DOCSLIB.ORG

Pacificorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project Interim Operations Habitat Conservation Plan for Coho Salmon

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 Coho Salmon PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project Interim Operations Habitat Conservation Plan for Coho Salmon February 16, 2012 PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project Interim Operations Habitat Conservation Plan February 16, 2012 Recommended Citation: PacifiCorp. 2012. PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project Interim Operations Habitat Conservation Plan for Coho Salmon. Prepared by PacifiCorp Energy, Inc, Portland, OR. Submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Arcata Area Office, Arcata, CA. February 16, 2012. PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project Interim Operations Habitat Conservation Plan February 16, 2012 Table of Contents I. Introduction and Background ................................................................................................ 1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 3 Permit Holder/Permit Duration .................................................................................... 6 Covered Lands .................................................................................................................. 6 Regulatory Framework .................................................................................................... 7 Endangered Species Act ..................................................................................... 7 National Environmental Policy Act .................................................................. 9 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act .............. 10 Roles and Responsibilities ............................................................................................. 10 II. Description of Covered Activities ...................................................................................... 11 III. Covered Species ................................................................................................................... 15 Legal Status ........................................................................................................ 15 Range and Distribution .................................................................................... 15 Life History and Habitat Requirements ......................................................... 16 IV. Current Conditions .............................................................................................................. 19 Existing Project Facilities ............................................................................................... 19 East and West Side Developments .................................................................. 19 Keno Development ............................................................................................ 21 J.C. Boyle Development .................................................................................... 21 Copco No. 1 Development ............................................................................... 22 Copco No. 2 Development ............................................................................... 23 Fall Creek Development ................................................................................... 23 Iron Gate Development .................................................................................... 23 Climate ............................................................................................................................. 24 Hydrology and River Flow Management ................................................................... 25 Hydrology .......................................................................................................... 25 Reservoir and Lake Elevations ........................................................................ 26 Release Flows ..................................................................................................... 27 Ramping Rates ................................................................................................... 30 Water Quality .................................................................................................................. 31 Upper Klamath Lake ......................................................................................... 32 Link River ........................................................................................................... 33 Keno Reservoir ................................................................................................... 34 Keno Reach—Keno Dam to J.C. Boyle Reservoir .......................................... 39 J.C. Boyle Reservoir ........................................................................................... 41 Bypass Reach—J.C. Boyle Dam to J.C. Boyle Powerhouse .......................... 43 Peaking Reach—J.C. Boyle Powerhouse to Copco Reservoir ..................... 45 Copco Reservoir Complex ................................................................................ 47 Iron Gate Reservoir ........................................................................................... 49 Klamath River from Iron Gate Dam to Turwar ............................................ 52 Klamath River Estuary ..................................................................................... 54 Coho Salmon Habitat ..................................................................................................... 55 V. Project Effects on Coho Salmon ......................................................................................... 65 I PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project Interim Operations Habitat Conservation Plan February 16, 2012 Degradation and Loss of Habitat .................................................................... 73 Water Quality ..................................................................................................... 74 Disease ................................................................................................................ 77 VI. Conservation Program ........................................................................................................ 81 Coho Salmon Conservation Strategy ........................................................................... 81 Goals and Objectives ......................................................................................... 82 Goal I: Offset the biological effects of blocked habitat upstream of Iron Gate dam by enhancing the viability of the Upper Klamath coho salmon population .......................................................................................................... 83 Goal II: Enhance coho salmon spawning habitat downstream from Iron Gate dam ...................................................................................................................... 87 Goal III: Improve instream flow conditions for coho salmon downstream of Iron Gate dam .................................................................................................... 89 Goal IV: Improve water quality for coho salmon downstream of Iron Gate dam ...................................................................................................................... 92 Goal V: Reduce disease incidence and mortality in juvenile coho salmon downstream of Iron Gate dam ........................................................................ 94 Goal VI: Enhance migratory and rearing habitat for coho salmon in the Klamath River mainstem corridor .................................................................. 97 Goal VII: Enhance and expand rearing habitat for coho salmon in key tributaries .......................................................................................................... 101 Effects of the Coho Salmon Conservation Strategy ................................................. 105 Habitat Access .................................................................................................. 108 Habitat Conditions .......................................................................................... 109 Fish Disease Research and Studies ............................................................... 117 Hatchery Production Improvements ............................................................ 117 VII. Compliance with Authorized Level of Take ............................................................... 119 Monitoring of Habitat-Based Surrogates .................................................................. 119 Water Temperature ......................................................................................... 120 Dissolved Oxygen ........................................................................................... 121 VIII. Monitoring and Adaptive Management..................................................................... 123 Compliance Monitoring .............................................................................................. 123 Effectiveness Monitoring ............................................................................................. 132 Adaptive Management ................................................................................................ 133 Technical Review Team .................................................................................. 133 Adaptive Responses Process .......................................................................... 134 IX. Changed and Unforeseen Circumstances ...................................................................... 137 Changed Circumstances Identified in the Plan .......................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Estimation of Stream Conditions in Tributaries of the Klamath River, Northern California
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Arcata Fisheries Technical Report TR 2018-32 Estimation of Stream Conditions in Tributaries of the Klamath River, Northern California Christopher V. Manhard, Nicholas A. Som, Edward C. Jones, Russell W. Perry U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-7201 January 2018 Funding for this study was provided by a variety of sources including the Klamath River Fish Habitat Assessment Program administered by the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Falls Area Office. Disclaimer: The mention of trade names or commercial products in this report does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the Federal Government. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office Fisheries Program reports its study findings through two publication series. The Arcata Fisheries Data Series was established to provide timely dissemination of data to local managers and for inclusion in agency databases. Arcata Fisheries Technical Reports publish scientific findings from single and multi- year studies that have undergone more extensive peer review and statistical testing. Additionally, some study results are published in a variety of professional fisheries aquatic habitat conservation journals. To ensure consistency with Service policy relating to its online peer-reviewed journals, Arcata Fisheries Data Series and Technical Reports are distributed electronically and made available in the public domain. Paper copies are no longer circulated.
    [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]
  • Link River Algae Removal Demonstration Project: Phase 1 Final Report
    Klamath River Hydroelectric Project Interim Measures Implementation Committee: Interim Measure 11 Link River Algae Removal Demonstration Project: Phase 1 Final Report July 5, 2017 Prepared for: Portland, Oregon Prepared by: CH2M 2020 SW 4th Ave, Suite 300 Portland, Oregon 97201 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Conceptual Description of the Demonstration Project ....................................................................... 1 2.1 Location ......................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Proposed Demonstration Project Facilities and Operations ......................................................... 2 3 Assessment of Needed Permits and Regulatory Approvals................................................................. 4 3.1 Removal‐Fill Permit ....................................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Fish‐Related Regulatory Requirements ........................................................................................ 6 3.3 Other Regulatory Permits or Approvals ...................................................................................... 10 4 Assessment of Use and Disposal of Harvested Algae Material .......................................................... 10 5 Additional Considerations ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Indian Country Welcome To
    Travel Guide To OREGON Indian Country Welcome to OREGON Indian Country he members of Oregon’s nine federally recognized Ttribes and Travel Oregon invite you to explore our diverse cultures in what is today the state of Oregon. Hundreds of centuries before Lewis & Clark laid eyes on the Pacific Ocean, native peoples lived here – they explored; hunted, gathered and fished; passed along the ancestral ways and observed the ancient rites. The many tribes that once called this land home developed distinct lifestyles and traditions that were passed down generation to generation. Today these traditions are still practiced by our people, and visitors have a special opportunity to experience our unique cultures and distinct histories – a rare glimpse of ancient civilizations that have survived since the beginning of time. You’ll also discover that our rich heritage is being honored alongside new enterprises and technologies that will carry our people forward for centuries to come. The following pages highlight a few of the many attractions available on and around our tribal centers. We encourage you to visit our award-winning native museums and heritage centers and to experience our powwows and cultural events. (You can learn more about scheduled powwows at www.traveloregon.com/powwow.) We hope you’ll also take time to appreciate the natural wonders that make Oregon such an enchanting place to visit – the same mountains, coastline, rivers and valleys that have always provided for our people. Few places in the world offer such a diversity of landscapes, wildlife and culture within such a short drive. Many visitors may choose to visit all nine of Oregon’s federally recognized tribes.
    [Show 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
    [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]
  • Annual Report 2008 – 2009
    O L D S T U R B R I D G E Summer 2009 Special Annual VILLAGE Report Edition Visitor 2008-2009 2008--2009 Momentum and More The History of Fireworks Farms, Families, and Change Cooking with OSV Summer Events a member magazine that keeps you coming back Old Sturbridge Village, a museum and learning resource of 2008-2009 Building Momentum New England life, invites each visitor to find meaning, pleasure, a letter from President Jim Donahue relevance, and inspiration through the exploration of history. to our newly designed V I S I T O R magazine. We hope that you will learn new things and come to visit t is no secret around the Village that I like to keep my eye on the “dashboard” – a set of key the Village soon. There is always something fun to do at indicators that I am consistently checking to make sure we are steering OSV in the right direction. In fact, Welcome O l d S T u R b ri d g E V I l l a g E . I take a lot of good-natured kidding about how often I peek at the attendance figures each day, eager to see if we beat last year’s number. And I have to admit that I get energized when the daily mail brings in new donations, when the sun is shining, the parking lot is full, when I can hear happy children touring the Village, and the visitor comments are upbeat and favorable. Volume XlIX, No. 2 Summer 2009 Special Annual Report Edition I am happy to report these indicators have been overwhelmingly positive during the past year – solid proof that Old Sturbridge Village is building on last year’s successes and is poised to finish this decade much stronger There is nothing quite like learning about history from than when it started.
    [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]