DOCSLIB.ORG

Central Valley Supervisor, Fish and Aquatic Conservation Pacific Southwest Region U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Central Valley Supervisor, Fish and Aquatic Conservation Pacific Southwest Region U.S Refer to NMFS No: WCR-2017-8532 August 31, 2018 Jennifer Steger Pacific Region Supervisor NOAA Restoration Center 777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 219-A Santa Rosa, California 95404 Nancy A. Haley Chief, California North Branch Regulatory Division U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1325 J Street Sacramento, California 95814 Donald Ratcliff Central Valley Supervisor, Fish and Aquatic Conservation Pacific Southwest Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, California 95825 Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion, and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Response and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Recommendations for the NOAA Restoration Center’s Program to Facilitate Implementation of Restoration Projects in the Central Valley of California Dear Ms. Steger, Ms. Haley, and Mr. Ratcliff: Thank you for your letter of November 7, 2017, and subsequent information received on April 20, 2018, where you requested initiation of consultation with NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) for the NOAA Restoration Center’s Program to Facilitate Implementation of Restoration Projects in the Central Valley of California. Thank you, also, for your request for consultation pursuant to the essential fish habitat (EFH) provisions in Section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) (16 U.S.C. 1855(b)) for this action. 2 With this letter, we provide to you NMFS’s biological opinion (opinion) and EFH consultation based on our review of the NOAA Restoration Center’s Program to Facilitate Implementation of Restoration Projects in the Central Valley of California. The opinion analyzes the effects of the proposed action on endangered Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), threatened Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), threatened California Central Valley steelhead (O. mykiss), threatened Southern Distinct Population Segment (sDPS) of North American green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), and their designated critical habitats per section 7 of the ESA. From our analysis NMFS concludes that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, threatened Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, threatened California Central Valley steelhead, threatened sDPS green sturgeon, or adversely modify or destroy designated critical habitats for listed fish. Additionally, NMFS has included an incidental take statement with reasonable and prudent measures (RPM) and non-discretionary terms and conditions that are necessary and appropriate to avoid, minimize, or monitor incidental take of these listed species. NMFS also concludes that the proposed action will have minimal adverse effects to Pacific salmon, and Pacific groundfish EFH. Section 305(b)(2) of the MSA authorizes NMFS to provide EFH conservation recommendations to minimize adverse effects of an activity on EFH. Because any adverse effects to EFH will be minimal and multiple benefits to these habitats are expected, EFH conservation recommendations are not offered beyond what’s been considered in the terms and conditions of the RPM. However, if the proposed action is modified in a manner that may adversely affect EFH, the NOAA Restoration Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will need to reinitiate EFH consultation with NMFS. Please contact Evan Sawyer ([email protected]) at the NMFS California Central Valley Office, (916) 930-3656, if you have any questions concerning this consultation, or if you require additional information. Sincerely, Enclosure cc: To the File 51422-WCR2017-SA00386 Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Response and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Recommendations. NOAA Restoration Center’s Program to Facilitate Implementation of Restoration Projects in the Central Valley of California NMFS Consultation Number: WCR-2017-8532 Action Agencies: NOAA Restoration Center, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Affected Species and NMFS’ Determinations: ESA-Listed Status Is Action Is Action Is Action Is Action Species Likely to Likely to Likely to Likely to Adversely Jeopardize Adversely Destroy or Affect the Species? Affect Adversely Species? Critical Modify Critical Habitat? Habitat? Sacramento Endangered Yes No Yes No River winter-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Central Valley Threatened Yes No Yes No spring-run Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) California Threatened Yes No Yes No Central Valley steelhead (O. mykiss) Southern Distinct Threatened Yes No Yes No Population Segment (sDPS) of North American green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) Affected Essential Fish Habitat and NMFS’ Determinations: Fishery Management Plan Does Action Have an Adverse Are EFH Conservation That Identifies EFH in the Effect on EFH? Recommendations Provided? Project Area Pacific Coast Salmon Yes No Pacific Ground Fish Yes No Consultation Conducted By: National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region Issued By: Barry A. Thom Regional Administrator Date: August 31, 2018 NOAA Restoration Center’s Program to Facilitate Implementation of Restoration Projects in the Central Valley of California TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................4 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Consultation History ......................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Proposed Federal Action ...................................................................................................... 7 1.3.1 Program Geographic Extent ............................................................................................. 8 1.3.2 Number of Anticipated Projects ....................................................................................... 8 1.3.3 Program Administration ................................................................................................... 9 1.3.4 Programmatic Sideboards and Other Program Requirements ........................................ 13 1.3.5 Covered Project Types and Prohibited Activities .......................................................... 17 1.3.6 Protection Measures ....................................................................................................... 31 1.3.7 Monitoring and Reporting Requirements ....................................................................... 42 2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: .............................................................................................44 2.1 Analytical Approach ....................................................................................................... 45 2.2 Rangewide Status of the Species and Critical Habitat ................................................... 46 2.3 Action Area .................................................................................................................... 58 2.4 Environmental Baseline .................................................................................................. 59 2.4.1 Status of the Species in the Action Area ........................................................................ 59 2.5 Effects of the Action ....................................................................................................... 72 2.6 Cumulative Effects ......................................................................................................... 85 2.7 Integration and Synthesis ............................................................................................... 88 2.7.1 Cumulative Effects .......................................................................................................... 88 2.8 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 93 2.9 Incidental Take Statement .............................................................................................. 93 2.9.1 Amount or Extent of Take............................................................................................... 94 2.9.2 Effect of the Take ........................................................................................................... 95 2.9.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures .................................................................................. 95 2.9.4 Terms and Conditions ..................................................................................................... 96 2.10 Conservation Recommendations .................................................................................... 98 2.11 Reinitiation of Consultation ........................................................................................... 98 3. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT RESPONSE ..........................................................................98 3.1 Essential Fish Habitat Affected by the Project ............................................................... 99 3.2 Adverse Effects on Essential Fish Habitat ....................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Saltiest Springs in the Sierra Nevada, California
    The Saltiest Springs in the Sierra Nevada, California Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5053 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover. Photograph of more than a dozen salt-evaporation basins at Hams salt spring, which have been carved by Native Americans in granitic bedrock. Saline water flows in light-colored streambed on left. Photograph by J.S. Moore, 2009. The Saltiest Springs in the Sierra Nevada, California By James G. Moore, Michael F. Diggles, William C. Evans, and Karin Klemic Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5053 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior RYAN K. ZINKE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey William H. Werkheiser, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2017 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://store.usgs.gov. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Suggested citation: Moore, J.G., Diggles, M.F., Evans, W.C., and Klemic, K., 2017, The saltiest springs in the Sierra Nevada, California: U.S.
    [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]
  • Smith, J.R. Et Al., 2007. Acoustic Monitoring of Mokelumne River
    •3 Two hatchery smolts moved upstream Acoustic Monitoring of from the release site into the Cosumnes River. They held there for >30 days and then moved up the Sacramento River Mokelumne River •4 Oncorhynchus mykiss PRELIMINARY RESULTS James R. Smith1 , Michelle L. Workman1, 2 3 • All hatchery smolts were detected at least once by the receiver grid. Time from release to last detection ranged from 1 to 114 Joseph E. Merz , Walter Heady , and days 1 • All hatchery reconditioned kelts were detected. Time ranged from 1 to 81 days. Joseph J. Miyamoto • Forty-Seven of sixty-four (73%) of wild O. mykiss were detected by combined stationary and mobile tracking techniques. • Time from release to last detection ranged from 1-136 days for stationary receivers and from 5 to 173 days for 1 East Bay Municipal Utility District, 1 Winemasters Way, Lodi, CA 95240 mobile tracking. 2 Cramer Fish Sciences, 636 Hedburg Way #22, Oakdale, CA 95361 3 University of California, Santa Cruz, Long Marine Lab, 100 Shaffer Rd., Santa Cruz, CA 95060 70% 60% Project funded by the California Urban Water Agencies 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Percent of Release Group Vicinity of Mokelumne Sacramento Delta/Bay None INTRODUCTION Release River River The Mokelumne River Fish Hatchery (Hatchery) has released over 2 million smolt Detections through 7/13/2007 steelhead, Oncorhyncus mykiss, in the lower Mokelumne River since 1995, however, fewer than 750 adults have returned to the Hatchery since 1996. There have been limited data Hatchery Smolts n=57 Reconditioned Kelts n=7 Wild Caught Various n=64 Detections occurred in four major categories: 1)detections in vicinity of release site; collected on the movements of these fish once released.
    [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]
  • Spring Gap-Stanislaus Project Is Located in Calaveras and Tuolumne Counties, CA on the Middle Fork Stanislaus River (Middle Fork) and South Fork Stanislaus River
    Hydropower Project License Summary STANISLAUS RIVER, CALIFORNIA SPRING GAP-STANISLAUS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (P-2130) Photo Credit: California State Water Board This summary was produced by the Hydropower Reform Coalition Stanislaus River, CA STANISLAUS RIVER, CA SPRING GAP-STANISLAUS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (P-2130) DESCRIPTION: The Spring Gap-Stanislaus Project is located in Calaveras and Tuolumne Counties, CA on the Middle Fork Stanislaus River (Middle Fork) and South Fork Stanislaus River. Owned. The project, operated by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), has an installed capacity of 87.9 MW and occupies approximately 1,060 acres of federal land within the Stanislaus National Forest. Both the Middle and South Forks are popular destinations for a variety of outdoor recreation activities. With a section of the lower river designated by the State of CA as a Wild Trout Fishery, the Middle Fork is widely considered to be one of California’s best wild trout fisheries. The South Fork on the other hand, with its high gradient and steep rapids, is a popular whitewater kayaking and rafting destination. A. SUMMARY 1. License application filed: December 26, 2002 2. License Issued: April 24, 2009 3. License expiration: March 31, 2047 4. Capacity: Spring Gap- 6.0 MW Stanislaus- 81.9 MW 5. Waterway: Middle & North Forks of the Stanislaus River 6. Counties: Calaveras, Tuolumne 7. Licensee: Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) 8. Licensee Contact: Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 997300 Sacramento, CA 95899-7300 9. Project area: The project is located in the Sierra Nevada mountain range of north- central California.
    [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]
  • The Geography and Dialects of the Miwok Indians
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS IN AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY VOL. 6 NO. 2 THE GEOGRAPHY AND DIALECTS OF THE MIWOK INDIANS. BY S. A. BARRETT. CONTENTS. PAGE Introduction.--...--.................-----------------------------------333 Territorial Boundaries ------------------.....--------------------------------344 Dialects ...................................... ..-352 Dialectic Relations ..........-..................................356 Lexical ...6.................. 356 Phonetic ...........3.....5....8......................... 358 Alphabet ...................................--.------------------------------------------------------359 Vocabularies ........3......6....................2..................... 362 Footnotes to Vocabularies .3.6...........................8..................... 368 INTRODUCTION. Of the many linguistic families in California most are con- fined to single areas, but the large Moquelumnan or Miwok family is one of the few exceptions, in that the people speaking its various dialects occupy three distinct areas. These three areas, while actually quite near together, are at considerable distances from one another as compared with the areas occupied by any of the other linguistic families that are separated. The northern of the three Miwok areas, which may for con- venience be called the Northern Coast or Lake area, is situated in the southern extremity of Lake county and just touches, at its northern boundary, the southernmost end of Clear lake. This 334 University of California Publications in Am. Arch.
    [Show full text]
  • The Great New Year's Flood of 1997 in Northern California
    The Great New Year's Flood of 1997 in Northern California by Maurice Roos' The New Year's flood of 1997 was probably the largest in the 90-year Northern California record which begins in 1906. It was notable in the intensity, volume of flood water, and the areal extent from the Oregon border down to the southern end of the Sierra. Many new flood records were set. This was a classic orographic event with warm moist winds from the southwest blowing over the Sierra Nevada and dumping amazing amounts of rain at the middle and high elevations, especially over a 3 day period centered on New Year's Day. The sheer volume of runoff exceeded the flood control capacity of Don Pedro Dam on the Tuolumne River and Millerton Reservoir on the upper San Joaquin River with large spills of excess water. Most of the other large dams in northern California were full or nearly full at the end of the storms. Amounts of rain at lower elevations were not unusual. For example, downtown Sacramento in the middle of the Central Valley had 3.7 inches during the week from December 26 through January 2. But Blue Canyon, at the one-mile elevation between Sacramento and Reno, had over 30 inches, an orographic ratio of over 8, far more than the usual 3 to 4 for most storms. Many Valley folks could not understand that there was a problem because they were not seeing a lot of rain. Meanwhile, the entire northern Sierra was observing 20 inches, some 40 percent of average annual precipitation.
    [Show full text]
  • Delta Sediment Measurements to Support Numerical Modeling of Sediment-Turbidity
    Delta sediment measurements to support numerical modeling of sediment-turbidity Scott Wright, David Schoellhamer, Tara Morgan, Dan Whealdon-Haught, Matt Marineau USGS Sacramento CWEMF annual meeting 17 April 2012, Sacramento CA U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Sediment-turbidity modeling in the Delta Delta sediment modeling is useful for a variety of reasons: - fish habitat (e.g. Delta smelt) - tidal wetlands, restoration, sea-level rise - navigation - levee integrity Robust models require data for set- up, calibration, and testing The Delta is large and very complex. Several data gaps exist with respect to development and testing of numerical sediment models We began a project to fill these data gaps in December 2010, funded by the Federal Task Force on the Delta Sediment model data requirements Hydrodynamics: - bathymetry and levee topography - flows and velocities at upstream model boundaries - water levels at downstream boundary and interior - bed roughness (e.g. Manning’s n, drag coefficients) Sediment: - Sediment loads at upstream model boundaries - Sediment concentrations at interior points - Size distributions of sediment on the bed - Sediment erosion/entrainment rates - Size distributions and settling velocities of suspended sediment Sediment-turbidity monitoring 17 turbidity and sediment flux stations, co-located with flow gages Network is designed to monitor incoming sediment loads and track movement of turbidity and sediment throughout the Delta Sediment-turbidity monitoring Sac River @ Freeport Miner
    [Show full text]
  • New Partnership for the Kern River Summer 2009 • Vol
    JOURNAL Canoes. Photo by Sebastian Santa. New Partnership for the Kern River Summer 2009 • Vol. 5, Issue 2 orking with the nonprofit organization,W the Kern River Corridor Endowment, River Partners is preparing a conceptual Osprey. Photo by Robert Blanchard. restoration plan for riparian habitats along the Kern River at the Panorama Vista Preserve in Bakersfield. It is the largest private-lands In This Issue project for River Panorama Vista Preserve, Kern River, Bakersfield, CA. Photo by Julie Rentner, Partners in its 11- Restoration Ecologist. year history. “What is Additional Refuge really unique about this restoration initiative is that it was spear headed by a group of Land Open private individuals who really care about the Kern River,” says Julie Renter, Restoration to the Public 3 Ecologist. “They make up the Kern River Corridor Endowment and worked to buy and protect the land.” Endangered Rivers River Partners staff has started assessing the 936-acre site, which has supported a and Solutions 4 variety of human uses, from agriculture to oil drilling. By considering the local ecology and historical land uses, this pre-restoration plan will make habitat recommendations for Thank You 11th restoring significant swaths of native vegetation within this privately-owned reserve. Anniversary “If this preserve could be restored, it would be a significant stepping stone in the Kern River Corridor for wildlife,” says Tom Griggs, Senior Restoration Ecologist. “It Dinner Sponsors 7 will be large enough acreage to support migration, especially for songbirds.” River Partners thanks the Kern River Corridor Endowment for inviting us to Paddle Season participate in their restoration efforts and the Partners for Fish and Wildlife (Kern Opens! Join Us National Wildlife Refuge) for partially funding the pre-restoration plan.
    [Show full text]
  • California Central Valley Steelhead Distinct Population Segment Factsheet
    California Central Valley Steelhead Distinct Population Segment Factsheet Author List Brian Ellrott, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Howard Brown, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Rachel Johnson, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, Southwest Fisheries Science Center California Central Valley Steelhead Distinct Population Segment (DPS) Definition Naturally spawned anadromous O. mykiss (steelhead) originating below natural and manmade impassable barriers from the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and their tributaries; excludes such fish originating from San Francisco and San Pablo Bays and their tributaries. This DPS includes steelhead from the Coleman National Fish Hatchery Program, the Feather River Fish Hatchery Program, and the Mokelumne River Hatchery Program. Federal Endangered Species Act Listing Status Listed as threatened since 1998. Historical Distribution Prior to dam construction, and other large-scale habitat changes, California Central Valley steelhead were distributed throughout the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers (Busby et al. 1996; NMFS 1996b, McEwan 2001). Steelhead were found from the upper Sacramento and Pit rivers (now inaccessible due to Shasta and Keswick dams) south to the Kings and possibly the Kern River systems, and in both east- and west-side Sacramento River tributaries (Yoshiyama et al. 1996). Lindley et al. (2006) estimated that historically there were at least 81 independent Central Valley steelhead populations distributed primarily throughout the eastern tributaries of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. Presently, impassable dams block access to 80 percent of historically available habitat, and block access to all historical spawning habitat for about 38 percent of historical steelhead populations (Lindley et al. 2006). Steelhead populations may have been extirpated from their entire historical range in the San Joaquin Valley and most of the larger basins of the Sacramento River.
    [Show full text]