Our new Biological Assessment is out - Klamath Basin Crisis

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Klamath Project Operations Biological Assessment Coho Salmon: Environmental Baseline Flows from Keno Dam, as measured at IGD, are currently adjusted throughout the year for the benefit of ESA listed coho salmon under NMFS’s 2002 BO. These minimum flows at IGD are listed in Table 9 of the NMFS 2002 BO. During spring and early summer, the minimum level of those flows currently varies by year type, based upon an estimated amount of water inflow into UKL. Higher flows are generally required in the spring to support out-migration of juvenile salmon. Minimum Flow Requirements As discussed in the History of Consultation section in Part I of this document, the court has upheld the long-term Phase III flow levels of the NMFS 2002 BO. The court stated that “the flow schedule in Phase III is the only portion of the [NMFS 2002] BO that remains valid, and the Ninth Circuit [Court] contemplated the Phase III flows as the starting point for any supportable in stream flow regime” (p. 13 of Judge Armstrong’s Ruling, Case 4: 02-cv-02006, Document 452, filed March 27, 2006). As discussed below, Reclamation is proposing to modify the flows of Phase III during the March through June period. The minimum flows of the NMFS 2002 for Phase III, during July through February, will remain the same under the Proposed Action. On page 56 of the 2002 BO, NMFS states that coho salmon are primarily tributary spawners and that main stem spawning and rearing habitat is likely not limiting at the current population size. It also recognizes the importance of the main-stem as a migratory corridor for adult and down-stream migrating smolts. Additionally, as cited in the NMFS 2002 BO, “[c]oho salmon typically rear in fresh water for up to 15 months, then migrate to the sea as smolts between March and June (Weitkamp et al. 1995)”, as cited on page 12, NMFS 2002 BO. On pages 63 and 64 of the 2002 BO, NMFS further states that in “developing long-term flow targets [Phase III flows] NMFS thinks focusing on conditions that provide adequate migration flows and daytime refuge habitat to optimize coho [salmon] smolt survival is appropriate. Given that coho [salmon] smolts have survived often difficult conditions for at least 15 months, and that all smolts must migrate to the sea through the main stem Klamath River, NMFS thinks that the smolt life stage is an important life stage to protect and for which suitable conditions in the main stem Klamath [River] should be provided.” Hardy and Addley (2001) provide habitat-discharge relations in the form of graphs depicting the relationship between flow and available weighted useable area. The flow that maximizes habitat is that which produces the greatest weighted useable area. NMFS used the Hardy and Addley (2001) habitatdischarge relations and estimates of monthly unimpaired flow to estimate available habitat (i.e., weighted useable area) for unimpaired flows during alternative water year types. The estimated unimpaired flows used in this analysis were based upon the elimination of all water diversions in the entire Upper Klamath River Basin and not just the diversion to Klamath Project. This analysis 203
Klamath Project Operations Biological Assessment Coho Salmon: Environmental Baseline reflected an underlying assumption by NMFS that rearing habitat in the Klamath River main stem was limiting coho salmon production. NMFS stated in its (p. 32, NMFS 2002) that “NMFS is unaware of specific; quantitative estimates of coho salmon habitat requirements in the main stem Klamath River necessary to maintain the species. Therefore, we do not have a specific “target” that must be met to determine the precise point at which jeopardy to the species occurs”. Hardy and Addley (2006) stated that sufficient data were lacking to develop sitespecific Habitat Suitability Curves (HSC) for coho salmon juveniles within the Klamath River (p. 115, Hardy and Addley 2006). Therefore, Hardy and Addley (2006) used data for juvenile Chinook salmon to define escape cover and distance to escape cover (p. 117, Hardy and Addley 2006). In particular, there is a lack of empirical observations of coho salmon smolt habitat use in the main stem Klamath River. However, in McMahon and Holtby (1992), a coho salmon smolt behavior study cited by NMFS in the 2002 BO, coho salmon smolts were generally found in the same habitats and areas as coho salmon fry. With the lack of coho salmon smolt habitat use data in the 2002 BO, NMFS used “coho [salmon] fry habitat as a surrogate for coho [salmon] smolt habitat and flow conditions appropriate to optimize smolt survival during their downstream outmigration to the ocean” (p. 65, NMFS 2002 BO). However, the NRC (2004) concluded that given the absolute scarcity of coho salmon, it seemed unlikely to the committee that the coho salmon is saturating its available main stem habitat, even without augmentation of main stem flows. Current July through September Minimum Flows In the 2002 BO, NMFS recommended maintaining 1,000 cfs as a long-term minimum flow for releases from IGD during the July through September period in all water year types (p. 68, NMFS 2002 BO). NMFS acknowledged that there was substantial uncertainty in the expected affects to coho salmon summer rearing habitat in the main stem. NMFS recommendation was based, in part, on Hardly and Addley’s (2001) suggestion that that flows in the vicinity of 1,000 cfs are not expected to increase temperatures within this reach and would have the benefit of dampening the magnitude of diurnal fluctuations in water temperature. Observed diurnal fluctuations in water temperature within the Klamath River main stem are increases in temperature during daylight hours and declines in temperature during the night. Cloudy days and nights make for smaller daytime increases and smaller nighttime decreases. Likewise, clear days and nights with increased make for greater daytime temperature increases and greater nighttime temperature decreases. Thus, river temperatures are highly dependent on ambient air temperatures and solar heating. 204
Page 1 and 2:
Biological Assessment The Effects o
Page 3:
Biological Assessment The Effects o
Page 7 and 8:
Klamath Project Operations Biologic
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 20 and 21:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This biological a
Page 22 and 23:
Part 1 INTRODUCTION, ACTION AREA, A
Page 24:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 56 and 57:
Part 2 ENDANGERED SUCKERS Sucker De
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Table 2-7. Upper Klamath Basin Nutr
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Part 3 COHO SALMON Information abou
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179: Klamath Project Operations Biologic
Page 200 and 201: Environmental Baseline Klamath Proj
Page 224 and 225: T&C 5 T&C 6 T&C 7 T&C 8 Fund instre
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 312 and 313:
Description Part 5 BALD EAGLES A la
Page 314 and 315:
Figure 5-1. Bald Eagle range in Nor
Page 316:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 322 and 323:
Part 7 CONSULTATION HISTORY Section
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326:
Page 330 and 331:
Part 9 LITERATURE CITED Agrawal, A.
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336 and 337:
Page 338 and 339:
Page 340 and 341:
Page 342 and 343:
Page 344 and 345:
Page 346 and 347:
Page 348 and 349:
Page 350 and 351:
Page 352 and 353:
Page 354 and 355:
Page 356 and 357:
Accomplishment Report, Winter 2007.
show all

Our new Biological Assessment is out - Klamath Basin Crisis

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?