Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft Expansion Plan - Salmon and Halibut_part 2 Habitat Expansion Agreement for Central Valley Spring-Run Chinook Salmon and California Central Valley Steelhead Draft Habitat Expansion Plan California Department of Wafer Resources Division of Environmental Services P.O. Box 942836 Sacramento, CA 94236-0001 and Pacific Gas and Electric Company Power Generation P.O. Box 770 000,Mail Code: NI IC San Francisco, CA 94177-0001 November 2009 California Department of Water Resources and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 2009. Habitat Expansion Agreement for Central Valley Spring-Run Chinook Salmon and California Central Valley Steelhead—Draft Habitat Expansion Plan. (TCF J&S 00854.08.) Sacramento, CA. November. Executive Summary Effective November 20,2007,Pacific Gas and Electric Company(PG&E)and the California Department of Water Resources(DWR)entered into the Habitat Expansion Agreement for Central Valley Spring-Run Chinook Salmon and California Central Valley Steelhead(HEA)with the following parties: American Rivers;Arthur Baggett,Jr.; California Department of Fish and Game(DFG); U.S.Department of Agriculture Forest Service;National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS);U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS); and State Water Contractors;Inc. DWR and PG&E(Licensees)formed a Steering Committee to implement the HEA in accordance with its terms and conditions. The HEA allows the Licensees 2 years to jointly identify, evaluate,and select the most promising and cost-effective action(s)to expand spawning,rearing,and adult holding habitat for spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead in the Sacramento River basin. These actions are proposed as an alternative to NMFS exercising its Section 18 authority under the Federal Power Act(FPA)to require fish passage past Oroville Dam in the new Federal Energy Regulatory Commission(FERC) licenses for DWR's Oroville Facilities Project and PG&E's Upper North Fork Feather River Hydroelectric Project and Poe Hydroelectric Project(Feather River Hydroelectric Projects), all of which are located on the Feather River. This draft Habitat Expansion Plan(HEP)describes how the first phase of the HEA has been implemented;presents the Licensees' recommended actions; and describes each action in detail, including its estimated contribution to the Habitat Expansion Threshold(BET)specified in the HEA, a pre-feasibility cost estimate, a proposed implementation schedule,the responsibilities of each Licensee,and the rationale for selecting the actions. This draft HEP also describes outreach activities that the Licensees have taken to keep the HEA signatories and other stakeholders informed about and involved in the HEA process. Finally,this draft HEP explains the remaining phases of implementing the HEA. HEA Goals The overall goal of the HEA(Section 2.1 of the HEA, "Goal of Agreement")is to expand habitat with the physical characteristics necessary to support spawning, rearing,and adult holding of spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead in the Sacramento River basin as a contribution to the conservation and recovery of these species. Habitat expansion is to be accomplished through enhancements to Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 ©raft Habitat Expansion Pian ES-1 ICFAS 09854.08 Califomia Department of Water Resources and Executive Summary Pacific Gas and Electric Company existing accessible habitat,improving access to habitat,or other habitat expansion action(s)and is intended to mitigate for any presently unmitigated impacts due to the blockage of passage of all fish species caused by the Feather River Hydroelectric Projects. The specific goal of the HEA(Section 2.2 of the HEA,"Habitat Expansion. Threshold")is to expand spawning,rearing, and adult holding habitat sufficiently to accommodate an estimated net increase of 2,000 to 3,000 spring-run Chinook salmon for spawning in the Sacramento River Basin, as compared to the habitat available under any relevant existing requirements or commitments (i.e.,actions expected to occur in a timeframe comparable to implementation of habitat expansion action[s]under the HEA). This speck goal is referred to as the HET. HEA Criteria The HEA identifies several criteria for identifying, evaluating,recommending, and approving habitat expansion actions,including: ■ HEA Evaluation Criteria(Section 4.1.1 of the HEA), ■ HEA Selection Criteria(Section 4.1.2 of the HEA),and ■ NMFS Approval Criteria(Section 4.2.3 of the HEA). The Licensees developed working definitions for the various HEA criteria (Appendix B)to facilitate utilization of these criteria for selecting actions to be included in the HEP. Criteria definitions draw on the concepts described in the HEA,current scientific literature,recovery plans, and other sources. The Licensees requested feedback on the working definitions from NMFS,the HEA signatories,and other interested stakeholders to further develop these definitions in order to consistently apply the criteria when identifying, evaluating, and recommending habitat expansion actions. Chapter 3 of this plan describes the approach used by the Licensees in applying the HEA Evaluation and Selection Criteria to the potential habitat expansion actions and selecting the recommended actions. The Licensees developed an initial list of almost 200 potential actions drawing from existing plans and projects identified by others, as well as input from the signatories and other stakeholders. The HEA Evaluation Criteria were applied to a shortened version of the initial list to develop a Ranked Preliminary List of Viable Actions,and the Selection Criteria were then applied to this list to develop a Ranked List of Viable Actions. Based on how they rated against the overall HEA Criteria,actions were selected from the Ranked List of Viable Actions to become recommended actions. Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan ES-2 3CFJ&S 00854.08 California Department of Water Resources and Executive Summary Pacific Gas and Electric Company Contribution to the HET The Licensees developed an approach to evaluate the contribution of each action to the HET that reflected: (1)the limited timeframe allowed under the HEA; and (2)the recognition that data related to habitat characteristics in the Sacramento River system are generally lacking and vary greatly in detail between watersheds. A qualitative approach was devised that used empirical data,as well as the professional judgment of the Steering Committee Technical Team and other experts. The HET contribution procedure utilizes a series of logical steps and a set of assumptions that support conclusions regarding the potential of recommended actions to provide habitat in order to achieve the HET. The procedure offers a consistent and relative approach to comparing the potential contribution of actions to the HET. The results of applying this procedure to the recommended actions in the watersheds are provided in Appendix E. As stated in Section 6.1 of the HEA,the Licensees are not obligated to guarantee or verify fish production or habitat utilization. The estimated contribution of an action to the HET represents an index of the increase in quality and quantity of habitat for spring-ran Chinook salmon. Actual results of the actions could differ due to a variety of factors. Recommended Actions The Licensees identified two groupings of habitat expansion and enhancement actions that each meet the goals,terms, and conditions of the HEA: (1)the Lower Yuba River Habitat Expansion Actions(Lower Yuba River Actions); and (2)the Battle Creels,Big Chico Creek, and Antelope Creek Habitat Expansion Actions(Three-Creek Actions). The Licensees propose that one of these two groups of actions be implemented under the HEA. Each group of actions is briefly described in Chapter 5,along with the rationale for recommending the group of actions and a discussion of potential issues related to their review under this phase of the HEA. Detailed descriptions of each of the individual actions that make up each group of actions are given in Chapters 6 through 9. As previously stated,the Licensees evaluated a large number of potential actions for possible inclusion in this draft HEP and believe that the recommended groups of actions are the best actions to put forward to meet the HET and to ensure the success of the HEA in providing expanded habitat for spring-run Chinook salmon. As required by Section 4.1.3 of the HEA,the Licensees are submitting both of these groups of actions for review and comment by the HEA signatories and other stakeholders. Once comments are received,the Licensees expect to select one of the two groups of actions,as may be modified in response to comments received,and propose this group of actions in the final HEP. NMFS will then determine whether to approve the actions selected in the final HEP by applying the NMFS Approval Criteria specified in the HEA. Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan ES-3 ICFAS 00654.08 Califomia Department of Water Resources and Executive Summary Pacific Gas and Electric Company Lower Yuba River Habitat Expansion Actions Application of the HEA criteria to the Ranked List of Viable Actions and estimation of the contribution of these actions to the HET led to identification of a group of actions on the Lower Yuba River that,when combined,would meet the overall goals,terms and conditions of the HEA. This group of actions is referred to in this document as the Lower Yuba River Habitat Expansion Actions (Lower Yuba River Actions). The individual actions that make up the Lower Yuba River Actions consist of the following: ■ rehabilitate spawning habitat in the Englebright Dam reach of the lower Yuba River and augment gravel in lower Deer Creek(a tributary to Yuba River); n plan for,and if necessary,install a segregation weir at a location in the 6-mile reach between Englebright Dam and the Highway 20 Bridge; and ■ restore juvenile rearing habitat between the Highway 20 Bridge and the downstream extent of the Yuba Goldfields. The Lower Yuba River Actions would provide additional habitat between Englebright Data and Daguerre Point Dam that would support spawning,rearing, and adult holding of spring-run Chinook salmon—in addition to ancillary benefits to steelhead. This group of actions is estimated to expand the habitat sufficiently to accommodate a net increase of approximately 3,450 spring-run Chinook salmon and,furthermore,may lead to establishing a new,independent population. The estimated contribution to the HET for the Lower Yuba River Actions is the highest of all of the actions considered. The actions also rate favorably on a number of the HEA Evaluation Criteria and appear to be the most cost effective, although a significant amount of effort remains to develop a detailed description of the actions. The Licensees plan to continue working with the signatories and active watershed groups who have been considering these actions for a number of years to further develop details of the actions. In particular, additional outreach with more stakeholders in the watershed will be necessary before the HEP can be finalized. Provisions for ongoing operations and maintenance would be .negotiated with the stakeholders as appropriate,given that most Lower Yuba River Actions would be located on property that is not owned by either Licensee. When the final HEP is approved,the Licensees are confident that—with the support of the signatories and other stakeholders the Lower Yuba River Actions could be implemented within a reasonable time frame(i.e.,within 5 years),with a benefit to spring-run Chinook realized in less than 10 years. In summary,the Lower Yuba River Actions represent an excellent opportunity to meet the goals, terms,and conditions of the HEA. Table ES-1 summarizes the attributes assigned to the Lower Yuba River Actions by the Licensees,as well as an evaluation of these actions based on applying the NMFS Approval Criteria specified in the HEA. Approval of the final HEP will Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Pian ES-4 ICFJ&5 00654.08 California Department of Water Resources and Executive Summary Pacific Gas and Electric Company be determined by NMFS,after input from the HEA signatories and other stakeholders,using the Approval Criteria. Table ES-1. Application of NMFS Approval Criteria to Lower Yuba River Habitat Expansion Actions (Lower Yuba River Actions) Action Attributes Lower Yuba River Actions Estimated contribution to the HET ^37450 adult spring-run Chinook salmon° Estimated cost —$20.6 milIionb N1V111t S Approval Criteria Evaluation` Assures necessary testing,operations and maintenance? Yes Supports establishing geographically separate self-sustaining population?d Yes Supports segregating spring-run from fall-run?d Yes` Eligible? Yes Expected to be implemented in a reasonable period of time? Yes Note: Lower Yuba River Habitat Expansion Actions(Lower Yuba River Actions)consist of rehabilitating spawning habitat in the Englebright Dam reach of the Lower Yuba River and augmenting gravel in lower Deer Creek(a tributary to Yuba River);planning for and,if necessary,installing a segregation weir at a Iocation in the 6-mile reach between Englebright Dam and the Highway 20 Bridge;and restoring juvenile rearing habitat between the Highway 20 Bridge and the downstream extent of the Yuba Goldfields. a Values reflect the number of adult fish supported by habitat expansion. The estimated contribution of an action to the - Habitat Expansion Threshold represents an index of the increase in quality and quantity of habitat for spring-run Chinook salmon. Actual results of the actions could differ due to a variety of factors. n A 20%contingency was added to the estimate due to uncertainties in available cost information. ` Evaluation applies to the group of three actions,not necessarily each of the individual actions. d Criterion not required for approval. ` Segregation may occur naturally or,if necessary,with the installation of a proposed segregation weir. Eligibility The HEA allows for a variety of actions to be considered eligible for inclusion in the HEP. Actions identified in other venues, including unfunded actions, are acceptable for consideration,provided implementation results in a net expansion of habitat over any existing requirements and commitments. These are defined in Section 3.2 of the HEA and may include,but are not limited to,legal or regulatory requirements subject to a binding order,action by an agency or court, relicensing proceedings,or existing biological opinions. On November 21,2007,NMFS issued a biological opinion to the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers(Corps)to address the effects of operations on spring-run Chinook salmon(and other species)at both Englebright and Daguerre Point Dams. In the biological opinion,NMFS issued an incidental take statement with a number of Reasonable and Prudent Measures,including the following: Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan ES-5 ]GFJn 00854.08 California Department of Water Resources and Executive Summary Pacific Gas and Electric Company 1. The Corps shall develop and implement a long-term gravel augmentation program to restore quality spawning habitat below Englebright Dam. A) The Corps shall utilize the information obtained from the pilot gravel injection project to develop and commence implementation of a long-term gravel augmentation program within three years of the issuance of this biological opinion. The large-scale channel rehabilitation proposed in the Lower Yuba River Actions,would be additional and complementary to the gravel augmentation program required of the Corps by NMFS'biological opinion,and would ideally be completed first to allow for an expansive increase in suitable spawning habitat. Once the Lower Yuba River Actions are completed,the long-term gravel augmentation program required of the Corps under NMFS'biological opinion would provide for long-term maintenance of the habitat created by the Lower Yuba River Actions. Battle Creek, Big Chico Creek, and Antelope Creek Habitat Expansion Actions The Licensees identified another group of actions that,when combined, also would meet the goals,terms,and conditions of the HEA. This group of actions consists of habitat expansion and enhancement actions in three watersheds: Battle Creek,Big Chico Creek,and Antelope Creek and is referred to in this document as the Battle Creek,Big Chico Creek,and Antelope Creek Habitat Expansion Actions(Three-Creek Actions). The individual actions that make up the Three-Creek Actions consist of the following: >• Battle Creek Habitat Expansion Actions,provide partial funding for implementation of Phase 2 of the Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project; • Antelope Creek Habitat Expansion Action, construct a bridge at Paynes Crossing on Antelope Creek; and ■ Big Chico Creek Habitat Expansion Action,rehabilitate the Iron Canyon Fish Ladder on Big Chico Creek. The Three-Creek Actions are estimated to provide a net increase in habitat to support approximately 2,250 adult spring-run Chinook salmon,in addition to providing ancillary benefits to steelhead. The Three-Creek Actions have the potential to provide habitat expansion and enhancement in a more immediate and certain timeframe than the Lower Yuba River Actions,as each of the individual actions need only funding to begin implementation. For all three actions, feasibility and design studies are complete,permitting phases are imminent, underway, or complete, and implementation partners are established. The three actions are essentially"shovel-ready." As such,they have received extensive vetting and have support from a broad coalition of governmental,non- Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan ES-6 icrJas aoasa.os California Department of Water Resources and Executive Summary Pacific Gas and Electric Company governmental,public, and private stakeholders in their respective watersheds. Once constructed, operations and maintenance could be performed by implementation partners already identified and,in the case of the actions on Battle Creek and Big Chico Creek,using separate funds already committed by PG&E and DFG,respectively. These actions leverage existing efforts and funds expended by others,and have the potential to provide additional habitat sooner than the Lower Yuba River Actions. Table ES-2 summarizes the attributes assigned to the Three-Creek Actions by the Licensees, as well as an evaluation of these actions applying the NMFS Approval Criteria specified in the HEA. Table ES-2. Application of NMFS Approval Criteria to Battle Creek, Big Chico Creek, and Antelope Creek Habitat Expansion Actions (Three-Creek Actions) Action Attributes Three-Creek Actions Estimated contribution to Habitat Expansion Threshold 2,250 adult spring-run Chinook salmon a,b Estimated cost $20.6 million` NAM Approval Criteria Evaluation Assures necessary testing,operations and maintenance? Yes Supports establishing geographically separate self-sustaining Yes population?` Supports segregating spring-run from fall-run?` Yes Eligible? Yes Expected to be implemented in a reasonable period of time? Yes Note: Battle Creek,Big Chico Creek,and Antelope Creek Habitat Expansion Actions(Three-Creek Actions)consist of partial funding for implementation of Phase 2 of the Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project, construction of a bridge at Paynes Crossing on Antelope Creek,and rehabilitation of the Iron Canyon fish ladder on Big Chico Creek Values reflect the number of adult fish supported by habitat expansion. The estimated contribution of an action to the Habitat Expansion Threshold(HET)represents an index of the increase in quality and quantity of habitat for spring-run Chinook salmon:. Actual results of the actions could differ due to a variety of factors. b Additional funding partners would need to be identified in order to meet this estimated contribution to the HET. ` Cost estimate includes partial funding for implementation of Phase 2 of the Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project,and full funding for construction of Antelope and Big Chico Creek actions,as well as provisions for operations and maintenance not already committed to by others. d Evaluation applies to the group of three actions,not necessarily each of the individual actions. ` Criterion not required for NMFS approval. Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Pian ES-7 ICFJ&S 00854.08 California Department of Water Resources and Executive Summary Pacific Gas and Electric Company Eligibility The Battle Creek Restoration Project is a cooperative effort by the signatories of a 1999 Memorandum of Understanding(MOU). As stated in Section 1.4 of the MOU,it is a voluntary partnership between state and.federal agencies, including NMFS,third-parry donors,and PG&E. Currently,FERC has issued an Order to Construct Phase 1A of the Battle Creek Restoration Project and funding has been secured. Submittal of a license amendment application is imminent for Phase 1B and funding has been secured for this phase through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. A license amendment application has not been submitted for Phase 2 of the Battle Creek Restoration Project because full funding has not been secured for this phase. Section 15.0 of the MOU provides for its termination in a number of ways,including lack of funding sources. Phase 2 of the Battle Creek Restoration Project will not be implemented until full funding is secured. At this time, approximately$12 million of the estimated$47 million cost of Phase 2 has been identified but has not been secured. NMFS issued a biological opinion on the Long-Term Central Valley Project and State Water Project Operation, Criteria, and Plan (OCAP)on June 4,2009. The OCAP biological opinion states the following action to be taken with regard to Battle Creek: Action L2.6. Restore Battle Creek far Winter-Run, Spring-Run, and CV Steelhead Objective: To partially compensate for unavoidable adverse effects of project operations by restoring winter-run and spring-run to the Battle Creek watershed. A second population of winter-run would reduce the risk of extinction of the species from lost resiliency and increased vulnerability to catastrophic events. Description of Action: Reclamation shall direct discretionary funds to implement the Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project. Phase 1A funding is currently allocated through various partners and scheduled to commence in Summer 2009(Reclamation 2008c). DWR shall direct discretionaryfunds for Phase IB and Phase 2, consistent with the proposed amended Delta Fish Agreement by December 31 of each year,Reclamation and DWR will submit a written report to NMFS on the status of the project, including phases completed,funds expended, effectiveness ofproject actions, additional actions planned(including a schedule for further actions), and additional funds needed. The Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project shall be completed no later than 2019. As stated,the NMFS OCAP biological opinion Action 1.2.5 requires the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and DWR to direct discretionary funds to the Battle Creek Restoration Project. However,this statement does not ensure that such discretionary funds will be available,does not provide an alternate funding mechanism in the absence of such funds, as is presently the case,and ultimately does not secure full funding for Phase 2. The biological opinion also does not provide a means for completing the project before 2019. Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan ES-8 ICFJ&S 00654.08 California Department of Water Resources and Executive Summary Pacific Gas and Electric Company Prior to submitting a final HEP,the Licensees will consult with the signatories of the Battle Creek Restoration Project MOU concerning additional partners for full funding of Phase 2. After the remaining funds needed to complete Phase 2 have been secured,the Licensees would provide up to a$16.9 million contribution pursuant to the cost sharing provisions agreed to by DWR and PG&E for implementation of the HEA. Consistent with those provisions,PG&E will be the performing party for construction of capital improvements associated with the $16.9 million contribution.In order to provide consistency and continuity in construction of capital improvements for all of Phase 2,the Licensees favor PG&E's role as the performing party for construction of all Phase 2 capital improvements. Summary of Recommended Actions In summary,the Licensees believe that each group of recommended actions in this draft HEP meets the goals,terms, and conditions of the HEA; and support the inclusion of either group of actions in the final HEP. Outreach Stakeholder input and public support are critical to successful implementation of the actions proposed under the HEP. Throughout development of this draft HEP, the Licensees have worked closely with the signatories to the HEA and sought input from local Resource Conservation Districts and watershed groups to identify potential actions that could qualify under the HEA. Chapter 2 details the various outreach activities conducted over the past 2 years. The Licensees plan to continue outreach efforts until a final HEP is approved for implementation and then work with the appropriate stakeholders to ensure the success of the HER Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan ES-9 ICFAS 00854.08 Contents Page Listof Appendices....................................................................................A Tables.......................................................................................................vii Figures...................................................................................................... ix Acronyms and Abbreviations....................................................................A Acknowledgments....................................................................................xiii Chapter1 Introduction...........................................................................................1-1 1.1 Background of the HEA..............................................................1-2 1.1.1 FERC Relicensing for Feather River Projects.......................1-2 1.1.2 HEA Negotiated as an Alternative to Prescribed FishPassage....................................................................1-3 1.2 Goal of the HEA..........................................................................1-3 1.3 Potential Habitat Expansion Actions...........................................1-4 1.4 Timeline......................................................................................1-4 Chapter 2 Outreach Activities...............................................................................2-1 2.1 HEA Website...............................................................................2-1 2.2 Outreach to Signatories to the HEA............................................2-2 2.2.1 Consultation with NMFS .......................................................2-2 2.2.2 Letter to HEA Signatories .....................................................2-3 2.2.3 Meetings with HEA Signatories.............................................2-4 2.3 Outreach to Other Stakeholders.................................................2-4 2.3.1 Salmonid Restoration Federation's Spring-Run Chinook Salmon Symposium ...........................................2-5 2.3.2 Agency Partnering Meeting...................................................2-5 2.3.3 Lower Yuba River Symposium..............................................2-5 2.3.4 Combined Meetings with HEA Signatories and Other Stakeholders...........................................................2-5 2.3.5 Communication on Specific Habitat Expansion Actions..............................................................................2-6 2.3.6 Coordination with Landowners..............................................2-6 Chapter 3 Application of HEA Criteria..................................................................3-1 3.1 HEA Criteria and Criteria Definitions...........................................3-1 3.1.1 Evaluation Criteria.................................................................3-2 3.1.2 Selection Criteria...................................................................3-3 3.1.3 Approval Criteria...................................................................3-3 3.2 Applying the HEA Criteria...........................................................3-4 3.2.1 Developing Habitat Expansion Actions.................................3-4 3.2.2 Applying Evaluation Criteria..................................................3-8 Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 1CFJ&S OOB54.OB 3.2.3 Applying Selection Criteria..................................................3-11 Chapter 4 Contribution to the HET.......................................................................4-1 4.1 HEA Conceptual Framework......................................................4-1 4.1.1 Habitat Potential....................................................................4-2 4.1.1 Relationship of HEA Actions to the Viable Salmonid Population Concept..........................................4-4 4.2 Procedure for Determining Contribution to the HET..................4-7 4.2.1 General Concept of the HET Contribution Procedure.........................................................................4-7 4.2.2 Biological Assumptions.........................................................4-9 4.2.3 Watershed Diagnosis..........................................................4-11 4.2.4 Watershed Treatment.........................................................4-14 4.2.5 Results................................................................................4-18. 4.3 References................................................................................4-19 Chapter 5 Recommended Actions................................... .................................5-1 5.1 Lower Yuba River Habitat Expansion Actions ............................5-1 5.1.1 Nexus to Species Recovery Plans........................................5-3 5.1.2 Springboard to Upper Yuba River.........................................5-4 5.1.3 Stakeholder Support.............................................................5-4 5.1.4 Eligibility................................................................................5-5 5.1.5 Options to Segregation Weir.................................................5-6 5.1.6 Summary of Recommendation for Lower Yuba RiverActions ....................................................................5-7 5.2 Battle Creek, Big Chico Creek, and Antelope Creek Habitat Expansion Actions......................................................................5-8 5.2.1 Battle Creek Habitat Expansion Actions...............................5-9 5.2.2 Big Chico Creek and Antelope Creek Actions ....................5-13 5.2.1 Summary of Recommendation for Three-Creek Actions............................................................................5-13 5.3 Reference .................................................................................5-13 Chapter 6 Lower Yuba River Habitat Expansion Actions...................................6-1 6.1 Description of Habitat Expansion Actions................... ...............6-1 6.1.1 Background...........................................................................6-1 6.1.2 Location ................................................................................6-2 6.1.3 Purpose.................................................................................6-2 6.1.4 Recommended Actions.........................................................6-3 6.1.5 Sources.................................................................................6-3 6.2 Context for Action .......................................................................6-4 6.2.1 Description of the Watershed................................................6-4 6.2.2 Status of Spring-Run Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Runs................................................................6-5 6.2.3 Limiting Factors.....................................................................6-6 6.3 Contribution to the HET..............................................................6-9 6.4 Spawning Habitat Rehabilitation...............................................6-10 6.4.1 Description..........................................................................6-10 6.4.2 Objectives and Benefits ......................................................6-12 6.4.3 Contribution to the HET ......................................................6-13 6.4.4 Estimated Cost....................................................................6-13 Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan ii ICFJ&S 00854.08 6.4.5 Implementation Schedule ...................................................6-14 6.4.6 Implementation Responsibilities of Licensees ....................6-14 6.4.7 Rationale for Selection........................................................6-15 6.4.8 Other Issues........................................................................6-16 6.5 Segregation Weir......................................................................6-17 6.5.1 Description..........................................................................6-17 6.5.2 Objectives and Benefits ......................................................6-18 6.5.3 Contribution to the HET ......................................................6-19 6.5.4 Estimated Cost....................................................................6-20 6.5.5 Implementation Schedule ...................................................6-20 6.5.6 Implementation Responsibilities of Licensees ....................6-20 6.5.7 Rationale for Selection........................................................6-21 6.5.8 Other Issues........................................................................6-21 6.6 Juvenile Rearing Habitat Restoration .......................................6-22 6.6.1 Description..........................................................................6-22 6.6.2 Objectives and Benefits ......................................................6-29 6.6.3 Contribution to the HET ......................................................6-29 6.6.4 Estimated Cost....................................................................6-29 6.6.5 Implementation Schedule ...................................................6-30 6.6.6 Implementation Responsibilities of Licensees....................6-30 6.6.7 Rationale for Selection........................................................6-31 6.6.8 Other Issues........................................................................6-31 6.7 References................................................................................6-31 6.7.1 Printed References .............................................................6-31 6.7.2 Personal Communications..................................................6-33 Chapter 7 Antelope Creek Habitat Expansion Action.........................................7-1 7.1 Description of Habitat Expansion Action.....................................7-1 7.1.1 Background...........................................................................7-1 7.1.2 Location ................................................................................7-1 7.1.3 Purpose.................................................................................7-2 7.1.4 Recommended Action...........................................................7-2 7.1.5 Sources.................................................................................7-2 7.2 Context for Action .......................................................................7-2 7.2.1 Description of the Watershed................................................7-2 7.2.2 Status of Spring-Run Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Runs................................................................7-3 7.2.3 Limiting Factors.....................................................................7-3 7.3 Paynes Crossing Bridge Construction ........................................7-4 7.3.1 Description............................................................................7-4 7.3.2 Objectives and Benefits ........................................................7-4 7.3.3 Contribution to the HET ........................................................7-4 7.3.4 Estimated Cost......................................................................7-5 7.3.5 Implementation Schedule .....................................................7-5 7.3.6 Implementation Responsibilities of Licensees ......................7-5 7.3.7 Rationale for Selection..........................................................7-6 7.3.8 Other Issues..........................................................................7-7 7.4 References..................................................................................7-7 7.4.1 Printed References...............................................................7-7 7.4.2 Personal Communications....................................................7-8 Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan ICFAS 00854.08 Chapter 8 Big Chico Creek Habitat Expansion Action .......................................8-1 8.1 Description of Habitat Expansion Actions...................................8-1 8.1.1 Background...........................................................................8-1 8.1.2 Location ................................................................................8-1 8.1.3 Purpose.................................................................................8-2 8.1.4 Recommended Action...........................................................8-2 8.1.5 Sources.................................................................................8-2 8.2 Context for Action .......................................................................8-2 8.2.1 Description of the Watershed................................................8-2 8.2.2 Status of Spring-Run Chinook Salmon and SteelheadRuns................................................................8-3 8.2.3 Limiting Factors.....................................................................8-3 8.3 Iron Canyon Fish Ladder Rehabilitation......................................8-4 8.3.1 Description.......................... . ...............................................8-4 8.3.2 Objectives and Benefits........................................................8-4 8.3.3 Contribution to the HET ........................................................8-4 8.3.4 Estimated Cost................................................................. .8-5 8.3.5 Implementation Schedule .....................................................8-5 8.3.6 Implementation Responsibilities of Licensees ......................8-5 8.3.7 Rationale for Selection..........................................................8-6 8.3.8 Other lssues..........................................................................8-7 8.4 References..................................................................................8-7 8.4.1 Printed References ...............................................................8-7 8.4.2 Personal Communications....................................................8-8 Chapter 9 Battle Creek Habitat Expansion Actions............................................9-1 9.1 Description of Habitat Expansion Actions...................................9-1 9.1.1 Background...........................................................................9-1 9.1.2 Location ................................................................................9-2 9.1.3 Purpose.................................................................................9-2 9.1.4 Recommended Actions.........................................................9-3 9.1.5 Sources.................................................................................9-3 9.2 Context for Action .......................................................................9-3 9.2.1 Description of the Watershed................................................9-3 9.2.2 Status of Spring-Run Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Runs................................................................9-4 9.2.3 Limiting Factors.....................................................................9-5 9.3 Battle Creek Habitat Expansion Actions.....................................9-5 9.3.1 Description............................................................................9-5 9.3.2 Objectives and Benefits........................................................9-8 9.3.3 Contribution to the HET ........................................................9-9 9.3.4 Estimated Cost....................................................................9-10 9.3.5 Implementation Schedule ...................................................9-11 9.3.6 Implementation Responsibilities of Licensees ....................9-11 9.3.7 Rationale for Selection........................................................9-12 9.3.8 Other Issues........................................................................9-13 9.4 References................................................................................9-15 9.4.1 Printed References .............................................................9-15 9.4.2 Personal Communications..................................................9-16 Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan iv ICFJ&5 00854.08 Chapter 10 Remaining Phases of the HEA..........................................................10-1 10.1 Outreach...................................................................................10-1 10.2 Final HEP..................................................................................10-2 10.2.1 Contents of the Final HEP ..................................................10-3 10.2.2 Pre-Approval Consultation..................................................10-3 10.2.3 NMFS Approval Criteria......................................................10-3 10.2.4 Determination of Contribution to the HET...........................10-4 10.2.5 Approval Decision by NMFS...............................................10-5 10.3 Preliminary Design Phase.........................................................10-5 10.3.1 Feasibility-Level Designs and Cost Estimates....................10-5 10.3.2 Semi-Annual Status Reports...............................................10-6 10.3.3 Preliminary Design Report..................................................10-6 10.3.4 Consistency Determination by NMFS.................................10-6 10.3.5 FERC Licensing .................................................................10-7 10.4 Final Design and Permitting Phase...........................................10-7 10.4.1 Bid-Level Designs, Cost Estimates, and Related Permitting..........................................................10-7 10.4.2 Semi-Annual Status Reports...............................................10-7 10.4.3 Final Design and Permitting Report....................................10-8 10.4.4 Consistency Determination by NMFS.................................10-8 10.5 Implementation Phase..............................................................10-8 10.5.1 Implementation of Approved Action(s)................................10-9 10.5.2 Semi-Annual Status Reports...............................................10-9 10.5.3 Final Report ........................................................................10-9 10.6 Final Test Phase.......................................................................10-9 10.6.1 Start-Up Testing................................................................10-10 10.6.2 Semi-Annual Status Reports.............................................10-10 10.6.3 Final Test Report ..............................................................10-10 10.6.4 Functionality Determination by NMFS...............................10-10 Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan v ICFAS 04854.08 Appendices A Approval and Implementation Schedule for Habitat Expansion Actions B Working Definitions of Evaluation, Selection, and Approval Criteria C Habitat Expansion Actions C1 Draft Working List of Potential Actions C2 Working List of Potential Actions C3 Short List of Potential Actions C4 Ranked Preliminary List of Viable Actions with Evaluation Criteria Scoring C5 Ranked List of Viable Actions with Selection Criteria Scoring D Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon and Steelhead in the Sacramento River Basin Background Report E Action-Specific Calculations of Contribution to the Habitat Expansion Threshold F Questionnaires for Recommended Actions F1 Questionnaires received on the Lower Yuba River Actions F2 Questionnaire received on the Antelope Creek Action F3 Questionnaires received on the Big Chico Creek Action F4 Questionnaire received on the Battle Creek Actions G Habitat Expansion For Spring-Run Chinook Salmon and Steelhead in the Lower Yuba River— Prepared for the HEA Steering Committee by members of the Yuba Accord River Management Team Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan VI ICFJ&5 0854.08 Tables Page 4-1. Spatial Structure of the Central Valley Spring-Run Chinook Salmon Evolutionary Significant Unit......................................................4-6 4-2. Definitions of Environmental Attributes That Are Potentially Limiting Factors for Spring-Run Chinook Salmon.................................4-10 4-3. Adopted Ranking of Importance of Environmental Attributes in Determining Productivity and Capacity of Spring-Run Chinook Salmon in Two Stream Size Categories. ...........................................................................................4-10 4-4. Example of Environmental Rating Scores for a Sample Stream..................................................................................................4-12 4-5. Weighted and Normalized Habitat Change Scores for Chinook Spring-Run Salmon ................................................................4-13 4-6. Allocation of Recovery Potential Based on the Species- Interpreted Habitat Change Scores (Numbers of Adult Chinook Spring-Run Salmon)...............................................................4-14 4-7. Adopted Potential of Action Types to Affect Environmental Conditions.............................................................................................4-15 4-8. Example of Action Intensity for Three Hypothetical Proposed Actions and Their Relationship to Action Types...................4-16 4-9. Expectation of Change in Attributes for Three Hypothetical ProposedActions..................................................................................4-17 4-10. Estimated Contribution to the Habitat Expansion Threshold of Hypothetical Combined Actions (Adult Spring-Run ChinookSalmon) .................................................................................4-19 Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan vii ICFAS 00854.08 5-1. Application of NMFS Approval Criteria to Lower Yuba River Habitat Expansion Actions (Lower Yuba River Actions).........................5-3 5-2. Application of NMFS Approval Criteria to Antelope Creek and Big Chico Creek Habitat Expansion Actions....................................5-7 5-3. Application of NMFS Approval Criteria to Battle Creek, Big Chico Creek, and Antelope Creek Habitat Expansion Actions (Three-Creek Actions)................................................................5-9 5-4. Application of NMFS Approval Criteria to the Battle Creek Habitat Expansion Actions....................................................................5-12 6-1 Contribution of Actions in the Lower Yuba River to the Habitat Expansion Threshold................................................................6-10 Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan viii ICFJ&S 0854.06 Figures Page 4-1 HEA Conceptual Framework for Evaluating the Contribution of Actions to the Habitat Expansion Threshold ..................4-3 4-2 Adaptation of HEA Conceptual Framework to Determining the Contribution to the Habitat Expansion Threshold.............................4-8 4-3 Comparison of Raw and Biologically Interpreted Habitat Rating Scores for an Example Stream ................................................4-13 5-1 Targeted Watersheds for Habitat Expansion Actions Battle Creek, Antelope Creek, Big Chico Creek, and Yuba River...........................................................................................follows 5-2 6-1 Lower Yuba River Habitat Expansion Actions............................follows 6-2 6-2 Yuba River Shot Rock Deposits ...............................................follows 6-12 6-3 Juvenile Rearing Habitat Restoration Sites in the Lower YubaRiver................................................................................follows 6-24 6-4. Upper Guilt Edge Bar Site for Juvenile Rearing Habitat Restoration ...........................................................................................6-25 6-5. First Island Site for Juvenile Rearing Habitat Restoration ....................6-25 6-6. North Silica Bar and Silica Bar Sites for Juvenile Rearing Habitat Restoration...............................................................................6-26 6-7. Hammon Bar Site for Juvenile Rearing Habitat Restoration.................6-26 6-8. South Bar above Daguerre Point Dam Site for Juvenile Rearing Habitat Restoration .................................................................6-27 6-9. Waterway 13 Site for Juvenile Rearing Habitat Restoration.................6-27 6-10. Narrow Bar Site for Juvenile Rearing Habitat Restoration....................6-28 Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan ix ICFJ&S 00854.08 6-11. Goldfields Terminus Bar Site for Juvenile Rearing Habitat Restoration ...........................................................................................6-28 7-1 Antelope Creek Action— Paynes Crossing.................................follows 7-2 8-1 Big Chico Creek Action — Iron Canyon Fish Ladder...................follows 8-2 9-1 Battle Creek Habitat Expansion Actions.....................................follows 9-2 Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan X ICFJ&5 00854.48 Acronyms and Abbreviations AFRP Anadromous Fish Restoration Program Antelope Creek Action Antelope Creek Habitat Expansion Action Background Report Background Report on the Status of Spring-Run Chinook Salmon and Central Valley Steelhead in the Sacramento River Basin Battle Creek Actions Battle Creek Habitat Expansion Actions Battle Creek Restoration Project Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project BCCWA Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance Big Chico Creek Action Big Chico Creek Habitat Expansion Actions CalTrout California Trout,Inc. CNFH Coleman National Fish Hatchery Corps U.S.Army Corps of Engineers CSU Chico State University DEMs Digital Elevation Models DFG California Department of Fish and Game DWR California Department of Water Resources ESA Endangered Species Act ESU evolutionarily significant unit FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FPA Federal Power Act FPC Federal Power Commission GIS geographic information system HEA Habitat Expansion Agreement for Central Valley Spring-Run. Chinook Salmon and California Central Valley Steelhead HEP Habitat Expansion Plan HET Habitat Expansion Threshold Lower Yuba River Actions Lower Yuba River Habitat Expansion Actions MAF million acre-feet Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan xi ICFAS 00854.48 4 MOU Memorandum of Understanding NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NMFS Draft Recovery Plan NMFS Draft Recovery Plan for the Evolutionarily Significant Units of Sacramento River Winter-Run Chinook Salmon and Central Valley Spring-Run Chinook Salmon and the Distinct Population Segment of Central Valley Steelhead NOAA Fisheries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service O&M operations and maintenance OCAP Operation,Criteria,and Plan PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company Poe Poe Hydroelectric Project No. 2107 Public Draft Recovery Plan Public Draft Recovery Plan for the Evolutionarily Significant Units of Sacramento River Winter-Run Chinook Salmon and Central Valley Spring-Run Chinook Salmon and the Distinct Population Segment of Central Valley Steelhead RCDs Resource Conservation Districts Reclamation U.S.Department of the Interior,Bureau of Reclamation Restoration Project Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project RM river mile RMT River Management Team SYRCL South Yuba River Citizens League USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VSP viable salmonid populations YCWA Yuba County Water Agency Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan xii IGFJ&S 44$54.48 Acknowledgments The Licensees are pleased to present this draft Habitat Expansion Plan(HEP)for comment by the HEA signatories and other stakeholders. The Licensees are committed to responding to the comments and to the ultimate success of the HEA. Throughout this document,reference is made to the Steering Committee as defined by the HEA Coordination Agreement between the Licensees party to the HEA,the California Department of Water Resources(DWR) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company(PG&E). The Steering Committee consists of two representatives each from DWR and PG&E. The Steering Committee members are: ■ Heidi Rooks,Branch Chief,Department of Water Resources,Division of Environmental Services ■ Liv K. Imset, Senior License Coordinator,Pacific Gas and Electric Company,Power Generation • Chris Wilkinson, Senior Environmental Scientist,Habitat Restoration Section,Department of Water Resources,Division of Environmental Services ■ Paul Kubicek, Senior Consulting Scientist—Aquatic Biologist,Pacific Gas and Electric Company,Land and Environmental Management For the purposes of the HEA,the Steering Committee represents the views of the Licensees. The Steering Committee would like to express its appreciation to all those who assisted in implementing the HEA and developing this draft HEP. The Steering Committee solicited and received input from many additional DWR and PG&E employees during the process. Their input was critical to the success of this effort. The Steering Committee also retained a consultant,ICF Jones& Stokes,to aid in the implementation activities and development of the draft HEP. Key members of the ICF team included: ■ Colleen Lingappaiah,Project Manager,Water Resources,ICF Jones& Stokes ■ Joan Lynn,Technical Editor,Egret,Inc. for ICF Jones&Stokes Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan XIII ICFAS 00854.08 r r ■ Chip McConnaha, Senior Fisheries Ecologist, ICF Jones&Stokes These individuals participated in most of the Steering Committee meetings and were instrumental in completing the draft HEP. They also received input and support from many of their employees. ■ The Steering Committee also formed a Technical Team of professional biologists including the following individuals: ■ Paul Kubicek ■ Chris Wilkinson ■ Chip McConnaha ■ Erin Chappell,Environmental Scientist,Habitat Restoration Section, Department of Water Resources,Division of Environmental Services ■ Steve Brumbaugh,Environmental Scientist,Habitat Restoration Section, Department of Water Resources,Division of Environmental Services The Steering Committee Technical Team,referred to throughout this document, carried out the collection of potential actions to be considered,application of the HEA criteria,and development and application of the HET contribution procedure. The Technical Team also participated in most of the Steering Committee meetings and consulted with representatives of the signatories, stakeholder groups, and other technical professionals as available throughout the process. The Steering Committee would like to express its appreciation to the signatories, stakeholder groups,and other technical professionals who provided critical input used during the HEA process and development of the draft HER Individuals from many organizations stepped forward to participate in the HEA process and responded to requests for information. Lastly,the Steering Committee would like to thank the employees of the Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District who provided both hospitality and regular meeting space for the past 2 years. Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan xiv ICFJ&S 00854.08 Chapter 1 Introduction Effective November 20,2007,Pacific Gas and Electric Company(PG&E)and the California Department of Water Resources(DWR)entered into the Habitat Expansion Agreement for Central Valley Spring-Run Chinook Salmon and California Central Valley Steelhead(IEA)with the following parties: American Rivers,Arthur G.Baggett,Jr.'; California Department of Fish and Game(DFG); U.S.Department of Agriculture Forest Service;National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS);U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS);and State Water Contractors,Inc. A copy of the HEA is available on the HEA website: http://www.sac-basin-hea.com/default.aspx. DWR and PG&E(the Licensees) formed a Steering Committee,comprised of two representatives each,to execute the HEA in accordance with its terms and conditions. The HEA allows DWR and PG&E 2 years to jointly identify,evaluate, and select the most promising and cost-effective action(s)to expand spawning,rearing, and adult holding habitat for spring-run Chinook salmon and Steelhead in the Sacramento River Basin. These actions are proposed as an alternative to NMFS exercising its Section 18 authority under the Federal Power Act(FPA)to require trap-and-haul fish passage over Oroville Dam in the new Federal Energy Regulatory Commission(FERC)licenses for DWR's Oroville Facilities Project and PG&E's Upper North Fork Feather River Hydroelectric Project and Poe Hydroelectric Project(all of which are located in the Feather River system). This draft Habitat Expansion Plan(HEP) describes how the HEA has been carried out to date;presents the recommended actions; and describes each action in detail, including its estimated contribution to the Habitat Expansion Threshold(HET), a prefeasibility cost estimate, a proposed implementation schedule,the implementation responsibilities of each Licensee, and the rationale for selecting the action. This HEP also describes outreach activities that the Licensees have taken to keep the HEA signatories and directly affected and responsive third parties(herein referred to as other stakeholders)informed about the HEA process. Finally,this HEP also explains the remaining phases associated with the HEA. Mr.Baggett signed the HEA as a recommendation to the California State Water Resources Control Board(State Water Board),not as a Parry to the HEA. Na.Baggett will not be participating in the State Water Board's consideration of any petition for water quality certification for any Habitat Expansion Plan pursuant to Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act. Habitat Expansion Agreement [November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan ECFJ&S 04854.08 California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 1, Introduction Pacific Gas and Electric Company 1 .1 Background of the HEA 1 .1 .1 FERC Relicensing for Feather River Projects DWR constructed and operates the Oroville Facilities,FERC Project No.2100 (Oroville),on the lower Feather River. Oroville was developed as part of the California State Water Project,a water storage and delivery system of reservoirs, aqueducts,power plants,and pumping plants. The State Water Project makes deliveries of supplemental water to two-thirds of California's population and over 750,000 acres of agricultural lands. Oroville is also operated to provide power generation,improve water quality in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta,manage Feather River floodwaters,provide recreation, and enhance habitat for fish and wildlife. Oroville operates under a license originally issued by the Federal Power Commission(FPC)on February 11, 1957,for a term of 50 years. That license expired on January 31,2007;however,the Project has been operated since then under annual licenses pursuant to Section 15 of the FPA. Under the requirements of the FPA and FERC regulations,DWR filed a timely application for a new license on January 26,2005. The application is currently pending before FERC. PG&E owns and operates the Poe Hydroelectric Project,FERC Project No. 2107 (Poe), on the North Fork Feather River under a license issued by the FPC on October 26, 1953, for a term of 50 years. Under the requirements of the FPA and FERC regulations,PG&E filed an application for a new license for Poe on October 2,2001. This application is currently pending before FERC. The original license for Poe expired on September 30, 2003; since that time,the project has been operating under annual licenses pursuant to Section 15 of the FPA. PG&E owns and operates the Upper North Fork Feather River Hydroelectric Project,FERC Project No. 2105 (Upper North Fork Feather River),under a license issued by the FPC on January 24, 1955, for a term of 50 years. Under the requirements of the FPA and FERC regulations,PG&E filed an application for a new license for the Upper North Fork Feather River on October 23,2002,which is currently pending before FERC. The original license for the Upper North Fork Feather River expired on October 31,2004; since that time,the project has been operating under annual licenses pursuant to Section 15 of the FPA. PG&E also owns and operates a third project on the North Fork Feather River, the Rock Creek-Cresta Hydroelectric Project,FERC Project No. 1962(Rock Creek-Cresta),under a license issued by FERC on October 24,2001,which expires on September 30,2034. Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 1-2 ICF.]&5 00854.08 California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 1. introduction Pacific Gas and Electric Company 1 .1 .2 HEA Negotiated as an Alternative to Prescribed Fish Passage Section 18 of the FPA gives NMFS the authority to require fishways or fish passage which they exercised in the FERC relicensing proceedings for the Oroville and Upper North Fork Feather River Projects for DWR and PG&E, respectively. NMFS stated that a trap-and-haul program for spring-run Chinook salmon in the Feather River system would meet its fish passage objectives. The trap-and-haul program would involve trapping adult fish below the Oroville Dam,hauling them upstream, and placing them in the upper North Fork Feather River. The program also would require collecting downstream migrants in the upper North Fork Feather River and hauling them back downstream below Oroville Dam. NMFS prescribed the upper end of the trap-and-haul program in the Upper North Fork Feather River relicensing proceeding and intended to prescribe the lower end of the trap-and-haul program in the Oroville relicensing proceeding. The trap-and-haul program generated concern because of its high estimated cost and the potentially low likelihood for success. Ultimately,DWR and PG&E, together with other participants in the relicensing proceedings,came together to discuss alternatives to trap-and-haul for expanding anadromous fish habitat. The parties negotiated the HEA to establish an approach for identifying, evaluating, selecting, and implementing the most promising and cost-effective action(s)to expand spawning,rearing, and adult holding habitat in the Sacramento River Basin in lieu of the resource agencies or other parties seeking fish passage on the Feather River or its tributaries in the relicensing of the OroviIle,Poe, and Upper North Fork Feather River Projects, or through amendment of the license for the Rock Creek-Cresta Project. As stated in Section 1.2 of the HEA,"Purpose of Agreement,"the HEA will fully mitigate for impacts of all fish species due to the blockage of fish passage caused by the Feather River Hydroelectric Projects; and resolve among the parties to the HEA, during the term of the HEA,issues related to regulatory conditions for fish passage associated with or related to any of the Feather River Hydroelectric Projects in excess of the actions contemplated under the HEA. 1 .2 Goal of the HEA The overall goal of the HEA(Section 2.1 of the HEA, "Goal of Agreement")is to expand habitat with the physical characteristics necessary to support spawning, rearing, and adult holding of spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead in the Sacramento River Basin as a contribution to the conservation and recovery of these species. Habitat expansion is to be accomplished through enhancements to existing accessible habitat, improving access to habitat,or other action(s) and is intended to fully mitigate for any presently unmitigated impacts due to the blockage of passage of all fish species caused by the Feather River Hydroelectric Projects. Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 1-3 ICFAS 00854M California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 1. Introduction Pacific Gas and Electric Company The specific goal of the HEA(Section 2.2 of the HEA, "Habitat Expansion Threshold") is to expand spawning,rearing, and adult holding habitat sufficiently to accommodate an estimated net increase of 2,000 to 3,000 spring-run Chinook salmon for spawning in the Sacramento River Basin, as compared to the habitat available under any relevant existing requirements or commitments(i.e., actions expected to occur in a timeframe comparable to implementation of habitat expansion action[s]under the HEA). The HET is focused on spring-run Chinook salmon as the priority species,as expansion of habitat for spring-run typically accommodates steelhead as well. 1 .3 Potential Habitat Expansion Actions Section 3.1 of the HEA,"Scope of Eligible Habitat Expansion Actions,"states that habitat expansion actions may include, among other things: ■ dam removals or dam re-operation, ■ creation or enhancement of fishways, ■ water temperature or flow improvements, and ■ other physical habitat enhancements. The Licensees identified,evaluated,and recommended potential habitat expansion actions using criteria identified in the HEA,including: ■ seventeen non-prioritized Evaluation Criteria(Section 4.1.1 of the HEA) to screen potential habitat expansion actions and develop a preliminary list of viable actions,and ■ four non-prioritized Selection Criteria(Section 4.1.2 of the HEA)to select recommended habitat expansion actions for implementation. The approach taken by the Licensees to apply the Evaluation and Selection Criteria to the potential habitat expansion actions and select the recommended actions is described in Chapter 3. NMFS will consider six Approval Criteria(Section 4.2.3 of the HEA), along with comments from the HEA signatories and other stakeholders,and any other relevant information,when deciding whether to approve the recommendations made by the Licensees. 1 .4 Timeline This draft HEP is being submitted to NMFS, as well as to the HEA signatories and other stakeholders,for a 90-day review and comment period. Within 90 days after the close of this review and comment period,or by May 20,2010,the Licensees will then have 90 days to submit a final HEP for approval by NMFS. The Licensees and NMFS may extend the time periods by mutual agreement to accommodate the approval process. (Section 4.2 of the HEA). Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion}plan 1-4 ICFJ&5 00554.06 California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 1. Introduction Pacific Gas and Electric Company The proposed approval and implementation schedule for the habitat expansion actions recommended by the Licensees is presented in Appendix A. The remaining phases associated with implementing the HEA are described further in Chapter 10. Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 1-5 ICFAS 00854.08 California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 1. Introduction Pacific Gas and Electric Company This page intentionally left blank. Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 1-6 ICFJ&5 00654.08 Chapter 2 Outreach Activities Stakeholder input andpublic support are critical to successful implementation of the actions proposed under the HER Throughout development of this draft HEP, the Licensees have worked closely with the signatories to the HEA and sought input from local Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs)and watershed groups to identify potential actions that could qualify under the HEA. The following sections describe how the Licensees,using the Steering Committee,sought input and shared information with the signatories and other stakeholders in development of this draft HEP. The Licensees will continue its outreach efforts until a final HEP is approved for implementation. 2.1 HEA Website The Steering Committee established a website early in the process to share information related to the HEA. The following documents are currently available on the website: ■ the HEA; ■ the first annual HEA status report; ■ the draft Work Plan; ■ Working Definitions of the HEA Evaluation, Selection, and Approval Criteria; ■ the list of potential habitat expansion actions; and ■ presentations from meetings with the HEA signatories and other stakeholders. In addition,the website offered instructions and forms for the HEA signatories and other stakeholders to submit actions for consideration in the HEP. Specifically,a questionnaire was made available for the HEA signatories and other stakeholders to complete and submit potential habitat expansion actions to the Steering Committee for consideration under the HEA. The 22 questionnaires that were received by the Steering Committee are posted on the HEA website. Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 2_1 [CFJ&S 00854.08 California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 2. Outreach Activities Pacific Gas and Electric Company 2.2 Outreach to Signatories to the HEA The Licensees actively reached out to the signatories to the HEA directly and through various venues. Some of the outreach activities that the Licensees arranged or participated in are described below. 2.2.1 Consultation with NMFS The Licensees scheduled meetings with NMFS periodically to discuss the HEA. Meetings included two conference calls with NMFS (on April 30,2008,and May 28,2009)and two face-to-face meetings with NMFS (on August 20,2008,and April 8,2009). On April 30,2008,the Licensees participated in a conference call with representatives from NMFS to: • provide NMFS with an update on the Licensees's efforts on implementing the HEA; ■ identify which branch from NMFS to work with regarding the NMFS Approval Criteria identified in the HEA; ■ obtain feedback from NMFS on the idea of soliciting proposals as a means of identifying potential actions; » receive feedback from NMFS on the compilation of appropriate actions from the PG&E/California Trout, Inc. (CalTrout) effort to prioritize Central Valley anadromous salmonid recovery actions(described below), and how this process could be integrated with the NMFS Co-Manager Review Draft Recovery Plan for the Evolutionarily Significant Units of Sacramento River Winter-Run Chinook Salmon and Central Valley Spring-Run Chinook Salmon and the Distinct Population Segment of Central Valley Steelhead (Co-Manager Review Draft Recovery Plan); and ■ obtain input on how the Licensees could integrate the HEA process with other recovery planning efforts,such as the USFWS Anadromous Fish Restoration Program(AFRP) and the CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program. On August 20,2008,the Licensees met with NMFS and discussed the following topics: in the Steering Committee's presentation at the July 10,2008 Spring-Run Chinook Salmon Symposium sponsored by the Salmonid Restoration Federation; ■ the draft Work Plan for fulfilling the HEA and efforts to date; ■ application of the HEA criteria to the PG&E/CalTrout Prioritized Actions Contributing to Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Project list of prioritized actions; Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 2-2 ICFAS 00854.08 California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 2. Outreach Activities Pacific Gas and Electric Company ■ availability and use of the NMFS Co-Manager Review Draft Recovery Plan; ■ methodologies for determining contribution of actions to the HET; and ■ coordination with the HEA signatories. On April 8,2009,the Licensees met with NMFS to review: ■ the framework for evaluating and selecting habitat expansion actions; n Working Definitions of the Evaluation, Selection, and Approval Criteria; ■ methodologies for determining contribution to the HET; and ■ the list of potential habitat expansion actions. On May 28,2009,the Licensees held a conference call with NMFS to discuss the following topics: • NMFS review and comments on HEA documents,including the HEP timeline;HEA conceptual framework; and Working Definitions of the Evaluation, Selection, and Approval Criteria; ■ approach for applying the HEA Evaluation Criteria; ■ Working List of Potential Actions; and ■ recommendations for determining contribution to the HET. The Licensees communicated with NMFS periodically through emails and informal phone calls to keep NMFS informed on progress toward fulfilling the HEA, and to seek guidance on various HEA-related issues and how those issues should be reflected in the craft HER 2.2,2 Letter to HEA Signatories On October 28,2008,the Steering Committee sent a letter to the HEA signatories,to provide them with an update on implementation of the HEA and to initiate contact with staff from the various HEA parties in order to obtain additional contacts for, and information on,potential habitat expansion actions. Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 2-3 ICFAS 00854.08 California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 2. Outreach Activities Pacific Gas and Electric Company 2.2.3 Meetings with HEA Signatories The Steering Committee first met with the signatories to the HEA in January 2009 to solicit information on potential habitat expansion actions,identify contact persons for additional follow-up on potential actions,facilitate the receipt of completed questionnaires(see discussion below), and obtain a common understanding of the HEA criteria. Three meetings,which were divided by watersheds within the Sacramento River Basin,took place on: ■ January 14,2009, in Chico,California,focusing on potential actions in the central Sacramento River Basin watersheds; • January 21,2009,in Red BIuff,California,focusing on potential actions in the northern Sacramento River Basin watersheds; and • January 28,2009,in Sacramento, California,focusing on potential actions in the southern Sacramento River Basin watersheds. In particular,the Steering Committee requested that the HEA signatories provide input on the Draft Working List of Potential Habitat Expansion Actions. The signatories to the HEA were also asked to submit information on actions to be considered for the HEP by completing an HEA comment form or questionnaire. 2.3 Outreach to Other Stakeholders The Steering Committee also contacted County Supervisors,local RCDs, and watershed groups in the Sacramento River Basin to obtain their input on potential habitat expansion actions to be considered in the draft HEP. The various ways that the Steering Committee reached out to other stakeholders are described below. ■ On March 6,2009,the Steering Committee sent a letter to stakeholders informing them about the opportunity for funding spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead restoration actions and soliciting their feedback on the development of potential habitat expansion actions for the HEP; ■ On March 10,2009,the Steering Committee posted a new page on the HEA website providing stakeholders with instructions on how to provide input on potential habitat expansion actions by completing a questionnaire; and ■ During April through September 2009,the Steering Committee contacted individual RCDs and watershed groups via personal communication,offering information on the HEA and informing the stakeholders on how to provide input on potential habitat actions. The following sections describe other outreach efforts by the Steering Committee. Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 2-4 [CFJBs 00854.08 California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 2. Outreach Activities Pacific Gas and Electric Company 2.3.1 Salmonid Restoration Federation's Spring- Run Chinook Salmon Symposium On July 10,2008,the Steering Committee gave a presentation on the HEA and participated in a panel discussion on habitat expansion opportunities for spring- run Chinook salmon at the Salmonid Restoration Federation's Spring-Run Chinook Salmon Symposium held in Nevada City, California. The presentation is available on the HEA website. 2.3.2 Agency Partnering Meeting On December 5,2008,the Steering Committee attended the I e Partnering Session ofUSF'WS,NMFS,U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(Corps),U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and DFG to make a presentation on the HEA. This meeting provided the opportunity to inform the managers of these agencies about the HEA and the progress made to date. 2.3.3 Lower Yuba River Symposium On July 7,2009,the Steering Committee attended the Lower Yuba River Symposium,which provided an update on fisheries monitoring activities being conducted by the Lower Yuba River Accord River Management Team(RMT). The Steering Committee had received questionnaires for potential actions on the lower Yuba River, and attendance at this meeting brought about a better understanding of the Lower Yuba River Accord and the monitoring being conducted on the lower Yuba River. It also gave the members of the Steering Committee the opportunity to meet with members of the RMT to discuss potential habitat expansion actions on the lower Yuba River. 2.3.4 Combined Meetings with HEA Signatories and Other Stakeholders The Steering Committee held several meetings with the HEA signatories and other stakeholders to provide them with an update on the status of the HEA process. The following is a summary of these meetings. ■ On June 15,2009,to inform thein about the updated Working List of Potential Actions that was being considered for the HEP. The Steering Committee asked the HEA signatories and other stakeholders to provide feedback on the approach for applying the HEA criteria and quantification methods. Comments were received from DFG,USFWS, and American Rivers. Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 2_5 ICFAS 00854.08 California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 2. Outreach Activities Pacific Gas and Electric Company ■ On August 12,2009,to review the revised approach for applying the HEA criteria and to present the Ranked Preliminary List of Viable Actions. The Steering Committee asked that the HEA signatories and other stakeholders provide comments on the revised approach for applying the HEA Evaluation Criteria and on the Ranked Preliminary List of Viable Actions. ■ On October 15,2009,to present the List of Viable Actions,the method for determining contribution to the HET, and the actions under consideration for the draft HEP. 2.3.5 Communication on Specific Habitat Expansion Actions The Steering Committee has been communicating through meetings, emails,and informal phone calls with HEA signatories and other stakeholders in targeted watersheds to further develop the habitat expansion actions considered in this draft HEP. The Steering Committee coordinated specifically with the following groups: in Chico State University(CSU),Chico Research Foundation, and DFG regarding rehabilitation of the Iron Canyon Fish Ladder on Big Chico Creek; in DFG and the RMT regarding potential habitat expansion actions proposed for the Lower Yuba River; • Deer Creek Watershed Conservancy regarding supplementing flows, improving fish passage, and rehabilitating floodplain habitat on Deer Creek; ■ Mill Creek Management Team(members include Mill Creek Conservancy, DFG,DWR,and Los Molinos Mutual Water Company)regarding the development of dedicated instream flows for Mill Creek;and ■ USFWS,Anadromous Fish Restoration Program(AFRP), and DFG regarding construction of a bridge at Paynes Crossing on Antelope Creek. 2.3.6 Coordination with Landowners With the submittal of the draft HEP,the Licensees will continue outreach efforts to other stakeholders. In addition,the Licensees sent a letter and copy of this plan to landowners in the vicinity of recommended actions,informing them of the HEA and the proposed restoration efforts for spring-run Chinook salmon habitat. The letter invites the landowners to comment on the draft HEP and informs them that a public meeting will be held on the actions under consideration in their area. Chapter 10 describes proposed continued outreach efforts in further detail Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 2.6 ICFAS 00854.08 Chapter 6 Lower Yuba River Habitat Expansion Actions Lower Tuba River photo credit: by Dr.Gregory Pastemack,University of California at Davis,2006. 6.1 Description of Habitat Expansion Actions 6.1 .1 Background The Yuba River historically was a major contributor of spring-run Chinook salmon to the Sacramento River system. However,like most of the major tributaries to the Sacramento River,the habitat potential of the Yuba River has been considerably diminished,by extreme geomorphic alteration resulting from hydraulic and dredge raining for gold and then by construction of dams that blocked access to major spring-run Chinook salmon spawning areas. Construction of Englebright Dam at river mile(RM)24 blocked access to most of the Yuba River system. Historically, spring-run Chinook salmon production areas were in the upper stream reaches, and spring-run Chinook salmon did not spawn in the lower river reaches that constitute the currently accessible portion of the Yuba River. In part,this was because conditions below the site of Englebright Darn historically were not conducive to production of spring-run Chinook;the river was too warm in fall. However,New Bullards Bar Dam on the North Yuba River now releases cold water through much of the summer and ,fall from its very deep reservoir. Consequently,water temperatures below EngIebright Dam are now suitable for spring-run Chinook. Currently,both fall- run and spring-run Chinook salmon spawn below Englebright Dam, although the fall-run are far more abundant. Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 6-1 3CFAS 00854.08 California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 6. Lower Yuba River Habitat Pacific Gas and Electric Company Expansion Actions The primary intent of the Lower Yuba Habitat Expansion Actions(Lower Yuba River Actions)is to provide conditions that would encourage development of an independent spring-run Chinook salmon population and provide ancillary benefits to steelhead. Development of conditions suitable for healthy populations of spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead can be expected to provide benefits to other native species. The Lower Yuba River Actions also would substantially contribute to restoration of normative riverine processes in the lower Yuba River. These normative processes have been severely impacted due to the legacy of historical hydrologic mining in the Yuba River watershed, in addition to construction of upstream dams including Englebright Dam. The Lower Yuba River Actions would address channel degradation issues and enhance aquatic habitat in the lower Yuba River, primarily for the benefit of spring-run Chinook salmon. Individual actions were proposed to the Steering Committee by the South Yuba River Citizens League(SYRCL),Friends of Deer Creek,USFWS AFRP, and DFG. Three individually proposed actions were combined in the Lower Yuba River Actions. During development of the Lower Yuba River Actions,the Licensee consulted with the RMT and DFG to refine and focus the actions. Members of the RMT have expressed their support for the actions. Their detailed evaluation of the Lower Yuba River Actions is included in Appendix G. 6.1 .2 Location Lower Yuba River Actions are on the lower Yuba River between Englebright Dam(RM 24)and the downstream extent of the Yuba Goldfields below Daguerre Point Dam(RM 12)(Figure 6-1). 6.1 .3 Purpose Lower Yuba River Actions are intended to provide the habitat conditions below Englebright Dam on the Yuba River necessary to promote development of an independent population of spring-run Chinook salmon and provide ancillary benefits to steelhead. These actions also would enhance separation of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon in the lower Yuba River by increasing the amount of habitat in the lower Yuba River with characteristics more typical of spring-run Chinook salmon than of fall-run Chinook. Achievement of these goals would meet the requirements under the HEA,including the contribution to the HET. Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 6-2 IGFJ&5 00854.08 p w r. ro- cm 0 CL W ,IG a Ik " t� 1 �'• 3 ,� rz c����r � _�1 � y � � �' � \ 1 � I � >- be ¢ 3 m J✓ n /�`�-- J to I � j `µ�'=,r�J� Ir-{r�i ..�1 {'' ` 1 41 t W i : 0 { t , J� PF Im r�J��\ `,\(r `r.Jl�Y? `•1�� o li i *r� y Ea W o � o 11 'm -� -- i y�n�IS� Ile , d �. v 1 iI ...._ Z7 SS(G09 t)H00 80'OSBOOIs�aafo,dtsa!ytl�9 Califomia Department of Water Resources and Chapter 6. Lower Yuba River Habitat Pacific Gas and Electric Company Expansion Actions 6.1,4 Recommended Actions Lower Yuba River Actions integrate three individual actions. Integration of these actions is important because the actions benefit from each other. These integrated habitat expansion actions provide greater benefits relative to the HEA criteria than any of the individual actions. The three actions include: ■ rehabilitate spawning habitat in the Englebright Dam reach of the lower Yuba River and augment gravel in lower Deer Creek(a tributary to Yuba River)(described in Section 6.4 below); ■ plan for,and if necessary,install a segregation weir at a location in the 6-mile reach between Englebright Dam and the Highway 20 Bridge (described in Section 6.5 below); and ■ restore juvenile rearing habitat between the Highway 20 Bridge and the downstream extent of the Yuba Goldfields(described in Section 6.6 below). The locations of these actions within the lower Yuba River watershed are shown in Figure 6-1. The combined actions would promote increased production of spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead by increasing the quantity and quality of spawning and rearing habitat. The HEA directs that actions should also encourage separation of spring-run and fall-run Chinook sahnon. The Licensees concluded that this goal can be achieved by increasing the amount of habitat in the lower Yuba River with characteristics more typical of spring-run Chinook salmon than fall-run Chinook. This would be accomplished by enhancing conditions in the upper,higher gradient Englebright Dam reach of the river. To prevent the potential for Tedd superimposition in this"reach, a segregation weir at Timbuctoo Bend is included as an optional action to allow for mechanical separation of the two runs. The inclusion of the segregation weir considerably enhances the value of the actions listed above relative to the HEA criteria. However, consultation with DFG and the RMT has indicated that a weir to separate spring-run and fall-run Chinook in a way that benefits spring-run Chinook salmon may not be supported at this time. Ongoing migration and genetic studies would provide information on the future value or need for the segregation weir. 6.1 .5 Sources Representatives of the following organizations were helpful in identifying and defining the Lower Yuba River Actions through completed HEA questionnaires (Appendix FI),meetings, and personal communications: USFWS,Friends of Deer Creek,YCWA,Pacific State Marine Fisheries-Commission,DFG,UC Davis(Dr. Greg Pasternack), SYRCL,and the RMT. Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 6-3 ICFAS 00854.08 California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 6. tower Yuba River Habitat Pacific Gas and Electric Company Expansion Actions 6.2 Context for Action 6.2.1 Description of the Watershed The following description of the Yuba River watershed and the lower Yuba River draws largely on descriptions by YCWA et al. (2007)and SYRCL(2009),with other sources noted. The Yuba River basin drains approximately 1,339 square miles of the western Sierra Nevada,including portions of Sierra,Placer,Yuba, and Nevada Counties. The Yuba River is a tributary of the Feather River,which is,in turn, a tributary of the Sacramento River. The primary watercourses of the upper Yuba River watershed are the South,Middle,and North Yuba Rivers, which flow into Englebright Reservoir. The average annual unimpaired flow of the Yuba River at Smartville is 2.45 million acre-feet(MAF);however,a significant portion of this water is diverted out of the watershed and is not available to the lower Yuba River. The annual unimpaired flow has ranged from a maximum of about 4.9 MAF in 1986 to a minimum of about 370 thousand acre-feet(TAF)in 1977. The lower Yuba River is approximately 24 miles long and stretches from Englebright Dam downstream to the confluence with the Feather River at Marysville. Englebright Daze is an impassable barrier to anadromous fish. The dam was constructed in 1941 to control mining debris and provide flood control. Construction of New Bullards Bar Dam, on the North Yuba River,in 1969 allowed Englebright Dam operations to switch from flood control to provision of water for hydroelectricity,irrigation, and fisheries(NMFS 2007). The short reach immediately below Englebright Dam to the Deer Creek confluence has been greatly altered by mining debris and dam operations, and is lacking gravel. Below the confluence with Deer Creek,the Narrows is a step-pool reach with significant amounts of alluvial sediment and significant rapids(Pasternack 2008). Downstream of the Narrows,the lower Yuba River consists of alternating runs, pools, and riffles. The river flows through a valley moderately confined by the Sierra foothills until it reaches Long Bar(RM 16),where it enters an alluvial valley and flows to Daguerre Point Daze(Kozlowski 2004). This dam,located approximately 12 miles downstream of Englebright Dam,was constructed in 1906 to provide flood control and to trap mining debris (Kozlowski 2004). The dam's purpose was later modified to include diversion of water for irrigation;the entire reservoir behind the daze is presently filled with hydraulic mine waste and sediments, and has no water storage capacity(NMFS 2007). Daguerre Point Dam is 25 feet tall,with fish ladders on either side that allow passage of some migratory species(Kozlowski 2004). The fish ladders have suboptimal design, and sheet flow across the dam spillway may obscure attraction to the ladder entrances,particularly during high flows(NMFS 2007). The reach from Long Bar to RM 8 is within the Yuba Goldfields and is confined by dredger tailings and low gravel bars. Below the Goldfields to the confluence with the Feather River,the river banks are frequently armored with boulder and broken concrete(Kozlowski 2004). Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 6-4 IGF,]&S 00854.08 California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 6. Lower Yuba River Habitat Pacific Gas and Electric Company Expansion Actions 6.2.2 Status of Spring-Run Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Runs 6.2.2.1 Spring-Run Chinook Salmon Little information has been published regarding the status of spring-ram Chinook salmon in the lower Yuba River. Historical numbers are likely to have been considerably higher than observed today but were probably greatly diminished by gold mining,construction of impassable dams,and water diversions(Yoshiyama et at. 2001). The following account is taken from the NMFS (2007)biological opinion provided to the Corps on the effects of operations of Englebright and Daguerre Point Dams: There is limited information on the current population size of spring-ran Chinook salmon in the lower Yuba River. Before 2001,when DFG conducted a study to quantify the number of adult spring-run Chinook salmon immigrating into the Yuba River by trapping fish in the fish ladder at Daguerre Point Dam,there was almost no specific information on the run timing and size of the population in the. Yuba River. In the 2001 DFG study,which involved limited sampling of fish ascending the north ladder,a total of 108 adult Chinook salmon were estimated to have passed the dam between the dam between March 1,2001,and July 31,2001 (DFG 2002c). Spawning and carcass surveys conducted by DFG and private consultants funded by the YCWA have likewise detected the persistence of spring-run Chinook salmon in the Yuba River,although none of these reports provided estimates specifically for spring-run Chinook salmon. Infrared and videographic sampling on both Iadders.at Daguerre Point Dam since 2003 has provided more robust estimates of spring-run Chinook salmon numbers migrating into the Yuba River. However,these estimates should be considered as minimum numbers,as periodic problems with the sampling equipment have caused periods when fish ascending the ladders were not counted. In years when these sorts of gaps in data occurred during the spring-run migration period,it is likely that some migrating adults were not counted,and the true numbers may be higher than those reported below(DFG unpublished data)...The detection of adipose fan clips on some of these fish indicates that they were hatchery strays,most likely from the Feather River Hatchery. The short time period in which this device has been in operation,coupled with the three to four year life cycle of these fish make it difficult to determine decisive trends in the spring run population. While the recent data from 2006 and 2007 indicates a reduction in total abundance,passage in May(the primary spring-run migration month)of 2007,was the highest detected in that month since the device was installed. In general,the current data indicate that adult escapement of spring-rura Chinook salmon is relatively low and fluctuating,and has been greatly reduced from estimated historic levels. The recent total abundance of adult spring-run Chinook salmon in the lower Yuba River ranged from 214 in 2006 to 1,250 in 2003,based on the infrared and videographic sampling described by NMFS (2007). Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 6-5 ICFJ&S 00854.08 ! I California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 6. Lower Yuba River Habitat Pacific Gas and Electric Company Expansion Actions 6.2.2.2 Steelhead As with spring-run Chinook salmon,there is little information on the status of steelhead in the lower Yuba River. The historical population size was likely to have been considerably greater than recent abundance estimates. The following account is by NMFS (2007): DFG estimated a spawning population of only about 200 fish annually prior to 1969. During the 1970s,DFG annually stocked hatchery steelhead from Coleman National Fish Hatchery into the lower Yuba River,and by 1975 estimated a run size of about 2000 fish(DFG 1991). DFG stopped stocking steelhead in the lower Yuba River in 1979,and currently manages the river to protect natural steelhead through strict"catch-and-release"fishing regulations. Infrared and videographic sampling on both ladders at Daguerre Point Dam since 2003 has provided estimates of steelhead numbers migrating up the Yuba River. However,these estimates should be considered as minimum numbers,as periodic problems with the sampling equipment have caused periods when fish ascending the ladders were not counted. The total abundance of adult steelhead estimated to have passed Daguerre Point Darn from 2003 to 2007 ranged from 150 fish in 2006 to 762 fish in 2004 (NWS 2007). 6.2.3 Limiting Factors The primary factors identified as constraints to establishing a viable,independent spring-run Chinook salmon population in the lower Yuba River include: ■ lack of suitable spawning habitat in the Englebright Dam reach(Englebright Dam to Deer Creek), ■ lack of spatial or temporal segregation of spawning spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon, ■ straying of hatchery fish to the lower Yuba River, ■ fish passage impediments at Daguerre Point Dam, and ■ lack of habitat complexity and diversity in the Yuba Goldfields area below the Highway 20 Bridge. These factors are discussed below. 6.2.3.1 Lack of Suitable Spawning Habitat Seasonal flows,water temperatures, and channel characteristics in the lower Yuba River between Englebright Dam and Daguerre Point Dam are generally suitable for holding, spawning,and rearing of spring-run Chinook salmon based Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 6-6 ICFJ&S 00854.08 California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 6. Lower Yuba River Habitat Pack Gas and Electric Company Expansion Actions on their known life history and habitat requirements. The suitability of the river for summer holding(June through September) and late summer-early fall spawning(August through October)generally increases in an upstream direction, with the highest quality habitat in the reach between the Narrows (RM 22) and the Highway 20 Bridge(RM 18). This reach is characterized by a series of deep, bedrock-formed pools and large spawning riffles that currently support high densities of fall-run Chinook spawners. Water temperatures in this reach typically reach suitable levels for spawning by early to late September. Spawning by the majority of fall-run and virtually all spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead in the lower Yuba River occurs between Daguerre Point Dam and the Narrows. Early-arriving adults(i.e.,phenotypic spring-run)tend to spawn farther upstream than later arrivals (i.e.,phenotypic fall-run). Little spawning habitat now exists in the 2-mile reach extending from the Narrows canyon upstream to Englebright Dam because of its steep gradient,lack of sediment supply, and armoring by rock debris(Pasternack 2008). This reach has received considerable attention for spawning habitat rehabilitation specifically aimed at spring-run Chinook salmon because of the presence of high-quality holding habitat,favorable summer water temperatures,and distance from the primary fall-run spawning areas farther downstream. Although water temperatures in this reach are believed to be most suitable for spring-run holding, spawning,and egg incubation,the lack of suitable spawning substrate currently limits spawning success. Spring-run Chinook salmon are known to hold in this reach and attempt to spawn despite the lack of suitable spawning habitat(NWS 2007). 6.2.3.2 Lack of Temporal or Spatial Segregation of Spawning Spring-Run and Fall-Run Englebright Dam is a complete migration barrier to anadromous fish,precluding migration of Chinook to historical holding and spawning upstream of the dam. Consequently,both fall-run and spring-run Chinook salmon are restricted to areas below the dam. Because the two runs spawn at similar times and potentially interbreed,genetic swamping of the relatively smaller numbers of spring-run Chinook salmon by more abundant fall-run fish could occur,to the detriment of the spring-run. Competition for spawning sites or destruction of spring-run redds by later-spawning fall-run fish may also occur in areas of limited spawning habitat. Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan B-7 ICFAS 00854.08 California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 6. Lower Yuba River Habitat Pacific Gas and Electric Company Expansion Actions 6.2.3.3 Straying of Hatchery Fish Straying of hatchery fish to the lower Yuba River represents another potential constraint to establishing a productive,locally adapted stock of spring-run Chinook salmon in the lower Yuba River. Given the proximity of the Feather River Hatchery and current planting practices, it is likely that hatchery strays make up a significant fraction of the spring-run fish that occur in the Yuba River. The potential risk posed by these fish to establishing a Yuba River spring-run stock is heightened by the uncertain genetics of Feather River Hatchery fish (Hedgecock et al.2001). 6.2.3.4 Fish Passage Impediments Daguerre Point Dain is recognized as an impediment to upstream migration of adult salmon and steelhead under certain flow conditions. Adult passage through the existing fish ladders is severely impaired during high flows(>2,000 cfs)that commonly occur during the spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead upstream migration periods(NMFS 2007,ENTRIX and Monroe 2002). Factors contributing to reduced passage success include inadequate attraction flows, proximity and orientation of the ladder entrances to the spillway,periodic obstruction of the ladders by sediment and woody debris,and operating criteria that require closure of the ladders at high flows(NMFS 2007). Under these conditions, adult salmon and steelhead are subject to delay and injury as they attempt to ascend the dam face,potentially leading to reduced disease resistance, increased pre-spawning mortality,and reduced egg viability. Adult spring-run Chinook salmon are particularly sensitive to such delays because of their need to conserve energy for summer holding and maturation, and they need to reach suitable holding areas before downstream water temperatures reach harmful levels. Daguerre Point Dam may also adversely affect juvenile salmon and steelhead outmigration success. During downstream migration,juvenile salmon and steelhead may be disoriented or injured as they plunge over the spillway, increasing their exposure and vulnerability to predators in the large pool at the base of the dam. 6.2.3.5 Lack of Habitat Complexity Historical gold mining activities in the Yuba River watershed dramatically reduced the diversity and complexity of riverine,floodplain, and riparian habitats in the lower Yuba River. Within the Goldfields reach(RM 8--15),confinement of the river by massive deposits of cobble and gravel derived from hydraulic and dredge mining activities resulted in a relatively simple river corridordominated by a single main channel and large cobble-dominated bars,with little riparian and floodplain habitat. Englebright.Dam has contributed to reductions in habitat complexity and diversity by preventing the transport of sediment,woody material, and nutrients from upstream sources to the lower river. Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 6-8 ICFJ&S 00854.08 California Department of Water Resou roes and Chapter 6. Lower Yuba River Habitat Pacific Gas and Electric Company Expansion Actions Low habitat complexity and diversity has been identified as a limiting factor for salmon and steelhead production in the lower Yuba River,primarily through its effect on juvenile rearing success (Lower Yuba River Fisheries Technical Group 2005). Loss of oil channel habitats such as floodplains,riparian, and wetland habitats has substantially reduced the productive capacity of the Central Valley for many native fish and wildlife species,and there is growing evidence that such habitats were once of major importance for the growth and survival of juvenile salmon(Moyle 2002). Recent observations on the lower Yuba River indicate that remnant side channels and associated riparian vegetation play a similar role by providing flood refugia,protection from predators, and abundant food for young salmonids and other native fishes. These habitats also promote extended rearing and expression of the stream-type rearing characteristic of spring-run Chinook salmon. 6.3 Contribution to the HET The potential contribution of Lower Yuba River Actions to the HET was evaluated using the HET contribution procedure. Refer to Appendix E for a summary of the HET contribution that was determined for the Lower Yuba River Actions. The procedure focused on the contribution of actions in the Englebright Dam reach of the river. This includes actions to rehabilitate spawning habitat in the reach and to augment gravel in the lower portion of Deer Creek,a tributary to the Yuba River, at the downstream end of the reach. The Lower Yuba River Actions also include an action to restore side-channel habitat for juveniles in the Yuba Goldfields area about 6 miles below the Narrows. In the evaluation,restoration of floodplain and side-channel habitat below the Narrows was assessed as an increase in spring-run Chinook salmon restoration potential and an increase in the benefits provided by the actions in the Englebright Dam reach and lower Deer Creek. The possible value of a segregation weir was assessed as a projected conversion of benefits from total Chinook(spring-run and fall run)to benefits only for spring-run Chinook. Applying the HET contribution procedure to these actions indicate that the recommended actions in the lower Yuba River would achieve the HET (Table 6-1). The bulk of that benefit would derive from spawning habitat rehabilitation in the Englebright Dam reach. The Lower Yuba River Actions collectively would contribute approximately 3,450 spring-run Chinook salmon to the HET. Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan g-g ICFJ&S 00854.08 California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 6. Lower Yuba River Habitat Pacific Gas and Electric Company Expansion Actions Table 6-1. Contribution of Actions in the Lower Yuba River to the Habitat Expansion Threshold Spring-Run Action Chinook Salmon' Spawning habitat rehabilitation 2,523 Deer Creels gravel augmentation 70 Segregation weir 735 Juvenile rearing habitat restoration 130 Total contribution to the HET 3,459 Values reflect the number of adult fish supported by habitat expansion. The estimated contribution of an action to the HET represents an index of the increase in quality and quantity of habitat for spring-run Chinook salmon. Actual results of the actions could differ due to a variety of factors. 6.4 Spawning Habitat Rehabilitation 6.4.1 Description This recommended action involves the following components to restore and expand spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead spawning habitat in the Englebright Dam reach of the Yuba River(RM 23-24)and in the lower portion of Deer Creek,a tributary to the Yuba River: ■ removal of shot rock from Sinoro Bar at the lower end of the Englebright Dam reach, ■ placement of gravel at Sinoro Bar as replacement for the removed shot rock, and • placement of gravel in lower Deer Creek. These components are consistent with recommendations of Dr. Greg Pasternack, based on an analysis of historical channel conditions in this reach(Pasternack 2008,2009). Historically,gravel bars suitable for spawning were present in what is known as the Englebright Dam reach;however,spawning habitat is now severely limited due to a lack of gravel. Rehabilitation of spawning habitat in the Englebright Dam reach would benefit spring-run Chinook salmon in particular, as spring-run are known to hold and attempt to spawn in this reach despite the lack of suitable spawning habitat. Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 6-10 ICFAS 00854.08 California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 6. Lower Yuba River Habitat Pacific Gas and Electric Company Expansion Actions 6.4.1.1 Shot Rock Removal Shot rock is irregularly shaped(angular)rock blasted from surrounding canyon slopes. In the Englebright Dam reach, it originated from rock excavation during construction of Englebright Dam and hillside scouring during major floods. The largest of the three shot rock deposits in this reach is at Sinoro Bar,which is located on the north bank of the Yuba River above Deer Creek(Figure 6-2). This deposit is a mixture of angular gravel, cobble,and boulders. Pasternack(2009)applied a digital elevation model to determine the spatial pattern of fill depth and total volume of sediment stored in Sinoro Bar. The model yielded an estimated total volume of sediment of 1.28,940 cubic meters (m3)and a fill depth range of 0-12.1 meters(m). This estimate was assumed to be the maximum volume of shot rock deposited at Sinoro Bar;the actual volume could be substantially less. The shot rock would be removed in a stepwise manner. A pilot program would be initiated to remove the shot rock on the surface of the bar in order to determine the underlying materials. Digging and removal of shot rock would continue until the full extent of shot rock had been removed. The bulk of the shot rock would be removed from the site. However, some of the shot rock would be used to fill holes in the stream channel created by mining operations, and some would be incorporated into the final design of the spawning beds to be created during the gravel placement phase. 6.4.1.2 Gravel Placement To create spawning habitat on Sinoro Bar,clean gravel of suitable spawning size would be placed in areas where shot rock had been removed,and the bar would be modified as needed. Pasternack(2009)estimates that approximately 100,000 m3 of gravel would be needed for the initial gravel placement(roughly two-thirds the volume of Sinoro Bar itself). Modification of the resulting bar would include placement of shot rock and contouring of the gravel to maximize the stability of the bar and the sustainability of the spawning habitat. Additionally,gravel placement and resulting spawning habitat rehabilitation would be extended from the lower end of Sinoro Bar across the Yuba River to the mouth of Deer Creek. Newly created spawning habitat at the mouth of Deer Creek would be supplemented by the Deer Creek gravel augmentation program described below. Long-term sustainability of the spawning habitat would be accomplished through a long-term gravel augmentation program that the Corps is required to perform. Under two biological opinions issued by NMFS,the Corps is required to develop and implement a long-term gravel augmentation program in the Yuba River below Englebright Dam(NMFS 2002,2007). In November 2007, a pilot gravel injection project was initiated by the Corps,with 450 metric tons of spawning- Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 6-11 ICFAS 00854.08 California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 6. Lower Yuba River Habitat Pacific Gas and Electric Company Expansion Actions sized gravel placed at the base of Englebright Dam. Monitoring and evaluation of this gravel injection project is currently underway. 6.4.1.3 Gravel Augmentation in Deer Creek Placement of gravel in the lower portion of Deer Creek would help rehabilitate spawning habitat in both Deer Creek and the Yuba River at the mouth of Deer Creek. However, a comprehensive gravel augmentation program cannot be undertaken in Deer Creek until additional investigations of flow and channel conditions are conducted. Thus,this component also would be implemented in a stepwise manner. A pilot program would be initiated to inject approximately 500 tons of suitable spawning gravel in Deer Creek at the Mooney Flat Road crossing. The success of the pilot program would be determined based on the creation of suitable spawning habitat in lower Deer Creek and contribution to spawning habitat in the Yuba River at the mouth of Deer Creek. Assuming that the results of the evaluation were positive, gravel would be injected at the 500-ton level annually for 3 years following the initial injection. According to the questionnaire submitted for this action by Friends of Deer Creek,the Lake Wildwood Association would provide maintenance over the long term following the 3-year period. 6.4.2 Objectives and Benefits The spawning habitat rehabilitation action of the Lower Yuba River Actions would address the substrate changes that have developed from construction and operation of Englebright Dam. Historically,spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead migrated far beyond the existing dam site and spawned in higher elevation reaches of the watershed. With Englebright Dam acting as a complete barrier to upstream migration, salmon and steelhead are now limited to spawning in the lower river below the dam. The existing spawning habitat has been altered by scouring of gravel beds downstream of the dam,blockage of downstream movement of source gravel at the dam,and deposition of shot rock at three primary locations within the Englebright Dam reach. This has resulted in a virtual lack of suitable spawning habitat in this reach. The lack of suitable spawning gravel in the Englebright Dam reach is a critical limiting factor for spring-run Chinook salmon in the lower Yuba River. The primary objective of the spawning habitat rehabilitation action is to address this limiting factor by creating suitable spawning areas in the Yuba River at Sinoro Bar and at the Deer Creek confluence. Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 6-42 ICFJ&5 00854.08 Zi 74,AF 3 0 "� Extremely coarse and thin veneer �1 F b 1&• .. Fy rI,'Y, i „rev-+„� Angular cobble bar impacting gaging station 5 -} ,�' ' ��,•, -,. a�����#�+x 4 X ° 'y''.9;� �,rte `SRA.Z ' �: ,�i ,�'° `�a}�,�, 4� f e, C,• '�,x� of arq ...ny A.4. � rf„ ' OW y° Mixture of angular gravel,cobbles,and boulder .40 primarly deposited in 1997 flood ,V Note: Sinoro Bar,Area 3,is the proposed site for spawning habitat rehabilitation Source:Adapted from Pasternack 2008 1CF1�— Figure 6-2 SOtnoekse`s Yuba River Shot Rock Deposits .n fO 1n1ema4oNl[ompa rc, California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 6. Lower Yuba River Habitat Pacific Gas and E=lectric Company Expansion Actions 6.4.3 Contribution to the HET Assuming a 25%spawning overlap for spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon in the lower Yuba River,the spawning habitat rehabilitation action was estimated to provide habitat for approximately 2,600 spring-run Chinook salmon,without inclusion of a segregation weir or juvenile habitat restoration(these components of the Lower Yuba River Actions are discussed in Sections 5.4 and 5.5, respectively). Refer to Appendix E for a summary of the HET contribution that was determined for the spawning habitat rehabilitation action associated with the Lower Yuba River Actions. 6.4.4 Estimated Cost 6.4.4.1 Capital Cost The pre-feasibility-level capital cost estimate for the spawning habitat rehabilitation component is approximately$10.5 million. 6.4.4.2 Operations and Maintenance Annual O&M costs would not be required by the Licensees for this action. After the shot rock removal and gravel placement are implemented on the Yuba River, the Corps would be responsible for a long-term gravel injection program to maintain the spawning habitat created under this action. Costs for gravel augmentation on Deer Creek,(1 year pilot and 3 years of maintenance) are included in the estimated capital costs. Any recommended gravel augmentation on Deer Creek beyond the 4 years identified under this action was assumed to be carried out by Lake Wildwood Association or other parties. 6.4.4.3 Funding Partners Currently,no funding partners have been identified for the capital portion of the spawning habitat rehabilitation component. Long-term maintenance would be provided by the Corps for the Englebright Reach and Lake Wildwood Association for Deer Creek. Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 6-13 ICFJ85 00854.08 California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 6. Lower Yuba River Habitat Pacific Gas and Electric Company Expansion Actions 6.4.5 Implementation Schedule Design and permitting work for spawning habitat rehabilitation could be initiated as soon as approval is received on the HEP and the Licensees receive FERC licenses for their respective hydroelectric projects. The design and permitting phase of this action is assumed to require from 1 to 2 years. Shot rock removal and gravel placement in the Yuba River would be completed over a single summer/fall season. It is assumed that heavy equipment would need to be driven down a road on the south side of the river and then across the river to Sinoro Bar on the north bank. The actual timing of this work would depend on the magnitude of flow releases below Englebright Dam and requirements established under a DFG Streambed Alteration Agreement. The initial gravel injection in Deer Creek(pilot program)would be conducted during the same summer/fall season as the work at Sinoro Bar. Any additional gravel injections would be completed in subsequent years during the summer/fall season. 6.4.6 Implementation Responsibilities of Licensees As soon as NMFS approves the final HEP,the Licensees would prepare a Preliminary Design Report for the spawning habitat rehabilitation action. When the Licensees accept each of the new FERC licenses for the Oroville,Poe, and Upper North Fork Feather River Projects,the Licensees would begin the final design and permitting phase. Rehabilitation of the spawning habitat would include removal of shot rock from Sinoro Bar at the lower end of the Englebright Dam Reach; gravel augmentation as replacement for the removed shot rock; initial placement of gravel in lower Deer Creek,tributary to the lower Yuba River; and gravel augmentation in lower Deer Creek for an additional 3 years. Further project details would be developed through field testing, agency discussions,and additional geomorphologic modeling by Dr. Greg Pasternak as needed. This action would be coordinated as much possible for logistical efficiencies with the juvenile rearing habitat action. Each Licensee would be responsible for one- half of the total costs of this action. The Licensees would consult with landowners and other stakeholders throughout the planning and implementation phases and would jointly hire contractors to complete the work. The Licensees would not provide long-term gravel augmentation below Englebright Dam once the initial spawning habitat is restored, as the Englebright Dam and Daguerre Point Dam biological opinions specify long-term gravel augmentation as the responsibility of the Corps(NMFS 2002,2007). Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 6-14 ICFJ&S 00854.08 California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 6. Lower Yuba River Habitat Pacific Gas and Electric Company Expansion Actions 6.4.7 Rationale for Selection Appendix C4 presents the scoring results when the HEA Evaluation Criteria were applied to the Lower Yuba River Actions, and Appendix C5 presents the scoring results when the HEA Selection Criteria were applied to the combined actions. The spawning habitat rehabilitation action would meet the HET by providing habitat for approximately 2,550 spring-run Chinook salmon. Currently,both spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon spawn in the lower Yuba River. Early- arriving adults(i.e.,phenotypic spring-run)tend to spawn farther upstream than later arrivals(i.e.,phenotypic fall-run). Due to low numbers of spawning fish and the occurrence of some natural segregation between these runs, only a small amount of spawning overlap is considered to be occurring. Even assuming as much as a 25% spawning overlap between spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon,the estimated contribution of the spawning habitat rehabilitation component for spring-run salmon by itself(i.e.,without either a segregation weir or juvenile habitat restoration)would achieve the HET. The spawning habitat rehabilitation action would support establishing a separate, self-sustaining(i.e., independent)population of spring-run Chinook salmon. Currently,the phenotypic spring-run fish in the lower Yuba River are not recognized as an independent population due to low numbers of spawning fish and questions of genetic integrity. Providing a substantial amount of suitable spawning habitat in the upper portion of the lower river(i.e.,the Englebright Dam reach),where little spawning habitat currently exists and where spring-run are known to attempt to spawn,would contribute to establishing an independent spring-run Chinook salmon population by increasing abundance and productivity. Additionally,creation of spawning habitat in the Englebright Dam reach would allow spring-run salmon to spatially separate from fall-run salmon, which tend to spawn farther downstream. The addition of a segregation weir would further contribute to establishing an independent population of spring-run Chinook salmon. The spawning habitat rehabilitation action is cost effective and feasible, can be accomplished in a reasonable period of time,and has broad local and political support. The combination of its estimated total cost of$10.5 million and a contribution of approximately 2,550 adult spring-run Chinook salmon makes it one of the more cost-effective actions considered. Creation of spawning beds through restoration of the stream channel and focused injection of suitable spawning gravel is a proven technology and has been shown to be highly successful. Because much work related to this action has already been accomplished(i.e.,identification of treatment location and magnitude) (Pasternack 2008,2009),it is ready for the design and permitting phase. Once this phase is accomplished,the action could be implemented in less than 1 year, and benefits to spring-run Chinook salmon could be realized during the following spawning season. Finally,members of the RMT support the Lower Yuba River Actions,as documented in Appendix G. Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 6-15 ICFAS 00654.08 California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 6.'Lower Yuba River Habitat Pacific Gas and Electric Company Expansion Actions 6.4.8 Other Issues During development of the spawning habitat rehabilitation action,three potential issues were identified: eligibility under Section 3.2 of the HEA,local support, and permitting requirements for instream work. Each of these issues is discussed below. 6.4.8.1 Eligibility The issue of eligibility relates to the Corps'responsibility for performing a gravel augmentation program in the lower Yuba River, as required by two biological opinions issued by NMFS for the Corps' operation of Englebright Dam and Daguerre Point Dam(NMFS 2002,2007). Specifically,the most recent of these biological opinions contains, as one of its Reasonable and Prudent Measures,the following: 1. The Corps shall develop and implement a long-term gravel augmentation program to restore quality spawning habitat below Englebright Dam. A) The Corps shall utilize information obtainedfrom the pilot gravel injection project to develop and commence implementation of a long-term gravel augmentation program within three years of the issuance of this biological opinion. The Corps initiated a pilot gravel injection project in November 2007,with placement of 450 metric tons of spawning-sized gravel at the base of Englebright Dam. Monitoring and evaluation of this gravel injection project are currently underway. Under the HEA,the Licensees are proposing to implement a spawning habitat rehabilitation program. This program is much broader in scope than a gravel augmentation program,which is the responsibility of the Corps. Wheaton, Pasternack, and Merz(2004)define and contrast spawning habitat rehabilitation and gravel augmentation. They define spawning habitat rehabilitation as being segregated into three categories: gravel augmentation,hydraulic structure placement,and spawning bed enhancement. The spawning habitat rehabilitation action proposed by the Licensees includes activities within all three of these categories to create the basis for sustainable spawning habitat in the Englebright Dam reach. In contrast,the Corps'responsibility is simply for gravel augmentation(i.e.,long-term gravel:injection similar to the pilot project initiated by the Corps in 2007). Ultimately,the Corps' gravel augmentation program would provide long-term sustainability for the spawning habitat created by the Licensees under the HEA. Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 6-16 ICFJ85 00854.48 California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 6. tower Yuba River Habitat Pacific Gas and Electric Company Expansion Actions 6.4.8.2 Local Support The Licensees would need to engage local landowners to obtain permission for accessing the stream channel in order to conduct the spawning habitat rehabilitation work. This is particularly pertinent for accessing Sinoro Bar on the . Yuba River. It is likely that access would be required for heavy equipment by way of a road located on private land holdings on the south side of the river. The Licensees plan to contact these landowners and other stakeholders through the HEA outreach program. 6.4.8.3 Permitting Requirements for Instream Work Several permits would be required to conduct the spawning habitat rehabilitation work. An issue of particular note is the timing of instream work at Sinoro Bar. Assuming that heavy equipment would be moved down to the south side of the river,it would need to be moved across the river to reach Sinoro Bar on the north bank. Due to high streamflow conditions below Englebright Dam during most of the year,as required by the Yuba River Accord,the window of opportunity for moving the equipment across the river likely would be limited to the late summer/fall period. This period would at least partially overlap with the spawning period for both spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. Thus,the potential sensitivity to conducting the instream work would need to be addressed. 6.5 Segregation Weir 6.5.1 Description The HEA directs that actions are to benefit spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead, and should encourage the separation of fall-run and spring-run Chinook. During years with high escapement,superimposition and competition for appropriate spawning habitat with fall-run Chinook salmon can be a limiting factor for spring-run Chinook salmon. For this reason,the Lower Yuba River Actions include an adaptive management action to construct and operate a segregation weir at Timbuctoo Bend that would allow for mechanical separation of the two runs,if deemed necessary in the future. Although this action does not independently expand available habitat,inclusion of the action could considerably enhance the value of the other Lower Yuba River Actions relative to the HEA criteria. The seasonal segregation weir would be used to provide exclusive access for spring-run Chinook salmon to the uppermost holding and spawning habitat on the lower Yuba River between Englebright Dam(RM 24)and the Highway 20 Bridge (RM 18). This reach contains the highest quality spring-run salmon holding and spawning habitat in the lower Yuba River based on the frequency of large, deep pools;proximity to spawning habitat; and favorable summer water Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 6-17 ICFAS 00$54.98 California Department of Water Resources and Chapter B. Lower Yuba River Habitat Pacific Gas and Electric Company Expansion Actions temperatures. The weir would be operated(or removed)to permit passage of Chinook salmon during the primary spring-run Chinook salmon migration period and operated(or installed)to prevent passage of Chinook salmon during the primary fall-run Chinook migration period. Passage of steelhead migrating during the latter period would need to be addressed in the design and construction and/or operation of the weir. The location, seasonal operation, and design of the weir would need to be determined based on migration timing, channel and flow characteristics, and habitat needs(i.e.,the amount of habitat needed to establish a viable spring-run Chinook salmon population). Preliminary acoustic tagging studies have indicated that some portion of spring-run Chinook salmon may hold downstream of Daguerre Point Dam until early fall(RMT pers. comm.). Based on this preliminary information,it is unclear what proportion of spring-run salmon hold below the data; consequently,this issue would require further investigation to determine appropriate timing of operation. Another major consideration would be the ability of the weir to operate effectively over the range of flows anticipated during the primary fall-run Chinook migration period(July through December). This suggests possible use of a resistance board weir. These weirs rely on a cable anchored to the substrate at the upstream end of the weir site. Panels with some form of floatation on one end and a shackle on the other are then secured to this cable. This arrangement provides an impassable barrier to anadromous salmonids,while allowing boats and debris to depress the weir and pass over the top(Stewart 2003). In periods of extremely high flow,this type of weir is designed to lie along the bottom due to the increased force of the water. Resistance board weirs have been used extensively in Alaska and on the Stanislaus River in California(Anderson et al. 2007)to provide segregation. Board weirs can also accommodate video monitoring to estimate abundance, another element that could be incorporated into this action,if needed. 6.5.2 Objectives and Benefits . The objective of the segregation weir option is to provide a mechanical means of spatially segregating spring-run Chinook salmon from fall-run Chinook salmon. Both runs have been confined to the lower reaches of the Yuba River since construction of Englebright Dam in 1941 (DFG 1991). Spring-run Chinook salmon are unable to migrate beyond this barrier into the higher elevation reaches they historically occupied and are therefore unable to naturally segregate themselves from fall-run Chinook salmon. This spawning overlap threatens the spring-run population in a variety of ways,including destruction of redds due to superimposition, competition for spawning grounds limiting the usable habitat for spring-run salmon,and introgression causing the loss of a genetically distinct spring-run Chinook salmon. Installation of a segregation weir addresses all three of these issues. By using the weir to exclude fall-run Chinook salmon from the habitat being utilized by Habitat Expansion Agreement November2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan g-tg ICFAS 00854.48 California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 6. Lower Yuba River Habitat Pacific Gas and Electric Company Expansion Actions spring-run Chinook salmon,superimposition of fall-run redds upon the earlier constructed spring-run redds would be minimized. Similarly, competition for spawning habitat would be minimized by removing fall-run Chinook salmon from specific reaches designated as spring-run Chinook salmon habitat. Genetic introgression is one of the largest issues associated with the limitations imposed upon spring-run Chinook salmon by large dams. Spawning overlap contributes hybridization between fall-run and spring-run Chinook salmon,thereby compromising genetic distinctions between the two runs. Additionally, strays from the Feather River Hatchery potentially compromise the Yuba River spring- run Chinook salmon genetics(Reedy pens. comm.). By installing a segregation weir and preserving the spring-run Chinook salmon phenotype,it is likely that the spring-run genotype would also be preserved. Waples et al. (2004)suggest a coarse estimate that,in most basins(including the Sacramento River basin),the spring-ran genotype may have evolved in a period as short as 80-100 years. Given the current phenotypic spring-run Chinook salmon stock present in the lower Yuba River,it is likely that restoration and conservation of spring-run Chinook salmon genetics could be realized in a considerably shorter period following spatial segregation. 6.5.3 Contribution to the HET Currently,the fall-run and spring-run Chinook salmon populations in the lower Yuba River are at sufficiently low numbers that spawning overlap is not considered a limiting factor. In years when escapement is high,however, spawning overlap could threaten the spring-run population. Additionally,the timing of operation of the weir is dependent on further investigations into the holding behaviors of spring-run Chinook salmon in the lower Yuba River(e.g., acoustic tagging). Applying the HET contribution procedure,the segregation weir associated with the Lower Yuba River Actions has the potential to contribute habitat for approximately 750 spring-run Chinook salmon, specifically (rather than habitat for both fall-run and spring-run Chinook salmon). Because this action is being considered as a future adaptive management tool, it is not possible to predict the increase in contribution to the HET at the time of its implementation. The increase would be calculated if it is determined that the segregation weir should be incorporated into the Lower Yuba River Actions. Refer to Appendix E for a summary of the HET contribution that was determined for the segregation weir associated with the Lower Yuba River Actions, Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 6-19 ICFAS 00854.08 Califomia Department of Water Resources and Chapter 6. Lower Yuba River Habitat Pacific Gas and Electric Company Expansion Actions 6.5.4 Estimated Cost 6.5.4.1 Capital Cost The pre-feasibility capital cost estimate for installing a resistance board weir to segregate spring-run Chinook salmon from fall-run Chinook salmon,including permitting,design, and construction,is approximately$300,000. 6.5.4.2 Operations and Maintenance Pre-feasibility cost estimates for O&M include annual installation and removal of the weir,and repairs as necessary. Annual O&M costs are estimated at approximately$52,000. Over the course of a 50-year license, O&M costs are conservatively estimated to be$2.6 million. This amount is likely an overestimate because installation of the segregation weir would be dependent on necessity and spring-run holding behavior. 6.5.4.3 Funding Partners Currently,no funding partners have been identified for the segregation weir element of the Lower Yuba River Actions. 6.5.5 Implementation Schedule Implementation of the segregation weir would occur following the spawning habitat rehabilitation upstream. In addition to consideration of the spawning habitat rehabilitation,installation would depend on necessity. With local stakeholder and agency support,implementation would likely be possible in less than 1 year following the decision to proceed. However,this action would be adaptively managed and would be implemented only if spawning overlap was determined to be a major limiting factor within the upper reaches of the lower Yuba River and if the weir was supported by the resource agencies. 6.5.6 Implementation Responsibilities of Licensees As soon as NWS approves the final HEP,the Licensees would prepare a Preliminary Design Report for implementation of the segregation weir. When the Licensees accept each of the new FERC licenses for the Oroville,Poe, and Upper North Fork Feather River Projects,the Licensees may begin the final design and permitting phase for implementation of the segregation weir, Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 6-20 ICFJ&5 00854.08 California Department of Water Resources and Chapter B. Lower Yuba River Habitat Pacific Gas and Electric Company Expansion Actions assuming that consensus exists that the weir is needed to provide separation of spring-run Chinook salmon from fall-run Chinook salmon. Each Licensee would be responsible for one-half of the capital costs,including permitting,design,and construction of the weir, and one-half of the O&M costs, including annual installation and removal and necessary repairs. It is possible that the Licensees could provide funding for DFG or another party for the long- term operation and maintenance of the structure. The Licensees would consult with other stakeholders throughout the planning and implementation phases. 6.5.7 Rationale for Selection Appendix C4 presents the scoring results when the HEA Evaluation Criteria were applied to the Lower Yuba River Actions, and Appendix C5 presents the scoring results when the HEA Selection Criteria were applied to the Lower Yuba River Actions. The decision to include this element in the Lower Yuba River Actions as an adaptive measure is due to the potentially significant increase in benefits by using a segregation weir in concert with the other suite of actions in the lower Yuba River. As an independent action,the feasibility of segregation weirs has been proven and time to implement the action would likely be rapid because of the limited impacts and construction required. When spawning overlap is likely to be problematic due to high escapement,installation of the segregation weir would increase the degree to which the other elements of the Lower Yuba River Actions fulfill the HEA Evaluation and Selection Criteria,particularly favorable spatial separation to maintain genetic diversity and contribution to the HET. Regarding the contribution to the HET,if high escapement was leading to considerable spawning overlap,installing a segregation weir could increase the contribution to the HET by several hundred fish. A corollary advantage to installation of a segregation weir includes the ability to use the segregated spring-run as stock for reintroduction to the upper Yuba River. 6.5.5 Other Issues . Two primary issues are associated with installation of a segregation weir on the lower Yuba River. These concerns related to potential adverse effects on spring- run Chinook salmon and adverse effects on fall-run Chinook salmon. Preliminary results indicate that at least some phenotypic spring-run Chinook salmon hold in the pool immediately downstream of Daguerre Point Dam. The proportion of spring-run holding downstream is still unclear. A primary concern related to installing a segregation weir is unintentional exclusion of spring-run Chinook salmon from the habitat above the weir. This could result from spring- Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 6-21 [CFAS 00854.08 California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 6. Lower Yuba River Habitat Pacific Gas and Electric Company Expansion Actions run Chinook salmon migrating late during the typical fall-run Chinook salmon migration period. The other concern is that the segregation weir could negatively affect fall-run Chinook or steelhead by decreasing the available spawning area. Therefore,if the weir is determined to be necessary,it is essential that installation timing and operations minimize potential negative impacts on spring-run Chinook salmon holding downstream,as well as fall-run Chinook salmon and steelhead. . 6.6 Juvenile Rearing Habitat Restoration 6.6.1 Description The juvenile rearing habitat restoration action addresses historical reductions in off-channel rearing and riparian habitat that currently limit production and life history variability of juvenile spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead in the lower Yuba River. SYRCL recently prepared a proposal that focuses initially on planning and design for restoration of off-channel rearing habitat in the 3-mile reach below the Highway 20 Bridge. This is considered a key reach for restoration because of its proximity to the primary spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead spawning reaches, favorable rearing temperatures, and limited extent of off channel habitat. Long-term habitat restoration goals are aimed at the reach throughout the Yuba Goldfields. The action would complement a current AERP-funded pilot restoration project and a 1$0-acre conservation easement on land in the Yuba Goldfields owned by Western Aggregates. The general targets identified by SYRCL for the initial phase of the action are restoration of 5 acres of backwater or side-channel habitat and restoration of 50 acres of functional floodplain with enhanced riparian habitat. The proposed juvenile rearing habitat restoration action would involve construction of side-channel habitat, enhancement of an existing backwater connected to the mainstream Yuba River,and placement of in-channel structures to provide variability in flow characteristics and to create hydraulic controls for maintenance of side-channel structure and function. Construction of side channels would be achieved by reconnecting remnant side channels to the main river channel. A small amount of gravel excavation would be conducted at the head of the remnant side channel,and large boulders would be placed at strategic locations to direct flow from the main channel into the side channel. Flow entering the side channel would be allowed to down-cut and once again form a functioning flow-through side channel. Riparian plantings are not included in the recommended action. The remnant side channels already contain varying amounts of riparian vegetation,and the distribution of the riparian vegetation is expected to expand once the side channels are recreated. While site-specific designs would need to be completed as part of planning, initial concepts for nine restoration sites have been identified by members of the, RMT and are described below. Six of the sites are located upstream of Daguerre Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 6-22 ICFJ85 00854.08 Califomia Department of Water Resources and Chapter 6. Lower Yuba River Habitat Pacific Gas and Electric Company Expansion Actions Point Dam,and three of the sites are located and downstream of the dam. Figure 6-3 shows the nine juvenile rearing habitat restoration sites along the lower Yuba River. Figures 6-4 through 6-11 identify the individual locations of the potential sites for habitat enhancement. 6.6.1.1 Upstream of Daguerre Point Dam Proposed restoration actions for the six sites located upstream of Daguerre Point Dam are described as follows: ■ Site 1--Upper Guilt Edge. Enhance the structural complexity of the left bank of the main river channel. Line the left bank of the main channel with boulder/wood structures and enhance an ephemeral backwater with boulder/wood structures to maintain aquatic habitat. See Figure 6-4. ■ Site 2—First Island. Create a side channel in an existing swale within a stand of relatively dense riparian vegetation. Enhance the structural complexity of the left bank of the main river channel by placement of large wood material. See Figure 6-5. • Site 3—North Silica Bar(bar opposite the Silica Bar side channel). Create a side channel in an existing swale within a stand of relatively dense riparian vegetation that presently includes willows and cottonwoods. See Figure 6-6. ■ Site 4—Silica Bar. Create a side channel in an existing swale within a stand of diverse,mature,native riparian vegetation. See Figure 6-6. >t• Site 5—Hammon Bar. Create a side channel within a stand of riparian vegetation that extends from the bar on the southern bank of the main channel into the current backwater area. Boulder structures for hydraulic maintenance may be placed at the inflow section. Wood/bouIder structures may be placed at the outflow section. See Figure 6-7. ■ Site 6—South Bar above Daguerre Point Daus. Create a side channel within a stand of riparian vegetation and along the toe of the training wall, extending from the upper porion of the site to the existing downstream backwater area. Boulders for hydraulic maintenance may be placed at the inflow. See Figure 6-8. 6.6.1.2 Downstream of Daguerre Point Dam Proposed restoration actions for the three sites located downstream of Daguerre Point Dam are described as follows: n Site 7—Waterway 13. Create a side channel within a stand of riparian vegetation that extends from the main channel into the current backwater area. Boulder structures for hydraulic maintenance may be placed at the inflow section. This site would be expected to receive flow augmentation from the Yuba Goldfields return flow. See Figure 6-9. Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 6-23 ICFAS 00854.08 California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 6. Lower Yuba River Habitat Pacific Gas and Electric Company Expansion Actions >• Site 8—Narrow Bar. Create a side channel north of the main channel and following a historical channel path. Existing riparian vegetation would border the created side channel. Boulders for hydraulic maintenance may be placed at the inflow. See Figure 6-10. ■ Site 9—Goldfields Terminus. Create a side channel within a stand of riparian vegetation that extends into a current backwater habitat located at the downstream corner of the Yuba Goldfields. Boulder structures for hydraulic maintenance may be placed at the inflow section. See Figure 6-11. Design plans would be guided by the information and processes listed above. The precise location of side channels and placement of structural elements would be informed by a variety of analyses,including hydraulic modeling. As evidenced by existing riparian vegetation or topography in Figures 6-4 through 6-11,many of these potential side channels follow previous alignments of the river or were side channels at some point. Additional geomorphic analysis would be necessary to fully understand the processes that originally formed these channels and subsequently moved the river to a different location. However, these features were selected based on the assumptions that: (1) side channels could be reestablished relatively easily using moderate terra-forming,boulder placement,and other techniques; and(2)constructed features would persist in the river over time. The Design Symbol Key(below)is used in the following figures. Design Symbol Key Riparian vegetation (i.e.,planting,natural recruitment) Large woody material Boulder Habitat Channel(side or back)creation Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 6.24 icFAs 00854.08 WI u e ? s . w r � d s l: M, 10 `. F & _ F V.kk 1 A coIV $ VI N h= 10 \ i 1 � m yam✓ m i 1 � ¢ C G a �x J 0 ~1 �u u � SS WL 0 tl3/80080'652Wjspafny/SD!gdwq r •ti - - [. Vt 5 UPPER GOIL EDG�el At - �f Y. -'fir°•,' � -. k tr ,, vA k r • Y3.�' �1 y \ �y� Zl Y .' i •fh4 L LJ FIRST ISLAND � �A > L v AWl �Pl N 11: 1' r r � Fl0. -✓ � F � , �(ya NORTH SILICA BAR xo "�3sx � ✓L.'3� �+Ty n �; •t s 1.An ��.; 5 .��. W A F•A ti ' � ^' n � n4�, '�:�'Y�d,� r -0 Y s-5S»� ��'R� Fh�'f's� !i J✓+ y--F"7 y. !` HAMMON BAR 'My Ili li SOUTH BAR ABOVE F g 1 DAGUERRE .. `a r � p 4. it gr 'If r kk y. 1�•: ,•,. WATERWAY 13 .,•- � .; .fin - :.� NARROW BARS. 4 �� r` x r:s 5 k ' f a • — • •IMIUM• • GOLDFIELDSTERMINUS BAR x" .X� r/ i . ■. California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 6. Lower Yuba River Habitat Pacific Gas and Electric Company Expansion Actions 6.6.2 Objectives and Benefits The primary objectives of this action are to enhance off-channel rearing habitat for juvenile salmon and steelhead by constructing functioning flow-through side channels and to enhance an existing backwater. High-quality rearing habitat would provide for increased growth,protection from predators, and increased survival of juvenile salmonids and other fish species. The benefits of increased habitat complexity in the Lower Yuba River have been documented as providing refugia from predators and high water velocities and as providing efficient locations for feeding(Lower Yuba River Fisheries Technical Group 2005). 6.6.3 Contribution to the HET For the purposes of estimating contribution toward the HET,restoration of floodplain and off-channel rearing habitat was considered a factor that increases the overall recovery potential of habitat upstream where spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead spawn. Using the approach outlined in the HET contribution procedure,this action could contribute habitat for approximately 130 spring-run Chinook salmon to the Lower Yuba River Actions. Refer to Appendix E for a summary of the HET contribution that was determined for the juvenile rearing habitat restoration action associated with the Lower Yuba River Actions, 6.6.4 Estimated Cost 6.6.4.1 Capital Cost The pre-feasibility study capital cost estimate for implementing the juvenile rearing habitat restoration action, including permitting,design,and construction, is approximately$1.4 million. Construction costs for the action would depend in large part on the amount of gravel excavation necessary to construct side channels and restore functional floodplain habitat. 6.6.4.2 Operations and Maintenance The cost of maintaining the juvenile rearing habitat component of the Lower Yuba River Actions is estimated to be$30,000 per year and$1.5 million for 50 years. Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 6_29 ICFAS 00854.08 California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 6. Lower Yuba River Habitat Pacific Gas and Electric Company Expansion Actions 6.6.4.3 Funding Partners The USFWS AFRP has funded SYRCL for a total of$160,000 for a pilot restoration project intended to inform planning, design,and permitting for a more extensive juvenile rearing habitat project(Campbell pers. comm.). 1n addition, AFRP has identified funding for ongoing Yuba River salmon habitat evaluation and restoration,some of which might be available for portions of project construction or maintenance. Western Aggregates has pledged to commit $50,000 toward implementation of floodplain restoration on property they own in the area and where they have agreed to establish a 180-acre conservation easement. 6.6.5 Implementation Schedule Members of the RMT have suggested(Appendix G)that,because several tools are already in development and the pilot restoration project design is currently underway,(1)preliminary design and permitting analysis for the juvenile rearing habitat restoration action could be completed within 1 year;(2)permitting, landowner access and other issues could be resolved within 1 or 2 years; and (3)construction could be accomplished in one to two seasons. 6.6.6 Implementation Responsibilities of Licensees As soon as NMFS approves the final HEP,the Licensees would prepare a Preliminary Design Report for the juvenile rearing habitat restoration action. When the Licensees accept each of the new FERC licenses for the Oroville,Poe, and Upper North Fork Feather River Projects,the Licensees would begin the final design and permitting phase. The juvenile rearing habitat restoration in the Yuba Goldfields reach would consist of excavating side channels and placing hard structures as hydraulic controls for the continued functioning of the side-channel habitat. The channels would be monitored and maintained over a 50-year period to ensure that they continue to function as planned. The HEA side-channel design would be coordinated with the SYRCL plans,AFRP-related planning or funded actions, and Western Aggregates floodplain restoration. This action would be coordinated as much possible for logistical efficiencies with the spawning habitat rehabilitation action. Each Licensee would be responsible for one-half of the total costs of this action. The Licensees would consult with landowners and other stakeholders throughout the planning and implementation phases, and would jointly hire contractors to complete the work. Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 6-30 IGFJ&S 04859.08 California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 6. Lower Yuba River Habitat Pacific Gas and Electric Company Expansion Actions 6.6.7 Rationale for Selection Appendix C4 presents the scoring results when the HEA Evaluation Criteria were applied to the Lower Yuba River Actions, and Appendix C5 presents the scoring results when the HEA Selection Criteria were applied to Lower Yuba River Actions. The juvenile rearing habitat restoration action complements the spawning habitat rehabilitation action by enhancing rearing habitat for expanded populations of spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead. The feasibility of completing the juvenile rearing habitat action within 5-10 years is high for several reasons: floodplain projects targeting habitat for juvenile salmonids have been completed and considered highly successful in other Central Valley tributaries such as the Merced River,the Mokelumne River, and Clear Creek;restoration on the Lower Yuba River has a broad base of stakeholder and agency support; and costs for similar projects have been reasonable. While the estimated individual contribution toward the HET from this action is relatively small,the juvenile rearing habitat restoration action addresses important limiting factors that have been identified for spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead production in the lower Yuba River(Lower Yuba River Fisheries Technical Group 2005). The action,combined with the spawning habitat rehabilitation action and the potential addition of a segregation weir,would result in a high contribution to the HET. Therefore,the action would support establishing a new independent population of spring-run Chinook salmon in the Lower Yuba River and is consistent with VSP guidance for recovery planning for the species. 6.6.8 Other Issues Because a restoration plan and project designs have not yet been completed for the juvenile rearing habitat restoration action, constraints and challenges to completing the action may not have been fully identified. Permits and landowner permission would need to be obtained for construction at each of the restoration sites. 6.7 References 6.7.1 Printed References Anderson,J.T.,C. B. Watry,and A. Gray. 2007. Upstream fish passage at a resistance board weir using infrared and digital technology in the Lower Stanislaus River, California: 2006-2007 annual data report. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Anadromous Fish Restoration Program. Lodi, CA. DFG. See California Department of Fish and Game. Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 6-31 ICN&S 00854.08 California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 6. Lower Yuba River Habitat Pacific Gas and Electric Company Expansion Actions California Department of Fish and Game. 1991. Final report: Lower Yuba River fisheries Management Plan. (Stream Evaluation Report No. 91-1.) Sacramento,CA. ENTRIX,Inc. and J.Monroe. 2002. Daguerre Point Dam fish passage improvement project 2002 fisheries studies: analysis of potential benefits to salmon and steelhead from improved fish passage at Daguerre Point Dam. Sacramento, CA. Hedgecock,D.,M. A.Banks,V. K.Rashbrook,C.A.Dean,and S. M. Blankenship. 2001. Application of population genetics to conservation of Chinook salmon diversity in the Central Valley. In R.L.Brown(Ed.), Contributions to the biology of Central Valley salmonids. California Department of Water Resources and California Department of Fish and Game. Fish Bulletin 179(Volume 1). Sacramento, CA. Kozlowski,J.F. 2004. Summer distribution,abundance,and movements of rainbow trout(Oncorhynchus mykiss)and other fishes in the Lower Yuba River,California. M.S.Thesis(Ecology),University of California at Davis. Davis,CA. Lower Yuba River Fisheries Technical Group. 2005. Implementation plan for lower Yuba River anadrornous fish habitat restoration. Funded by CALFED and Yuba County Water Agency. Sacramento,CA. Moyle,P.B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007. Biological opinion for the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers' operation of Englebright and Daguerre Point Darns on the Yuba River,California. Southwest Region. Long Beach,CA. November 21. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2002. Biological opinion for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' operation of Englebright Dam/Englebright Lake and Daguerre Point Dam on the Yuba River,California. NMFS Southwest Region. Long Beach,CA. March 27. NMFS. See National Marine Fisheries Service. Pasternack, G. B. 2008. SHIRA.-based river analysis and field-based manipulative sediment transport experiments to balance habitat and geomorphic goals on the lower Yuba River. Final Report. Prepared for the Cooperative Ecosystems Study Unit(CESU) 81332 6 J002,University of California,Davis. Department of Land,Air,and Water Resources(in association with the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences). August (Revised January 29,2009). Pasternack, G. B. 2009. Manuscript. Historical analysis of the Englebright Dam reach of the lower Yuba River, CA to aid spring-run Chinook salmon habitat Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 6-32 ICFJ&S 00854.06 California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 6. Lower Yuba River Habitat Pacific Gas and Electric Company Expansion Actions restoration. University of California,Davis. Department of Air,Land,and Water Resources. South Yuba River Citizens League. 2009. About the Yuba. Available online: <http://www.syrcl.org/river/river-facts.asp>. Stewart,R. 2003. Techniques for Installing a Resistance Board Fish Weir. Regional Information Report No. 3A03-26.Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Anchorage,AK. SYRCL. See South Yuba River Citizens League. Waples,R. S.,D. J.Teel,J.M.Myers,and A. R.Marshall. 2004. Life-History Divergence in Chinook Salmon: Historic Contingency and Parallel Evolution. Evolution 58(2): 386-403. Wheaton,J. M.,G B. Pastemack,and J.E.Merz. 2004. Spawning habitat rehabilitation— 1. Conceptual approach&methods. International Journal of River Basin Management 2:1:3-20 Yoshiyama,R.M.,E.R. Gerstung,F.W. Fisher, and P. B.Moyle. 2001. Historical and present distribution of Chinook salmon in the Central Valley. Pp. 71-176 in R. Brown,Ed. Contributions to the Biology of Central Valley Salmonids. California Department of Fish and Game Fish Bulletin 179. Sacramento, CA. Yuba County Water Agency, California Department of Water Resources and U.S.Bureau of Reclamation. 2007. Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement. June. Marysville, CA. YCWA. See Yuba County Water Agency. 6.7.2 Personal Communications Campbell,E. Habitat Restoration Coordinator. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anadromous Fish Restoration Program. Stockton, CA. Telephone conversation with Chris Wilkinson, California Department of Water Resources,regarding juvenile salmonid rearing habitat restoration in the lower Yuba River. October 27,2009. Lower Yuba River Accord River Management Team. Meeting with the HEA Steering Committee regarding potential habitat expansion actions in the lower Yuba River. October 6,2009. Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan 6-33 ICFAS 00854.08 California Department of Water Resources and Chapter 6. Lower Yuba River Habitat Pacific Gas and Electric Company Expansion Actions Reedy, Gary. River Science Program Director. South Yuba River Citizens League. Nevada City, CA. Meeting with the HEA Steering Committee regarding potential habitat expansion actions in the lower Yuba River. October 6,2009. RMT. See Lower Yuba River Accord River Management Team. Habitat Expansion Agreement November 2009 Draft Habitat Expansion Pian 6-34 IcFAS 00854.08