DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessing Flows for Fish Below Dams

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assessing Flows for Fish Below Dams 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 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 of Downstream Fish Populations
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]
  • Alternatives Analysis
    DRAFT NCCP/MSAA/HCP APPENDIX P ‘B’ Alternatives Analysis Note to Reader: The comparative alternatives analyses in this Appendix combine Habitat Reserve and Supplemental Open Space (SOS) acres because both are designated open space. The Habitat Reserve and SOS are identical for all areas outside of Rancho Mission Viejo (RMV) property. The more refined conservation analysis presented in Part I, Chapter 13 for the RMV, County of Orange and San Margarita Water District (SMWD) proposed Covered Activities separates the Habitat Reserve and SOS components because Habitat Reserve open space will be managed under the Habitat Reserve Management Program (HRMP) described in Part I, Chapter 7. SOS will not be subject to management under the HRMP. All figures referenced in this Appendix are located in the NCCP/MSAA/HCP Part IV, Map Book. SECTION 1.0 ALTERNATIVE B-8 SECTION 1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE B-8 ALTERNATIVE (FIGURE 129-M) 1.1.1 Overview of Major Landscape and Habitat Reserve Planning Features of the Proposed Habitat Reserve on RMV Property a. Major Landscape Features In comparison with the B-10M and B-12 Alternatives, the B-8 Alternative proposes to maximize the open space on RMV lands with the result that County housing needs are addressed to a far lesser extent than in any of the other Alternatives. Alternative B-8 identifies Chiquita Canyon, Verdugo Canyon and all of the RMV portion of the San Mateo Creek Watershed as open space. All of the habitat linkages and wildlife movement corridors identified in the Draft Southern Planning Guidelines and Draft Watershed Planning Principles would be protected (Figure 156- M).
    [Show full text]
  • Tri-Dam Project
    AGENDA MATERIALS TRI-DAM PROJECT TRI-DAM POWER AUTHORITY \\IJ IJ\\ BOARD MEETING March 19, 2020 REGULAR BOARD MEETING AGENDA TRI-DAM PROJECT of THE OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT and THE SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT MARCH 19, 2020 8:00A.M. CALL TO ORDER: Oakdale Irrigation District 1205 East F Street Oakdale, CA 95361 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: John Holbrook, Bob Holmes, Dave Kamper, Ralph Roos, Mike Weststeyn Gail Altieri, Brad DeBoer, Herman Doornenbal, Tom Orvis, Linda Santos PUBLIC COMMENT: The Joint Board of Directors encourages publi c participation at Board meetings. Matters affecting the operation of the Tri-Dam Project and under the jurisdiction of the Joint Districts and not posted on the Agenda may be addressed by the publi c, and limited to 5 minutes per person. California law prohibits the Board from taking action on any matter that is not on the posted Agenda unless the Board determines that it is a situation specified in Government Code Subsection 54954.2. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1-2 l. Approve the regular board meeting minutes of February 20, 2020. 2. Approve February 2020 financial statements and statement of obligations. a. Investment p01tfolio and reserve fund status. ACTION CALENDAR ITEMS 3- 11 3. Discussion and possible action to approve annual fee for use of Federal Lands for operations of the Tri-Dam Project 4. Discussion and possible action to authorize the General Manager to sign the Professional Services Agreement with Gannett Fleming, Inc. for the preparation of the dam breach analysis and updated inundation mapping for Beardsley, Donnells, Tulloch and Goodwin Projects, including a budget adjustment for Account #59690.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary
    Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration Date: January 9, 2019 Case No.: 2016-006868ENV Project Title: SFPUC Reliable Power Project Project Location: Portions of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Rights of Way in Stanislaus, Mariposa, and Tuolumne Counties Zoning: Various Project Sponsor San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Antonia Sivyer (415) 554-2474 Lead Agency: San Francisco Planning Department Staff Contact: Timothy Johnston – (415) 575-9035 [email protected] PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) proposes to implement the Reliable Power Project (proposed project) for maintaining the reliability of the SFPUC’s electrical transmission system between the Holm and Kirkwood Powerhouses and the Warnerville Substation. The project includes implementation of a long-term vegetation management program that would address the North American Electric Reliability Corporation’s reliability standard (FAC-003) and other regulatory requirements that seek to minimize the risk of power outages and fires from vegetation contact with transmission lines on or near the right of way for electrical transmission lines1. In addition to implementation of the vegetation management program, the proposed project would include repairs and replacements for culverts associated with transmission line access roads and construction of a sand storage shed to stockpile sand for winter road treatments needed for access during winter months. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would occur within existing SFPUC facility and right of way boundaries in Stanislaus County, Mariposa County, and Tuolumne County, and would not require the acquisition of new property. Project implementation involving vegetation management would be ongoing. Construction activities and duration for culvert repair and/or replacement would vary along the transmission corridor, but would be short-term in nature, generally requiring a few of days to a couple of weeks to complete.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment B-4 San Diego RWQCB Basin Plan Beneficial Uses
    Attachment B-4 San Diego RWQCB Basin Plan Beneficial Uses Regulatory_Issues_Trends.doc CHAPTER 2 BENEFICIAL USES INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1 BENEFICIAL USES ..........................................................................................................................1 BENEFICIAL USE DESIGNATION UNDER THE PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT ..1 BENEFICIAL USE DESIGNATION UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT .................................................2 BENEFICIAL USE DEFINITIONS.........................................................................................................3 EXISTING AND POTENTIAL BENEFICIAL USES ..................................................................................7 BENEFICIAL USES FOR SPECIFIC WATER BODIES ........................................................................8 DESIGNATION OF RARE BENEFICIAL USE ...................................................................................8 DESIGNATION OF COLD FRESHWATER HABITAT BENEFICIAL USE ...............................................9 DESIGNATION OF SPAWNING, REPRODUCTION, AND/ OR EARLY DEVELOPMENT (SPWN) BENEFICIAL USE ...................................................................................................11 SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER POLICY ..................................................................................11 EXCEPTIONS TO THE "SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER" POLICY................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • SWFSC Archive
    Historical Population Structure of Central Valley Steelhead and its Alteration by Dams STEVEN T. LINDLEY1, ROBERT S. SCHICK1, ADITYA AGRAWAL2, MATTHEW GOSLIN2, THOMAS E. PEARSON2, ETHAN MORA2, JAMES J. ANDERSON3, BERNARD MAY4, SHEILA GREENE5, CHARLES HANSON6, ALICE LOW7, DENNIS MCEWAN7, R. BRUCE MACFARLANE1, CHRISTINA SWANSON8 AND JOHN G. WILLIAMS9 ABSTRACT Effective conservation and recovery planning for Central Valley steelhead requires an understanding of historical population structure. We describe the historical structure of the Central Valley steelhead evolutionarily significant unit using a multi-phase modeling approach. In the first phase, we identify stream reaches possibly suitable for steelhead spawning and rearing using a habitat model based on environmental envelopes (stream discharge, gradient, and temperature) that takes a digital elevation model and climate data as inputs. We identified 151 patches of potentially suitable habitat with more than 10 km of stream habitat, with a total of 25,500 km of suitable habitat. We then measured the dis- tances among habitat patches, and clustered together patches within 35 km of each other into 81 dis- tinct habitat patches. Groups of fish using these 81 patches are hypothesized to be (or to have been) independent populations for recovery planning purposes. Consideration of climate and elevation differ- ences among the 81 habitat areas suggests that there are at least four major subdivisions within the Central Valley steelhead ESU that correspond to geographic regions defined by the Sacramento River basin, Suisun Bay area tributaries, San Joaquin tributaries draining the Sierra Nevada, and lower-ele- vation streams draining to the Buena Vista and Tulare basins, upstream of the San Joaquin River.
    [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]
  • 8.3 Hydrology and Water Quality
    County of Mariposa General Plan – Volume III Technical Background Report 8.3 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section describes the natural and physical water environments that occur within Mariposa County, including lands managed by the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and State of California. It addresses potential specific and cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality of these lands that affect private property in the county, and its villages and towns. 8.3.01 HYDROLOGY The western portion of the County is relatively flat, with gently rolling hills that gradually increase toward the east. Moving eastward, the hills become more pronounced and the elevation quickly rises and falls through mountains and valleys. The elevation begins around 300 feet in the west and rises to nearly 11,000 feet in the east. Most inhabited regions are below 5,000 feet. Precipitation varies between the lower elevations in the western and southern portions of the County and the higher elevations in the eastern and northern portions of the County. Average precipitation ranges from about 15 inches annually in the lower elevations to about 50 inches at the higher elevations. Most of the annual precipitation falls between November and late April. Precipitation at the lower elevations occurs mainly in the form of rainfall with snowfall becoming the dominant form at the higher elevations. Melting of the winter snowpack at the higher elevations becomes the major source of runoff to the Merced River during the spring and summer months. SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY Mariposa County contains three major drainage basins: the Merced River, Chowchilla/Fresno River, and a localized cluster of streams of the east valley known as the Lower Mariposa group of streams.
    [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]
  • Draft Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan
    Draft Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan for Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon Central Valley spring-run Chinook Salmon Central Valley Steelhead National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Region November 2009 1 Themes of the CV Recovery Plan • This is a long-term plan that will take several decades to fully implement • The recovery plan is intended to be a “living document” that is periodically updated to include the best available information regarding the status or needs of the species • Implementation will be challenging and will require the help of many stakeholders • The plan is intended to have realistic and attainable recovery criteria (i.e, de-listing criteria) 2 What are Recovery Plans? • Purpose of the Endangered Species Act: To conserve (recover) listed species and their ecosystems • Required under section 4(f) of the ESA for all Federally listed species • Provide the road map to species recovery • Must contain objective, measurable criteria for delisting a species • Guidance documents, not regulations 3 Winter-run Chinook salmon (Endangered) 4 Status of Species – Winter-run Chinook 5 Central Valley Spring-run Chinook salmon (Threatened) 6 Status of Species – Spring-run Chinook Declining abundance across range: Extinction risk is increasing Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon Adult Summer Holding Escapement Rivers/Creeks 25,000 Sacramento Battle 20,000 Clear Beegum 15,000 Antelope Mill 10,000 Deer Big Chico 5,000 Butte 0 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 7 Central Valley steelhead (Threatened) 8 Key
    [Show full text]