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 Figure 3-21. Estimated percent of the maximum available habitat for juvenile (top graph) and fry (bottom graph) coho salmon in the R Ranch study reach under the proposed minimum flows and at the 50 percent modeled exceedence level under the Proposed Action. 100 Percent of Maximum Available Habitat 80 60 40 20 0 Study Reach R. Ranch - Juvenile Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Month Proposed Minimum Flows 50 Percent Exceedence Level 100 Percent of Maximum Available Habitat 80 60 40 20 0 Study Reach R. Ranch - Fry Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Month Minimum Flows 50 Percent Esceedence Shasta to Scott River Reach Two site-level results from Hardy and Addley (2006) are available for the main stem Klamath River between the Shasta River (river mile 177) and the Scott River (river mile 143). These two sites are the Trees of Heaven and Brown Bear sites (see Figure 3-19). It is noted that in the following analysis, Reclamation applied the minimum and model flows from IGD directly to these two study sites to estimate coho salmon available habitat, assuming no tributary input. However, it is certain that flows would be greater under these IGD modeled flows at this site, given tributary inputs, particularly the input from the Shasta River. Thus, the flows considered to 247
Klamath Project Operations Biological Assessment Coho Salmon: Effects of the Proposed Action on Coho Salmon determine the percent of available habitat discussed below should be considered absolute minimums and extremely conservative. Trees of Heaven Study Site: The “Trees of Heaven” site in Hardy and Addley (2006) is within the main stem of the Klamath River, just below the confluence of the Shasta River. Based on Hardy and Addley’s (2006) study site-level results, the minimum flows proposed under the Proposed Action, when applied directly to this study site, would provide for at least at least 94 to 100 percent, or down to 94 percent of the available fry habitat (Table 3-24). Again, the down to 94 percent value indicates flows above the maximum available coho salmon fry habitat flow. Once the flow is at the maximum available habitat levels, increased flows would reduce the available fry habitat. The available habitat for coho salmon fry within this study site, at minimum flows is already at the maximum available habitat flows or greater throughout the entire year (Appendix Table 3-D-8). Based on Hardy and Addley (2006) study area results, when applied directly to this study site, the proposed minimum flows, assuming no tributary inflows, would provide for at least 48 (occurring in July through September; see Appendix Table 3-D-8) to 57 percent (occurring in October through June) of the available juvenile habitat. Additional flows from tributaries would provide additional available juvenile habitat. Modeled flows at the 50 percent exceedence level under the Proposed Action, when applied directly to this study site, would provide for between 49 to 57 percent of the available juvenile. Modeled flows at the 50 percent exceedence level under the Proposed Action, when applied directly to this study site, would provide for 95 to 100, or down to 81 percent of the fry habitat (Table 3-24). During the March through June critical time period of coho salmon smolt outmigration, modeled flows at the 50 percent exceedence level under the Proposed Action (2008 to 2018) would provide for between 54 to 57 percent and 100 or down to 81 percent of the available juvenile and fry habitat, respectively, within this study site (Figure 3-22 and Appendix Table 3-D-8). For fry, at this study site, the maximum available habitat flow is reached or exceeded at the minimum flows throughout this entire year. Increased flow would further reduce available fry habitat at this study site. Thus, at this study site, the Proposed Action should provide a balance between increased flows to provide for additional juvenile habitat and increased flows which would further reduce the available fry habitat. 248
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:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223: 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: Klamath Project Operations Biologic
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?