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 may vary from year to year, since disease conditions also vary widely from year to year, with largest effects evident during drought cycles Summary –Shasta River to Scott River Reach Based on the discussion above, the Proposed Action may have the following impacts in the Shasta River to Scott River reach of the main stem of the Klamath River: (-) an adverse impact in the form of reduced potential juvenile and fry habitat resulting from less than optimum flows at IGD; (+) proposed flows in the vicinity of 1,000 cfs are not expected to increase temperatures and would have the benefit of dampening the magnitude of diurnal fluctuations in temperature ; and (?) an unknown impact from disease (Table 3-23). Reclamation also noted that NMFS has concluded that coho salmon from 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). Middle Klamath River Populations The middle Klamath River populations include: the Middle Klamath River Population; the Scott River Population; the Salmon River Population and that portion of the Upper Klamath River Population that spawn downstream of the confluence of the Scott River (see Table 3-11). It is noted that the grouping of the middle Klamath River populations also includes that portion of the Upper Klamath River Population that spawn downstream of the confluence of the Scott River (river mile 144 to river mile 129). Although the vast majority of the Upper Klamath River Population spawns within tributaries of the Klamath River, information does suggest that a small portion of the Upper Klamath River Population spawns in the main stem of the Klamath River (see Table 3-9). IGD Flow IGD has a diminishing ability to regulate main stem flow the further you go downstream. Although IGD discharge would still have an influence within the upper portion of this reach, this portion of the main stem of the Klamath River is also influenced by tributaries’ inputs; particularly the Shasta and Scott Rivers (see Figure 3-16). 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 IGD has a diminishing ability to regulate main stem temperature the further you go downstream. Although IGD discharge would still have a minor influence within the upper portion of this reach, this portion of the main stem of the Klamath River is more 237
Klamath Project Operations Biological Assessment Coho Salmon: Effects of the Proposed Action on Coho Salmon heavily influenced by tributary inflows; particularly the Shasta and Scott Rivers (see Figure 3-16). Modeling suggests that from approximately the Scott River (river mile 144) or Seiad Valley (river mile 129) to the mouth of the Klamath River, tributary inputs and meteorological conditions are the primary temperature drivers throughout the year (Deas and Orlob 1999; Campbell et al. 2001; Watercourse 2003; Cramer Fish Sciences 2007 Report). Consequently, the ability to control temperature below the Scott River through flow management at IGD is limited due to travel time downstream of the dam, the influence of local meteorological conditions, and flow accretions from springs and tributary sources. See Appendix 3-C for more detail on the relationship between water temperature, distance from IGD, and flow. 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, the Scott River (river mile 143) to the Trinity River (river mile 43), the vast majority of the area would be essentially be beyond IGD discharge influence on main stem’s thermal regime. Any impacts the Proposed Action may have on the middle Klamath River populations, through temperature, would be more prevalent for individuals and populations within the tributaries in the upper portion of the middle Klamath River. These impacts would be similar to those described for populations within the Shasta River to the Scott River reach discussed above. Similar to the discussion for the Shasta River to Scott River reach, juvenile coho salmon living within the upper portion of 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. The impacts would be similar to those discussed for the Shasta River to Scott River reach. Disease In regards to 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 may vary from year to year, since disease conditions also vary widely from year to year, with largest effects evident during drought cycles. Under the IM approach in the Proposed Action, Reclamation will work with the Technical Team, NMFS, the States of California and Oregon, and the Tribes to identifying potential modifications to the flows at IGD that may reduce any direct and indirect impacts of the Klamath Project may have on mortality caused by disease. 238
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:
Page 212 and 213: 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?