cape Horn), water-diversion facilities, and a powerhouse. The project involves an inter-basin transfer that stores winter runoff from the upper Eel River and diverts much of that water to the Russian River to generate hydroelectric power and meet contract water demands. Scott Dam, which creates Lake Pillsbury, is a complete barrier to native fish species, preventing access to high value habitat for federally Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed anadromous salmonids. To balance diverse Potter Valley Project interests, Congressman Jared Huffman established an Ad Hoc Committee comprised of representative stakeholder groups across four counties, who have agreed to work collaboratively towards a two-basin solution.
  • Open House Summary Report

    Open House Summary Report

    Nimbus Hatchery Fish Passage Project Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report Open House Summary Report Rancho Cordova, California US Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation California Department of Fish and Game February 2011 Contents Page 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................1 1.1 Overview of the Public Involvement Process ..............................................1 1.2 Description of the Public Involvement Process to Date ..............................2 2. Meeting Overview ..................................................................................................5 3. Comment Summary ...............................................................................................7 4. Future Steps ............................................................................................................9 4.1 Summary of Future Steps and Public Participation Opportunities ..............9 4.2 Contact Information .....................................................................................9 Table Page 3-1 Summary of Comments ...........................................................................................8 Appendix Draft EIS/EIR Public Involvement Materials Nimbus Hatchery Fish Passage Project EIS/EIR February 2011 Open House Summary Report i Acronyms Acronym Full Phrase CCAO Central California Area Office CCR California Code of Regulations CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CEQA California
  • Fish Passage at Dams Strategic Analysis

    Fish Passage at Dams Strategic Analysis

    Fish Passage at Dams Strategic Analysis Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources February 5, 2018 Nature-like Fishway at Thiensville Dam on Milwaukee River in Ozaukee County, WI Table of Contents Foreword ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 5 1 History of Fish Passage at Dams Policy in Wisconsin ............................................................................ 7 2 Regulatory Framework and Department Procedures and Guidelines ................................................ 11 3 Types of Fish Passage .......................................................................................................................... 19 3.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 19 3.2 Upstream Fish Passage Technologies ......................................................................................... 19 3.2.1 Fishways (Passive) ............................................................................................................... 20 3.2.2 Fish Lifts and Locks (Active) ................................................................................................ 26 3.2.3 Collection and Transport (Active) ......................................................................................
  • 8 Chittenden Locks 47

    8 Chittenden Locks 47

    Seattle’s Aquatic Environments: Hiram M. Chittenden Locks Hiram M. Chittenden Locks The following write-up relies heavily on the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks/Salmon Bay Subarea Chapter by Fred Goetz in the Draft Reconnaissance Assessment – Habitat Factors that Contribute to the Decline of Salmonids by the Greater Lake Washington Technical Committee (2001). Overview The Hiram M. Chittenden Locks (Locks) were Operation of the navigational locks involves constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers raising or lowering the water level within either (the Corps) in 1916 and commissioned in 1917. the large or small lock chamber so that vessels may The Locks were built as a navigation project to pass between the two waterbodies. The filling and allow boats to travel from the marine waters of emptying of the large lock chamber is achieved by Puget Sound to the protected freshwaters of Lake use of a system of two large conduits that can Union and Lake Washington. The Locks are either fill the entire lock or half of the lock. This comprised of two navigational lock chambers: a is achieved by using a miter gate that divides the large lock that accommodates both large and small large lock chamber into two sections. Water is vessels and a small lock used by smaller vessels. In taken into the conduits via two culvert intakes addition to the lock chambers, the Locks include a located immediately upstream of the structure. dam, 6 spillway bays, and a fish ladder. Water is conveyed through each conduit and is The Locks form a dam at the outlet of the Lake discharged into the lock chamber through outlet Washington and Lake Union/Ship Canal system culverts on each side of the chamber.
  • The Efficiency of a Fish Ladder for Salmonid Upstream Migration in a Swedish Stream Potential Impact of a Hydropower Station on Connectivity and Recruitment

    The Efficiency of a Fish Ladder for Salmonid Upstream Migration in a Swedish Stream Potential Impact of a Hydropower Station on Connectivity and Recruitment

    The Efficiency of a Fish Ladder for Salmonid Upstream Migration in a Swedish Stream Potential Impact of a Hydropower Station on Connectivity and Recruitment Anton Larsson Degree project for Master of Science in Biology Animal Ecology, 30 hec, AT 2016 Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences University of Gothenburg Supervisors: Johan Höjesjö, Lars-Olof Ramnelid, Daniel Johansson Examiner: Charlotta Kvarnemo Abstract Assessments of the function of fish passages are typically rare, although the approach is frequently implemented to mitigate adverse effects of hydropower plants. In this study 249 electro fishing samples from 1979-2015, were used to assess the efficiency of a fish ladder to allow upstream migration of salmonids past a hydropower station in Örekilsälven, Sweden. Densities of brown trout (both young of the year, 0+, and older juveniles, >0+) did not increase in the area upstream the hydropower station after construction of the fish passage; neither did the densities of salmon 0+. >0+ salmon had a higher density upstream the hydropower station after completion of the fish ladder, however this is most likely explained by extensive fish translocations. 0+ salmon were only found in 5 % of the sampling occasions upstream the power station when translocations were removed, whereas 0+ brown trout were found in 44.3 %. No effect of discharge for ascension was found in the study. The efficiency of the passage was determined low and non-satisfactory for Atlantic salmon and brown trout, although the evaluation is more difficult for brown trout as a consequence of resident forms. Smolt models indicate that contemporary smolt escapement of both salmon and brown trout almost exclusively originate from the downstream areas.
  • Download Poster of AUBURN RAVINE FISH LADDER PROJECT Overview

    Download Poster of AUBURN RAVINE FISH LADDER PROJECT Overview

    ENHANCING OUR REGIONAL ECOSYSTEM : AUBURN RAVINE FISH LADDER PROJECT nto s e uc m k ra e ttonwo c r o o a c d s Why Build a Fish Ladder ? Fish such as salmon and steelhead are anadromous, meaning they are born in freshwater streams and rivers, migrate downstream to the ocean where Plantings Fish they spend a few years maturing, then return to Sierra streams to spawn. Fish To improve ecosystem function and diversity, ladders are designed to provide migrating fish with support to pass around The fish in Auburn Ravine include Chinook native vegetation species were planted salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), a particular obstruction like this gauging station. The streambed in Auburn within the bed and along banks of the steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Ravine has gravel areas that make suitable spawning habitat for anadromous Auburn Ravine fish ladder. Site specific plants were chosen to promote Sacramento pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus salmonids like fall and late fall-run Chinook salmon and steelhead trout. grandis), Sacramento sucker natural nutrient filtration, water quality, By installing this fish ladder on Auburn Ravine, a partial barrier to upstream (Catostomus occidentalis), Lamprey WHEN DO sediment trapping functions, and s (Entosphenus tridentatus) and Speckled te habitats has been removed making it easier for salmon and steelhead to erosion and bank stabilization controls. Dace (Rhinichthys osculus). Salmon, elhead reach these upstream spawning areas. THE FISH RUN? These vegetation species include steelhead and lamprey all use Auburn native sedge and rush grasses, willow, l a Ravine for spawning while the remaining alder and cottonwood. This restored fish are year-round residents.
  • November 29-30, 1994 in Klamath Falls

    November 29-30, 1994 in Klamath Falls

    United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDUFK SERVICE Klamath River Fishery Resource Office P.O. Box 1006 Vreka, CA 96097-1006 (916) 842-5763 FAX (916) 842-4517 January 25, 1995 Memorandum TO: Klamath Fishery Task Force and Technical Work Group Members FROM: Project Leader, Klamath River FRO Yreka, California SUBJECT: Minutes of the Klamath Task Force meeting November 29-30, 1994 in Klamath Falls Enclosed are the draft minutes from the November 29-30, 1994 meeting in Klarcsth Falls. Note that we have attached a hardout you have not seen (Handout U) on California Department of Fish and Game's roegatable. Please review these draft minutes and get back to us with your comments by February 10, 1995. Ronald A. Iverson Attachment *fT Draft Minutes River Basin Fisheries Task Force November 29-30, 1994 Klamath Falls, Oregon November 29 1. Convene meeting. At 8:00 AM the meeting was convened by Chairman Bill Shake with a quorum of members and alternates present (Attachment 1). Shake welcomed the Task Force (TF), announced that meetings are open to the public, encouraged public input into the TF process, and reminded everyone of the purpose of the TF under the Klamath Restoration Act. The TF members introduced themselves. 2. Discussion/adoption of Agenda and Past Minutes^ Additions to agenda: Kent Bulfinch's clarified that Agenda Item 18 is about the developing the capability of drawing from storage at Iron Gate and Copco to alleviate quantity, quality, and timing problems of flow downstream of Iron Gate. Tom Stokely asked to add item requesting TF support/ endorsement for Trinity County's request to the Babbitt to make available 50,000 acre feet (AF) under the 1955 Trinity River Act.
  • Tulelake Subbasin Groundwater Core Team

    Tulelake Subbasin Groundwater Core Team

    TULELAKE SUBBASIN GROUNDWATER CORE TEAM CORE TEAM MEMBERS Kraig Beasly Gary Wright, Tulelake Irrigation District Chairperson Kraig Beasly, Tulelake Irrigation District Henry Ebinger, City of Tulelake Tiffany Martinez Clerk of the Core Team Matt Parker , Siskiyou County Tiffany Martinez, Modoc County Tulelake City Hall 591 Main Street, Tulelake, CA 96134 (530) 667-2249 AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2021 1:00 PM Alternate Meeting Locations: 204 South Court Street, Alturas, CA 96101 Pursuant to California Governor Gavin Newsom’s Executive Order N-25-20 & N-29-20 issued on March 12, 2020 and March 17, 2020, relating to the convening of public meetings in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Tulelake Sub Basin Core Team will be enacting social distancing procedures for the Tulelake Sub Basin Core Team Meetings to members of the public and staff. Additionally, members of the Tulelake Sub Basin Core Team are allowed to attend the meeting via teleconference and to participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were present. To protect the public, staff, and members of the Tulelake Sub Basin Core Team, members of the public are encouraged to participate in the Core Team meetings in the following ways: Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89927653957?pwd=S3JRaExmeXlwS2xBejVNR1Q0aDN6dz09 Meeting ID: 899 2765 3957 Passcode: 149882 One tap mobile 1-669-900-9128,,89927653957#,,,,*149882# US (San Jose) Public comments can also be e-mailed to [email protected] by 5:00 p.m. on February 16, 2021 to be entered into the record. Page 1 of 3 AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2021 The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) established a new structure for managing California’s groundwater resources at a local level by local agencies.