DOCSLIB.ORG

Lower Alameda Creek Fish Passage Restoration in Flood Control District Zone 5, Cities of Fremont and Union City, California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lower Alameda Creek Fish Passage Restoration in Flood Control District Zone 5, Cities of Fremont and Union City, California Lower Alameda Creek Fish Passage Restoration in Flood Control District Zone 5, Cities of Fremont and Union City, California DRAFT Initial Study with Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Environmental Assessment & U.S. Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District 450 Golden Gate, San Francisco CA 94965 January 30, 2020 Prepared by Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 399 Elmhurst Street Hayward, California 94544-1395 & Hanson Environmental, Inc., 446 Green View Court Walnut Creek, CA 94596 This page left blank intentionally DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Alameda Flood Control & Water Conservation District (Lead Agency) State Clearinghouse # Project Name: Lower Alameda Creek Fish Passage Restoration in Flood Control District Zone 5, Cities of Fremont and Union City, California. Project Location and Description: The Proposed Project extends approximately 5.6 miles (29,730 feet) within the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Flood Control Channel between the BART Weir fish ladder upstream to 600 feet below the Union Pacific Railroad (UPPR) crossing downstream in Flood Control District Zone 5, Cities of Fremont and Union City, California The Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFCD) proposes to implement the following restoration activities in Lower Alameda Creek (Proposed Project) in the existing Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) constructed Flood Control Channel. The proposed Project involves: Optimization of the existing low flow channel within the 230 feet wide flood control channel from the scour pool immediately downstream of the BART Weir to about 600 feet downstream of the UPRR crossing; modification of the RD2/Larinier fishway concrete structure; modification of existing grade control structures; modification of bridges footings in the channel; modification of UPRR bridge footing in the channel; protect PGE gas main channel crossing upstream of UPRR; installation of a new modified grade control structure; install boulders to improve habitat; and plant native shrubs and grasses on the configured channel terrace between the levees. The project is described in greater detail in the attached draft Initial Study/CEQA checklist. The purpose of this Proposed Project is to remove migratory impediments and improve the migratory corridor below the BART Weir to allow Central California Coast steelhead and other fish movement within the flood control channel to access upstream spawning grounds. The Project will also facilitate sediment transport downstream and thereby reduce maintenance desilting frequency of the flood control channel as required under the Corp’s O&M manual. Lead Agency: Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District; 399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California 94544 Findings: Based on the attached Initial Study, the Lead Agency has found that: Significant Effects of the Project noted in the attached Initial Study have been eliminated or mitigated so that the potential effects are reduced to insignificant levels. Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the relevant avoidance and minimization measures and mitigation for Air Quality, Biological Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Recreation, Transportation and Traffic summarized in Tables 6 and 7 in the Initial Study would reduce potential environmental impacts to less than significant. FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MEASURES With the implementation of the best management practices (BMPs) measures outlined above and detailed in the attached draft Initial Study, the Proposed Project will have less-than-significant impacts on the environment. ______________________________________ Signature ********************************** ISSUANCE OF THIS MITIGATED ______________________________________ NEGATIVE DECLARATION DOES NOT Environmental Services Manager IMPLY APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT ______________________________________ ********************************** Date Lower Alameda Creek Fish Passage Restoration in Flood Control District Zone 5, Cities of Fremont and Union City, California DRAFT Initial Study with Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Environmental Assessment Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 399 Elmhurst Street Hayward, California 94544-1395 AND U.S. Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District 450 Golden Gate, San Francisco CA 94965 Prepared by Alameda County Flood Control And Water Conservation District & Hanson Environmental 446 Green View Court Walnut Creek, CA 94596 January 30, 2019 This page left blank intentionally Lower Alameda Creek Fish Passage Restoration CEQA Draft Initial Study MND/EA Table of Contents Acronyms & Abbreviations.………………………………………………………………………x 1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 2 1.1 CEQA/NEPA History ................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Project Authorization .................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Purpose of the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study .............................................. 3 1.4 Description of Restoration Project Elements ................................................................ 3 1.5 Action Area of Restoration of Proposed Project........................................................... 6 1.6 Habitat Improvement and Revegetation ………………………………………………………15 1.7 Action Area ................................................................................................................. 15 1.8 Proposed Project Element Locations .......................................................................... 16 1.9 Construction ................................................................................................................ 16 1.10 Typical Activities ........................................................................................................ 16 1.11 Area of Activities ........................................................................................................ 18 1.12 Maintenance Responsibilities .................................................................................. 223 1.13 Compliance Monitoring .............................................................................................. 23 1.14 Avoidance and Minimization Measures ..................................................................... 24 2.0 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 36 2.1 Project Setting ............................................................................................................. 37 2.2 Hydrology ................................................................................................................... 37 2.2.1 The Existing Low Flow Channel ................................................................................ 40 2.2.2 Low Flow Channel Optimization Approach....………………………………………41 2.2.3 Fish Passage and Flows………………………………………………………………42 2.3 Steelhead Restoration Action Plan .............................................................................. 44 2.4 Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration Workgroup ..................................................... 44 2.5 ACFCD Operations and Facilities .............................................................................. 46 2.6 Proposed Project Purpose and Need ........................................................................... 46 2.7 Scope of Initial Study.................................................................................................. 46 2.8 Alternatives Examined but not Considered in Detail ................................................. 47 2.9 No Project ................................................................................................................... 48 2.10 No Project (Action) Alternative under NEPA ............................................................ 48 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING & EVALUATION ............................................. 49 Page i Lower Alameda Creek Fish Passage Restoration CEQA Draft Initial Study MND/EA 3.1 Approach to Analysis of Effects ................................................................................. 49 3.2 General Environmental Setting ................................................................................... 49 3.3 The Flood Control Channel Facilites and Operations................................................. 50 3.4 Existing Habitat .......................................................................................................... 50 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION .................................................................... 52 4.1 CEQA Determinations ................................................................................................ 52 4.2 Other Public Agencies Approvals Required ............................................................... 54 4.3 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................... 56 4.4 Determination ............................................................................................................. 57 5.0 AESTHETICS ........................................................................................................... 58 5.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................ 58 5.2 Mechanisms for Effect ...............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fishway Ladder
    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS A. Fishway B. Riverwalk C. DNR Compliance with NR 333 D. Dam Removal E. Property Issues F. Fish and Aquatic Life G. Wildlife H. Recreational Use A. Fishway 1. What is the estimated cost to build a fishway at Bridge Street dam? The engineering consultant, Bonestroo, has estimated the cost at $1.3 million per the NOAA grant. 2. If the fishway is constructed next year, will it have to be rebuilt when the dam needs to be removed and replaced? Essentially no. Most of the fishway is a separate upstream structure and will not be impacted by demolition and construction of a new dam. The fishway entrance area may need to be modified if a new dam is installed or if the dam abutments are altered. 3. Why is the fishway being constructed on the west bank of the river? The west bank allows land owned by the Village of Grafton to be used for a portion of the channel alignment. Furthermore, the heaviest construction will likely be in the area currently owned by the Village (penetration of the west dam abutment). Other advantages include the appeal to tourists able to view fish entering and ascending the fishway from the riverwalk, and the known presence of shallow bedrock helping assure good foundation characteristics. Furthermore, the historic mill race crosses the area, and a portion of the mill race alignment may assist with fishway construction. 4. How long will it take to complete the construction of the fishway? The fishway will be completed by late fall of 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria 2019
    FISH PASSAGE ENGINEERING DESIGN CRITERIA 2019 37.2’ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Region June 2019 Fish and Aquatic Conservation, Fish Passage Engineering Ecological Services, Conservation Planning Assistance United States Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5 FISH PASSAGE ENGINEERING DESIGN CRITERIA June 2019 This manual replaces all previous editions of the Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5 Suggested citation: USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2019. Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria. USFWS, Northeast Region R5, Hadley, Massachusetts. USFWS R5 Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria June 2019 USFWS R5 Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria June 2019 Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x List of Equations ............................................................................................................................ xi List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................ xii 1 Scope of this Document ....................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Role of the USFWS Region 5 Fish Passage Engineering ............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Passage Profiles Evaluation Report
    Potter Valley Project Ad Hoc Committee Fish Passage Profiles Evaluation Report December 2019 Developed by the Fish Passage Working Group Fish Passage Working Group Report Contributors Scenarios and Options Subgroup Scoring Subgroup Craig Addley (Consultant to PG&E) Craig Addley (Consultant to PG&E) Joshua Fuller (NMFS) Joshua Fuller (NMFS) Paul Kubicek (PG&E) Damon Goodman (USFWS) Jon Mann (CDFW) Paul Kubicek (PG&E) David Manning (Sonoma Water) Jon Mann (CDFW) Scott McBain (Consultant to RVIT) David Manning (Sonoma Water) Darren Mierau (CalTrout) Scott McBain (Consultant to RVIT) Steve Thomas (NMFS) Darren Mierau (CalTrout) Allen Renger (CDFW) Steve Thomas (NMFS) Larry Wise (PG&E) The scenarios subgroup developed the conceptual passage scenarios and options. The scoring subgroup developed and used a passage scoring matrix to evaluate the passage options. Facilitation Team Facilitators Gina Bartlett and Stephanie Horii of Consensus Building Institute assisted the subgroups to document the process and compile results into this final report. 2 Executive Summary Background and Purpose The Potter Valley Project on the Eel River is a set of hydroelectric facilities that includes two large dams (Scott and Cape Horn), water-diversion facilities, and a powerhouse. The project involves an inter-basin transfer that stores winter runoff from the upper Eel River and diverts much of that water to the Russian River to generate hydroelectric power and meet contract water demands. Scott Dam, which creates Lake Pillsbury, is a complete barrier to native fish species, preventing access to high value habitat for federally Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed anadromous salmonids. To balance diverse Potter Valley Project interests, Congressman Jared Huffman established an Ad Hoc Committee comprised of representative stakeholder groups across four counties, who have agreed to work collaboratively towards a two-basin solution.
    [Show full text]
  • Open House Summary Report
    Nimbus Hatchery Fish Passage Project Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report Open House Summary Report Rancho Cordova, California US Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation California Department of Fish and Game February 2011 Contents Page 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................1 1.1 Overview of the Public Involvement Process ..............................................1 1.2 Description of the Public Involvement Process to Date ..............................2 2. Meeting Overview ..................................................................................................5 3. Comment Summary ...............................................................................................7 4. Future Steps ............................................................................................................9 4.1 Summary of Future Steps and Public Participation Opportunities ..............9 4.2 Contact Information .....................................................................................9 Table Page 3-1 Summary of Comments ...........................................................................................8 Appendix Draft EIS/EIR Public Involvement Materials Nimbus Hatchery Fish Passage Project EIS/EIR February 2011 Open House Summary Report i Acronyms Acronym Full Phrase CCAO Central California Area Office CCR California Code of Regulations CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CEQA California
    [Show full text]
  • Public Sediment / Unlock Alameda Creek
    PUBLIC SEDIMENT / UNLOCK ALAMEDA CREEK WWW.RESILIENTBAYAREA.ORG ◄ BAYLANDS = LIVING INFRA STR CTY\, E' j(II( ........ • 400 +-' -L C Based on preliminary 0 analysis by SFfl. A more , detailed analysis is beinq E TIDAL MARSH conducted as part of -l/) the Healthy Watersheds l/) ro Resilient Aaylands E project (hwrb.sfei.org) +-' C QJ E "'O MUDFLAT QJ V1 SAC-SJ DELTA 0 1 Sediment supply was estimated by 'Sediment demand was estimated multiplying the current average using a mudflat soil bulK density of annual c;ediment load valuec; from 1.5 q c;ediment/rm c;oil (Brew and McKee et al. (in prep) by the number Williams :?010), a tidal marsh soil of years between 201 r and2100. bulK density ot 0.4 g sed1m ent / cm 3 c;oil (Callaway et al. :?010), and baywide mudflat and marsh area circa 2009 (BAARI vl). BAYLANDS TODAY BAYLANDS 2100 WITH 3' SLR LOW SEDIMENT SUPPLY BAYLANDS 2100 WITH 7' SLR LOW SEDIMENT SUPPLY WE MUST LOOK UPSTREAM TRIBUTARIES FEED THE BAY SONOMA CREEK NAPA RIVER PETALUMA CREEK WALNUT CREEK ALAMEDA CREEK COYOTE CREEK GUADALUPE CREEK ALAMEDA CREEK SEDIMENTSHED ALAMEDA CREEK ALAMEDA CREEK WATERSHED - 660 SQMI OAKLAND ALAMEDA CREEK WATERSHED SAN FRANCISCO SAN JOSE THE CREEK BUILT AN ALLUVIAL FAN AND FED THE BAY ALAMEDA CREEK SOUTH BAY NILES CONE ALLUVIAL FAN HIGH SEDIMENT FEEDS MARSHES TIDAL WETLANDS IT HAS BEEN LOCKED IN PLACE OVER TIME LIVERMORE PLEASANTON SUNOL UNION CITY NILES SAN MATEO BRIDGE EDEN LANDING FREMONT NEWARK LOW SEDIMENT CARGILL SALT PONDS DUMBARTON BRIDGE SEDIMENT FLOWS ARE HIGHLY MODIFIED SEDIMENT IS STUCK IN CHANNEL IMPOUNDED BY DAMS UPSTREAM REDUCED SUPPLY TO THE BAY AND VULNERABILITIES ARE EXACERBATED BY CLIMATE CHANGE EROSION SUBSIDENCE SEA LEVEL RISE THE FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL SAN MATEO BRIDGE UNION CITY NILES RUBBER DAMS BART WEIR EDEN LANDING PONDS HEAD OF TIDE FREMONT 880 NEWARK TIDAL EXTENT FLUVIAL EXTENT DUMBARTON BRIDGE.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Passage at Dams Strategic Analysis
    Fish Passage at Dams Strategic Analysis Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources February 5, 2018 Nature-like Fishway at Thiensville Dam on Milwaukee River in Ozaukee County, WI Table of Contents Foreword ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 5 1 History of Fish Passage at Dams Policy in Wisconsin ............................................................................ 7 2 Regulatory Framework and Department Procedures and Guidelines ................................................ 11 3 Types of Fish Passage .......................................................................................................................... 19 3.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 19 3.2 Upstream Fish Passage Technologies ......................................................................................... 19 3.2.1 Fishways (Passive) ............................................................................................................... 20 3.2.2 Fish Lifts and Locks (Active) ................................................................................................ 26 3.2.3 Collection and Transport (Active) ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hayward Regional Shoreline Adaptation Master Plan Appendix a Stakeholder and Public Comments
    SCAPE ARCADIS CONVEY RE:FOCUS SFEI HAYWARD REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION MASTER PLAN FOR THE HAYWARD AREA SHORELINE PLANNING AGENCY (HASPA) PART OF A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT OF THE CITY OF HAYWARD, HAYWARD AREA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT, AND EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT HAYWARD REGIONAL SHORELINE MASTER PLAN APPENDIX A STAKEHOLDER AND PUBLIC COMMENTS SUBMITTED 10/02/2020 PUBLIC ONLINE SURVEY 02/27/19 - 03/15/19 ONLINE SURVEY SUMMARY A 23-question survey was conducted on behalf of the Hayward Area Shoreline Planning Agency (HASPA) to assess the public’s general understanding of Hayward Regional Shoreline, mainly in regard to sea level rise, potential flooding, and participants’ feelings, concerns, and predictions regarding these issues. In the spring of 2019, this survey was completed by approximately 900 people throughout the Bay Area, primarily those who live, work, commute through, or recreate at or near the shoreline. 1. Are you familiar with the Hayward Regional Shoreline that is managed by East Bay Regional Park District and Hayward Area Recreation and Park District? The majority of people surveyed are familiar with the Hayward Regional Shoreline. 2. What’s your association with the project area? The majority of those surveyed either drive through the area or enjoy the views of the Shoreline. Approximately two thirds of those surveyed visit the Shoreline and about one third live near the Shoreline. A smaller percentage (about ten percent) specified that they enjoy activities such as birding, cycling, jogging or walking along the Shoreline. A negligible amount of those surveyed stated they’d like to see restaurants built on the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Active Wetland Habitat Projects of the San
    ACTIVE WETLAND HABITAT PROJECTS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY JOINT VENTURE The SFBJV tracks and facilitates habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement projects throughout the nine Bay Area Projects listed Alphabetically by County counties. This map shows where a variety of active wetland habitat projects with identified funding needs are currently ALAMEDA COUNTY MAP ACRES FUND. NEED MARIN COUNTY (continued) MAP ACRES FUND. NEED underway. For a more comprehensive list of all the projects we track, visit: www.sfbayjv.org/projects.php Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration 1 NA $12,000,000 McInnis Marsh Habitat Restoration 33 180 $17,500,000 Alameda Point Restoration 2 660 TBD Novato Deer Island Tidal Wetlands Restoration 34 194 $7,000,000 Coyote Hills Regional Park - Restoration and Public Prey enhancement for sea ducks - a novel approach 3 306 $12,000,000 35 3.8 $300,000 Access Project to subtidal habitat restoration Hayward Shoreline Habitat Restoration 4 324 $5,000,000 Redwood Creek Restoration at Muir Beach, Phase 5 36 46 $8,200,000 Hoffman Marsh Restoration Project - McLaughlin 5 40 $2,500,000 Spinnaker Marsh Restoration 37 17 $3,000,000 Eastshore State Park Intertidal Habitat Improvement Project - McLaughlin 6 4 $1,000,000 Tennessee Valley Wetlands Restoration 38 5 $600,000 Eastshore State Park Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline - Water 7 200 $3,000,000 Tiscornia Marsh Restoration 39 16 $1,500,000 Quality Project Oakland Gateway Shoreline - Restoration and 8 200 $12,000,000 Tomales Dunes Wetlands 40 2 $0 Public Access Project Off-shore Bird Habitat Project - McLaughlin 9 1 $1,500,000 NAPA COUNTY MAP ACRES FUND.
    [Show full text]
  • 8 Chittenden Locks 47
    Seattle’s Aquatic Environments: Hiram M. Chittenden Locks Hiram M. Chittenden Locks The following write-up relies heavily on the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks/Salmon Bay Subarea Chapter by Fred Goetz in the Draft Reconnaissance Assessment – Habitat Factors that Contribute to the Decline of Salmonids by the Greater Lake Washington Technical Committee (2001). Overview The Hiram M. Chittenden Locks (Locks) were Operation of the navigational locks involves constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers raising or lowering the water level within either (the Corps) in 1916 and commissioned in 1917. the large or small lock chamber so that vessels may The Locks were built as a navigation project to pass between the two waterbodies. The filling and allow boats to travel from the marine waters of emptying of the large lock chamber is achieved by Puget Sound to the protected freshwaters of Lake use of a system of two large conduits that can Union and Lake Washington. The Locks are either fill the entire lock or half of the lock. This comprised of two navigational lock chambers: a is achieved by using a miter gate that divides the large lock that accommodates both large and small large lock chamber into two sections. Water is vessels and a small lock used by smaller vessels. In taken into the conduits via two culvert intakes addition to the lock chambers, the Locks include a located immediately upstream of the structure. dam, 6 spillway bays, and a fish ladder. Water is conveyed through each conduit and is The Locks form a dam at the outlet of the Lake discharged into the lock chamber through outlet Washington and Lake Union/Ship Canal system culverts on each side of the chamber.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Status of Coho Salmon in Streams of the Urbanized San Francisco Estuary, California
    CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME California Fish and Game 91(4):219-254 2005 HISTORICAL STATUS OF COHO SALMON IN STREAMS OF THE URBANIZED SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA ROBERT A. LEIDY1 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 [email protected] and GORDON BECKER Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration 4179 Piedmont Avenue, Suite 325 Oakland, CA 94611 [email protected] and BRETT N. HARVEY Graduate Group in Ecology University of California Davis, CA 95616 1Corresponding author ABSTRACT The historical status of coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch, was assessed in 65 watersheds surrounding the San Francisco Estuary, California. We reviewed published literature, unpublished reports, field notes, and specimens housed at museum and university collections and public agency files. In watersheds for which we found historical information for the occurrence of coho salmon, we developed a matrix of five environmental indicators to assess the probability that a stream supported habitat suitable for coho salmon. We found evidence that at least 4 of 65 Estuary watersheds (6%) historically supported coho salmon. A minimum of an additional 11 watersheds (17%) may also have supported coho salmon, but evidence is inconclusive. Coho salmon were last documented from an Estuary stream in the early-to-mid 1980s. Although broadly distributed, the environmental characteristics of streams known historically to contain coho salmon shared several characteristics. In the Estuary, coho salmon typically were members of three-to-six species assemblages of native fishes, including Pacific lamprey, Lampetra tridentata, steelhead, Oncorhynchus mykiss, California roach, Lavinia symmetricus, juvenile Sacramento sucker, Catostomus occidentalis, threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus, riffle sculpin, Cottus gulosus, prickly sculpin, Cottus asper, and/or tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi.
    [Show full text]
  • The Efficiency of a Fish Ladder for Salmonid Upstream Migration in a Swedish Stream Potential Impact of a Hydropower Station on Connectivity and Recruitment
    The Efficiency of a Fish Ladder for Salmonid Upstream Migration in a Swedish Stream Potential Impact of a Hydropower Station on Connectivity and Recruitment Anton Larsson Degree project for Master of Science in Biology Animal Ecology, 30 hec, AT 2016 Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences University of Gothenburg Supervisors: Johan Höjesjö, Lars-Olof Ramnelid, Daniel Johansson Examiner: Charlotta Kvarnemo Abstract Assessments of the function of fish passages are typically rare, although the approach is frequently implemented to mitigate adverse effects of hydropower plants. In this study 249 electro fishing samples from 1979-2015, were used to assess the efficiency of a fish ladder to allow upstream migration of salmonids past a hydropower station in Örekilsälven, Sweden. Densities of brown trout (both young of the year, 0+, and older juveniles, >0+) did not increase in the area upstream the hydropower station after construction of the fish passage; neither did the densities of salmon 0+. >0+ salmon had a higher density upstream the hydropower station after completion of the fish ladder, however this is most likely explained by extensive fish translocations. 0+ salmon were only found in 5 % of the sampling occasions upstream the power station when translocations were removed, whereas 0+ brown trout were found in 44.3 %. No effect of discharge for ascension was found in the study. The efficiency of the passage was determined low and non-satisfactory for Atlantic salmon and brown trout, although the evaluation is more difficult for brown trout as a consequence of resident forms. Smolt models indicate that contemporary smolt escapement of both salmon and brown trout almost exclusively originate from the downstream areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Poster of AUBURN RAVINE FISH LADDER PROJECT Overview
    ENHANCING OUR REGIONAL ECOSYSTEM : AUBURN RAVINE FISH LADDER PROJECT nto s e uc m k ra e ttonwo c r o o a c d s Why Build a Fish Ladder ? Fish such as salmon and steelhead are anadromous, meaning they are born in freshwater streams and rivers, migrate downstream to the ocean where Plantings Fish they spend a few years maturing, then return to Sierra streams to spawn. Fish To improve ecosystem function and diversity, ladders are designed to provide migrating fish with support to pass around The fish in Auburn Ravine include Chinook native vegetation species were planted salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), a particular obstruction like this gauging station. The streambed in Auburn within the bed and along banks of the steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Ravine has gravel areas that make suitable spawning habitat for anadromous Auburn Ravine fish ladder. Site specific plants were chosen to promote Sacramento pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus salmonids like fall and late fall-run Chinook salmon and steelhead trout. grandis), Sacramento sucker natural nutrient filtration, water quality, By installing this fish ladder on Auburn Ravine, a partial barrier to upstream (Catostomus occidentalis), Lamprey WHEN DO sediment trapping functions, and s (Entosphenus tridentatus) and Speckled te habitats has been removed making it easier for salmon and steelhead to erosion and bank stabilization controls. Dace (Rhinichthys osculus). Salmon, elhead reach these upstream spawning areas. THE FISH RUN? These vegetation species include steelhead and lamprey all use Auburn native sedge and rush grasses, willow, l a Ravine for spawning while the remaining alder and cottonwood. This restored fish are year-round residents.
    [Show full text]