DOCSLIB.ORG

Pacificorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project Interim Operations Habitat Conservation Plan for Lost River and Shortnose Suckers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pacificorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project Interim Operations Habitat Conservation Plan for Lost River and Shortnose Suckers PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project Interim Operations Habitat Conservation Plan for Lost River and Shortnose Suckers November 20, 2013 Recommended Citation: PacifiCorp. 2013. PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project Interim Operations Habitat Conservation Plan for Lost River and Shortnose Suckers. Prepared by PacifiCorp Energy, Inc., Portland, OR. Submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office, Klamath Falls, OR. November 20, 2013. PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project Interim Operations Habitat Conservation Plan for Lost River and Shortnose Suckers November 20, 2013 Table of Contents I. Introduction and Background ............................................................................................ 1 Permit Holder/Permit Duration .......................................................................................... 5 Covered Lands ................................................................................................................. 5 Species to be Covered by the Permits .............................................................................. 5 Regulatory Framework ...................................................................................................... 5 Endangered Species Act ...................................................................................... 5 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ........................................................... 7 Other Species Considered ................................................................................................ 7 II. Description of Covered Activities ...................................................................................... 9 III. Covered Species ............................................................................................................... 11 Lost River and Shortnose Suckers ................................................................................. 11 Legal Status ........................................................................................................ 11 Range and Distribution ....................................................................................... 11 Life History and Habitat Requirements ............................................................... 12 IV. Current Conditions ............................................................................................................ 15 Existing Project Facilities ................................................................................................ 15 East and West Side Developments .................................................................... 15 Keno Development ............................................................................................. 17 J.C. Boyle Development ..................................................................................... 17 Copco No. 1 Development .................................................................................. 18 Copco No. 2 Development .................................................................................. 18 Fall Creek Development ..................................................................................... 19 Iron Gate Development ...................................................................................... 19 Climate ............................................................................................................................ 19 Hydrology and River Flow Management ......................................................................... 20 Natural Hydrology ............................................................................................... 20 Reservoir and Lake Elevations ........................................................................... 21 Release Flows .................................................................................................... 22 Ramping Rates ................................................................................................... 23 Water Quality .................................................................................................................. 25 Upper Klamath Lake ........................................................................................... 26 Link River ............................................................................................................ 26 Keno Reservoir ................................................................................................... 27 Keno Reach—Keno Dam to J.C. Boyle Reservoir .............................................. 30 J.C. Boyle Reservoir ........................................................................................... 30 Bypass Reach—J.C. Boyle Dam to J.C. Boyle Powerhouse .............................. 31 Peaking Reach—J.C. Boyle Powerhouse to Copco Reservoir ........................... 32 Copco Reservoir Complex .................................................................................. 33 Iron Gate Reservoir ............................................................................................ 35 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) ................................................................ 36 Covered Species and Habitats ....................................................................................... 37 Lost River and Shortnose Sucker ....................................................................... 37 V. Effects of Covered Activities on Covered Species ......................................................... 43 Effects on Listed Sucker Species ................................................................................... 43 Entrainment at Project Diversions ...................................................................... 49 False Attraction at Project Tailraces ................................................................... 52 Ramp Rate Effects ............................................................................................. 52 Reservoir Fluctuation Effects .............................................................................. 53 III PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project Interim Operations Habitat Conservation Plan for Lost River and Shortnose Suckers November 20, 2013 Migration Barriers ............................................................................................... 54 Degradation and Loss of Habitat ........................................................................ 55 Water Quality ...................................................................................................... 56 Effects to Lost River Sucker and Shortnose Sucker Critical Habitat ................... 57 VI. Conservation Program ...................................................................................................... 59 Sucker Conservation Strategy ........................................................................................ 59 Sucker Biological Goals and Objectives ............................................................. 60 Effects of the Sucker Conservation Strategy .................................................................. 64 Shutdown of the East Side and West Side Developments ................................. 64 Sucker Recovery Initiatives ................................................................................ 67 VII. Monitoring and Adaptive Management ............................................................................ 69 Project Facilities .............................................................................................................. 69 Sucker Recovery Initiatives ............................................................................................. 69 Williamson River Delta Restoration Program .................................................................. 69 VIII. Compliance with Authorized Level of Take ................................................................... 71 IX. Changed and Unforeseen Circumstances ..................................................................... 75 Changed Circumstances Identified in the Plan ............................................................... 75 Measures for Changed Circumstances ........................................................................... 76 New Listing of Species that are Not Covered Species .................................................... 76 Measures for Unforeseen Circumstances ....................................................................... 77 X. Funding .............................................................................................................................. 79 HCP Funding Commitments ........................................................................................... 79 Conservation Funding Assurances ................................................................................. 79 Annual Funding Certification ........................................................................................... 80 XI. Plan Implementation ......................................................................................................... 81 XII. Other Alternative Actions Considered ............................................................................. 89 No Action Alternative 1 ................................................................................................... 89 No Action Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Yurok Final Brief
    Case 3:16-cv-06863-WHO Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 1 of 22 JEFFREY H. WOOD, Acting Assistant Attorney General 1 Environment & Natural Resources Division 2 SETH M. BARSKY, Chief S. JAY GOVINDAN, Assistant Chief 3 ROBERT P. WILLIAMS, Sr. Trial Attorney KAITLYN POIRIER, Trial Attorney 4 U.S. Department of Justice 5 Environment & Natural Resources Division Wildlife & Marine Resources Section 6 Ben Franklin Station, P.O. Box 7611 7 Washington, D.C. 20044-7611 Tel: 202-307-6623; Fax: 202-305-0275 8 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] 9 10 Attorneys for Federal Defendants 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 14 YUROK TRIBE, et al., ) 15 Case No. 3:16-cv-06863-WHO ) 16 Plaintiff, ) ) 17 FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE v. ) TO DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ 18 ) MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, et al., ) JUDGMENT AND/OR STAY OF 19 ) ENFORCEMENT (ECF No. 101) Defendants, ) 20 ) 21 and ) ) 22 KLAMATH WATER USERS ) ASSOCIATION, et al., ) 23 ) 24 Defendant-Intervenors. ) 25 26 27 28 1 Federal Defendants’ Response to Intervenors’ Motion for Relief 3:16-cv-6863-WHO Case 3:16-cv-06863-WHO Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 2 of 22 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 3 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 5 4 A. Hydrologic Conditions In Water Year 2018 5 5 B. 2013 Biological Opinion Requirements for Suckers 5 6 III. DISCUSSION 7 7 A. Given Hydrologic Conditions, Guidance Measures 1 8 and 4 Cannot Both Be Implemented As They Were Designed Without Impermissibly Interfering With 9 Conditions Necessary to Protect Endangered Suckers 7 10 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Temperature Monitoring of the Klamath River Mainstem
    L . Water Temperature Monitoring of the Klamath River Mainstem Progress Report #3 Prepared by Robert Rohde and Leaf Hillman with assistance provided by Susan Smith and William Tripp Karuk Tribe of California Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 282 Orleans, California 95556 PROGRESS REPORT #3 WATER TEMPERATURE MONITORING OF THE KLAMATH RIVER MAINSTEM BACKGROUND This is the third progress report to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concerning activities conducted under the terms of Cooperative Agreement Number 14-48-0001-92663, and covers the period of October 1, 1993 to September 30, 1994. This report describes the activities that have been initiated and/or completed on the Water Temperature Monitoring of the Klamath River Mainstem Project. As described in our original proposal, seven water temperature monitoring sites were established in the Klamath River mainstem from Link River Dam in Oregon to the mouth of the Klamath River near the Pacific Ocean. During preparation for water temperature gage deployment in spring of 1993, Pacific Power and Light (PP&L) and the California Department of Fish and Game offered to share water temperature data from Ryan temperature gages located at two of this project’s proposed locations (below Link River Dam and below Iron Gate Dam). PP&L also agreed to retrieve the data below Keno Dam along with the Link River site and two other gages they had located below Boyle and Copco Dams. At the same time, additional water temperature monitoring sites were established approximately three to five miles below the Shasta, Scott and Salmon Rivers to allow for water temperature mixing.The installation of these water temperature instruments was made possible with the help of the Oak Knoll and Salmon River Ranger Districts, Klamath National Forest.
    [Show full text]
  • Calif. Regional Water Quality Control Board
    North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 5550 Skylane Boulevard, Suite A, Santa Rosa, CA 95403 http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast State Warns Against Blue-Green Algae in Klamath River Contact with blue-green algae can cause eye irritation, skin rash Caution urged when recreating and consuming fish FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Clayton Creager September 13, 2012 Phone: (707) 576-2666 Sacramento – Due to its potential health risks, federal, state, and tribal agencies are urging swimmers, boaters and recreational users to avoid contact with blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) now blooming in the Klamath River, downstream of Iron Gate Dam, in Northern California. Water in the Klamath River downstream of the dam to just below the Interstate 5 Bridge has exceeded public health criteria; these areas have been posted with health advisories warning against human and animal contact with the water. ADDED INFORMATION: Blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) now blooming in the Klamath River, downstream of Iron Gate Dam, to Turwar in Humboldt County has exceeded public health criteria; these areas have been posted with health advisories warning against human and animal contact with the water. Recent monitoring indicates that levels of cyanobacteria downstream of Turwar are also increasing (but are currently below the state’s action levels); water users are encouraged to use caution, and check most recent sampling results on the Klamath Recent monitoring indicates that levels of cyanobacteria downstream of the I-5 bridge are also increasing (but are currently below the state’s action levels);water users are encouraged to use caution, and check most recent sampling results on the Klamath Blue-Green algae Tracker (see link below).
    [Show full text]
  • Lost River Sucker 5-Year Status Review
    Lost River Sucker (Deltistes luxatus) 5-Year Review Summary and Evaluation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office Klamath Falls, Oregon July 2007 5-YEAR REVIEW Lost River Sucker (Deltistes luxatus) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION.......................................................................................... 1 1.1. Reviewers............................................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Methodology used to complete the review....................................................................... 1 1.3. Background ........................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 REVIEW ANALYSIS....................................................................................................... 2 2.1. Application of the 1996 Distinct Populations Segment (DPS) policy ............................ 2 2.2. Biology and Habitat ........................................................................................................... 3 2.3. Recovery Criteria............................................................................................................. 12 2.4. Five-Factor Analysis ........................................................................................................ 15 2.5. Synthesis............................................................................................................................ 29 3.0 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Study to Determine the Feasibility of Establishing Salmon and Steelhead in the Upper Klamath Basin
    A STUDY TO DETERMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING SALMON AND STEELHEAD IN THE UPPER KLAMATH BASIN JOHN D. FORTUNE, JR. ARTHUR R. GERLACH C. J. HANEL A STUDY TO DETER?II:JE THE FEASIBILITY OF ESTAHLISHING SALMON AND SEELllEAD IX THE UPPER KLMTH BAS IN April, 1966 John D. Fortune, Jr. and Arthur R. Gerlach, Oregon State Game Conmission and C. J. fiancl, Pacific Power & Light Company STEERING COPiMITTEE MEMBERSHIP Robert Puckett Attorney at Law, Klamath Falls, Oregon Bruce B. Cannady Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife George 0. Black Bureau of Commercial Fisheries John E. Skinner California Department of Fish and Game T. Eugene Kruse Fish Commission of Oregon Charles J. Campbell Oregon Stare Game Commission J. A. R. Hamilton Pacific Parer L Light Company Tam OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODlJCTI ON DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA Physical Climatology HISTORY OF KLANATH RIVER SALMON AND STEELHEAD Published Reports Archeological investigations County his tory Newspaper reports Biological investigations Miscellaneous reports Personal Interviews Fish Counts for Rlamath River LIFE HISTORY OF KLAMATH RIVER SALWON UD STEELHEAD Salmon Upstream migration Spawning Downstream migration Age at rnaturiry St eelhead ENVIRONMENTAL REOUIREMENTS OF SALMON AND STEELHEAD Temperature Dissolved Oxygen Water Velocity for Spawning Water Depth for Spawning Gravel Quality Migration Schedules SURVEY RESULTS AND EVALUATION Survey Ekrhods Lower Klamath River Iron Gate Reservoir Jenny Creek Copco No. 2 Dam Copco No. 1 Reservoir Shovel Creek Klamath River from Copco Reservoir to J. C. Doyle Dam J. C. Boyle Dam and Reservoir Spencer Creek Klamath River to Old Needle Dam at Keno Klamath River from Keno to Klamath Falls Link River Upper Klarnath Lake West Side Tributaries Fourmile Creek and Crane Creek Sevenmile Creek SURVEY RESULTS AND EVALUATION (cont .) lJood River Williamson River Spring Creek Sprague River to Lone Pine Sprague River from Lone Pine to the Forks South Fork of Sprague River North Fork of Sprague River Tributaries of Sprague River Sycan River Five Hile and Meryl.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Flow of the Upper Klamath River
    Natural Flow of the Upper Klamath River U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation November 2005 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. 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. Cover photo by J. Rasmussen— McCornac Point Marsh Natural Flow of the Upper Klamath River—Phase I Natural inflow to, natural losses from, and natural outfall of Upper Klamath Lake to the Link River and the Klamath River at Keno prepared by Technical Service Center Water Resources Services Thomas Perry, Hydrologist Amy Lieb, Hydrologist Alan Harrison, Environmental Engineer Mark Spears, P.E., Hydraulic Engineer Ty Mull, Agricultural Engineer Concrete Dams and Waterways Elisabeth Cohen, P.E., Hydraulic Engineer Klamath Basin Area Office John Rasmussen, Hydrologist Jon Hicks, Water Conservation Specialist TSC Project Management Del Holz, Manager Joe Lyons, Assistant Manager prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Klamath Basin Area Office Klamath Falls, Oregon November 2005 Base map and study area. Preface This study was undertaken to estimate the effects of agricultural development on natural flows in the Upper Klamath River Basin. A large body of data was reviewed and analyzed to obtain the results included in this assessment of the natural hydrology of the Basin. Within this report, the term natural represents typical flows without agricultural development in the basin.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 59/Tuesday, March 30, 2021/Notices
    Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 30, 2021 / Notices 16639 provide drainage service to lands within water annually with the Agency for Recreation Act of March 12, 2019 (Pub. the San Luis Unit of the CVP including storage and conveyance in Folsom L. 116–9). the Westlands WD service area. Reservoir, and a contract with the 42. Shasta County Water Agency, 20. San Luis WD, Meyers Farms District for conveyance of non-project CVP, California: Proposed partial Family Trust, and Reclamation; CVP; water through Folsom South Canal. assignment of 50 acre-feet of the Shasta California: Revision of an existing 31. Gray Lodge Wildlife Area, CVP, County Water Agency’s CVP water contract among San Luis WD, Meyers California: Reimbursement agreement supply to the City of Shasta Lake for Farms Family Trust, and Reclamation between the California Department of M&I use. providing for an increase in the Fish and Wildlife and Reclamation for 43. Friant Water Authority, CVP, exchange of water from 6,316 to 10,526 groundwater pumping costs. California: Negotiation and execution of acre-feet annually and an increase in the Groundwater will provide a portion of a repayment contract for Friant Kern storage capacity of the bank to 60,000 Gray Lodge Wildlife Area’s Central Canal Middle Reach Capacity Correction acre-feet. Valley Improvement Act Level 4 water Project. 21. Contra Costa WD, CVP, California: supplies. This action is taken pursuant Amendment to an existing O&M to Public Law 102–575, Title 34, Section Completed Contract Actions agreement to transfer O&M of the Contra 3406(d)(1, 2 and 5), to meet full Level 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Klamath Lake and the Section 106 Process: Undertakings, Areas of Potential Effect, and Federal Responsibility
    UPPER KLAMATH LAKE AND THE SECTION 106 PROCESS: UNDERTAKINGS, AREAS OF POTENTIAL EFFECT, AND FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY KELLY KRITZER* I. INTRODUCTION Upper Klamath Lake1 has long sustained a population deeply intertwined with the natural rhythm of this rich resource. The lake and its surrounding environment provided food, raw materials, and spiritual sites for the people of the Klamath Tribes. Numerous villages, campsites, and burial areas once rimmed the shores of Upper Klamath Lake2 prior to the removal of the Klamath Tribes from the majority of these locations by the Treaty of 1864.3 Today these sites lie unprotected and exposed to negative impacts. Erosion from weather and wave action has subjected many of the historic properties to loss of vegetative ground cover and soil. Exposure of these sites has led to further negative impacts from vandals and looters, who canvas the lakeshore for artifacts. For example, exposure, primarily from a fluctuating lake level and wave action, of an important burial location along the eastern shore of Agency Lake resulted in serious degradation of that site.4 Site stabilization measures, such as the placement of soil-stabilizing riprap,5 has somewhat decreased the loss to this site.6 Yet the fluctuating lake level, one of the major factors that adversely affect historic properties along Upper Klamath Lake, continues to exacerbate erosion and exposure of this and other lakeshore sites. Historically, Upper Klamath Lake naturally fluctuated with the seasons, yet presently the lake level varies more to meet modern needs. Currently, Upper Klamath Lake is a highly regulated water-storage reservoir for two major projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Written Each Year
    5.0 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT EFFECTS ON HYDROLOGY 5.1 DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to determine how much control and what effects the PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project facilities and operations have on the hydrology of the Klamath River. To address this purpose, this study assesses the hydrologic regime and controlling factors in the Project area, including the effects of Project operations. This hydrology study also provides information for supporting other resources, including water quality, fluvial geo- morphology, fish and wildlife habitat, riparian resources, recreation, and visual/aesthetics values. At present, USBR has management control of specific Upper Klamath Lake elevations and specific flow releases at Iron Gate dam. Since 1997, USBR has defined Klamath Irrigation Project operations through annual operations plans. Each annual plan defines how Upper Klamath Lake and flows downstream of Iron Gate dam will be regulated for that year, based on hydrological and environmental conditions. To assist USBR in achieving its plan, PacifiCorp has signed annual agreements with USBR. Each annual agreement states that PacifiCorp will operate its Project in accordance with the annual plan. USBR has recently developed a long-term operations plan so that new plans do not have to be written each year. 5.2 OBJECTIVES The objectives and key questions addressed by this study are as follows: • Provide a detailed explanation and understanding of flow regulation into, within, and downstream of the Project area. What are
    [Show full text]