The Anadromous Fish Restoration Program CVPI A Section 3406 (b)(1) - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
the anadromous fish restoration program cvpi a section
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

The Anadromous Fish Restoration Program CVPI A Section 3406 (b)(1) - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jan 07, 2023 149 likes •531 views

The Anadromous Fish Restoration Program CVPI A Section 3406 (b)(1) http://www.delta.dfg.ca.gov/afrp/ 1 ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM OBJECTI VES I mprove habitat for all life stages of anadromous fish

slide-1
SLIDE 1

The Anadromous Fish Restoration Program CVPI A Section 3406 (b)(1)

http://www.delta.dfg.ca.gov/afrp/

1

slide-2
SLIDE 2

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM

OBJECTI VES

  • I mprove habitat for all life stages of anadromous fish through

provision of flows of suitable quality, quantity, and timing, and improved physical habitat;

  • I mprove survival rates by reducing or eliminating entrainment of

juveniles at diversions;

  • I mprove the opportunity for adult fish to reach their spawning

habitats in a timely manner;

  • Collect fish population, health, and habitat data to facilitate

evaluation of restoration actions;

  • I ntegrate habitat restoration efforts with harvest and hatchery

management;

  • I nvolve partners in the implementation and evaluation of restoration

actions.

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

San Joaquin River

Merced River

S a c r a m e n t

  • R

i v e r

Mokelumne River Tuolumne River Stanislaus River Calaveras River Cosumnes River American River Bear River Yuba River Butte Creek Stony Creek Big Chico Creek Thomes Creek Elder Creek Deer Creek Mill Creek Shasta Lake Antelope Creek Battle Creek Paynes Creek Bear Creek Cow Creek Clear Creek Cottonwood Creek Feather River

  • T. Parker
  • J. I canberry
  • J. Wikert
  • C. Mesick
  • C. Blanco

FWS DFG

  • P. Bratcher

I . Drury

CBDA

  • R. Fris
  • R. Fris
  • L. Hastings

I . Drury

  • D. Hu
  • D. Hu
  • R. Burmister
  • J. Shelton
  • P. Brantley
  • P. Brantley

Habitat Restoration Coordinators

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4
  • AFRP continues to be well coordinated with CBDA

(avoids redundancy, insures scientific and technical review to determine the best and highest priority projects and utilizes the most efficient use of limited funds)

  • AFRP Staff Members are currently participating in

CBDA’s ERP Database Quality Assurance Check

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM

LEVERAGI NG and PARTNERI NG

WI TH CALFED

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5
  • Lower Butte Creek, stakeholder facilitation for Butte

Sink/ Sutter Bypass restoration project development: AFRP- $95,000; CALFED- $5,300,000

  • Lower Butte Creek, east side Sutter Bypass, develop small

pump screening needs: AFRP- $420,000; CALFED-$4,790,000

  • Lower Butte Creek, White Mallard Dam Diversions

construction : AFRP- $885,000; CALFED- $750,000

  • Lower Butte Creek, Sanborn Slough Bifurcation Structure,

fish passage engineering designs: AFRP-$70,000; CALFED- $1,000,000

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM

PROJECT EXAMPLES OF CALFED

LEVERAGI NG

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6
  • AFRP continues to communicate and coordinate with other CVPI A

Program Sections A Few Examples: AFRP and CAMP collaborated to develop a paper on “Statistical Procedures for Detecting the CVPI A Natural Chinook Salmon Production Doubling Goal and Determining Sustainability of Production I ncreases” (by Ken Newman and Dave Hankin) AFRP and Screens Program collaborated on developing a passage project on Antelope Creek which is currently under competitive bidding

  • AFRP is working with CVPI A partners and CVPI A Program Sections

to organize two AFRP workshops: a “Salmon Workshop” and a “CVPI A Salmon Doubling Programs Workshop”

ANADROMOUS FI SH RESTORATI ON PROGRAM ANADROMOUS FI SH RESTORATI ON PROGRAM

WORKI NG WI TH OTHER CVPI A PROGRAMS

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Progress towards meeting AFRP Doubling Goal

  • Winning streams- where most of the identified limiting

factors have been addressed with restoration actions: examples, Butte and Clear creeks

  • Losing streams- the identified limiting factors have not been

addressed with enough restoration actions: examples, Tuolumne and Stanislaus rivers

ANADROMOUS FI SH RESTORATI ON PROGRAM ANADROMOUS FI SH RESTORATI ON PROGRAM

PROGRAM STATUS (where are we in this program?)

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04

Butte Creek spring-run Chinook salmon

1967-1991 Average 1,032 Production Doubling Goal 2,000 1992-2004 Average 11,554

Estimated Annual Natural Production

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 '01 '03 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

1967-1991 Average 19,044 Production

Tuolumne River fall-run Chinook salmon

Flow (cfs) Doubling Goal 38,000 1992-2004 Average 10,383

Average Annual Flow at Ripon (offset 2-years) Estimated Annual Natural Production

9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Big Picture

Approximately $40 million have been spent on almost 200 prioritized and implemented AFRP restoration and applied research projects in 26 Central Valley watersheds between 1995 and 2005.

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM

ACCOMPLI SHMENTS TO DATE

10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Planning Accomplishments

  • Cottonwood, Paynes, Antelope and Elder creeks, submitted

watershed assessment RFPs to Grants.gov for competitive selection process

  • Stanislaus River, field tested Alaskan Weir and Vaki infrared

fish counter to count fall-run Chinook escapement

  • Stanislaus River, completed the fisheries summary of a draft

plan to restore anadromous fish habitat

  • Tuolumne and Merced rivers and Clear Creek, completed three

Adaptive Management Forum reports

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM

ACCOMPLI SHMENTS TO DATE

11

slide-12
SLIDE 12

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM

ACCOMPLI SHMENTS TO DATE

Alaskan Weir and Vaki infrared fish counter, Stanislaus River

12

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Restoration Actions (examples)

  • Lower Butte Creek, White Mallard reach, completed dam

and fish ladder designs. Construction to begin summer, 2005

  • Lower Butte Creek, Butte Sink, c

, constructed five water control structures

  • Lower Butte Creek, Butte Sink, c

, constructed two adult fish barriers

  • Lower Butte Creek, west side of the Sutter Bypass,

, constructed three weirs

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM

ACCOMPLI SHMENTS TO DATE, cont’d

13

slide-14
SLIDE 14

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM

ACCOMPLI SHMENTS TO DATE

Weir Five- one of three fish passage modifications to Sutter Bypass West Side, Lower Butte Creek Before construction Completed

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Restoration Actions (more examples)

  • Yuba River, constructed a permanent “leaky dike” barrier to

prevent migration of salmon and steelhead into the Goldfields

  • Stanislaus River, Mohler Tract, completed riparian revegetation

and floodplain restoration

  • Tuolumne River, 7/ 11 materials restoration site, continued

channel and floodplain restoration

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM

ACCOMPLI SHMENTS TO DATE, cont’d

15

slide-16
SLIDE 16

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM

ACCOMPLI SHMENTS TO DATE

“Leaky dike” fish barrier, Yuba Gold Fields, Yuba River

16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM

ACCOMPLI SHMENTS TO DATE

Riparian revegetation and floodplain restoration, Mohler Tract, Stanislaus River

Before After

17

slide-18
SLIDE 18
  • Funding ongoing projects
  • Funding 2 to 4 new projects
  • Participating in conferences and workshops
  • Developed salmon production and flow data for Central Valley

watersheds and submitted exhibit to SWQCB

  • Developing two AFRP workshops, “Salmon Workshop” and the

“CVPI A Salmon Doubling Programs Workshop”

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM

2005-2006 ACTI VI TI ES

18

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Low Funding Levels- “AFRP could potentially spend about $18 million over the next three-year period (FY2005-07”)

$0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Anadromous Fish Restoration Program Funding Over Time

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM

PROGRESS TOWARDS MEETI NG OBJECTI VES

19

slide-20
SLIDE 20
  • Continue to leverage for CBDA funding
  • Continue the RFP and independent evaluation process
  • I mplement the results of two AFRP led workshops

(“Salmon Workshop” and the “CVPI A Salmon Doubling Programs Workshop”)

  • Continue on-the-ground restoration, applied research,

planning and building the partner collaboration process

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM

FUTURE ACTI ONS

20

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Although salmon population survival mechanisms are not absolutely clear, the literature suggests that naturally functioning watersheds are the ultimate source of insurance, in the face of changing ocean conditions and human activities, to insure the persistence of wild salmon populations (Hare et al., 1999; Lawson, 1993).

Photo by Brian Deason, USBR

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Butte Creek spring-run Chinook salmon

SUPPORTING SLIDES

SUPPORTI NG SLI DES

slide-23
SLIDE 23

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 83 86 89 92 95 98 '01 '04

Clear Creek fall-run Chinook salmon

1967-1991 Average 3,835 Production Doubling Goal 7,100 1992-2004 Average 12,072

Estimated Annual Natural Production

slide-24
SLIDE 24

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 O N D J F M A M J J A S

Tuolumne River flows, ‘DRY’ year

11% 11% 109,953 109,953 af af FERC MINIMUM FLOWS Flow (cfs)

slide-25
SLIDE 25

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 O N D J F M A M J J A S

Tuolumne River flows, ‘DRY’ year

13% 129,144 af AVERAGE ACTUAL INRIVER FLOW AT LA GRANGE 11% 109,953 af FERC MINIMUM FLOWS Flow (cfs)

slide-26
SLIDE 26

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 O N D J F M A M J J A S

fall pulse rearing & spawning riparian vegetation

  • utmigration

& floodplain

Tuolumne River flows, ‘DRY’ year

38% 381,430 af AFRP 2005 RECOMMENDED 13% 129,144 af AVERAGE ACTUAL INRIVER FLOW AT LA GRANGE 11% 109,953 af FERC MINIMUM FLOWS

steelhead temperature

Flow (cfs)

slide-27
SLIDE 27

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 O N D J F M A M J J A S

fall pulse rearing & spawning riparian vegetation

  • utmigration

& floodplain

Tuolumne River flows, ‘DRY’ year

100% 1,004,265 af AVERAGE UNIMPAIRED FLOW AT LA GRANGE 38% 381,430 af AFRP 2005 RECOMMENDED 13% 129,144 af AVERAGE ACTUAL INRIVER FLOW AT LA GRANGE 11% 109,953 af FERC MINIMUM FLOWS

steelhead temperature

Flow (cfs)

slide-28
SLIDE 28

fall pulse rearing & spawning riparian vegetation

  • utmigration

& floodplain

Tuolumne River flows, ‘WET’ year

100% 2,992,236 af AVERAGE UNIMPAIRED FLOW AT LA GRANGE 23% 674,815 af AFRP 2005 RECOMMENDED 46% 1,385,355 af AVERAGE ACTUAL INRIVER FLOW AT LA GRANGE 10% 300,879 af FERC MINIMUM FLOWS

steelhead temperature

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 O N D J F M A M J J A S Flow (cfs)

slide-29
SLIDE 29

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 O N D J F M A M J J A S

Tuolumne River flows ‘WET’ year

10% 10% 300,879 300,879 af af FERC MINIMUM FLOWS FERC MINIMUM FLOWS Flow (cfs)

slide-30
SLIDE 30

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 O N D J F M A M J J A S

Tuolumne River flows ‘WET’ year

46% 46% 1,385,355 1,385,355 af af AVERAGE ACTUAL INRIVER AVERAGE ACTUAL INRIVER FLOW AT LA GRANGE FLOW AT LA GRANGE 10% 10% 300,879 300,879 af af FERC MINIMUM FLOWS FERC MINIMUM FLOWS Flow (cfs)

slide-31
SLIDE 31

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 O N D J F M A M J J A S

fall pulse rearing & spawning riparian vegetation

  • utmigration

& floodplain

Tuolumne River flows ‘WET’ year

23% 23% 674,815 674,815 af af AFRP 2005 RECOMMENDED AFRP 2005 RECOMMENDED 46% 46% 1,385,355 1,385,355 af af AVERAGE ACTUAL INRIVER AVERAGE ACTUAL INRIVER FLOW AT LA GRANGE FLOW AT LA GRANGE 10% 10% 300,879 300,879 af af FERC MINIMUM FLOWS FERC MINIMUM FLOWS

steelhead temperature

Flow (cfs)

slide-32
SLIDE 32

10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 1952 1955 1958 1961 1964 1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 1967-1991 Average 10,977 Production

Stanislaus River fall-run Chinook salmon

Flow (cfs) Doubling Goal 22,000 1992-2004 Average 7,888

Average Annual Flow at Ripon (offset 2-years) Estimated Annual Natural Production

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Stanislaus River flows ‘DRY’ year

53% 53% 290,405 290,405 af af AVERAGE ACTUAL INRIVER AVERAGE ACTUAL INRIVER FLOW AT RIPON FLOW AT RIPON Flow (cfs) 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 O N D J F M A M J J A S

slide-34
SLIDE 34

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 O N D J F M A M J J A S

fall pulse rearing & spawning riparian vegetation

  • utmigration

& floodplain

Stanislaus River flows ‘DRY’ year

68% 68% 369,879 369,879 af af AFRP 2005 RECOMMENDED AFRP 2005 RECOMMENDED 53% 53% 290,405 290,405 af af AVERAGE ACTUAL INRIVER AVERAGE ACTUAL INRIVER FLOW AT RIPON FLOW AT RIPON

steelhead temperature

Flow (cfs)

slide-35
SLIDE 35

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 O N D J F M A M J J A S

fall pulse rearing & spawning riparian vegetation

  • utmigration

& floodplain

Stanislaus River flows ‘DRY’ year

100% 100% 542,861 542,861 af af AVERAGE UNIMPAIRED AVERAGE UNIMPAIRED FLOW AT GOODWIN DAM FLOW AT GOODWIN DAM 68% 68% 369,879 369,879 af af AFRP 2005 RECOMMENDED AFRP 2005 RECOMMENDED 53% 53% 290,405 290,405 af af AVERAGE ACTUAL INRIVER AVERAGE ACTUAL INRIVER FLOW AT RIPON FLOW AT RIPON

steelhead temperature

Flow (cfs)

slide-36
SLIDE 36
  • Stanislaus River Gravel Replenishment Project:

AFRP- $139,744; CALFED- $561,000

  • Merced River, Robinson Reach spawning habitat

assessment: AFRP- $149,440; CALFED- $4,132,860

  • Tuolumne River, MJ Ruddy Segment: AFRP-

$3,145,000; CALFED- $4,425,430

  • Tuolumne River, Warner-Deardorff Segment:

AFRP- $518,670; CALFED- $11,749,486 Totals: AFRP, $5.4 million; CALFED, $32.7 million

PROJECT EXAMPLES OF CALFED

LEVERAGI NG, cont’d

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM