DOCSLIB.ORG

Download Complete Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download Complete Report ASSESSING FLOWS FOR FISH BELOW DAMS A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO EVALUATE COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE 5937 THEODORE E. GRANTHAM PETER B. MOYLE CENTER FOR WATERSHED SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS ONE SHIELDS AVENUE DAVIS, CA 95616 October 22, 2014* *Revised Dec. 15, 2014 (See Erratum) This report was prepared by: Theodore E. Grantham and Peter B. Moyle Center for Watershed Sciences University of California, Davis One Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616 Corresponding author: Theodore (Ted) Grantham [email protected] Copyright ©2014 The Regents of the University of California All rights reserved The University of California prohibits discrimination or harassment of any person on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, pregnancy (including childbirth, and medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth), physical or mental disability, medical condition (cancer-related or genetic characteristics), ancestry, marital status, age, sexual orientation, citizenship, or service in the uniformed services (as defined by the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994: service in the uniformed services includes membership, application for membership, performance of service, application for service, or obligation for service in the uniformed services) in any of its programs or activities. University policy also prohibits reprisal or retaliation against any person in any of its programs or activities for making a complaint of discrimination or sexual harassment or for using or participating in the investigation or resolution process of any such complaint. University policy is intended to be consistent with the provisions of applicable State and Federal laws. Please cite this report as: Grantham, T. E. and P. B. Moyle. 2014. Assessing flows for fish below dams: a systematic approach to evaluate compliance of California’s dams with Fish and Game Code Section 5937. Center for Watershed Sciences Technical Report (CWS-2014-01), University of California, Davis. 106 p. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Tables ..................................................................................................................................................... v Figures .................................................................................................................................................. vi Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................... ix Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... x Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Effects of dams on California’s rivers .................................................................................................. 2 Effects of dams on California’s fish populations ................................................................................. 4 Section 5937 and ‘fish in good condition’ ............................................................................................. 6 Applying Section 5937 to restore flows below dams ........................................................................... 8 A systematic approach for evaluating dams ..................................................................................... 10 Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 13 Step 1. Building a dam database ....................................................................................................... 13 Step 2. Assessing flow regime alteration below dams ...................................................................... 15 Step 3. Assessing condition of native fish below dams ..................................................................... 16 Step 4. Identifying regulatory considerations ................................................................................... 18 Step 5. Identifying and ranking candidate dams .............................................................................. 18 Step 6. Preliminary case study investigations .................................................................................. 20 Evaluation Results ............................................................................................................................... 21 Flow regime alteration below dams ................................................................................................... 22 Indicators of fish condition ................................................................................................................. 30 Relationships between hydrologic alteration and fish condition ..................................................... 33 Dams subject to federal environmental flow requirements ............................................................. 36 Identification and ranking of candidate dams .................................................................................. 37 Preliminary site investigations .......................................................................................................... 44 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 48 Systematic evaluation of dams ........................................................................................................... 48 Limitations .......................................................................................................................................... 49 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 50 Case Studies ......................................................................................................................................... 52 Case study 1: Black Butte Dam ......................................................................................................... 53 Hydrologic Conditions .................................................................................................................. 55 iii Condition of Downstream Fish Populations ............................................................................... 56 Management of Downstream Flows for Fish .............................................................................. 57 Case study 2: Conn Creek Dam.......................................................................................................... 58 Hydrologic Conditions .................................................................................................................. 60 Condition of Downstream Fish Populations ............................................................................... 61 Management of Downstream Flows for Fish .............................................................................. 61 Case study 3: Peters Dam ................................................................................................................... 62 Hydrologic Conditions .................................................................................................................. 64 Condition of Downstream Fish Populations ............................................................................... 65 Management of Downstream Flows for Fish .............................................................................. 65 Case study 4: Woodbridge Diversion Dam ........................................................................................ 67 Hydrologic Conditions .................................................................................................................. 69 Condition of Downstream Fish Populations ............................................................................... 71 Management of Downstream Flows for Fish .............................................................................. 72 Case study 5. Twitchell Dam .............................................................................................................. 73 Hydrologic Conditions .................................................................................................................. 75 Condition of Downstream Fish Populations ............................................................................... 75 Management of Downstream Flows for Fish .............................................................................. 76 Case study 6. Long Valley Dam ......................................................................................................... 77 Hydrologic Conditions .................................................................................................................. 79 Condition of Downstream Fish Populations ............................................................................... 79 Management of Downstream Flows for Fish .............................................................................. 80 Case study 7. Casitas Dam ................................................................................................................. 81 Hydrologic Conditions .................................................................................................................. 83 Condition
Load more

Recommended publications
  • TYPICAL VALLEY INDIAN HOMES Vol. 2 No. 11 YUBA CITY, CALIFORNIA
    Vol. 2 No. 11 YUBA CITY, CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 17 1961 TYPICAL VALLEY INDIAN HOMES SUTTER COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY FALL MEETING OCTOBER 17, 1961 TUESDAY EVENING — 8 P.M. PLACE: Board of Supervisors Chambers County Office Building, 2nd Street PRESIDENT: Mrs. Florence Arritt PROGRAM CHAIRMAN: Randolph Schnabel PROGRAM SPEAKER: Waddell F. Smith President, National Pony Express Centennial Association TOPIC: The History of the Pony Express and Its Centennial BOARD OF DIRECTORS MINUTES October 5, 1961 The Board of Directors of Sutter County Historical Society met in regular session October 5, 1961 at 7:30 P.M. in the office of the County Superintendent. The meeting was called to order by Vice President, Mrs. Ida Littlejohn in the absence of the president, Mrs. Florence Arritt. Mrs. Arritt is on her vacation traveling in the southwest and visiting many spots of historic interest such as Tombstone, Arizona. The minutes of the July Board meeting and regular meeting were read and approved. The treasurer reported cash in the bank $737.33. Film Fund $447.00 and general fund $290.33. Mr. Ramey reported a membership of 111. Fifteen new members were secured at the county fair booth. The following bills were approved for payment: Valley Print Shop — Membership Cards, Stationery $41.70. County of Sutter — Bulletin pictures $6.20. Earl Ramey — Postage $3.50. Program Chairman, Randolph Schnabel reported the program had already been arranged for the annual dinner meeting in January. Mrs. Gibson presented an invitation to the Sutter County Historical Society to en- tertain the Symposium of Historical Societies of Northern California and Southern Oregon in the fall of 1962.
    [Show full text]
  • Scoping Document 1 for the Potter Valley Project
    FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, DC 20426 June 1, 2017 OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS Project No. 77-285 – California Potter Valley Project Pacific Gas & Electric Company Subject: Scoping Document 1 for the Potter Valley Project To the Party Addressed: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is currently reviewing the Pre-Application Document submitted by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) for relicensing the 9.4-megawatt (MW) Potter Valley Project (FERC No. 77). The proposed project is located on the Eel and East Fork Russian Rivers, in Lake and Mendocino Counties, California. The project occupies lands owned by PG&E and National Forest System Lands administered by the United States Forest Service, Mendocino National Forest. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, Commission staff intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which will be used by the Commission to determine whether, and under what conditions, to issue a new license for the project. To support and assist our environmental review, we are beginning the public scoping process to ensure that all pertinent issues are identified and analyzed and that the EIS is thorough and balanced. We invite your participation in the scoping process and are circulating the enclosed Scoping Document 1 (SD1) to provide you with information on the Potter Valley Project. We are also soliciting your comments and suggestions on our preliminary list of issues and alternatives to be addressed in the EIS. We are also requesting that you identify any studies that would help provide a framework for collecting pertinent information on the resource areas under consideration necessary for the Commission to prepare the EIS for the project.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents Executive Summary
    MARCH 2012 SACRAMENTO VALLEY WATER QUALITY COALITION Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan Annual Monitoring Report 2011 Prepared by: LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... v Summary of Monitoring Program ............................................................................................... v Management Practices and Actions Taken ................................................................................ vi Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................................................... vii Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Description of the Watershed ...................................................................................................... 3 Monitoring Objectives .................................................................................................................. 4 Sampling Site Descriptions .......................................................................................................... 6 Sampling Site Locations and Land Uses .................................................................................... 7 Site Descriptions ......................................................................................................................... 9 Butte/Yuba/Sutter Subwatershed ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Town of Otsego Comprehensive Plan Appendices
    Town of Otsego Comprehensive Plan Appendices Draft (V6) March 2007 Town of Otsego Comprehensive Plan – Draft March 2007 Table of Contents Appendix A Consultants Recommendations to Implement Plan A1 Appendix B 2006 Update: Public Input B1 Appendix C 2006 Update: Profile and Inventory of Town Resources C1 Appendix D Zoning Build-out Analysis D1 Appendix E Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats Analysis E1 Appendix F 1987 Master Plan F1 Appendix G Ancillary Maps G1 See separate document for Comprehensive Plan: Section 1 Introduction Section 2 Summary of Current Conditions and Issues Section 3 Vision Statement Section 4 Goals Section 5 Strategies to Implement Goals Section 6 Mapped Resources Appendix A Consultants Recommendations to Implement Plan APPENDIX A-1 Town of Otsego Comprehensive Plan – Draft March 2007 Appendix A. Consultants Recommendations to Implement Plan This section includes strategies, actions, policy changes, programs and planning recommendations presented by the consultants (included in the plan as reference materials) that could be undertaken by the Town of Otsego to meet the goals as established in this Plan. They are organized by type of action. Recommended Strategies Regulatory and Project Review Initiatives 1. Utilize the Final GEIS on the Capacities of the Cooperstown Region in decision making in the Town of Otsego. This document analyzes and identifies potential environmental impacts to geology, aquifers, wellhead protection areas, surface water, Otsego Lake and Watershed, ambient light conditions, historic resources, visual resources, wildlife, agriculture, on-site wastewater treatment, transportation, emergency services, demographics, economic conditions, affordable housing, and tourism. This document will offer the Planning Board and other Town agencies, background information, analysis, and mitigation to be used to minimize environmental impacts of future development.
    [Show full text]
  • A Characterization of the Riparian Corridor of the Oaks Creek Blueway Trail with Emphasis on Otsego Land Trust Properties
    A characterization of the riparian corridor of the Oaks Creek Blueway Trail with emphasis on Otsego Land Trust properties Nicole Pedisich1 and Donna Vogler2 INTRODUCTION The Otsego Land Trust Blueway is a series of Land Trust owned and protected parcels that provide fishing, hiking, paddling, bird watching, and educational opportunities from Canadarago Lake to the Susquehanna River including Brookwood Point on Otsego Lake. (Otsego Land Trust 2014). The trail consists of Fetterly Forest, Deowongo Island, Oaks Creek Preserve, Crave, Parslow Road, Greenough Road, and Compton Bridge. For this project, an assessment of the riparian vegetation communities of Oaks Creek was conducted along a section of the Blueway Trail starting in Schuyler Lake and ending in Cattown. More in-depth characterizations of plant communities were done at Oaks Creek Preserve, the Crave property, and Parslow Road Conservation Area. Oaks Creek is a stream located in Otsego County, NY. It flows from Canadarago Lake southeast into the Susquehanna River, a distance of approximately 13.8 miles. (Hingula 2004). A majority of the stretch of stream assessed is state-regulated freshwater wetlands (Figure 1, NYSDEC). Oaks Creek Preserve is a 28-acre parcel located along its namesake between Schuyler Lake and Oaksville. Downstream are Crave, a parcel recently acquired by the Otsego Land Trust and Parslow Road Conservation Area, an 86-acre parcel located on the northern edge of Oaksville running a half-mile along Oaks Creek (Figure 2). 3 1 BFS Intern, summer 2015. Current affiliation: SUNY College at Oneonta. Funding for this project was provided by the Otsego Land Trust. 2 Professor.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian River Hydrologic Report June 25, 2021 - July 1, 2021
    State Water Resources Control Board Temporary Urgency Change Order (6/14/2021) Russian River Hydrologic Report June 25, 2021 - July 1, 2021 Prepared as a requirement of the Order approving Sonoma Water's Petition for Temporary Urgency Change in Permits 12947A, 12949, 12950, and 16596 (Applications 12919A, 15736, 15737, and 19351). Instream Flow Requirements as of July 1, 2021 Basis Reach Instantaneous (cfs) 5-day Average (cfs) Modified Per Order: Critical Condition Upper Russian River 15 25 D-1610: Dry Condition Dry Creek 25 - Modified Per Order: Critical Condition Lower Russian River 25 35 Upper Russian River and Lower Russian River based on criteria as established in the Order issued 6/14/2021. Lake Mendocino Lake Mendocino Storage 2015 - 2021 and Storage Curve 120,000 100,000 80,000 feet - 60,000 Acre 40,000 July 01, 2021 30,586 Acre-feet 20,000 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Storage Curve Major Deviation Curve Emergency Regulation Storage Threshold 0 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 1/1 2/1 10/1 12/1 11/1 Storage July 1, 2021 30,586 (acre-feet) Total Average Daily Rate Change in Storage Last 30 days -4,337 -145 (acre-feet) Last 7 days -1,112 -159 Min 7 Daily Inflow Last 7 days Max 24 (cfs) Mean 15 Min 82 Release (cfs) Last 7 days Max 84 Mean 83 Release Flow Change Ramping Rates : Approved Adjusted Rates Event Requested: 3/1/2021 Purpose: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has requested the discharge from Coyote Valley Dam be increased from 25 cfs to 100 cfs to facilitate the second and final release of steelhead smolts from the Coyote Valley Fish Facility.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Mitigation Plan
    Flood Mitigation Plan (June 2008) CITY OF NOVATO FLOOD MITIGATION PLAN CITY OF NOVATO FLOOD MITIGATION PLAN ........................................................ 2 SECTION I - PLANNING PROCESS ......................................................................... 17 Part 1 - Process Organization .................................................................................................................................... 17 Planning Process Documentation ............................................................................................................................. 17 Jurisdictional Participation ........................................................................................................................................ 17 Process Description ................................................................................................................................................... 18 Part 2 - Public Outreach ............................................................................................................................................. 22 Flood Mitigation Planning Committee .................................................................................................................... 22 Public Participation Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 48 Results and Recommendations from Community & Stakeholders ........................................................................ 48
    [Show full text]
  • December 11, 2012- Board of Supervisors
    THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF STANISLAUS ACTION AGENDA SUMMARY DEPT: Chief Executive Office BOARDAGENDA#~*B~-~6~ _ Urgent 0 Routine ~ AGENDA DATE December 11,2012 CEO Concurs with Recommendation YES 4/5 Vote Required YES 0 NO ~ (Infor SUBJECT: Approval to Adopt a Resolution in Support of the Efforts of the California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley and the Delta Counties Coalition on Water Management Actions of Value to Stanislaus County STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Adopt a Resolution in Support of the Efforts of the California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley and the Delta Counties Coalition on Water Management Actions of Value to Stanislaus County FISCAL IMPACT: There are no fiscal impacts associated with this item. A member of the Board of Supervisors is appointed by the Governor to represent Stanislaus County on the California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley. Board members also have an opportunity to become engaged through the work group structure. County staff provides technical support to Board members based on their work and involvement on an as needed basis within approved departmental bUdgets. BOARD ACTION AS FOLLOWS: No. 2012-597 On motion of Supervisor Withrow , Seconded by Supervisor _J;;bi~~q _ and approved by the following-Yote,- ----------------- -. Ayes: Supervisors:_Ct*~~a,_WithJ9w.J1l19_nJeLtb~D_e_ MqaLnj .smd_ C_h_ajCI119Il_ OJ~cieD _ Noes: Supervisors: ~,to_n_~ _ Excused or Absent: Supervisors: None Abstaining: Supervisor: --Nofle--- -----------------------------------------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • Exchange Agreement for Water in San Luis Reservoir and Millerton Lake Between Reclamation and Westlands Water District to Facili
    Draft FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Exchange Agreement for Water in San Luis Reservoir and Millerton Lake between Reclamation and Westlands Water District to Facilitate Water Supply for the Exchange Contractors and Friant Division Contractors FONSI-15-034 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation June 2015 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and manage the Nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provide scientific and other information about those resources; and honor its trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION South-Central California Area Office, Fresno, California FONSI-15-034 Exchange Agreement for Water in San Luis Reservoir and Millerton Lake between Reclamation and Westlands Water District to Facilitate Water Supply for the Exchange Contractors and Friant Division Contractors _____________ Prepared by: Rain L. Emerson Date Supervisory Natural Resources Specialist _____________ Concurred by: Shauna McDonald Date Wildlife Biologist _____________ Approved by: Michael Jackson, P.E. Date Area Manager FONSI-15-034 Introduction In accordance with section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, the South-Central California Area Office of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), has determined that an environmental impact statement is not required for the facilitation of an exchange of 13,195 acre-feet (AF) between Westlands Water District (Westlands) and the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors (Exchange Contractors).
    [Show full text]
  • (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward p. 3 Introduction p. 5 Methods p. 7 Determining Historical Distribution and Current Status; Information Presented in the Report; Table Headings and Terms Defined; Mapping Methods Contra Costa County p. 13 Marsh Creek Watershed; Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed; Walnut Creek Watershed; Rodeo Creek Watershed; Refugio Creek Watershed; Pinole Creek Watershed; Garrity Creek Watershed; San Pablo Creek Watershed; Wildcat Creek Watershed; Cerrito Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 39 Alameda County p. 45 Codornices Creek Watershed; Strawberry Creek Watershed; Temescal Creek Watershed; Glen Echo Creek Watershed; Sausal Creek Watershed; Peralta Creek Watershed; Lion Creek Watershed; Arroyo Viejo Watershed; San Leandro Creek Watershed; San Lorenzo Creek Watershed; Alameda Creek Watershed; Laguna Creek (Arroyo de la Laguna) Watershed Alameda County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 91 Santa Clara County p. 97 Coyote Creek Watershed; Guadalupe River Watershed; San Tomas Aquino Creek/Saratoga Creek Watershed; Calabazas Creek Watershed; Stevens Creek Watershed; Permanente Creek Watershed; Adobe Creek Watershed; Matadero Creek/Barron Creek Watershed Santa Clara County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 8.0 Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action
    Application for New License TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 8.0 Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action ..................................................... 8-1 8.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 8-1 LIST OF TABLES Table 8.1-1. Resource Areas Potentially Affected by Project Operation and Maintenance under the Proposed Action .............................. 8-5 LIST OF ACRONYMS CFR Code of Federal Regulations FERC or Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission PAD Pre-Application Document Project Kaweah Project O&M operation and maintenance SCE Southern California Edison Company SD Supporting Document TSP Technical Study Plan TSR Technical Study Report Southern California Edison Company 8-i Kaweah Project, FERC Project No. 298 Application for New License This Page Intentionally Left Blank 8-ii Southern California Edison Company Kaweah Project, FERC Project No. 298 Application for New License 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 8.1 INTRODUCTION This section follows the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC or Commission) content requirements at Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §5.18(b)(5)(ii)(B), which specify that “the applicant must present the results of its studies conducted under the approved study plan by resource area and use the data generated by the studies to evaluate the beneficial and adverse environmental effects of its proposed project. This section must also include, if applicable, a description of any anticipated
    [Show full text]
  • 4.8 Water Resources
    4.8 WATER RESOURCES INTRODUCTION This section describes the impacts on County water resources associated with development anticipated to occur under the General Plan. This section focuses on how development at the intensities assumed in the General Plan could affect water supply and water quality. Other water-related issues, such as wastewater, storm drainage, and flooding are discussed in Section 4.5, Wastewater, Storm Drainage, and Flooding. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Water Resources Water resources in Fresno County include a number of rivers and streams, artificial waterways, and groundwater. Detailed information about surface water and groundwater resources is contained in Chapter 5.3, Public Facilities and Services, Storm Drainage and Flood Control, Chapter 5.4, Water Supply and Distribution Facilities, Chapter 5.5, Wastewater Collection, Treatment, and Disposal, Chapter 7.2, Natural Resources, Water Resources, and Chapter 7.3, Water Quality Condition in the General Plan Background Report (Background Report). That information is hereby incorporated by reference and is summarized below. Surface Water Resources The San Joaquin River originates in the Sierra Nevada and flows westerly forming the border between Fresno and Madeira Counties downstream from Mammoth Pool Reservoir. The North and Middle Forks originate in Madeira County near Devils Postpile National Monument. The South Fork begins at Martha Lake in northern Kings Canyon National Park within Fresno County. Average annual precipitation in the upper reaches of the river falls mainly in the form of snow and is as high as 70 inches. By comparison, the arid San Joaquin Valley to the west, average annual rainfall is as low as six inches near Mendota.
    [Show full text]