Our new Biological Assessment is out - Klamath Basin Crisis

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Klamath Project Operations Biological Assessment Coho Salmon: Effects of the Proposed Action on Coho Salmon Proposed Action through disease would be primarily through the relationship between the operations of the Klamath Project and its effects on water temperature. Any negative impact from disease may vary from year to year, since disease conditions also vary widely from year to year, with largest effects evident during drought cycles. Reclamation also notes that NMFS has concluded the artificial coho salmon propagation program at the Iron Gate Hatchery is part of the SONCC coho salmon ESU. Annual releases of yearling coho salmon from the Iron Gate Hatchery have averaged 93,206 fish from 2003 to 2007 (see Table 3-14). Iron Gate Hatchery mitigation goal is currently 75,000 coho salmon yearlings released per year. A release of 75,000 smolts should produce at a range of survival rates: 750 at very poor marine survival (1 percent); 3,000 at moderate marine survival (4 percent) and 6,000 at high marine survival (8 percent). In the short-term, artificial propagation programs in the upper Klamath River will have a slight (+) beneficial effect on ESU abundance and spatial structure, but (=) neutral or (?) uncertain effects on the ESU productivity and diversity. As intended, the Iron Gate Hatchery mitigates adverse impacts of the operation of the IGD on coho salmon under the FERC hydropower license. Reach 2: The Shasta River (Inclusive) to the Scott River (Exclusive) IGD Flows IGD has a diminishing ability to regulate main stem flow and temperature the further you go downstream. Although IGD discharge would still have a significant influence within this reach (river mile 177 to river mile 144), this portion of the main stem of the Klamath River is also influenced by tributary inputs, particularly the Shasta River (see Figure 3-16). Reclamation acknowledges that the results of Klamath Project operations will reduce total annual discharge at the IGD in many years. A reduction in flows as a result of Klamath Project operations may decrease the available habitat for juvenile and fry coho salmon during some months. However, the Proposed Action would provide higher-thanhistorical flows in February through July, and lower-than-historical flows during most of September through January (see Figure 3-14). A more detailed discussion (quantitative) of the effects of the Proposed Action on designated critical habitat will follow in the Effects of the Proposed Action on Designated Critical Habitat. The impacts of flow on the SONCC coho salmon ESU will be discussed quantitatively in Effects of the Proposed Action on the ESU. Temperature The main stem within this portion of the Klamath River (river mile 177 to 144) is already excessively warm. A key finding from recent studies on main stem Klamath River water temperatures, (PacifiCorp 2006 and Dunsmoor and Huntington 2006), was that the operational zone of impact on the thermal regime is pragmatically confined from IGD, downstream to the vicinity of Seiad Valley (river mile 129). This reach, from and including the Shasta 235
Klamath Project Operations Biological Assessment Coho Salmon: Effects of the Proposed Action on Coho Salmon River (river mile 177), the confluence of the Scott River (river mile 143) would represent the lower end of IGD discharge influence on the main stem’s thermal regime. Juvenile coho salmon living within this reach of the main stem Klamath River probably tolerate the temperature only by staying in pockets of cool water created by ground-water seepage or small cooler tributary flows. Juvenile salmon within this reach has been observed seeking refuge from high temperatures. As mentioned earlier, thermal refugia refer to cool water zones that may provide short-term refuge in systems with warm ambient temperatures. Given prolonged high ambient water temperatures in some reaches, the thermal refugia available may be too small and too infrequent to sustain high densities of coho salmon. However, these refugia could allow some coho salmon to persist, although at low densities, in warm stream reaches. The NAS stated that adding substantial amounts of warm water [such an increased discharge from IGD] could reduce the size of these thermal shelters. In the NMFS 2002 BO, NMFS acknowledged that the interaction between IGD releases and these thermal refuge areas are complicated, vary among individual tributaries, and are substantially affected by meteorological conditions as well as associated tributary flows and temperature regimes. NMFS further stated “that the extent to which the value of these refuge areas are enhanced or degraded by relatively high versus relatively low IGD summer releases is unknown” (p. 68, NMFS 2002 BO). In general, the water temperature model applied by Deas and Orlob (1999) indicates that temperatures increase more in this main stem reach under relatively low flows, and less under higher flows (p. 67, NMFS 2002 BO). This appears to support the general expectation that diurnal temperature fluctuations in the main stem are higher under lower summer flows. However, Cramer Fish Sciences (2007 Report) and Watercourse (2007) found that the average decreases in temperature associated with increased flows, from 1400 cfs to 3000 cfs, is approximately only 0.6 °C, with the greatest thermal benefit of increased flow in July with as much as 1.4 °C decrease in water temperature. See Appendix 3-C for more detail on the relationship between water temperature, flow and the distance from IGD. In the 2002 BO, NMFS recommended that flows in the vicinity of 1,000 cfs may have the benefit of dampening the magnitude of diurnal fluctuations in temperature (p. 68, NMFS 2002 BO). The Proposed Action would maintain flows at 1,000 cfs or higher. Disease In regards to disease, the main stem of the Klamath River from and including the Shasta River to the confluence of the Scott River is regarded as a “hot spot” for disease. The conditions that exacerbate fish disease mechanisms is complicated and not fully understood, thus, the Proposed Action would have (?) an unknown impact through disease (Table 3-23). However, given that pathogen presence and disease effects are highly influenced by water temperature, any impact of the Proposed Action through disease would be primarily through the relationship between the operations of the Klamath Project and its effects on water temperature. Any negative impact from disease 236
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:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Environmental Baseline Klamath Proj
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211: Klamath Project Operations Biologic
Page 224 and 225: T&C 5 T&C 6 T&C 7 T&C 8 Fund instre
Page 306: Klamath Project Operations Biologic
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?