DOCSLIB.ORG

Section C: U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Section C: U.S Section C: U.S. Department of the Interior Preliminary Section 18 Prescriptions, Klamath Hydroelectric Project - FERC No. 2082 I. INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, AND PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS ..............................................1 II. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................................................2 III. REVIEW PROCEDURES.......................................................................................................................................6 IV. NEED FOR FISHWAYS ........................................................................................................................................7 A. Existing Fishways and Fishways Proposed by the Applicant...............................................................................7 1. Upstream Fishways............................................................................................................................................8 2. Downstream Fishways.....................................................................................................................................10 B. Benefits of the Services’ Fishway Prescriptions .................................................................................................12 1. Fishway Benefits by Species – Project Reach .................................................................................................12 A. Resident trout.......................................................................................................................................13 B. Federally-listed suckers .......................................................................................................................14 C. Coho salmon ........................................................................................................................................14 D. Fall-run Chinook salmon .....................................................................................................................17 E. Lamprey...............................................................................................................................................17 F. Spring-run Chinook salmon.................................................................................................................17 G. Steelhead..............................................................................................................................................18 2. Fishway Benefits by Species - Above Project Reach ......................................................................................18 A. Resident trout.......................................................................................................................................18 B. Federally-listed Suckers.......................................................................................................................18 C. Fall-run Chinook salmon .....................................................................................................................19 D. Pacific Lamprey...................................................................................................................................19 E. Spring-run Chinook salmon.................................................................................................................19 F. Steelhead..............................................................................................................................................19 3. Additional Fishway Benefits ...........................................................................................................................19 C. Summary of Benefits and Need for Fishway Prescriptions.................................................................................21 V. PRELIMINARY SECTION 18 PRESCRIPTIONS FOR FISHWAYS .................................................................22 A. RESERVATION OF AUTHORITY TO PRESCRIBE FISHWAYS.................................................................23 B. PRELIMINARY PRESCRIPTIONS FOR FISHWAYS ....................................................................................25 Specific Fishway Prescriptions for Klamath Hydroelectric Project Fishways.........................................................33 1. Iron Gate Dam .................................................................................................................................................35 1.1 Iron Gate Dam Upstream Fishway ...............................................................................................................38 1.2 Iron Gate Dam Downstream Fishway...........................................................................................................39 1.3 Iron Gate Spillway........................................................................................................................................39 2. Fall Creek Diversion Dam...................................................................................................................................40 2.1 Fall Creek Diversion Dam Upstream Fishway .............................................................................................41 2.2 Fall Creek Diversion Dam Downstream Fishway ........................................................................................42 2.3 Fall Creek Powerhouse Tailrace Barrier.......................................................................................................42 3. Spring Creek Diversion Dam...........................................................................................................................42 3.1 Spring Creek Diversion Dam Upstream Fishway.........................................................................................43 3.2 Spring Creek Diversion Dam Downstream Fishway....................................................................................44 4. Copco 2 and Copco 1 Dams ...............................................................................................................................44 4.1 Copco 2 Upstream Fishway..........................................................................................................................49 4.2 Copco 2 Downstream Fishway.....................................................................................................................49 4.3 Copco 2 Spillway..........................................................................................................................................50 4.4 Copco 2 Tailrace Barrier...............................................................................................................................50 4.5 Copco 2 Bypass Channel Barrier/Impediment Modification........................................................................51 5. Copco 1 Dam.......................................................................................................................................................51 5.1 Copco 1 Dam Upstream Fishway .................................................................................................................51 5.2 Copco 1 Downstream Fishway.....................................................................................................................52 5.3 Copco 1 Spillway..........................................................................................................................................53 5.4 Copco 1 Tailrace Barrier...............................................................................................................................53 6. J.C. Boyle Dam....................................................................................................................................................54 6.1 J.C. Boyle Bypass Channel...........................................................................................................................58 6.2 J.C. Boyle Upstream Fishway.......................................................................................................................58 6.3 J.C. Boyle Downstream Fishway..................................................................................................................59 6.4 J.C. Boyle Spillway ......................................................................................................................................60 6.5 J.C. Boyle Tailrace Barrier ...........................................................................................................................60 7. Keno Dam............................................................................................................................................................60 7.1 Upstream Fishway at Keno Dam...................................................................................................................63 7.2 Keno Spillway ..............................................................................................................................................64 8. Eastside and Westside Developments..............................................................................................................65 8.1 Eastside and Westside Downstream Fishways .............................................................................................67 8.2 Tailrace Barriers at Eastside and Westside Developments ...........................................................................68 LITERATURE CITED................................................................................................................................................69
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Central Valley Project Integrated Resource Plan
    Summary Report Central Valley Project Integrated Resource Plan U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................................................................5 STUDY APPROACH ...................................................................................................................................................7 CLIMATE IMPACTS ON WATER SUPPLIES AND DEMANDS ...............................................................................11 COMPARISON OF PROJECTED WATER SUPPLIES AND DEMANDS .................................................................21 PERFORMANCE OF POTENTIAL FUTURE WATER MANAGEMENT ACTIONS .................................................27 PORTFOLIO TRADEOFFS .......................................................................................................................................37 CVP IRP STUDY LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................39 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN FIGURES ......................................................................................41 Tables Table 1. Simulation Suites and Assumptions Inlcuded in Each Portfolio .............................................................27 Figures Figure 1a. Projected changes in Temperature in Ensemble-Informed Transient Climate Scenarios between 2012
    [Show full text]
  • Shasta Dam Fish Passage Evaluation
    Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to 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. Contents Contents Page Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................ 1-1 Project Background ........................................................................................ 1-3 Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan ............................. 1-4 2009 NMFS Biological Opinion .............................................................. 1-5 Shasta Dam Fish Passage Evaluation ...................................................... 1-6 Purpose and Need .......................................................................................... 1-7 Objectives ...................................................................................................... 1-7 Study Area ..................................................................................................... 1-8 River Selection Process............................................................................ 1-9 Shasta Lake ............................................................................................ 1-10 Upper Sacramento River Watershed .....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence of Spawning by Green Sturgeon, Acipenser Medirostris, in the Upper Sacramento River, California
    Environ Biol Fish DOI 10.1007/s10641-006-9085-5 GREEN STURGEON Evidence of spawning by green sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris, in the upper Sacramento River, California Kurtis Brown Received: 7 July 2005 / Accepted: 17 May 2006 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006 Abstract This study reports the only direct evi- family (Moyle et al. 1992). Despite its wide geo- dence of spawning of green sturgeon, Acipenser graphic distribution in the northern Pacific medirostris, in the upper Sacramento River, CA. Ocean, the green sturgeon is considered a rare or Two green sturgeon eggs were collected with vulnerable species in the United States and Can- substrate mats immediately below Red Bluff ada (Birstein 1993; Moyle et al. 1994; Cambell Diversion Dam. One green sturgeon larva was 1997). The green sturgeon is identified as a spe- collected with a larval net at Bend Bridge. We cies of special concern by California Department concluded that green sturgeon spawn in the upper of Fish and Game (CDFG) and a species of Sacramento River, both above and below RBDD. concern by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Temperature ranges in the study area (10–15°C) (USFWS). The only known spawning populations are similar to conditions used in successful artifi- in North America are in the Klamath, Rogue, and cial rearing of green sturgeon and do not appear Sacramento rivers, all of which have flow regimes to be a limiting factor to successful spawning of that are affected by water projects (Moyle et al. green sturgeon; however, suitable habitat up- 1994). The operational regime of Red Bluff stream of RBDD is inaccessible when dam gates Diversion Dam (RBDD), an agricultural diver- are lowered.
    [Show full text]
  • Brood Year 2018 Juvenile Salmonid Production and Passage Indices at Red Bluff Diversion Dam
    BROOD YEAR 2018 JUVENILE SALMONID PRODUCTION AND PASSAGE INDICES AT RED BLUFF DIVERSION DAM Prepared for: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 2018 Annual RBDD Juvenile Fish Monitoring Report Prepared by: Scott D. Voss and William R. Poytress U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Red Bluff Fish and Wildlife Office 10950 Tyler Road Red Bluff, CA 96080 August 2020 Disclaimer The mention of trade names or commercial products in this report does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the federal government. The correct citation for this report is: Voss, S. D. and W. R. Poytress. 2020. Brood year 2018 juvenile salmonid production and passage indices at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam. Report of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, CA. ii Brood year 2018 juvenile salmonid production and passage indices at Red Bluff Diversion Dam. Scott D. Voss and William R. Poytress U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Red Bluff Fish and Wildlife Office Abstract.― Brood year 2018 (BY2018) juvenile winter Chinook salmon estimated passage at Red Bluff Diversion Dam (RBDD) was 1,168,263 for fry and pre-smolt/smolts combined. The fry-equivalent rotary trap juvenile production index (JPI) was the highest value reported in the last five years; estimated at 1,477,529 with the lower and upper 90% confidence intervals (CI) extending from 824,706 to 2,130,352 juveniles, respectively. The estimated egg-to-fry (ETF) survival rate, based on the BY2018 winter Chinook fry-equivalent JPI was 26.6%, slightly above the 21-year average ETF survival rate of 25.0%.
    [Show full text]
  • Red Bluff Diversion Dam Final EIS/EIR
    Appendix B Fishery Resources APPENDIX B Fishery Resources Affected Environment The fishery resources in the Sacramento River near the Red Bluff Diversion Dam (RBDD) consist of a diverse assemblage of fish species including native and non-native (introduced species). Table B-1 provides a species list of those fish that may likely be found at or near RBDD at some time during their life history. Of those species shown in Table B-1, four groups of fish species will be discussed together in this section because of their family relationship, life history characteristics, legal status, and occurrence within the project area. These groups include: • Native anadromous salmonids (NAS) • Other native anadromous fish (NAO) • Non-native anadromous fish (NNA) • Resident native and non-native fish (RN and RNN) TABLE B-1 Fish Found in the Sacramento River near RBDD Common Name Scientific Name Group Native Introduced Chinook salmona Oncorhynchus tshawytscha NASb X Steelheadc Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus NAS X Sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka NNASd Xe Pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha NNAS Xf Pacific lamprey Lampetra tridentata NAOg X River lamprey Lampetra ayresi NAO X Green sturgeon Acipenser medirostris NAO X White sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus NAO X Striped bass Morone saxatilis NNAh X American shad Alosa sapidissima NNA X Rainbow trouti Oncorhynchus mykiss RNj X Hitch Lavinia exilicauda RN X Sacramento splittail Pogonichthys macrolepidotus RN X Hardhead Mylopharodon conocephalus RN X Sacramento pikeminnow Ptychocheilus grandis RN X Speckled dace
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Passage Improvement Project at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam, Phase III Project Information
    Fish Passage Improvement Project at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam, Phase III Project Information 1. Proposal Title: Fish Passage Improvement Project at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam, Phase III 2. Proposal applicants: Arthur Bullock, Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority 3. Corresponding Contact Person: Arthur Bullock Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority P.O. Box 1025 Willows, CA 95988 530 934-2125 [email protected] 4. Project Keywords: Endangered Species Fish Passage/Fish Screens Fish, Anadromous 5. Type of project: Fish Screen 6. Does the project involve land acquisition, either in fee or through a conservation easement? Yes If yes, is there an existing specific restoration plan for this site? No 7. Topic Area: Fish Passage 8. Type of applicant: Local Agency 9. Location - GIS coordinates: Latitude: 40.152 Longitude: -122.203 Datum: Describe project location using information such as water bodies, river miles, road intersections, landmarks, and size in acres. Project is on main stem of Sacramento River at upper end of Butte and Colusa Basin watersheds, Tehama County. Exact site, to be selected at end of project Phase II from alternatives, will be in vicinity of Red Bluff Diversion Dam. 10. Location - Ecozone: 3.1 Keswick Dam to Red Bluff Diversion Dam, 3.2 Red Bluff Diversion Dam to Chico Landing 11. Location - County: Tehama 12. Location - City: Does your project fall within a city jurisdiction? No 13. Location - Tribal Lands: Does your project fall on or adjacent to tribal lands? No 14. Location - Congressional District: 3 15. Location: California State Senate District Number: 4 California Assembly District Number: 2 16. How many years of funding are you requesting? 3 17.
    [Show full text]
  • Nikola P. Prokopovich Papers
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt4199s0f4 No online items Inventory of the Nikola P. Prokopovich Papers Finding aid created by Manuscript Archivist Elizabeth Phillips. Processing of this collection was funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and administered by the Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR), Cataloging Hidden Special Collections and Archives program. Department of Special Collections General Library University of California, Davis Davis, CA 95616-5292 Phone: (530) 752-1621 Fax: Fax: (530) 754-5758 Email: [email protected] © 2011 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Inventory of the Nikola P. D-229 1 Prokopovich Papers Creator: Prokopovich, Nikola P. Title: Nikola P. Prokopovich Papers Date: 1947-1994 Extent: 83 linear feet Abstract: The Nikola P. Prokopovich Papers document United States Bureau of Reclamation geologist Nikola Prokopovich's work on irrigation, land subsidence, and geochemistry in California. The collection includes draft reports and memoranda, published writings, slides, photographs, and two films related to several state-wide water projects. Prokopovich was particularly interested in the engineering geology of the Central Valley Project's canals and dam sites and in the effects of the state water projects on the surrounding landscape. Phyiscal location: Researchers should contact Special Collections to request collections, as many are stored offsite. Repository: University of California, Davis. General Library. Dept. of Special Collections. Davis, California 95616-5292 Collection number: D-229 Language of Material: Collection materials in English Biography Nikola P. Prokopovich (1918-1999) was a California-based geologist for the United States Bureau of Reclamation. He was born in Kiev, Ukraine and came to the United States in 1950.
    [Show full text]
  • Ref ID 90016
    State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME KING (CHINOOK) SALMON SPAWNING STOCKS IN CALIFORNIA'S CENTRAL VALLEY, 1974 Edited by Steven N. Taylor Anadromous Fisheries Branch Anadromous Fisheries Branch Administrative Report No. 76-3 February 1976 KING (CHINOOK) SALMON SPAWNING STOCKS IN CALIFORNIA 'S CENTRAT1 VALLEY, 197421 Edited by Steven N. Taylor Anadromous Fisheries Branch ABSTRACT This report covers the 22nd annual (1974) inventory of king salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) spawning populations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system. It is a compilation of estimates of fall- and spring-run king salmon spawning populations for every stream in the Sacramento-San Joaquin system which supports a significant spawning run, and partial counts of late fall- and winter-run king salmon. Estimates are made from counts of carcasses and live fish on spawning areas, aerial redd counts, and counts of fish migrating past Red Bluff Diversion Dam. The estimated 1974 escapement of fall-spawning (fall- plus spring-run) king salmon in the Central Valley is 244,054 fish. This figure is 8% of the historic (1953-1973) average of 301,000, and is down 14% from the 1973 estimate of 283,000. Appendix Tables present fall- and spring-run spawning escapements by stream for 1974, and by major streams for the years 19.64 through 1974. Y Anvdromous Fisheries Branch Administrative Report No. 76-3. Submitted for publication February 1976. INTRODUCTION This report covers the 22nd annual California Central Valley king salmon spawning stock inventory. The California Central Valley (Sacramento-San Joaquin River system) is the principal producer of king salmon caught in California's ocean fisheries.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4-Overview of Analytical Approach
    CHAPTER 4 OVERVIEW OF ANALYTICAL APPROACH This chapter describes the scope and extent of the environmental analyses for this EIR/EIS, presented by study area region (see Section 2.1). Specifically, this chapter describes the framework for the impact analyses, identifies the environmental resource areas evaluated in this EIR/EIS, and explains why some resource areas have been dismissed from further evaluation. In addition, this chapter introduces the approach for the cumulative effects analysis, discusses irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources, and discusses the relationship between short-term uses of the environment and maintenance and enhancement of the long-term productivity of resources. 4.1 EVALUATED ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE AREAS Environmental resources within the project study area were examined to determine whether they could be directly or indirectly affected by implementation of a project that changes water management on the lower Yuba River. Some, but not all, of these environmental resources include: (1) fisheries and aquatic resources; (2) rivers used to convey transfer water, including conveyance of transfer water stored in Oroville and Shasta reservoirs; (3) rivers that may be influenced by implementation of the Proposed Project/Action or alternatives; (4) the Yuba Groundwater Basin and overlying lands within Yuba County; and (5) lands within YCWA and its Member Unit service areas. The environmental resource areas evaluated in this EIR/EIS, by region and Export Service Area, are presented in Table 4-1. Table
    [Show full text]
  • Cvp Overview
    Central Valley Project Overview Eric A. Stene Bureau of Reclamation Table Of Contents The Central Valley Project ......................................................2 About the Author .............................................................15 Bibliography ................................................................16 Archival and Manuscript Collections .......................................16 Government Documents .................................................16 Books ................................................................17 Articles...............................................................17 Interviews.............................................................17 Dissertations...........................................................17 Other ................................................................17 Index ......................................................................18 1 The Central Valley Project Throughout his political life, Thomas Jefferson contended the United States was an agriculturally based society. Agriculture may be king, but compared to the queen, Mother Nature, it is a weak monarch. Nature consistently proves to mankind who really controls the realm. The Central Valley of California is a magnificent example of this. The Sacramento River watershed receives two-thirds to three-quarters of northern California's precipitation though it only has one-third to one-quarter of the land. The San Joaquin River watershed occupies two- thirds to three-quarter of northern California's land,
    [Show full text]
  • Red Bluff Pumping Plant and Fish Screen
    MP Region Public Affairs, 916-978-5100, http://www.usbr.gov/mp, May 2017 Mid-Pacific Region, Red Bluff Pumping Plant and Fish Screen Background Project Benefits The Red Bluff Pumping Plant and Fish The pumping plant: Screen were completed in August 2012 to replace the Red Bluff Diversion Dam and • Allows the Red Bluff Project to be improve fish passage conditions on the operated in a manner that allows Sacramento River at Red Bluff, Calif. The unimpeded upstream and facility includes a 1,118-foot-long flat-plate downstream passage for five runs of fish screen, intake channel, 2,500 cubic-feet- listed salmon species and the green per-second (cfs) capacity pumping plant and sturgeon. discharge conduit to divert water from the Sacramento River into the Tehama-Colusa • Alleviates a long-standing fish and Corning canals. passage concern. As designed, the diversion dam formed Lake • Provides irrigation water to Red Bluff and diverted water to the canals approximately 150,000 acres of by gravity. However, the diversion dam also high-value cropland with an created a barrier to migrating fish, some of economic benefit of an annual which are listed under the Endangered average of over $1 billion. Species Act. • Provides 2,000 cfs initially, with In 2011, the dam gates were permanently capability for adding pumps to placed in the open position for free deliver 2,500 cfs, which is the full migration of fish while ensuring continued capacity of the canals. water deliveries by way of the Red Bluff Pumping Plant. Jointly constructed through a partnership undertaken by Reclamation and the Tehama- Colusa Canal Authority, the Pumping Plant is operated and maintained by TCCA through an agreement with Reclamation, and provides water to the 17-member water districts throughout a four-county service area.
    [Show full text]
  • Ref ID 90019
    State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CHINOOK (KING) SALMON SPAWNING STOCKS IN CALIFORNIA'S CENTRAL VALLEY, 1977 Edited by David A. Hoopaugh and Arthur C. Knutson, Jr. Anadromous Fisheries Branch Anadromous Fisheries Branch Administrative Report No. 79-11 CHINOOK (KING) SALMON SPAWNING STOCKS IN CALIFORNIA' S CENTRAL VALLEY, 1977L/ Edited by David A. Hoopaugh and Arthur C. Knutson, Jr. ABSTRACT This report covers the 25th annual inventory of chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus -tshawytscha, spawning populations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system. It is a compilation of estimates of fall- and spring-run salmon spawning populations for every stream in the Sacramento-San Joaquin system which supports a significant spawning run, and partial counts of late-fall- and winter-run salmon. Estimates are made from counts of fish entering hatcheries and spawning channels, counts of carcasses and live fish on spawning areas, aerial redd counts, and counts of fish migrating past Red Bluff Diversion Dam. Estimated 1977 escapement of fall-spawning (fall- plus spring-run) salmon in the Central Valley is 205,836 fish (204,125 in the Sacramento River system and 1,711 in the San Joaquin River system). This total is 71% of the historic (1953-1976) average of 291,000 and 93% of the 1976 estimate of 221,056. Tables present fall- and spring-run spawning escapements by stream for 1977, and by major streams for the years 1964 through 1977. -11 Anadromous Fisheries Branch Report No. 79-11. Submitted for publication 1979. INTRODUCTION This report covers the 25th annual California Central Valley chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, spawning stock inventory.
    [Show full text]