THE PONDS PROJECT - Sustainable Conservation

More documents

Recommendations

Info

APPENDIX E NMFS (NOAA FISHERIES) RECOMMENDATIONS AND INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSALS TO EXCEED 2002 CDFG/NOAA FISHERIES FLOW GUIDELINE CRITERIA FOR WINTERTIME STREAMWATER WITHDRAWALS. This information is also applicable to proposals to divert outside the diversion season. (NMFS document provided to <strong>Sustainable</strong> <strong>Conservation</strong> by CDFG) United States Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Region 777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325 Santa Rosa, California 95404 In Response Refer To: May 24, 2004 151614SWR03SR9148:WH Mr. Steven Herrera State Water Resources Control Board Division of Water Rights P.O. Box 2000 Sacramento, California 95812-2000 Dear Mr. Herrera: On March 8, 2004 you called Dr. Bill Hearn (NOAA Fisheries), a member of my staff, to discuss issues raised in my February 23, 2004 letter to Ms. Joan Jurancich of your staff concerning assessment of fisheries-related impacts of the Grgich Hills Cellars water rights project (Application 30594). That letter recommended that the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) address the following points before establishing bypass flows and permitting the Grgich Hills Project: 2. What are the cumulative effects of this and other projects on channel maintenance (flushing) flows needed to protect geomorphological processes downstream from the project site? 3. What minimum bypass flows and possible maximum rates of withdrawal are needed for the project to protect spawning habitat for anadromous salmonids downstream from the project site? February median flow may not be an adequate minimum flow in small watersheds if the natural hydrograph is substantially impaired (e.g., Cumulative Flow Impairment Index (CFII) > 10%). 25 25 For additional information see Department of Fish & Game/NOAA Fisheries. 2002. Guidelines for Maintaining Instream Flows to Protect Fisheries Resources Downstream of Water Diversions in Mid- California Coastal Streams. Draft guidelines with errata note dated August 19, 2002. NOAA Fisheries, Santa Rosa, CA. 19 pp. 60
4. What minimum bypass flows and possible maximum rates of withdrawal are needed for the project to facilitate migratory movements of anadromous salmonids downstream from the diversion site? National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) recommended that these issues be addressed because of the possible inadequacy of the default bypass flow recommendation (the stream’s longterm median daily flow in February) in cases where more than 10% of the total volume of winter flow is already appropriated. Our concerns are that streams in which a significant portion of winter flow is already diverted or otherwise allocated can be theoretically reduced to the minimum level for significant durations (flatlined) and that the default February median flow may not provide sufficient flow for anadromous salmonid spawning and migration in small watersheds. The February median flow is also generally insufficient as a channel maintenance flow. Our response and concerns are consistent with Department of Fish & Game/NOAA Fisheries (2002), which recommends site specific studies to address the above three issues when CFII values exceed 10% or when there is an appreciable impairment of the hydrograph on projects with CFII between 5 and 10%. In your March 8 phone call with Dr. Hearn, you requested additional guidance on the kinds of studies and analysis that would be appropriate to address the above three issues in minor water right projects where CFII exceeds 10%. Attachment A provides some suggested approaches for addressing these issues. However, the described approaches are not a comprehensive listing of the only ways to examine bypass flow needs to protect these important ecological processes. Applicants, their consultants, or others may find other suitable methods for addressing these issues. We recommend that study plans be developed in consultation with CDFG and NOAA Fisheries prior to commencement of fieldwork in order to promote acceptance of the study methods and results. For example, study area boundaries, lifestages of evaluation species, habitat suitability criteria, transect locations, and field measurement procedures should be reviewed by these resource agencies prior to field work. As appropriate, study sites or transects should be collaboratively identified in the field. We appreciate this opportunity to help further your objective of conducting credible environmental assessments for minor water development projects. If you have questions about this letter and recommended study approaches, please contact Dr. William Hearn at (707) 575-6062. Sincerely, Original Signed by Steven Edmondson Habitat Manager Northern California Attachment cc: R. Floerke, CDFG (Yountville) P. Rutten, NOAA Fisheries 61
Page 1 and 2:
THE PONDS PROJECT Prepared by Susta
Page 3 and 4:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Primary funding fo
Page 5 and 6:
APPENDIX C: OUTLINE FOR REGULATORY
Page 7 and 8:
The project partners represented re
Page 9 and 10: instream flows were not sufficient
Page 11 and 12: SECTION I: PROJECT OVERVIEW Backgro
Page 13 and 14: construction of new winter storage
Page 15 and 16: RW-II-B-01: Pursue opportunities to
Page 17 and 18: SECTION II: PROJECT OUTCOMES The Po
Page 19 and 20: a Section 1707 transfer 4 . A secti
Page 21 and 22: person mutually agreed upon who ser
Page 23 and 24: For State listed species, CDFG can
Page 25 and 26: would provide frog and snake habita
Page 27 and 28: Consequently, the baseline used dur
Page 29 and 30: A third option for moving forward w
Page 31 and 32: . For a claim of riparian right, th
Page 33 and 34: legally permitted winter storage ca
Page 35 and 36: ecause of insufficient flow in the
Page 37 and 38: APPENDIX A USFWS AND CDFG GUIDANCE
Page 39 and 40: iii) Periodically (once every five
Page 41 and 42: Restoration activities shall meet c
Page 43 and 44: 14. After work is completed, and wi
Page 45 and 46: APPENDIX C OUTLINE FOR REGULATORY P
Page 47 and 48: the potential for significant adver
Page 49 and 50: A Section 1707 transfer might need
Page 51 and 52: 2. Does project adhere to the CDFG/
Page 53 and 54: diversions from the evaluated proje
Page 55 and 56: the absence of additional site-spec
Page 57 and 58: population. Under that scenario, th
Page 59: LITERATURE CITED Annear, T., I. Chi
Page 63: Water Rights: RW-II-B-01: Pursue op
show all

THE PONDS PROJECT - Sustainable Conservation

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?