DOCSLIB.ORG

Programmatic Biological Opinion

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Programmatic Biological Opinion LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS BMPs Best Management Practices BA Biological Assessment BO Biological Opinion CCV California Central Valley CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife DWR California Department of Water Resources CV Central Valley CVI Central Valley Index TRT Central Valley Technical Review Team CWT Coded-wire tag CRR Cohort Replacement Rates Coleman Coleman National Fish Hatchery DO Dissolved Oxygen DPS Distinct Population Segment EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utilities District ESA Endangered Species Act EFH Essential Fish Habitat ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit FRFH Feather River Fish Hatchery FRRP Fish Rescue and Relocation Plan GIS Geographic Information System LWM Large Woody Material MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act MMP Monitoring and Maintenance Plan NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NEP Non-essential Experimental Population PFMC Pacific Fishery Management Council PBFs Physical or Biological Features PVA Population Viability Analysis RBDD Red Bluff Diversion Dam RM River Mile RST Rotary Screw Trap SJR San Joaquin River SJRRP San Joaquin River Restoration Program T&C Terms and Conditions DQA The Data Quality Act Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VSP Viable Salmonid Population 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Background, Authority, and Policy ............................................................................... 5 1.2 Consultation History ....................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Proposed Action .............................................................................................................. 7 1.3.1 Columbia Canal Intake and Siphon ............................................................................... 8 1.3.2 Compact Bypass, Compact Bypass Control Structure, and Mendota Pool Control Structure ................................................................................................................................ 11 1.3.3 Reach 2B Grading, Levees, and Floodplain Project Descriptions ............................... 17 1.3.4 Fish Passage Facility on the San Joaquin River Control Structure at the Chowchilla Bifurcation Structure ............................................................................................................. 34 1.3.5 Mendota Pool Control Structure Fish Screen .............................................................. 37 1.3.6 Conservation Measures and Avoidance/Minimization Measures ................................ 38 1.4 Action Area .................................................................................................................... 40 2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: .................................................................................... 42 2.1 Analytical Approach ..................................................................................................... 42 2.2 Range-wide Status of the Species................................................................................. 43 2.2.2 California Central Valley Steelhead distinct population segment (DPS) .................... 43 2.2.1 Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) ... 59 2.2.3 Climate Change ............................................................................................................ 75 2.3 Environmental Baseline ............................................................................................... 77 2.3.1 Status of the Species in the Action Area ...................................................................... 77 2.3.2 Factors Affecting the Species in the Action Area ........................................................ 81 2.3.3 NMFS’ Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan Action Recommendations .................. 83 2.3.4 Climate Change ............................................................................................................ 83 2.4 Effects of the Action ...................................................................................................... 83 2.4.1 Construction and Maintenance Effects ........................................................................ 85 2.4.1.1 Erosion and Sedimentation ....................................................................................... 86 2.4.1.2 Increased Turbidity ................................................................................................... 86 2.4.1.3 Loss/Degradation of Habitat ..................................................................................... 87 2.4.1.4 Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................. 87 2.4.1.5 Increased Temperature .............................................................................................. 87 2.4.1.6 Hazardous Noise Levels ........................................................................................... 88 2.4.2 Operational Effects ...................................................................................................... 89 2.4.3 Beneficial Effects ......................................................................................................... 93 2.5 Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................................ 95 2.6 Integration and Synthesis ............................................................................................. 96 2.6.1 Status of the Species and Effects of the action on listed species ................................. 96 2.6.2 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 98 2.7 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 98 2.8 Incidental Take Statement ........................................................................................... 99 2.8.1 Amount or Extent of Take ........................................................................................... 99 2.8.2 Effect of the Take....................................................................................................... 101 2.8.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures ............................................................................. 101 2.8.4 Terms and Conditions ................................................................................................ 102 2.9 Conservation Recommendations ............................................................................... 106 3 2.10 Reinitiation of Consultation ..................................................................................... 107 3. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT CONSULTATION ........................................................... 108 3.1 Essential Fish Habitat Affected by the Proposed Action ........................................ 108 3.1.1 Life History ................................................................................................................ 109 3.1.2 Habitat Areas of Particular Concern .......................................................................... 110 3.2 Adverse Effects on Essential Fish Habitat ................................................................ 110 3.3 Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Recommendations ........................................ 111 3.4 Statutory Response Requirement .............................................................................. 113 3.5 Supplemental Consultation ........................................................................................ 114 4. FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT .......................................................... 114 5. DATA QUALITY ACT DOCUMENTATION AND PRE-DISSEMINATION REVIEW ............................................................................................................................. 115 5.1 Utility ............................................................................................................ 115 5.2 Integrity ....................................................................................................... 115 5.3 Objectivity ................................................................................................... 115 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES CITED ........................................................................ 116 LITERATURE CITED ....................................................................................................... 117 4 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background, Authority, and Policy The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) prepared the biological opinion (BO) and incidental take statement portions (ITS) of this document in accordance with section 7(b) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.), and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 402. We also completed an EFH consultation on the proposed action, in accordance with section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600. Because the proposed action would modify a stream or other body of water, NMFS also provides
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]
  • Newlands Project
    MP Region Public Affairs, 916-978-5100, http://www.usbr.gov/mp, February 2016 Mid-Pacific Region, Newlands Project History The Newlands Project was one of the first Reclamation projects. It provides irrigation water from the Truckee and Carson Rivers for about 57,000 acres of cropland in the Lahontan Valley near Fallon and bench lands near Fernley in western Nevada. In addition, water from about 6,000 acres of project land has been transferred to the Lahontan Valley Wetlands near Fallon. Lake Tahoe Dam, a small dam at the outlet of Lake Tahoe, the source of the Truckee Lake Tahoe Dam and Reservoir River, controls releases into the river. Downstream, the Derby Diversion Dam diverts the water into the Truckee Canal and Lahontan Dam, Reservoir, carries it to the Carson River. Other features and Power Plant include Lahontan Dam and Reservoir, Carson River Diversion Dam, and Old Lahontan Dam and Reservoir on the Carson Lahontan Power Plant. The Truckee-Carson River store the natural flow of the Carson project (renamed the Newlands Project) was River along with water diverted from the authorized by the Secretary of the Interior Truckee River. The dam, completed in 1915, on March 14, 1903. Principal features is a zoned earthfill structure. The reservoir include: has a storage capacity of 289,700 acre-feet. Old Lahontan Power Plant, immediately below Lahontan Dam, has a capacity of Lake Tahoe Dam 42,000 kilowatts. The plant was completed in 1911. Lake Tahoe Dam controls the top six feet of Lake Tahoe. With the surface area of the lake, this creates a reservoir of 744,600 acre- Truckee Canal feet capacity and regulates the lake outflow into the Truckee River.
    [Show full text]
  • "Evaluation of Submerged Weir to Reduce Fish Impingement at Indian Point." May 25-Jul 29,1977
    wilveveaI, PDR ADOCK 05' p 0 -v EVALUATION OF A SUBMERGED WEIR TO REDUCE FISH IMPINGEMENT AT INDIAN POINT. FOR THE PERIOD 25 MAY - 29 JULY 1977 March 1978 Prepared for CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC. 4 Irving Place New York, New York 10003 .Prepared by TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED Science Services Division P.O. Box 5621 Dallas, Texas 75222 Copyright March 1978 by Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. science Services division TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page I INTRODUCTION I-i Ii METHODS AND MATERIALS 'I-i A. INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR PLANT 'I-i B. STUDY DESIGN 11-1 III RESULTS 111-1 IV DISCUSSION IV-l V LITERATURE CITED APPENDIX Appendix Title A IMPINGEMENT DATA COLLECTED AT INDIAN POINT UNIT 1 DURING THE COURSE OF WEIR STUDY, 25 MAY-29 JULY 1977 TABLES Table Title Page 111-1 Taxon List of Fish Collected during Submerged 111-2 Weir Study 111-2 Results of Two-tailed Mann-Whitney U-Tests Comparing 111-3 Number of Fish Collected Daily from Traveling Screens at Indian Point Unit 1 during Periods of Weir and Fixed Screen Operation ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Title Page 11-1 Indian Point Plant Layout 11-2 11-2 Cross Section of Unit 1 Forebay with Submerged Weir and 11-4 Back-up Fine N~esh Screen 11-3 Details of Submerged Weir Construction 11-4 science services division SECTION I INTRODUCTION Impingement of fish at power plant intakes is often an unavoidable consequence of withdrawals of large volumes of water from cooling water sources. Frequently, the magnitude of the impingement problem can be re duced by careful design of intake structures and judicious selection of intake location (USEPA, 1973).
    [Show full text]
  • Sacramento and Feather Rivers and Their Tributaries, Sacramento Slough and Sutter Bypass
    Section 319 NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM SUCCESS STORY Stakeholders Cooperate to ReduceCalifornia Diazinon in Runoff from Dormant Season Spray Widespread use of the organophosphate (OP) pesticides diazinon Waterbodies Improved and chlorpyrifos in California’s Central Valley resulted in aquatic toxicity in the Sacramento and Feather rivers and their tributaries, Sacramento Slough and Sutter Bypass. As a result, in 1994 the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CV-RWQCB) added a 16-mile segment of the Sacramento River, a 42-mile segment of the Feather River, the 1.7-mile-long Sacramento Slough, and the 19-mile-long Sutter Bypass to the CWA section 303(d) list of impaired waters. In 2001, the Sacramento River Watershed Program (SRWP) developed and implemented a water quality management strategy for the two rivers, which included installing on-site best management practices (BMPs). Diazinon concentrations decreased, prompting CV-RWQCB to remove Sacramento Slough and Sutter Bypass from the CWA section 303(d) list in 2006. The state has recommended the removal of the Sacramento River and Feather River segments (58 river miles total) from the 2010 CWA section 303(d) list for diazinon impairments. UV162 Figure 1. Problem Map showing The Sacramento River is California’s longest river, Orchards locations of flowing from Mt. Shasta to the confluence with the Sacramento San Joaquin River at the Sacramento-San Joaquin and Feather UV45 Delta. The Feather River is the primary tributary to h rivers g l o u C S and their the Sacramento River (Figure 1). The Sutter Bypass o Colusa k r l e tributaries, u c i v is a floodwater bypass that diverts excess water a R s J a b Sutter from the Sacramento River between two large a Sutter u Y S 30 u UV B S Co.
    [Show full text]
  • San Luis Unit Project History
    San Luis Unit West San Joaquin Division Central Valley Project Robert Autobee Bureau of Reclamation Table of Contents The San Luis Unit .............................................................2 Project Location.........................................................2 Historic Setting .........................................................4 Project Authorization.....................................................7 Construction History .....................................................9 Post Construction History ................................................19 Settlement of the Project .................................................24 Uses of Project Water ...................................................25 1992 Crop Production Report/Westlands ....................................27 Conclusion............................................................28 Suggested Readings ...........................................................28 Index ......................................................................29 1 The West San Joaquin Division The San Luis Unit Approximately 300 miles, and 30 years, separate Shasta Dam in northern California from the San Luis Dam on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. The Central Valley Project, launched in the 1930s, ascended toward its zenith in the 1960s a few miles outside of the town of Los Banos. There, one of the world's largest dams rose across one of California's smallest creeks. The American mantra of "bigger is better" captured the spirit of the times when the San Luis Unit
    [Show full text]
  • Sacramento River Flood Control System
    A p pp pr ro x im a te ly 5 0 M il Sacramento River le es Shasta Dam and Lake ek s rre N Operating Agency: USBR C o rt rr reek th Dam Elevation: 1,077.5 ft llde Cre 70 I E eer GrossMoulton Pool Area: 29,500 Weir ac AB D Gross Pool Capacity: 4,552,000 ac-ft Flood Control System Medford !( OREGON IDAHOIDAHO l l a a n n a a C C !( Redding kk ee PLUMAS CO a e a s rr s u C u s l l Reno s o !( ome o 99 h C AB Th C NEVADA - - ^_ a a Sacramento m TEHAMA CO aa hh ee !( TT San Francisco !( Fresno Las Vegas !( kk ee e e !( rr Bakersfield 5 CC %&'( PACIFIC oo 5 ! Los Angeles cc !( S ii OCEAN a hh c CC r a S to m San Diego on gg !( ny ii en C BB re kk ee ee k t ee Black Butte o rr C Reservoir R i dd 70 v uu Paradise AB Oroville Dam - Lake Oroville Hamilton e M Operating Agency: CA Dept of Water Resources r Dam Elevation: 922 ft City Chico Gross Pool Area: 15,800 ac Gross Pool Capacity: 3,538,000 ac-ft M & T Overflow Area Black Butte Dam and Lake Operating Agency: USACE Dam Elevation: 515 ft Tisdale Weir Gross Pool Area: 4,378 ac 3 B's GrossMoulton Pool Capacity: 136,193Weir ac-ft Overflow Area BUTTE CO New Bullards Bar Dam and Lake Operating Agency: Yuba County Water Agency Dam Elevation: 1965 ft Gross Pool Area: 4,790 ac Goose Lake Gross Pool Capacity: 966,000 ac-ft Overflow Area Lake AB149 kk ee rree Oroville Tisdale Weir C GLENN CO ee tttt uu BB 5 ! Oroville New Bullards Bar Reservoir AB49 ll Moulton Weir aa nn Constructed: 1932 Butte aa CC Length: 500 feet Thermalito Design capacity of weir: 40,000 cfs Design capacity of river d/s of weir: 110,000 cfs Afterbay Moulton Weir e ke rro he 5 C ! Basin e kk Cre 5 ! tt 5 ! u Butte Basin and Butte Sink oncu H Flow from the 3 overflow areas upstream Colusa Weir of the project levees, from Moulton Weir, Constructed: 1933 and from Colusa Weir flows into the Length: 1,650 feet Butte Basin and Sink.
    [Show full text]
  • Figure 6-3. California's Water Infrastructure Network
    DA 17 DA 67 DA 68 DA 22 DA 29 DA 39 DA 40 DA 41 DA 46 N. FORK N. & M. TUOLOMNE YUBA RIVER FORKS CHERRY CREEK, RIVER Figure 6-3. California's Water Infrastructure ELEANOR CREEK AMERICAN M & S FORK RIVER YUBA RIVER New Bullards Hetch Hetchy Res Bar Reservoir GREENHORN O'Shaughnessy Dam Network Configuration for CALVIN (1 of 2) SR- S. FORK NBB CREEK & BEAR DA 32 SR- D17 AMERICAN RIVER HHR DA 42 DA 43 DA 44 RIVER STANISLAUS SR- LL- C27 RIVER & 45 Camp Far West Reservoir DRAFT Folsom Englebright C31 Lake DA 25 DA 27 Canyon Tunnel FEATHER Lake 7 SR- CALAVERAS New RIVER SR-EL CFW SR-8 RIVER Melones Lower Cherry Creek MERCED MOKELUMNE Reservoir SR-10 Aqueduct ACCRETION CAMP C44 RIVER FAR WEST TO DEER CREEK C28 FRENCH DRY RIVER CREEK WHEATLAND GAGE FRESNO New Hogan Lake Oroville DA 70 D67 SAN COSUMNES Lake RIVER SR- 0 SR-6 C308 SR- JOAQUIN Accretion: NHL C29 RIVER 81 CHOWCHILLA American River RIVER New Don Lake McClure Folsom to Fair D9 DRY Pardee Pedro SR- New Exchequer RIVER Oaks Reservoir 20 CREEK Reservoir Dam SR- Hensley Lake DA 14 Tulloch Reservoir SR- C33 Lake Natoma PR Hidden Dam Nimbus Dam TR Millerton Lake SR-52 Friant Dam C23 KELLY RIDGE Accretion: Eastside Eastman Lake Bypass Accretion: Accretion: Buchanan Dam C24 Yuba Urban DA 59 Camanche Melones to D16 Upper Merced D64 SR- C37 Reservoir C40 2 SR-18 Goodwin River 53 D62 SR- La Grange Dam 2 CR Goodwin Reservoir D66 Folsom South Canal Mokelumne River Aqueduct Accretion: 2 D64 depletion: Upper C17 D65 Losses D85 C39 Goodwin to 3 Merced River 3 3a D63 DEPLETION mouth C31 2 C25 C31 D37
    [Show full text]
  • Leasburg Diversion Dam Flows Along the Rio Grande River About a Mile and a Half Northwest of Fort Selden Historic Site
    H. Davis with the U.S. military was Explore History, Where It Happened surveying the area for use as a military Visit New Mexico Historic Sites and explore the state’s most important places. post. These seven historic sites and one historic property highlight the traditions and Today, the Diversion Dam is part of culture of New Mexico. It is an experience LEASBURG Leasburg Dam State Park, designated a you won’t forget. state park in 1971. DIVERSION DAM Help Preserve Fort Selden Help us preserve Fort Selden by becoming a site volunteer or by making a designated gift to the Museum of NM Foundation for the Fort’s preservation and interpretation. 100% of your gifts will be used to support Fort Selden. Become a Friend of Fort Selden Join other community members as we work to form a non-profit group to support the Fort. Call us for more information at 575-202-1638. The Leasburg Diversion Dam flows along the Rio Grande River about a mile and a half northwest of Fort Selden Historic Site. This diversion dam is vitally important to the region because water is one of New Mexico’s most important commodities. For thousands of years the Rio Grande has been a source of water for travelers, settlers, and livestock and provided water for crop irrigation. Fort Selden Historic Site However, the Rio Grande is an extremely powerful force of nature. It 1280 Ft. Selden Rd. Radium Springs, NM 88054 is a naturally moving river whose path changes on an almost yearly basis. Phone (575) 526-8911 Regional Office: (575) 202-1638 nmhistoricsites.org In the mid-19th century, settlers in the two flood controls in Picacho North and through to the Juarez Valley can have Upper Mesilla Valley were looking for Picacho South; and diversion dams access to water when needed.
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Intake End-Of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline
    Department of Fisheries and Oceans DRAFT Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline Fisheries Pêches and Oceans et Océans DRAFT Department of Fisheries and Oceans Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline Fisheries Pêches and Oceans et Océans Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe FishDRAFT Screen Guideline Published by: Communications Directorate Department of Fisheries and Oceans Ottawa, Ontario K1A OE6 DFO / 5080 © Minister of Supply and Services Canada 1995 ISBN 0-662-23168-6 Catalogue No. Fs 23-270 / 1995E Printed on recycled paper Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe FishDRAFT Screen Guideline Table of 1.0 Introduction 1 Contents 2.0 Guideline Objective 1 3.0 Information Requirements for Evaluation of Intake Screens 3 4.0 Design, Installation, and Maintenance of Freshwater intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screens 3 4.1 Fish Screen Criteria 4 4.2 Design of Fixed End-of-Pipe Fish Screens 6 4.3 Installation 8 4.4 Cleaning and Maintenance 15 References 17 Glossary 19 Appendix A: Information Requirements 21 Appendix B: Sample Calculation 23 Appendix C: Units of Conversion 25 Appendix D: DFO Regional Contacts 27 March 1995 Page i Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe FishDRAFT Screen Guideline List of Figure 1 - Open Screen Areas for End-of-Pipe Water Figures Intake Flows 9 Figure 2 - Common Screen Shapes and Area Formulae 10 Figure 3 - Typical Applications and Features of End-of-Pipe Screens 11 Figure 4 - Examples of Typical Screen and Material Types 12 Figure 5 - Examples of Typical Installations of End-of-Pipe Screens 13 Table 1 - Summary of Common Fish Species and List of Swimming Modes 5 Tables Table 2 - Open Screen Area Required for End-of-Pipe Water Intakes 7 Table 3 - Examples of Screen Material 7 March 1995 Page iii Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe FishDRAFT Screen Guideline The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has prepared the Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline to 1.0 assist proponents in the design and installation of fish screens |for the protection of anadromous and resident fish where freshwater is extracted from fish-bearing waters.
    [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]
  • The Mighty Yuba River
    The Mighty Yuba River The sounds of the Yuba River as it slowly winds its way down stream, are both peaceful and relaxing. But, upstream, the river sings quite a different song. The river begins as three separate forks, the north, south, and middle, high in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The forks flow wildly through canyons and channels, over boulders and rock bars, and will occasionally rest in pools of clear green water. There are two stories as to how the river was named. One story, tells of a scoutinggp expedition finding wild g gpgrapes growing on the river’s banks. They called the river, Rio de las Uvas (the grapes). “Uvas” was later changed to Yuba. A second story, tells of an ancestral village named Yuba, belonging to the Maidu tribe, that was located where the Feather River joins the Yuba River. The river has changed a great deal over the years. It was mined extensively during the Gold Rush and once ran abundant with Chinook salmon and steelhead trout. Mining on the Yuba River is more recreational today and the Chinook salmon and steelhead still have a strong presence in the river. The Yuba River is also part of the Yuba Watershed. It’s truly an amazing river that has many more stories to tell. th ©University of California, 2009, Zoe E. Beaton. Yuba River Education Center 6 - Yuba River #1- YREC North Fork of the Yuba River Middle Fork of the Yuba River South Fork of the Yuba River ©University of California, 2009, Zoe E. Beaton. Yuba River Education Center 6th Yuba River #2- YREC .
    [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]