DOCSLIB.ORG

Water Allocation in the Klamath Reclamation Project (Oregon State

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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 State University Department Emery Castle, director, Rural Studies Program, Douglas F. Markle, professor of fisheries, Oregon Oregon State University State University Donald R. Clark, former research agronomist, Leslie Richards, assistant professor, Department Klamath Experiment Station, Oregon State University of Human Development and Family Sciences, Michael S. Cooperman, graduate research assis- Oregon State University tant, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon Jeff Romm, professor, Division of Resource State University Institutions, Policy, and Management, College of James Cornelius, professor of agricultural and Natural Resources, University of California resource economics and Extension economist, Berkeley Oregon State University Kenneth A. Rykbost, superintendent, Klamath Corinne Corson, former faculty research assistant, Experiment Station, and professor, Department Department of Human Development and Family of Crop and Soil Science, Oregon State Sciences, Oregon State University University W. Daniel Edge, department head, Depart- Bruce Sorte, graduate student, Department of ment of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State Agricultural and Resource Economics, Oregon University State University Guillermo Giannico, Extension fisheries Rodney Todd, Extension agriculture faculty, specialist, Oregon State University Klamath County, Oregon State University Ron Hathaway, Extension agriculture faculty and Bruce Weber, professor of agricultural and staff chair, Klamath County, Oregon State resource economics and Extension economist, University Oregon State University Christopher Heider, former faculty research Teresa Welch, Extension publications editor, assistant, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University Oregon State University George Woodward, Division of Resource Institu- tions, Policy, and Management, College of Natural Resources, University of California Berkeley ii Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 William S. Braunworth, Jr. and Emery Castle Key Lessons Learned .................................................................................................................................... 7 Teresa Welch Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 11 Part 1. Setting the Stage 1 Background .......................................................................................................................................... 31 Ron Hathaway and Teresa Welch 2 An Overview of the Klamath Reclamation Project and Related Upper Klamath Basin Hydrology ........ 45 Kenneth A. Rykbost and Rodney Todd 3 Legal Aspects of Upper Klamath Basin Water Allocation...................................................................... 75 Reed Marbut 4 Understanding Science ......................................................................................................................... 91 Douglas F. Markle Part 2. Suckers and Coho Salmon 5 Relationships between Lost River and Shortnose Sucker Biology and Management of Upper Klamath Lake ............................................................................................ 93 Douglas F. Markle and Michael S. Cooperman 6 Coho Salmon and Water Management in the Klamath Basin............................................................... 119 Guillermo Giannico and Christopher Heider Part 3. Agriculture 7 Soil Resources in the Klamath Reclamation Project ............................................................................ 153 Harry L. Carlson, Donald R. Clark, Kerry Locke, and Rodney Todd 8 Effects of the 2001 Water Allocation Decisions on the Agricultural Landscape and Crop Production in the Klamath Reclamation Project ................................................................... 163 Harry L. Carlson and Rodney Todd Part 4. Communities 9 Effects of the 2001 Water Allocation Decisions on Project-area Communities ..................................... 177 Denise Lach, Leslie Richards, Corinne Corson, and Patty Case Part 5. Economics 10 Preface to the Economics Chapters ..................................................................................................... 209 William K. Jaeger and Bruce Weber 11 The Upper Klamath Basin Economy and the Role of Agriculture........................................................ 213 Bruce Weber and Bruce Sorte 12 The Effects of Water Allocation Decisions on Crop Revenue in the Klamath Reclamation Project ...... 231 Susan Burke iii 13 Impact of the 2001 Klamath Project Operations Plan on the Economy of the Upper Klamath Basin ......................................................................................................................... 251 Bruce Weber, James Cornelius, Bruce Sorte, and William Boggess 14 What Actually Happened in 2001? A Comparison of Estimated Impacts and Reported Outcomes of the Irrigation Curtailment in the Upper Klamath Basin ................................................................... 265 William K. Jaeger Part 6. Wildlife 15 Relationships between Bald Eagle Biology and Federal Environmental Decisions on the Klamath Reclamation Project ................................................................................................... 285 Jeff Manning and W. Daniel Edge 16 Effects on Waterfowl of the 2001 Water Allocation Decisions ............................................................. 313 Robert L. Jarvis 17 Relationships between Mule Deer Biology and the 2001 Federal Environmental Decisions on the Klamath Reclamation Project ................................................................................................... 327 Jeff Manning and W. Daniel Edge Part 7. Public Policy 18 A Policy Assessment of the 2001 Klamath Reclamation Project Water Allocation Decisions ............... 337 George Woodward and Jeff Romm 19 Water Allocation Alternatives for the Upper Klamath Basin ................................................................ 365 William K. Jaeger 20 A Synthesis: Policy Analysis and Public Institutions ........................................................................... 393 Emery Castle iv Acknowledgments We gratefully acknowledge the time and effort of the many people who reviewed drafts of this report. Their comments, suggestions, and insights have greatly strengthened the final report. We especially thank Allen Foreman (The Klamath Tribes, Chiloquin, OR), Dan Keppen (Klamath Water Users Association), Dennis Lynch (U.S. Geological Survey, Portland, OR), Rodney McInnis (National Marine Fisheries Service, Long Beach, CA), Rip Shively (U.S. Geological Survey, Klamath Falls, OR), Marshall Staunton (Klamath County farmer), and the Yurok Tribe. We also thank Tom Gallagher, former associate professor of forest resources and leadership specialist, Oregon State University Extension Service, for his work in coordination and facilitation of this project, and Andrea Dailey, publications editor, Oregon State University Extension Service, for proofreading. v 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 Oregon State University • University of California Introduction William S. Braunworth, Jr. and Emery Castle In April 2001, the water status quo in the Klamath Basin, these costs include direct Upper Klamath Basin was turned on its head. costs of improving fish habitat and indirect costs Decisions intended to conserve endangered and incurred when irrigation water is denied to threatened fish, combined with a severe drought, farmers. In 2001, costs were immediate and resulted in curtailment of 2001 irrigation water measurable. deliveries to much of the Klamath Reclamation Clearly, the way water is allocated in the Project. One
Load more

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, 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
    [Show full text]
  • Frequently Asked Questions
    Frequently Asked Questions Why are we doing this project? The City of Klamath Falls is working to upgrade the Spring Street Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) due to its aging infrastructure and the need to meet new, stricter treatment standards. The project is an important, long-term investment for the community. The City has operated the Spring Street STP since 1958, serving Klamath Falls for over 60 years. Many of the plant’s parts are original since their installation in the 1950s. As repairs are becoming necessary due to age, it is more cost-efficient to replace them entirely them than to repair them. A comprehensive upgrade is a smart investment in the plant, avoiding short-term, quick-fix solutions that add up in the long run. What benefits will this project provide to the City of Klamath Falls? The City’s Wastewater Division provides services to approximately 21,000 city residents and Klamath Basin area customers, cleaning an average 2.2 million gallons of wastewater per day from over 7,400 service connections. These upgrades will provide the following benefits to this process and to the community: • Improved health, safety, and welfare of the public. • Reliable, robust treatment with sufficient process and equipment redundancy (allowing the plant to stay operational while routine maintenance and repairs occur), and operator-friendly facilities. • Energy efficiency, which will result in additional funding from the Energy Trust of Oregon and reduced power bills. • Reduction in operation and maintenance costs due to the elimination of two existing processes: primary clarification and digestion. Along with being a smart long-term investment, the upgrades will help keep the City in compliance with Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regulations and protect the area’s natural resources such as Lake Ewauna, the headwaters of the Klamath River where the treated wastewater is discharged.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Sacred Rock Cairns and Prayer Seats on Modern Klamath and Modoc Religion and World View
    Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology UC Merced Peer Reviewed Title: The Influence of Sacred Rock Cairns and Prayer Seats on Modern Klamath and Modoc Religion and World View Journal Issue: Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 22(2) Author: Haynal, Patrick M, Gordon Settles Consulting Publication Date: 2000 Permalink: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/99h4b4q7 Keywords: ethnography, ethnohistory, archaeology, native peoples, Great Basin Abstract: The focus of this article is the spiritual and symbolic significance of two categories of Klamath and Modoc sacred sites: rock cairns and prayer seats. Both site types are generally associated with the traditional practice of the vision quest among the Klamath and Modoc peoples of southern Oregon and northern California. Both tribes, along with the Yahooskin Paiute—recognized federally as the Klamath tribes—are concerned with the protection and preservation of these important sacred sites. After a background discussion focusing on the cultural distribution of cairns and prayer seats, a discussion of the various functional precontact traditional types of rock cairns and prayer seats found in association with some cairns is reviewed. Next, discussions concerning the modern cultural significance of cairns and prayer seats and the continuing practice of erecting cairns are presented. Finally, the importance of rock cairns and prayer seats to the shaping of modem Klamath and Modoc world view is discussed. Copyright Information: All rights reserved unless otherwise indicated. Contact the author or original publisher for any necessary permissions. eScholarship is not the copyright owner for deposited works. Learn more at http://www.escholarship.org/help_copyright.html#reuse eScholarship provides open access, scholarly publishing services to the University of California and delivers a dynamic research platform to scholars worldwide.
    [Show full text]
  • 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/.
    [Show full text]
  • Klamath River Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement Interim Measure 15
    Klamath River Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement Interim Measure 15: Final 2019 Water Quality Monitoring Study Plan Prepared: January 16, 2019 KHSA IM15 2019 STUDY PLAN Table of Contents 1. Introduction and Overview ............................................................................................. 1 2. Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 3 3. Monitoring Components ................................................................................................. 4 3.1 Public Health Monitoring of Cyanobacteria and Toxins .......................................... 4 3.2 Baseline Water Quality Monitoring of the Klamath River ....................................... 4 4. Quality Assurance, Data Management, and Dissemination ............................................ 5 4.1 KHSA Program Quality Assurance Strategy for 2019 ............................................. 5 5. Sampling Constituents and Frequency............................................................................ 7 5.1 Public Health Monitoring of Cyanobacteria and Toxins .......................................... 7 5.2 Comprehensive Baseline Water Quality Monitoring of the Klamath River ............. 9 6.0 References ................................................................................................................... 13 List of Figures Figure 1. 2019 KHSA IM 15 monitoring stations .............................................................. 2 List of Tables
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Klamath Basin, Tule Lake Subbasin • Groundwater Basin Number: 1-2.01 • County: Modoc, Siskiyou • Surface Area: 85,930 Acres (135 Square Miles)
    North Coast Hydrologic Region California’s Groundwater Upper Klamath Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118 Upper Klamath Basin, Tule Lake Subbasin • Groundwater Basin Number: 1-2.01 • County: Modoc, Siskiyou • Surface Area: 85,930 acres (135 square miles) An important note on the status of the groundwater resources in the Tule Lake Subbasin, is that, historically, groundwater use in the basin has been relatively minor. Since about 1905, when the Bureau of Reclamation began building the Klamath Project to provide surface water to agriculture on reclaimed land in the Klamath Basin, abundant surface water supplies have been available. In the 2001 Klamath Project Operation, water requirements for two sucker fish species in the upper basin and the coho salmon in the lower basin led the USBR to reduce surface water deliveries to the farmers to 26 percent of normal. The already existing drought conditions were further exacerbated by the operational drought. In 2001, drought emergencies were declared for the Klamath Basin by the governors of both California and Oregon. Governor Davis called upon California’s legislature to fund an Emergency Well Drilling Program in the Tulelake Irrigation District (TID). The governor also requested funding for a Hydrogeologic Investigation to evaluate new and future groundwater development. The emergency measures were taken because the TID had no alternate water supply for the nearly 75,000 acres in the district and farmers were faced with economic disaster. Ten large-capacity irrigation wells were constructed within the irrigation district for the emergency program. Four of the ten wells produce 10,000 gpm and greater. The lowest yielding well produces 6,000 gpm.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Chiloquin Dam on Spawning Distribution and Larval Emigration of Lost River, Shortnose, and Klamath Largescale Sucke
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Publications of the US Geological Survey US Geological Survey 2013 Effects of Chiloquin Dam on Spawning Distribution and Larval Emigration of Lost River, Shortnose, and Klamath Largescale Suckers in the Williamson and Sprague Rivers, Oregon Barbara A. Martin U.S. Geological Survey, [email protected] David A. Hewitt U.S. Geological Survey Craig M. Ellsworth U.S. Geological Survey Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgspubs Part of the Geochemistry Commons, Geology Commons, Geomorphology Commons, Hydrology Commons, and the Other Earth Sciences Commons Martin, Barbara A.; Hewitt, David A.; and Ellsworth, Craig M., "Effects of Chiloquin Dam on Spawning Distribution and Larval Emigration of Lost River, Shortnose, and Klamath Largescale Suckers in the Williamson and Sprague Rivers, Oregon" (2013). Publications of the US Geological Survey. 117. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgspubs/117 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Geological Survey at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Publications of the US Geological Survey by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation Effects of Chiloquin Dam on Spawning Distribution and Larval Emigration of Lost River, Shortnose, and Klamath Largescale Suckers in the Williamson and Sprague Rivers, Oregon Open-File Report 2013–1039 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Effects of Chiloquin Dam on Spawning Distribution and Larval Emigration of Lost River, Shortnose, and Klamath Largescale Suckers in the Williamson and Sprague Rivers, Oregon By Barbara A.
    [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]