DOCSLIB.ORG

Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan (Hgmp)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan (Hgmp) HATCHERY AND GENETIC MANAGEMENT PLAN (HGMP) Hatchery Program: McKenzie River Spring Chinook Salmon Species or Spring Chinook Salmon (stock 023) Hatchery Stock: Agency/Operator: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Watershed and Region: Willamette River, Columbia River Date Submitted: Date Last Updated: 26 November 2003 SECTION 1. GENERAL PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 1.1) Name of hatchery or program. McKenzie Hatchery McKenzie River Spring Chinook Salmon Program 1.2) Species and population (or stock) under propagation, and ESA status. The spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) stock reared at McKenzie Hatchery (stock 023) originated from the wild stock of spring Chinook in the McKenzie River. The wild population of spring Chinook in the McKenzie River is part of the Upper Willamette Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) for spring Chinook salmon which is listed as threatened under ESA. The hatchery population is not considered part of the Upper Willamette ESU. 1.3) Responsible organization and individuals Lead Contact: Name (and title): John Thorpe, Chief of Fish Propagation Agency or Tribe: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Address: 3406 Cherry Avenue, NE, Salem, OR 97303-4924 Telephone: (503) 947-6000 Fax: (503) 947-6202 Email: [email protected] Local Contact: Name (and Title): Kurt Kremers, McKenzie Hatchery Manager Organization: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Address: 43863 Greer Drive, Leaburg, OR 97489 Telephone: 541-896-3513 Fax: 541-896-3826 Email: [email protected] Other organizations involved: The US Army Corp of Engineers (COE) funds 50% of the McKenzie Hatchery production expenditures. 1.4) Funding source, staffing level, and annual hatchery program operational costs. Funding: US Army Corp of Engineers (50%) State - ODFW general funds (50%) Staffing: Five full-time permanent positions, plus one eight-month seasonal position Budget: $678,316 for Fiscal Year 2002 McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 2 1.5) Location(s) of hatchery and associated facilities. The McKenzie Hatchery is located on the McKenzie River near river mile 37, which is about 17 miles east of Springfield, Oregon. Regional mark processing center code - #5F33317 H17 21. Latitude N44 degrees 7.11’ Longitude W122 degrees 38.27’ Adult Collection, holding and spawning: Adult spring Chinook are collected, held and spawned at McKenzie Hatchery. Some surplus hatchery adults are released above Cougar Dam to utilize habitat where access was blocked by the dams. Rearing (eyed egg to smolt): The current program production level is 1,199,000 smolts reared from early egg to smolt at McKenzie Hatchery. Acclimation to release: All smolts are reared and acclimated from early egg to release at McKenzie Hatchery into the McKenzie River. 1.6) Type of program. McKenzie spring Chinook stock is a combination of a mitigation program and an integrated harvest program. Approximately half the production of the McKenzie Hatchery smolt program is funded by an agreement with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to mitigate for losses of about 4,060 wild adults that were produced in areas above Cougar and Blue River dams. The mitigation agreement calls for rearing of a maximum of 80,800 lb. of spring Chinook to be released primarily in the McKenzie Basin and totally within the Willamette Basin. The remaining portion of the production is funded by ODFW for the purpose of enhancing the run for in-river fisheries enhancement purposes (ODFW, 1998). 1.7) Purpose (Goal) of program. 1) To mitigate the loss of spring Chinook catch in sport and commercial fisheries that was lost due to the construction and operation of Blue River and Cougar Dams (IHOT, 1997). 2) To provide adequate fish to the hatchery to maintain the broodstock, and to have hatchery broodstock available as a reserve population for the wild run. 3) To provide hatchery fish for natural production and enrichment above Cougar Dam. McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 3 4) To maintain the hatchery population as similar to the wild run as possible (OAR 635-500-1661). 1.8) Justification for the program. The McKenzie Spring Chinook Program is managed carefully to provide a fishery on spring Chinook while protecting the wild spring Chinook population from genetic and fishery impacts. The following is a list of hatchery practices and management features of the program currently in place to minimize these impacts: 1.8.1 Hatchery Practices • The McKenzie Hatchery broodstock originated from native McKenzie River spring Chinook. • At least 5% wild fish are incorporated into the hatchery broodstock each year. • All portions of the run and all age classes are incorporated into the egg takes to ensure genetic diversity. • 100% of the hatchery smolts released are fin marked to allow for a selective sport fishery on hatchery Chinook. Regulations require release of unmarked Chinook. • All releases of smolts into the McKenzie system are made from the hatchery to minimize straying. • Stray hatchery adults can be selectively removed from the naturally spawning population at Leaburg Dam. • McKenzie Hatchery complies with IHOT standards and ODFW policies for prevention and treatment of fish diseases. 1.8.2 Management Features Prior to the adoption of ODFW’s Native Fish Conservation Policy (NFCP) (OAR 635-007-0502 through 0509), the McKenzie Spring Chinook Program was managed as a “Type 2” program under ODFW’s Wild Fish Management Policy (WFMP). The WFMP was superceded by the NFCP in November 2002. Until an individual conservation plan is written for spring Chinook in the McKenzie River basin, NFCP Interim Criteria will be used for management guidance. A summary of the NFCP Interim Criteria follow (see OAR 635-007-0507 for more detail): 1. Existing populations – no more than 20% of the historical populations within the species management unit have become extinct and no natural population within the species management unit in existence as of 2003 shall be lost in the future. This criterion is not met for McKenzie River spring Chinook. The average estimated run of spring Chinook in the McKenzie River during 1945-1960, prior to loss of production above Cougar, Blue River and Trail Bridge dams, was 18,000 fish (Howell et al. 1988). The average estimated run size in the McKenzie over the period 1970-2002 is 6520 (see Appendix Table 1). McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 4 For at least 80% of the existing populations within each species management unit or for selected index populations, interim criteria 2-6 must be exceeded in at least 3 years during the most recent 5 year time interval. 2. Habitat Use Distribution – Naturally produced members of a population must occupy at least 50% of a population’s historic habitat. This criterion is not met for McKenzie River spring Chinook. 3. Abundance – The number of naturally produced spawners must be greater than 25% of the average abundance of naturally produced spawners over the most recent 30 year time period. This is met for McKenzie spring Chinook (see Appendix Table 1). 4. Productivity – In years when the total spawner abundance is less than the average abundance of naturally produced spawner over the past 30 years, then the rate of population increase shall be at least 1.2 adult offspring per parent. (“Offspring” are defined as naturally produced adults that survive to spawn and “parents” are defined as those adults of natural plus hatchery origin that spawned and collectively produced the observed offspring.) These data are not available for the McKenzie. 5. Reproductive Independence – At least 90% of the spawners within a population must be naturally produced and not hatchery produced fish, unless the department determines the hatchery produced fish are being used in a short-term experimental program to help restore a population in its natural habitat or otherwise directed by a court order. This criterion is not met for McKenzie River spring Chinook. In addition to broodstock management, Leaburg Dam presents the opportunity to remove excess hatchery fish from the natural spawning population in the major portion of the natural production area for spring Chinook in the McKenzie above Leaburg. Current limitations of the trapping facility at Leaburg Dam do not allow for removal of enough hatchery fish to comply with this criterion while at the same time minimize handling of wild spring Chinook. See Section 1.16 for further discussion on this issue. 6. Hybridization – The occurrence of individuals that are the product of deleterious hybridization with species that are non-native to the basin in which they are found must be rare or nonexistent. This is likely to be the case in the McKenzie. 1.9 & 1.10) List of program “Performance Standards” and “Performance Indicators” designated by “benefits” and “risks”. Category 1-Harvest Standard 1.1: Provide 1,000 adult hatchery spring Chinook for sport harvest in the McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 5 McKenzie River in such a way that impacts to the wild population of spring Chinook are within limits described in the FMEP. Ancillary impacts on wild spring Chinook populations from angling will be minimized. Benefit (It is recognized that angling may have risks to the wild population associated with it, however, harvest is a beneficial result of the hatchery program goal.) Indicator: Number of returning adults. Benefit Indicator: Number of hatchery spring Chinook harvested. Benefit Indicator: Numbers of wild spring Chinook handled and released during fishery, and estimated impact to wild population. Risk Standard 1.2: All McKenzie Hatchery spring Chinook juveniles will be marked with an adipose fin clip so hatchery adults can be visually distinguished from wild adults. Benefit Indicator: Mark retention rate from each release group. Benefit Category 2 - Genetic and Life History Characteristics: Standard 2.1: Spring Chinook broodstock will be collected in a manner that approximates the life history characteristics (e.g., run timing, age, and size of the population) of hatchery fish returning to the hatchery.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Influence of Cougar Reservoir Drawdown on Sediment and DDT Transport and Deposition in the Mckenzie River Basin, Oregon, Water Years 2002–04
    Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Influence of Cougar Reservoir Drawdown on Sediment and DDT Transport and Deposition in the McKenzie River Basin, Oregon, Water Years 2002–04 Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5164 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Front Cover: Cougar Reservoir near Terwilliger Hot Springs, Oregon. (Photograph taken by Chauncey Anderson, U.S. Geological Survey.) Back Cover: Cougar Reservoir withdrawal tower upon completion of construction in 2005. (Photograph from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.) Influence of Cougar Reservoir Drawdown on Sediment and DDT Transport and Deposition in the McKenzie River Basin, Oregon, Water Years 2002–04 By Chauncey W. Anderson Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5164 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2007 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS--the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Screening Exemption Proposal
    BakerCounty MasonDamHydroelectricProject _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ FishScreeningExemptionProposal October2013 Introduction: Baker County is seeking an exemption from screening for the existing Mason Dam in the following proposal. On April 30, 2013 Baker County filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a new hydroelectric license at the existing Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) Mason Dam. Because of the addition of the hydroelectric project this triggers Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 498.301 through 351 screening criteria. The following proposal provides background describing the project, a summary of the project impacts from the Entrainment and Mortality report, Baker County’s proposed mitigation and an explanation of how those measures will provide resource protection. Background: Existing Project Mason Dam is located in Baker County, Oregon approximately 11 miles southwest of Baker City on State Highway 7(Figure1). Mason Dam was built by the BOR on the Powder River for irrigation, water delivery and flood control. Mason Dam was constructed from 1965 – 1968 and has a total height of 173 feet and a maximum hydraulic height of 157 feet. Phillips Reservoir is a 2,234 acre-reservoir that was formed by the construction of Mason Dam. The reservoir has a total storage capacity of 95,500 acre-feet and an active storage capacity of 90,500 acre-feet. Existing Operation Water is generally stored between October through March with some releases above the minimum flow starting to occur in late March through April. Irrigation season starts in May and runs through September. Releases average approximately 10 cubic feet per second (cfs) between October and January, increase to an average of 20 to 50 cfs during February and March, gradually increasing to 100 cfs during April to early-May.
    [Show full text]
  • Mckenzie River Subbasin Assessment Summary Table of Contents
    McKenzie River, ca. 1944 McKenzie River Subbasin Assessment Summary Report February 2000 McKenzie River, ca. 2000 McKenzie River, ca. 2000 Prepared for the McKenzie Watershed Council Prepared By: Alsea Geospatial, Inc. Hardin-Davis, Inc. Pacific Wildlife Research, Inc. WaterWork Consulting McKenzie River Subbasin Assessment Summary Table of Contents High Priority Action Items for Conservation, Restoration, and Monitoring 1 The McKenzie River Watershed: Introduction 8 I. Watershed Overview 9 II. Aquatic Ecosystem Issues & Findings 17 Recommendations 29 III. Fish Populations Issues & Findings 31 Recommendations 37 IV. Wildlife Species and Habitats of Concern Issues & Findings 38 Recommendations 47 V. Putting the Assessment to work 50 Juvenile Chinook Habitat Modeling 51 Juvenile Chinook Salmon Habitat Results 54 VI. References 59 VII. Glossary of Terms 61 The McKenzie River Subbasin Assessment was funded by grants from the Bonneville Power Administration and the U.S. Forest Service. High Priority Action Items for Conservation, Restoration, and Monitoring Our analysis indicates that aquatic and wildlife habitat in the McKenzie River subbasin is relatively good yet habitat quality falls short of historical conditions. High quality habitat currently exists at many locations along the McKenzie River. This assessment concluded, however, that the river’s current condition, combined with existing management and regulations, does not ensure conservation or restoration of high quality habitat in the long term. Significant short-term improvements in aquatic and wildlife habitat are not likely to happen through regulatory action. Current regulations rarely address remedies for past actions. Furthermore, regulations and the necessary enforcement can fall short of attaining conservation goals. Regulations are most effective in ensuring that habitat quality trends improve over the long period.
    [Show full text]
  • Removal Action Report US Forest Service, Blue River Administration Site Blue River, Oregon
    Removal Action Report US Forest Service, Blue River Administration Site Blue River, Oregon Prepared for: US Forest Service, Willamette National Forest McKenzie River Ranger District Report Date: August 2012 PBS Project No. 76127.000, Phase 0004 Removal Action Report US Forest Service, Blue River Administration Site Blue River, Oregon TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 2.0 SITE LOCATION AND SETTING ..................................................................................... 1 2.1 Location ............................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Physiographic Setting......................................................................................... 1 3.0 PREVIOUS SITE STUDIES .............................................................................................. 2 3.1 Assessment and Evaluation of Remedial Options ........................................... 2 3.2 Waste Determination ........................................................................................... 2 4.0 REMOVAL ACTION OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH ................................................... 2 5.0 SAFETY ............................................................................................................................ 3 6.0 SUMMARY OF FIELD ACTIVITIES.................................................................................. 4 6.1 Monitoring Well Abandonment
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5 State(S): Oregon Recovery Unit Name: Willamette River
    Chapter 5 State(s): Oregon Recovery Unit Name: Willamette River Recovery Unit Region 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed necessary to recover and protect listed species. Plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and, in this case, with the assistance of recovery unit teams, contractors, State and Tribal agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or indicate the approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Recovery plans represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Director or Regional Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature Cited: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Chapter 5, Willamette River Recovery Unit, Oregon. 96 p. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Two working groups are active in the Willamette River Recovery Unit: the Upper Willamette (since 1989) and Clackamas Bull Trout Working Groups. In 1999, these groups were combined, and, along with representation from the Santiam subbasin, comprise the Willamette River Recovery Unit Team.
    [Show full text]
  • Angling Guide Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
    Angling Guide Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Alton Baker Park canoe canal: In Eugene by Autzen Stadium. Stocked in the spring with rainbow trout. A good place to take kids. Big Cliff Reservoir: 150 acres on the North Santiam River. The dam is located several miles below Detroit Dam off of Highway 22. Stocked with trout. Blue River Reservoir and Upper Blue River: 42 miles east of Eugene off Highway 126. Native cutthroat and rainbow. Stocked in spring and early summer with rainbow trout. USFS campground. Bond Butte Pond: 3 miles north of the Harrisburg exit on the east side of I-5 at MP 212 (the Bond Butte overpass). Channel catfish, largemouth bass, white crappie, bluegill. Carmen Reservoir: 65-acre reservoir located on Highway 126 appproximately 70 miles east of Springfield. Rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, brook trout. Clear Lake: 70 miles east of Eugene off Highway 126. Naturally reproducing brook trout and stocked with rainbow trout. Resort with restaurant, boat and cabin rentals. USFS campground. Cottage Grove Ponds: A group of 6 ponds totaling 15 acres. Located 1.5 miles east of Cottage Grove on Row River Road behind the truck scales. Largemouth bass, bluegill, bullhead. Rainbow trout are stocked into one pond in the spring. Cottage Grove Reservoir: Six miles south of Cottage Grove on London Road. Largemouth bass, brown bullhead, bluegill, cutthroat trout. Hatchery rainbow are stocked in the spring. USACE provides campgrounds. There is a health advisory for mercury contamination. Pregnant women, nursing women and children up to six years old should not eat fish other than stocked rainbow trout; children older than 6 and healthy adults should not eat more than 1/2 pound per week.
    [Show full text]
  • Fiscal Year 2006
    United States Department of Agriculture Monitoring and Forest Service Evaluation Report Pacific Northwest Willamette National Forest Region Fiscal Year 2006 Gold Lake on the Middle Fork Ranger District, Willamette National Forest ii May, 2007 I am pleased to present the Willamette National Forest’s 16th Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Report for your review. The climate in which we began implementing the Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), in 1991, has changed considerably. The largest change occurred in 1994 when the Northwest Forest Plan amended our LRMP by establishing new land allocations. The Forest Plan is a dynamic document, designed to adapt to changing circumstances. I am proud to say that the Forest has kept its promise to change as the world changes in order to keep our plan fresh and responsive. The Willamette is currently scheduled to begin Forest Plan revision in 2011. Until we begin Plan revision, it is my commitment to keep you informed of the results of monitoring through this report; however if you would like more information, feel free to contact the Forest or visit our website at www.fs.fed.us/r6/willamette. Your continued interest in the Forest Plan is just one way for you to stay current with activities on your public lands. Sincerely, DALLAS J. EMCH Forest Supervisor Willamette National Forest r6-will-008-07 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program.
    [Show full text]
  • 65 Places to Go Fishing in Lane County
    56. Konnie Memorial Park near the town of Swisshome. If you have more time and a boat…These Common Fish Siuslaw area trips are appropriate for drift boats, pontoons or kayaks. Standing waters Boaters are always responsible for knowing their craft, the nature of the river and their own abilities. Scout 57. Triangle Lake, Blachly 65 places before you go! Bass, bluegill, yellow perch, bullhead, kokanee, trout This large, popular, natural lake offers varied fishing that can be 1. Middle Fork Willamette River: Pengra to Jasper or red-hot, especially on the south and east shores. Access by boat Clearwater. A few technical spots keep boaters alert on to go fishing or from a fishing pier. this classic fish-and-float for trout and the occasional Rainbow trout Brook trout Cutthroat salmon or steelhead. A close-in trip that feels like a in Lane County Coastal Fishing remote getaway. Lane County offers so much to explore -- from coastal lakes and rivers to mountain lakes and 58. Alder Lake, Florence 2. McKenzie River: Hayden Bridge to Armitage Park. streams. The Willamette River runs through the Eugene-Springfield metro area and is fed by three major rivers: the Trout A gentle float with a few technical spots and abundant McKenzie, Middle Fork Willamette and Coast Fork Willamette. Florence is surrounded by large dune lakes, the Siuslaw A 3-acre dune lake with access to trails. Adjacent to a trout make this stretch relaxing and enjoyable. Catch- River and Pacific Ocean. With so many places to fish, it’s no wonder Lane County is an anglers’ paradise.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Vegetation and Soils of Terraces and Floodplains Along the Mckenzie River, Oregon
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF GLENN MARTIN HAWK for the MASTER OF SCIENCE (Name) (Degree) in BOTANY (PLANT ECOLOGY) presented onpi 1.71977___ (Major) J (Date) Title: FOREST VEGETATION AND SOILS OF TERRACES AND FLOODPLAINS ALONG THE MCKENZIE RIVER, OREGON Abstract approved: Redacted for Privacy DonaB. Zobl A study of the McKenzie River floodplains, terraces and glacial outwash plains was undertaken to classify and describe the vegetation and soils of a previously little studied synecological unit. During the summer of 1971, 54 analytic vegetation and soil plots (stands) were studied.Cover and frequency of all trees, shrubs, herbs and mosses were recorded as well as a soil description for each stand.Using Braun-Blanquet manual-visual association tables and computerized SIMORD analysis, four communities wereidentified. Further analysis of the four communities revealed two sequencesof seral associes leading to the development of two basichabitat types: one a climatic climax and theother a topo-edaphic climax association. Succession on floodplains, terraces, and glacialoutwash plains appears initially to follow achange from coarse, shallow soils to fine, deep soils.The climatic climax (Tsuga heterophylla/Acercircinatum/ Polystichum munitum- Oxalis oregana association) thendevelops on floodplains and terraces with deep, fine textured soils.The topo- edaphic climax (Tsuga heterophylla/Berberis nervosa-Gaultheria shallon/Linnaea borealis association develops on terraces and glacial outwash plains with shallow, coarse textured soils that have large amounts of stones and cobbles in all horizons of the soil profile. Further modifications of sites by fire and flooding also create different plant communities which add to the total diversity of forest vegetation occurring on alluvial deposits of the McKenzie River, Oregon.
    [Show full text]
  • Eastern Lane Maps Western Lane Maps
    Eastern Lane Maps Junction City Map 01 Junction City Map 02 Map 03 Map 04 Map 04 Map 06 Map 05 Map 05 Coburg Coburg Map 07 Map 08 Map 09 Veneta Eugene Map 10 Map 11 Eugene Springfield Map 12 Map 13 Map 14 Springfield Map 14 Map 15 Florence Map 16 Map 17 Creswell Dunes City Lowell Creswell Map 18 Map 19 Map 19 Map 20 Cottage Grove Cottage Grove Map 21 Westfir Oakridge Western Lane Maps Map 22 Map 22 Map 23 Map 24 Map 24 Goodman Lake Hulbert Lake Hult Log Storage Reservoir Neil Lake Deer Creek Love Lake Bear Creek Map 01 Map 02 Junction City Map 03 Long Tom River Tenas Lakes Hand Lake Map 04 Amazon Creek Willamette River Lookout Creek Benson Lake Campers Lake Map 06 Prince Lake Scott Lake Triangle Lake Melakwa Lake Little Lake Blue River Reservoir Spring Lake Map 05 Dearborn Island Linton Lake Blue River Collier Glacier Horse Creek Coburg Renfrew Glacier Deadwood Creek Lily Lake Eileen Lake e k Mohawk River Irving Glacier Lake Marr a L Map 07 Husband Lake Mussel Lake Lake Creek e Eugene Water And Electric Boar Map 08 g Map 09 d Dune Lake Mercer Lake Erskine Log Pond i R Cougar Reservoir Lost Creek Glacier n Buck Meadows r Amazon Creek Diversion Channel Tokatee Lakes Forcia And Larsen Reservoir e F Kidney Lake Clark Glacier Dew Lake Walterville Reservoir Map 10 Q Street Canal McKenzie River Separation Lake Eugene Walterville Canal Karl Lake Clear Lake Map 11 Little Hahnee Reservoir Veneta Springfield Map 12 Coyote Creek Quaking Aspen Swamp North Fork Siuslaw River Sweet Creek Noti Creek Reservoir Nash Lake Duncan Inlet Griffith Reservoir
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Entrainment and Mortality Study -Amendment
    APPENDIX G FISH ENTRAINMENT AND MORTALITY STUDY -AMENDMENT- MASON DAM PROJECT BAKER COUNTY, OREGON Project Number P-12686-001 Prepared for Baker County 1995 Third Street Baker City, Oregon 97814 Prepared by EcoWest Consulting, Inc. Baker, OR 97814 April 2013 863 MASON DAM PROJECT FISH ENTRAINMENT AND MORTALITY STUDY -AMENDMENT- TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Mason Dam Project Description 1 3.0 Methods 20 4.0 Results 22 4.1 Entrainment 22 4.1.1 Estimated Annual Entrainment 22 4.1.2 Species-Specific Entrainment Potential Overview 24 4.1.3 Salmonids 25 4.1.4 Percids 34 4.1.5 Centrarcids 37 4.1.6 Cyprinids 40 4.1.7 Catastomids 41 4.2 Entrainment Summary 42 5.0 Mortality 51 5.1 Overview 51 5.2 Overall Mortality Estimate Approach 53 5.3 Baseline Mortality Estimates 54 5.4 Project Operation 56 5.4.1 Salmonids 57 5.2.4 Percids 58 5.2.5 Other Fish (Centrarcids, Cyprinids, Catastomids) 58 5.2.6 Summary 58 6.0 REFERENCES 59 APPENDIX A-1. Entrainment and Mortality Background Summary APPENDIX A-2. Comparison Reservoir Mortality Studies APPENDIX B. Location of Yellow Perch Spawning Sites in Which Netting Has Occurred Between 2009-2012. APPENDIX C Entrainment Mortality Report February 2011 72 APPENDIX D Consultation Record 92 864 1.0 Introduction Baker County conducted a study to address potential effects of the proposed Mason Dam Hydroelectric Project on mortality of fish passing through Mason Dam (GeoSense 2011) according to directives provided by FERC during the May 20, 2010 agency coordination meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • WATER-POWER RESOURCES of THE. Mckenzie RIVER and ITS TRIBUTARIES, OREGON
    WATER-POWER RESOURCES OF THE. McKENZIE RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES, OREGON By BENJAMIN E. JoNES and HARoLD T. STEARNS SUMMARY The McKenzie·River is a valuable power stream from Clear Lake to Coburg Bridge, which is only 3 miles above its mouth. It has a large fall and well-sus­ tained flow, but storage on .the main stream would be expensive. On Olallie Creek, Lost Creek, Horse Creek to the mouth of Separation Creek, Separation Creek from its mouth to Mesa. Creek, and the Roaring River, tributary to the South Fork of the McKenzie River, there are a number of power sites that can be economically developed when a market is available. The South Fork of the McKenzie River has some potential power, but it would be more expensive to develop than that on the other streams. The Blue River possesses no ad­ vantageous power sites, but a reservoir might be built on it to store water for use at sites on the McKenzie River. The Mohawk River has no power value. Clear Lake is of little value as a reservoir because of leakage. Two proposed reservoir sites on the McKenzie River, the Paradise site and the Eugene municipal site No. 3, would have a total capacity of 197,000 acre-feet, of which 47,000 acre­ feet would be required in the bottom of the reservoirs to create ·head, leaving a net capacity of 150,000 acre-feet.. A proposed reservoir on the Blue River would have a total capacity of 59,000 acre-feet, and the Mesa site, at the head of Separation Creek, would have a capacity f 5,000 acre-feet.
    [Show full text]