Our new Biological Assessment is out - Klamath Basin Crisis

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Klamath Project Operations Biological Assessment Introduction, Action Area, and Proposed Action: Detailed Proposed Action Using the exceedence criteria, the actual anticipated river flows in each month are as shown in Appendix 3-D. The 43-year (1961-2004 average monthly) historical flows can be useful when attempting to understand the frequency that the proposed action flows are greater than those of the 43-year period. As discussed in the Effects of The Action section, certain portions of these anticipated flows are greater than needed to offset any adverse effects to coho salmon. These flows are considered IM water to be managed as discussed in Element 3 below. Many of the Klamath River minimums have been adopted directly from Table 9 in the NMFS’s 2002 BO. The river minimums are identical to the Phase III flows for all former water year types during the months of July through February and the former Dry Water Year for the months of March through June from NMFS’s BO. The flows will be measured at the USGS gage below IGD. After review of the 43-year period of record, Reclamation anticipates that the Klamath River minimums described here will only be utilized in years when no spills or IM water is available. Annual IGD releases to the river will be higher in most other years, with striving toward target flows being the goal. Because of the limited amount of storage in UKL, springtime spills should continue to occur, significantly increasing the opportunities for releases well above the minimum flows. Table 1-3. Minimum flows for the Klamath River. Month October to February March April May June July to September Proposed Minimum Flows for the Klamath River Below IGD 1,300cfs 1,450cfs 1,500cfs 1,500cfs 1,400cfs 1,000cfs Flow Measurement Location Outflow from Project operations in the Klamath River can most accurately be measured at the USGS gage located below the Keno Dam. As the Klamath River flows from Keno towards the Pacific Ocean, the contribution of river flows from Keno become continually less significant relative to total cumulative river flows as previously described and depicted in Figure 1-3. Flows from Keno may comprise a higher percentage of total Klamath River flows during the summer months and during drier hydrologic years due to extensive irrigation diversions 15
Klamath Project Operations Biological Assessment Introduction, Action Area, and Proposed Action: Detailed Proposed Action from the Klamath River’s main tributaries, the Shasta, Scott, and Trinity Rivers. Although Keno Dam is the furthest downstream location where Project flows can be controlled, Reclamation agrees to continue to measure flows at the USGS gage below IGD in an effort to accommodate the desires of numerous downstream interests, provided that a written agreement between Reclamation and PacifiCorp can be established. PacifiCorp is an applicant in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) ESA consultation on relicensing their hydropower project. The outcome of that consultation may be helpful to Reclamation in continuing to measure flows below IGD as well. 2. UKL Minimums In past consultations on the operations of the Klamath Project, the FWS has recommended minimum elevations for UKL (2001 BO) to ensure sufficient habitat and to contribute to the improvement of water quality conditions. Recent analysis of a 17-year dataset of water quality parameters and lake depth from UKL was unable to identify a discernable relationship between lake elevation and water quality conditions (Morace 2007). This relationship is discussed in more detail in Part 2 regarding the endangered suckers. However, habitat use at each life history stage of the ESA listed suckers may be related to lake elevation (Terwilliger 2006). In 2005, FWS found that lower lake levels in some years would be offset by the additional habitat being created by wetlands restoration at TNC’s Delta (FWS BO 1-10-05-F-046). This is a very important finding because as the size of UKL is increased by the action of TNC (breaching dikes at the Delta) and by the USFWS’s proposed action of breaching of the dikes at ALR and Barnes properties in the near future, it will be more difficult for Reclamation to maintain historic lake levels in some years. Recent modeling, using Reclamation’s Water Resources Integrated Modeling System (WRIMS) Model, indicates when UKL’s elevation at the end of September is at 4138 ft, the probability of refilling the lake to 4143 ft is 84% when the storage in TNC’s Delta project and the ALR-Barnes properties are included. The probability of refilling to 4142.6 is 93% under the same expanded lake conditions. Under existing storage conditions, the probability of refilling the lake to 4143 ft is 91%. Reservoirs with sufficient storage capacity can carry-over excess water received in wet years, making it available in dryer years. Unlike most Reclamation Projects, the Klamath Project operates primarily on an annual supply of water because the capacity of UKL is not sufficient to store excess water. This lack of carry over storage means it is extremely important to fill the reservoir every year it is possible to do so. IGD releases between October and February that are higher than needed for sufficient coho habitat (1,300 cfs vs 1,000 cfs) reduce the likelihood of refilling UKL from 94% to 84%. To begin the spring coho outmigration and irrigation season with less than a full lake would result in only 16
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 20 and 21: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This biological a
Page 22 and 23: Part 1 INTRODUCTION, ACTION AREA, A
Page 24: Klamath Project Operations Biologic
Page 39: Klamath Project Operations Biologic
Page 56 and 57: Part 2 ENDANGERED SUCKERS Sucker De
Page 90 and 91:
Klamath Project Operations Biologic
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:
Page 224 and 225:
T&C 5 T&C 6 T&C 7 T&C 8 Fund instre
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?