Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPG&E - DWR~ ax 4~ ~ ~ n R N ~7~ OF~~ Department of Water Resources Division of Environmental Services Mailing address: PO Box 942836 Sacramento, California 94236-04D1 April 20, 2012 Pa~if~ has a-~d ~ ~~9C~lC ~1>rtjf~ Pacific Gas and Electric Company Power Generation Mailing address: PO Box 774040, N 11 C San Francisco, California 94177 p~'~pER ~ ~ ~ 2oi2 0R0yli~l~, ~puFpRN1A Mr. Rodney R. McInnis _ Regional Administrator, Southwest Region National Marine Fisheries Service 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200 Long Beach, CA 90802 . RE: Habitat Expansion Agreement Annual Report and Comments in Response to GO-Day Consultation Period . Dear Mr. McInnis: The purpose of this letter is to transmit the enclosed Annual Status Report (Annual Report) and provide comments for consicEeration by the National Marine Fisheries Service {NMFS) in response to the 60-day consultation period on Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and the California Department of Water Resources' (DWR) Final Habitat. Expansion Plan (HEP). PG&E and DWR (the Licensees} prepared the Final HEP and submitted it to NMFS, for approval, on November 19, 2010, as.required by the Amended Habifaf Expansion Agreement for Cenfrai Valley Spring-Run Chinook Salmon and Caiifomia Cenfral Valley Steelhead (Amended HEA) dated March 2011. Annual Report The Annual Report (Attachment A) is required by Section 6.2 of the Amended HEA. The Annual Report describes the milestones reached and progress achieved in implementing the habitat expansion actions(s) contemplated under the Amended HEA and covers the period beginning November 19, 2010, when the Final HEP was submitted, through March 31, 2012. It includes a description of the reasons for and results of amending the HEA. Comments on Final HEP in Response to NMFS fi0-Day Consultation Period The Amended HEA requires that, before approving the Final HEP, NMFS commence a 60-day consultation period with the HEA signatories, State Water Resources Control ~ ~ r ~~u Mr. Roney R. McInnis April 20, 2092 Page 2 Board, and other stakeholders. During this consultation period, NMFS is to consider comments received on the Final HEP and specifically address comments provided by the HEA signatories or other stakeholders, including comments pertaining to whether fihe habitat expansion actions{s) recommended by the Licensees in the Final HEP are already existing requirements and commitments (i.e., actions that are expected to occur in a timeframe comparable to implementation of the proposed habitat expansion action[s~; Section 3.2 of the Amended HEA). Additionally, NMFS will consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service„(.,USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game (DFG} to consider the potential beriefts and impacts of recommended habitat expansion actions} on resident fish at the location of the action(s). On February 21, 2412, NMFS initiated the 60-day consultation period'as required by Section 4.2.2 of the Amended HEA. NMFS scheduled three meetings on February 21, 24, and 28, 2012 (the meetings}. The stated purpose of the meetings was to provide a briefing on NMFS findings in their review of the HEP, solicit comments, discuss a schedule for final determination, and discuss. options for moving forward. The Licensees attended all three of the meetings and participated in the presentation by providing an overview of the Amended HEA, the steps taken to meet the habitat expansion objectives of the Amended HEA, and a description of the actions proposed by the Licensees in the Final HEP. NMFS provided a summary of the actions they undertook in their review, which included the solicitation of independent reviews of the HEP by Carl Mesick (formerly a NMFS contractor, now with USFWS), David Crowder (NMFS)., and Stillwater Sciences. The Mesick and Crowder papers were made available at the meetings. The_Stillwater Sciences paper was given to Greg Pasternack (UC Davis professor of watershed hydrology and geomorphology) for review prior to distribution to others. To date, that paper has not been available for the Licensees. to review. Following the presentations, there was an open discussion amongst the attendees.- There were three major areas of concern discussed by NMFS and the attendees during the meetings regarding the habitat expansion actions proposed in the Final HEP: • Eligibility of the actions proposed in the Final HEP, • Determination of whether or not the Habitat Expansion Threshold {HET) is met by the actions proposed in the HEP, and • Long-term integrity of the actions proposed in the HEP. . The Licensees have the following comments on each issue: « Eligibility of the actions proposed in the Final HEP The Draft HEP was submitted to NMFS on November 20, 2009. In its letter, dated February 18, 2010, commenting on the Draft HEP, NMFS raised the issue of the eligibility of the actions proposed in the HEP. The Licensees responded to those comments in Section 4.3.10 of the Final HEP, explaining the basis for the Licensees' determination that Mr. Rodney R. McInnis April 20, 2012 Page 3 the actions proposed in the HEP are eligible under the terms of the HEA. In summary, the actions are eligible because while they will complement numerous actions being undertaken by others, they were separate and distinct from any Existing Requirements or Commitments in effect at the time the Final HEP was submitted far approval. On February 29, 2012, the day after the last stakeholder meeting, NMFS issued a new Biological Opinion for the Army Corps of Engineers' operation and maintenance of Englebright and Daguerre Point dams and Englebright Reservoir (Corps Bibp}. Among the many measures listed in the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) section of the Corps BiOp ,NMFS has included two of the actions proposed in the Licensees' Final HEP. Specifically, Reasonable and Prudent Alternative ~ (RPA 5), Channel Restoration Program, of the Carps BiOp includes the following actions proposed in the HEP: • Sinaro Bar spawning habitat expansion -expand spawning habitat in the Sinoro Bar geomorphic unit of the Englebright Dam Reach of the Lower Yuba River (described in Section 3.3.1 of the Final HEP}; and • Narrows Gateway spawning habitat expansion -- expand spawning habitat in the Narrows Gateway geomorphic unit of the Narrows Reach of the. Lower Yuba River (described in Section 3.3.2 of the Final HEP). Despite the perception of overlap between the actions proposed in the Final HEP and the measures listed in Corps BiOp RPA 5, the Licensees believe that the actions proposed in the Final HEP remain eligible, both for the reasons given in the Final HEP and for the reasons stated bebw. It is certain that the actions proposed in the HEP would be beneficial to spawning of spring-run Chinook salmon if these actions are implemented, including the proposed segregation weir, if needed, and it is certain the sooner these actions are implemented, the sooner they will begin to help with recovery. The HEA clearly favors actions which can benefit the target species as soon as possible, rather than actions that may not be in put in place far many years. That is why Section 3.2 of the HEA states that: existing requirements and conditions are fhose that are expected to occur in a timeframe comparable to fhe actions in the HEA. As explained below, the measures listed in RPA 5 of the Corps BIOp cannot be considered an Existing Requirement and Condition because the implementation of the RPA measures are, at best, many years away and, in fact, may never be implemented if left to the Corp due to a variety of factors. In sharp contrast, implementation of the actions proposed in the Final HEP can begin upon NMFS' approval. Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the Amended HEA describe "eligible" actions under the HEA.1 Section 3.1 states in part: "Actions identified in other venues, including unfunded actions, are acceptable for consideration [as eligible actions], provided that implementation of this 1 The language was the same in the original E•{EA. Mr. Rodney R. Mcfnnis April 20, 2012 Page 4 Agreement results in a net expansion of habitat over any Existing Requirements and Commitments, whether by Licensees or others."2 The term "Existing Requirements and Commitments" is discussed in Section 3.2. Section 3.2 is not a definition or a complete list of actions included under the term. instead, it is a descriptive section, as can be seen by the term "may": "Existing Requirements and Commitments may include..." (emphasis added). The term is further described as: "intended to encompass actions expected fio occur in a timeframe comparable to implementation of habitat expansion action(s) under this Agreement." The key consideration, then, is whether the actions proposed in the HEP can, or are likely to be implemented in a timeframe before actions under the Corps BiOp RPA 5. If the timeframe is sooner, then the actions proposed in the HEP are "eligible," and conversely, the Corps BiOp RPA actions are not Existing Requirements and Commitments. This is because there would be no actual temporal overlap between implementation of the actions prapased in the HEP and the measures fisted in Corps BiOp RPA 5. An important feature of the HEA was the agreement to research and implement actions to aid the threatened and endangered fish in a more expedient and effective way than would result from a protracted disagreement.3 The Licensees can begin the design and permitting phases of the actions proposed in the HEP as soon as NMFS approves the Fina( HEP. Assuming a 'I- to 2-year designlpermitting period and a 'I- to 2-year construction period, the Licensees would have these actions implemented in 2 to 4 years. In contrast, the Corps faces serious delay in implementing the measures listed in the Corps BiOp RPA due to regulatory proceedings and funding issues. Indeed, it is possible that the Corps may never be able to implement the measures in Corps BiOp RPA 5. Implementation of the measures listed in the RPA will take an unknown amount of time; but certainly it will, at best, take many years, since stakeholders, including PG&E, have only just begun to try to resolve the many issues associated with it. Clarification of specific analyses and requirements is needed, and challenges to some of these analyses, requirements, and the BiOp itself are likely, as the scope of the Corps BiOp reaches well beyond the scope of the "proposed action" -- continued operation of Englebright and Daguerre Point dams --defined by the Carps when it requested the ESA consultation that led to the BiOp. It is questionable whether the Corps has authority to perC'orm many of the z The "net expansion" question is discussed below. 3 The HEA's discussion of the term "Existing Requirements and Conditions" states that the term "is intended to encompass" actions in a comparable timeframe, and Section 3.2 includes an illustrative list of requirements that "may" meet the definition. Relevant here is Section 3.2 (d), which lists RPAs "af any final Biological Opinion that has been issued at the time NMFS approves the" proposed actions. While the Corps BiOp has been issued before NMFS has made a final determination on the proposed HEP actions, this is not determinative of eligibility. Licensees Hate again that the list is illustrative, using the term "may". Licensees believe the determining factor is the timing of implementation, which is explained in the body of Section and which is more important than the list of potential actions that "may" be included. Mr. Rodney R. Mclnnis Apri! 20, 20 t 2 Page 5 RPA actions, including RPA5, because the link to the "proposed action" under the Corps BIOp is disputed. From the funding standpoint, the Corps would need to acquire adequate funding through federal legislation -- a tremendously uncertain prospect, particularly in this period of massive federal deficits and economic constraint- and one likely to take many years, at best. Without such funding, the Corps cannot even begin to initiate the measures listed in the RPA. In contrast, the Licensees could begin initiation almost immediately. Thus, the measures listed in Corps BiOp RPA 5 do not meet the test of an Existing Requirement and Commitment, and the actions proposed in the Final HEP are eligible under the Amended HEA. The mere listing of target implementation dates for the measures listed in the Corps Bi~p has little, if any, effect on the prospects for actual implementation of these measures, as no implementation can occur absent funding and resolution of the other issues fisted above. [f NMFS decides that the Corps BiOp is an Existing Requirement or Commitment that makes the actions proposed in the HEP ineligible under the HEA, then no action on the Yuba River listed in the Corps BiOp would be able to pass the eligibility test. This raises the question of what possible actions could be considered eligible under the HEA. It took two years of concerted effort and over $2 million for PG&E and DWR to identify, evaluate, and select the actions proposed in the Final HEP. And there is no "nearly as good, second place" actions standing behind the actions proposed in the HEP. Based on the comprehensive HEA evaluationlselection process, the Yuba River was found to be the most likely place to identify actions meeting the terms and- conditions of the HEA. If the Corps BiCp is deemed to make the actions proposed in the HEP ineligible, then it is unlikely any actions on the Yuba could meet the HEA eligibility criteria, given the vast scope of the measures in the Corps BiOp RPA. That leaves little to fall back an for alternate actions under the HEA, and raises the disturbing prospect that even if such alternate actions could be identified, they too could be undermined by a subsequent BiOp ar other administrative action that simply adopted what the Licensees had spent years developing. Finally, the BiOp itself encourages the Corps to work with other parties to implement actions to aid the fish (see BiOp at 210 and 221, discussing possible other entities for the Corps to work with to implement RPAs). While the paragraph on p. 210, discussing implementing RPAs with other entities, does not specifically include the Licensees in their capacity under the HEA, neither does it exclude them. The Licensees could undertake the actions proposed in the HEP satisfying bath the HEA and the associated RPAs in the BiOp. • Determination of whether or not the Habitat Expansion Threshold (HET) is met by the Actions Proposed in the Final HEP At the public consultation meetings, NMFS expressed a concern thafi the actions proposed in the HEA may not meet the HET. The HET is met when spawning, rearing, and adult holding habitat have been expanded to accommodate an estimated net increase of 2,000 Mr. Rodney R. McInnis April 20, 2012 Page 6 to 3,000 spring-run Chinook salmon for spawning in the Sacramento River Basin (Section 2.2 of the Amended HEA}. As stated in Section 6.1 of the.Amended HEA, the Licensees are not obligated to guarantee or verify fish production or habitat utilization. The actual number of spring-run that return is determined to a large degree by factors occurring outside the Yuba River that are beyond the scope of the Amended HEA, including conditions in the Sacramento River, the Bay-Delta, and the Pacific Ocean. The HET evaluation methodology used by the Licensees provided a consistent and transparent approach that directly related actions to be taken to previously identifed habitat limitations in the HEP action area. Appendix N of the Final HEP provides a detailed description of the methodology. In summary, the method involved two consecutive steps: 1. The quantify of habitat for spawning by spring-run Chinook salmon was estimated based on the extent of habitat expansion and estimates of Chinook salmon spawning densities in the Yuba River and other Central Valley tributaries. 2. The quality of the expanded habitat for spring-run Chinook salmon was also evaluated. In this step, the estimated quantity of expanded habitat was adjusted to reflect existing habitat limitations across life stages of spring-run Chinook salmon. The evaluation of environmental conditions reduced the area-based spawner estimates to account for environmental limitations not addressed by the recommended actions, resulting in a more conservative estimate of contribution to the HET. Adjustments for environmental conditions were made by comparing the expected environmental conditions in the expanded habitat to the life-history needs of spring-run Chinook salmon. The conclusion of this analysis was that the actions proposed in the HEP would provide sufficient habitat expansion for an additional 4,182 adult spring-run Chinook salmon, thus easily meeting the HET. The actions proposed in the HEP also directly address an identified issue of the possibility that fall-run salmon would access, and also utilize, the area of improved spawning habitat, possibly reducing the effectiveness of the habitat far spring-run. The actions proposed in the HEP squarely address this issue by proposing an adaptive management program involving monitoring and additions! actions up to, and including, potential installation of a seasonal segregation weir if monitoring shows it is needed to keep fall-run from diminishing the effectiveness of the actions for spring-run. California Department of Fish and Garne supports this approach. [nstallation of a segregation weir, if needed, would not significantly reduce available spawning habitat for fall-run as the fall-run primarily spawn in Timbuctoo Bend below the proposed location of a segregation weir based on surveys. conducted by the Yuba Accord River Management Team In its evaluation of the Final HEP, NMFS is directed by the Amended HEA (Section 4.2:3(a)) to consider the "extent to which" the recommended habitat expansion action(s) Mr. Rodney R. Mci'nnis April 20, 2012 Page 7 "meet the Habitat Expansion Threshold." As described in Amended HEA Section 4.2.5, "if the Licensees and NMFS disagree that the habitat expansion ac#ion(s) recommended in the Final Habitat Expansion Plan are estimated to meet the Habitat Expansion Threshold, the Licensees and (emphasis added} NMFS shall select a neutral third party with appropriate expertise~to make an independent estimate....NMFS shall give due consideration to the independent estimate before making ifs final decision on approval of the recommended habitat expansion ac#ion(s)...." To date, NMFS has not formally communicated to the Licensees its outlook as to whether or not the actions proposed in the HEP will meet the HET. Casually expressing concern that the actions proposed in the HEP may not meet the HET is not sufFcient to allow the Licensees #a invoke the remedy provided under Section 4.2.5. • Long-term integrity of the Proposed Actions The third major area of concern expressed during the meetings related to the conceptual nature of the restoration designs for the actions proposed in the HEP. The gist of the concern appeared to be that the designs were too conceptual to provide assurance that the actions would perform adequately to meet the objectives identifed in the Final HEP. The Licensees believe that it is premature to reject the Final HEP based on questions of design integrity. First, the actions praposed in the HEP are hardly of an experimental nature, as similar restoration actions have been successfully completed in a variety of Iota#ions in California's Central Valley. Second, the Amended HEA includes several process phases at which NMFS has review and approval authority over the design and function of the habitat expansion actions. Amended HEA Sections 4.3-4.9 identify the remaining phases of Planning and Implementation of Habitat Expansion Actions. These additional phases are also addressed in Chapter 5 of the Final HEP and are summarized below. Once NMFS determines that the actions proposed in the Final HEP are eligible and estimated to meet the HET, the Licensees are required to submit a Preliminary Design Report (PD .Report), as required by Amended HEA Section 4.3. The PD Report will provide additional detail on the design and integrity of the actions praposed in the HEP for NMFS review, as well as the opportunity far NMFS to fully evaluate whether or not the design meets the objectives of the Final HEP. The PD Report is identified in the Amended HEA as the phase in which the Licensees are required to provide the following: "(1) a preliminary design of the approved habitat expansion action{s); (2) updated cost estimates; and (3) a schedule for each of the remaining process phases in this Section 4 [of the Amended HEA]." In turn, Amended HEA Section 4.4 describes the process by which NMFS is required to review and make "its determination of whether the Preliminary Design Report is materially consistent with the Approved Habitat Expansion Plan." Similar review opportunities giving NMFS approval authority are built into the Amended HEA for the Final Design and Permitting Report (Amended HEA Sections 4.5 and 4.6); Preparation of Final Test Report Mr. Rodney R. McInnis April 20, 2092 Page 8 (Amended HEA Section 4.8), wherein the Licensees "shall perform functional start-up testing for technical validation of the specified designs fior the actions}"; and Determination of Functionality (Amended HEA Section 4.9}, wherein NMFS determines "whether all element(s) of the habitat expansion actions} relevant to the functions! start-up testing are functional." The Licensees encourage NMFS, before making its determination about whether ar not to approve the Final HEP, to consider all of the additional review opportunities that are built into the Amended HEA to ensure that the habitat expansion actions meet their objectives. Response to Technical Iocuments NMFS engaged technics! experts Carl Mesick and David Crowder, as well as technical experts at Stillwater Sciences, to evaluate whether the Amended HEA Criteria were met by the actions proposed in the HEP. Mesick and Crowder each provided documents to NMFS which were subsequently made available to the Licensees and meeting attendees during the three meetings held in February. Although Stillwater Sciences' evaluation was provided to NMFS, it has still not been made available to the Licensees. The Licensees expect Greg Pasternack and the Lower Yuba River Accord River Management Team to respond to alf three documents. The Licensees have reviewed the Mesick and Crowder documents and are providing responses to Mesick's statements in Attachment B. In summary, tl~e Licensees disagree with Mesick's concerns regarding use of appropriately sized substrates, utilization of the proposed site', water temperature in critical dry years, and.availability of sufficient adult refugia. Next Steps for Parties The Licensees recommend NMFS and the other Amended HEA Parties to meet to discuss the eligibility of the actions proposed in the HEA in light of the new Corps BiOp..lf NMFS agrees That the actions proposed in the HEA are eligible, but still has concerns about meeting the HET; then the Licensees and NMFS should work together, as called for in the Amended HEA, to choose an independent expert who can provide an estimate of the habitat that would be provided by the proposed actions. The Licensees stand ready, willing, and able to proceed with implementation of the actions proposed in the Final HEP. We urge NMFS to approve these on-the-ground actions as timely, certain, and significant steps to help with recovery of spring-run Chinook salmon in the Sacramento River basin. Such approval will stand in sharp contrast to waiting for years to see haw the new Corps BiOp pans out, or starting detailed evaluation of other possible actions under the HEA with na certainty of timing or even outcome. NMFS' approval of the proposed actions will also demonstrate the viability of performing high- value off-site mitigation as an alternative to lower-value on-site actions. Mr. Ra~ne~r R. hlfclnnis April 2€~, 20'f ~ rage 9 Thank you for considering our camrnents, We Eogk faiward t4 achieving a s€accessfral vu#came. of the HEA process and praceedirrg with implementation of the recovery acfivns proposed in the Final HEP. - If you have arty questions regarding our comments in this letter, ar the ir~~vrmation provided in the attachments, please contact either of us yr t#~e Steering Committee at hea a~7wafer.ca.gav. Sincerely, ~~~ pcan F. ll~esser Chief, Division of Environmental Services Gaiifamia Department of Water Resources Enclosures David W. Moller Director pacific Gas and Electric Company cc: ~ Attached List Letter RE: HEA Annua[ Report and Comments in Response to 60-Day Consultation Period Distribution List Habitat Expansion Agreement Signatories: Rodney R. McInnis Regional Administrator, Southwest Region National Marine Fisheries Service SO l West Ocean BIvd., Suite 4200 . Long Beach, California 90$02 Rebecca Wodder Arr~erican Rivers 1101 14th Street NW, Suite 1400 Washington, District of Columbia 20005 Charlton H. Bonham California Department of Fish and Game 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1207 Sacramento, CA 95814 Terry Erlewine State Water Contractors, Inc. I l21 L Street, Suite IOSO Sacramento, CA 95$14 Arthur G. Baggett, Jr. State Water Resources Control Board 1001 I Street, 24th FIoor Sacramento, CA 95 $14 Dan Jiron United States Deparment of Agriculture Forest Service 1323 Club Drive Vallejo, CA 94592 Ren Lohoefener California and Nevada Region United States Fish and Wildlife Service 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 95825 Stakeholders: Steve Edmondson National Marine Fisheries Service 777 Sonoma Ave, Room 325 Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Rick Wantuck National Marine Fisheries Service 777 Sonoma Ave, Room 325 Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Dan Hytrek National Marine Fisheries Service SO1 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200 Long Beach, CA 90802 Howard Brown National Marine Fisheries Service 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 8-300 Sacramento CA, 95814 Brian Ellrott National Marine Fisheries Service 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 8-300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Maria Rea National Marine Fisheries Service 650 Capitol MaII, Suite 8-300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Gary Sprague National Marine Fisheries Service 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 8-300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Larry Thompson National Marine Fisheries Service 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 8-300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Steve Rothert American Rivers 432 Broad Street Nevada City, CA 95959 Alice Low California Department of Fish anal Game 1416 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Anne Manj z . California Department of Fish and Game 1416 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Mike Healey California Department of Fish and Game North Central Region 1701 Nimbus Road Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Katherine Hill California Department of Fish and Game North Central Region 1701 Nimbus Road Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Toe Johnson California Department of Fish and Game North Central Region 1701 Nimbus Road Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 MaryLisa Lynch California Depar~nent of Fish and Game North Central Region 1701 Nimbus Road Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Tracy McReynolds California Department of Fish and Game North Central Region 1701 Nimbus Road Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Colin Purdy California Department of Fish and Game North Central Region 1701 Nimbus Road Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Stakeholders -continued Colleen Harvey Arrison California Department of Fish and Game North Central Region 2440 N. Main Street, P.O. Box 578 Red Bluff, CA 96080 Doug Killam California Department of Fish and Game North Central Region 2440 N. Main Street, P.O. Box 578 Red Bluff, CA 96080 Steve Baumgartner California Department of Fish and Game North Central Region 601 Locust Street Redding, CA 96001 Randy Benthin California Department of Fish and Game North Central Region 601 Locust Street Redding, CA 96001 Mike Berry California Department of Fish and Game North Central Region 601 Locust Street Redding, CA 96001 Tricia Bratcher California Department of Fish and Game North Central Region b01 Locust Street Redding, CA 96001 Donna Cobb California Department of Fish and Game North Central Region 601 Locust Street Redding, CA 96001 Neil Mani California Department of Fish and Gagne North Central Region 601 Locust Street Redding, CA 96001 ' Matt Myers California Department of Fish and Game North Central Region 601 Locust Street Redding, CA 96001 Mark Stopper California Department of Fish and Game North Central Region b01 Locust Street Redding,. CA 96001 Steve Turek California Department of Fish and Game North Central Region 601 Locust Street Redding, CA 96001 Michael A. Melanson Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 1121 L Street, Suite 900 Sacramento, CA 95814 Thomas M. Berliner Duane Morris LLP (State Water Contractors/Metropolitan Water District) One Market, Spear Tower Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94105-1104 Jeanine Townsend State Water Resources Control Board 1001 I Street, 24th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Bill Brock United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Shasta-Trinity National Forest Service Center 3644 Avtech Parkway Redding, CA 96002 Ryan Foote United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Lassen National Forest Alinanor Ranger District Post Office Box 767 Chester, CA 96020 Stakef~olders - continued Bob Hawkins United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service 1323 Club Drive Vallejo, CA 94592 Melanie McFarland United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, l;assen National Forest 2550 Riverside Drive Susanville, CA 96130 Julie Tupper United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service 650 Capitol Ma11, Suite 8-200 Sacramento, CA 95814 Deborah Giglio-Willoughby U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2$00 Cottage Way, W-2605 Sacramento, CA 95825 Kerry O'Hara U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2800 Cottage Way, W 2605 Sacramento, CA 95825 Daniel Shillito U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2800 Cottage Way, W-2605 Sacramento, CA 95825 Daniel Welsh U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2800 Cottage Way, W-2605 Sacramento, CA 95825 Alison Willy U_S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2800 Cottage Way, W-2605 Sacramento, CA 95825 W. Kathleen Wood U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2800 Cottage Way, W 2645 Sacramento, CA 95825 Cesar Blanco U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Anadromous Fish Restoration Program 2800 Cottage Way, W-2606 Sacramento, CA 95825 Beth Campbell U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Anadromous Fish Restoration Program 4001 North Wilson Way Stockton, CA 95205 Ramon Martin U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Anadronaous Fish Restoration Program 4001 North Wilson Way Stockton, CA 95205 Michael Hoover U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bay-Delta Fish and Wildlife Office 650 Capitol Mall Sacramento, CA 95814 Matt Brown U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Red Bluff Fish and Wildlife Office 10950 Tyler Road Red Bluff, CA 96080 Brenda Olson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Red B1uffFish anal Wildlife Office 10950 Tyler Road Red Bluff, CA 96080 Tricia Parker U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Red Bluff Fish and Wildlife Office 10950 Tyler Road Red Bluff, CA 960$0 Jim Smith U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Red Bluff Fish and Wildlife Office 10950 Tyler Road Red Bluff, CA 96080 4 Stakeholders - continued Kim Webb U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Stockton Fish and Wildlife Office . 4001 N. Wilson Way Stockton, CA 95205 Anderson 2007 Trust 5526 Virginia Raad Marysville, CA 95901-9555 Ron Akins Baldwin Contracting Company; Knife River Constriction 1764 Skyway Chico, CA 95928-8833 Walter Cotter Browns Valley Irrigation District P.O. Box b ' Browns Valley, CA 95918 Butte County Board of Supervisors 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Butte County Resource Conservation District 150 Chuck Yeager Way, Suite A Oroville, CA 95965 Robert Baiocchi California Fisheries and Water Unlimited California Non-Profit Corporation P.O. Sox 1035 Graeagle, CA 96103 Chris Shutes California Sportf shing Protection Alliance 1608 Francisco Street Berkeley, CA 94703 Susan Strachan California State University, Chico Chica Research Foundation, Bldg 25 Chico, cA 95928-D87a Dennis Beardsley City of Chico 411 Main Street Chico, CA 95928 Charlie Matthews Cordua lixigation District 8800 Matthews Lane, PO Box 1111 Marysville, CA 95901 Stephanie Serra Ream DGD Development 716 North Carson Street #E Carson City, NM 89701 Foothill Water Network P.O. Box 713 Lotus, CA 95651 Solomon Henson Friends of Deer Creek 132 Main Street Nevada City, CA 95959 Joanne Hild Friends of Deer Creek 132 Main Street Nevada City, CA 95959 Jane Sellen Friends of Deer Creek 132 Main Street Nevada City, CA 95959 Hallwood hTigation Co. P.O. Box 1349 Marysville, CA 95901-003 8 William J. Bennett High Sierra Resource Conservation & Development Area 251 Auburn Ravine Road, Suite 145 Auburn, CA 956D3 Kelly W. Sackheim KC Hydro, a partnership of Davis Hydro LLC and Sackheim Consulting 5096 Cocoa Palm Way Fair Oaks, CA 95628 Richard Roos-Collins Water and power Law Group FC 2140 Shattuck Avenue, Ste. 841 Berkeley, CA 94704-1229 Stakeholders -continued Nevada County Board of Supervisors Eric Rood Adr~nuaistrative Center, 950 Maidu Ave Nevada City, CA 95959 Ronald Otto Ophir Property Owners Association, Inc. and Auburn Ravine Preservation Comrnittee 10170 Wise Road Auburn, CA 95603 W.F. "Zeke" Grader Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association P.O. Box 29370 San Francisco, CA 94129-0370 Bryan Barr Pacific Gas and Electric Company 350 Salem Street Chico, CA 95928 Duane Massa Facific States Marine Fisheries Commission Yuba River Accord Monitoring and Evaluation Program 2545 Zanella Way, Suite F Chico, CA 95928 Robinson Enterprises Inc. 293 Lower Grass Valley Rd. Nevada City, CA 95959-3101 Art Craigmill Sierra Foothill Research & Extension Center $279 Scott Forbes Road Browns Valley, CA 95918 Gary Reedy South Yuba River Citizens League 216 Main Street Nevada City, CA 95959 Sutter County Board of Supervisors 1160 Civic Center Blvd Yuba City, CA 95993 Sycamore Ranch RV Park LLC 821 13a' Street Modesto, CA 95354-0935 Tom McCubbins Tehama County Resource Conservation District 2 Sutter Street, Suite D Red Bluff, CA 96080 Troy Reirnche Teichert Land Co.ITeichert A. and Sons Inc. PO Box 15002 Sacramento, CA 95851 Erik Vinic Trust for Public Land 1107 Ninth Street, Suite 1050 Sacramento, CA 95814 Doug Grothe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Englebright Lake PO Box b Smartsville, GA 95977-0406 Mitch Stewart U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Resources Branch 1325 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Mary Marshall U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 9S82S Greg Pastemack University of California Davis 223 Veihmeyer Hall, LAWR, One Shields Ave. Davis, CA 95616 University of California Regents 1111 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94607-5201 Stakeholders -continued David A. Greenblatt Western Aggregates LLC, c/o Eagle Materials, Inc. 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1 i00 Dallas, TX 75219-4487 Mary Mitchell Western Shasta Resource Conservation District 6270 ParaIIel Drive Anderson, CA 96007 , Wildtoo LLS 7745 Greenback Lane Citrus Heights, CA 95610-5866 Jobn Nicoletti Yuba County Board of Supervisors 817 9th Street Marysville, CA 95901 Yuba County Board of Supervisors 915 8th Street, Suite 109 Marysville, CA 95901 Roger Abe Yuba County Board of Supervisors 91 S 8th Street, Suite 109 Marysville, CA 95901 Ryan Bonea Yuba County Resource Conservation District 1511 Butte House Road, Suite B Yuba City, CA 95993 Jenny Lavaliere Yuba County Resource Conservation District 1511 Butte House Road, Suite B Yuba City, CA 95993 John Waskiewic~ Yuba County Resource Conservation District 1511 Butte House Road, Suite B Yuba City, CA 95993 Curt Aikens Yuba County Water Agency 1220 F Street Marysville, CA 95901 Torn Johnson Yuba County Water Agency 1220 F Street Marysville, CA 95901 Yuba Recreation Inc. 4580 State Highway 20 Marysville, CA 95901-9012 Yuba River Properties P.O. Box 1048 Placerville, CA 95667-1048 Yuba River Properties P.O. Bax 534 Placerville, CA 95667-0534 Glenn Nader Yuba Watershed Protection & Fire Safe Council 142-A Garden Hwy Yuba City, CA 95946 Clifford Andrews 9154 Too Handy Lane Browns Valley, CA 95918 Thomas (Tib) Belza P.O. Box 1335 Marysville, CA 95901 Brian E. Bernou P.O. BOX 378 Browns Valley, CA 95918 Bill & Peggy Boren 7621 State Highway 20 Smartsville, CA 95977 Kit Burton 425 C Street Marysville; CA 95901 James L. Butler 12347 Mooney Flat Road Smartsville, CA 95977-9603 Freda Calvert PO Box 1323 Penn Valley, CA 95946 Stakeholders -continued Mary Joan Campbell 17895 Tyler Foote Road Nevada City, CA 95959-9322 Dennis Coughlan, Jr. 1.7895 Tyler Foote Road Nevada City, CA 95959-9322 Ruth & Albert DeSantis 4580 State Highway 20 Marysville, CA 95901 Ran Erny 417 7th Street Marysville, CA 95901 R.F. Gifford 7621 State Highway 20 Smartsville, CA 95977-9754 Thomas Curtis Gray 2525 Fairbrook Drive Mountain View, CA 94040-3920 John Henry Hornstein 2560 Idyle Bear Lane Arcata, CA 95521-6959 Axel M. Karlshoej 725 Sanborn Road Yuba City, CA 95993-6035 Letty Litchfield 716 D Street Marysville, CA 95901 Douglas J. Loftis 6078 Sandstone Lane Browns Valley, CA 95918-9662 Julia Mullican 2019 Hammonton Rd, #43 Marysville, CA 95901 Ralph Mullican P.O. BOX 265 Smartsville, CA 95977 Anthony Nichols P.O. Sox 143 Marysville, CA 95901-0002 Jeanne E. Poe 12367 Mooney Flat Rd Smartsville, CA 95977 Kurt R. Stockton 11900 Mooney Flat Rd Snzartsville, CA 95977 David L. Thompson P.O. Box 57 Browns Valley, CA 95918-0057 Richard Tortola P.O. Box 130 Browns Valley, CA 95918 Joe Worm 2996 Walnut Avenue Marysville, CA 95901 Samuel J. Worm 3190 Walnut Avenue Marysville, CA 95901 Property owner 63 Natoma Street Folsom, CA 95630-2671 Attachment A Annual Status Report DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY Amended Habitat Expansion Agreement for Central Valley Spring- Run Chinook Salmon and California Central Vallev Steelhead Annual Status Report November 19, 2010 through March 31, 2012 California Department of Water Resources P.O. Box 942836 Sacramento, CA 94236-0001 Contact: Chris Wilkinson, Division of Environmental Services (916) 376-9704 and Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 77fl000, Mail Code: IV11C San Francisco, CA 94177-0001 Contact: Liv Imset, Power Generation, Hydro Licensing (415)973-1066 Apri[ 18, 2012, 2fl12 Amended Habitat Expansion Agreement for Central Valley Spring~~un Chinook Salmon and California Central Valley Steelhead Annual Status Report Period of Performance iVovember 19, 2010 -March 31, 2012 Contents Annual Status Report Period of Perfarmance ..:..........................................................................................1~ Introduction .........................................................................................................:.........................................2 Objective ofthe Annual Status Report .....................................:..........................................................:.....2 Habitat Expansion Agreement ..................................................................................................................2 Draft Habitat Expansion Plan ....................................................................................................................2 Final Habitat Expansion Plan .....................................................................................................................2 Activities since Completion of the Final Habitat Expansion Plan ................................................................3~ Water Quality Certification for the Oroville Facilities .............................................................................3~ DWR's Notice of Intent to Withdraw from the HEA ....................................................:..........................44 Amended HEA .........................................................................................................................................44 NMFS 60-day Pre-Approval Consultation on the Final Habitat Expansion Plan .....................................44 1 Introduction Objective of the Annual Status Report The objective of this Annual Status Report is to document milestones reached and progress achieved in implementing habitat expansion actions under the Habitat Expansion Agreement for Central Valley Spring-Run Chinook Salmon and California Central Valley Steelhead (HEA) and the Amended FIFA. This Annual Status Report summarizes activities within the fourth year of the effective date of the original HEA: November 19, 2010 through March 31, 2012. Habitat Expansion Agreement The original HEA had an effective date of November 20, 2007, when the Pacifc Gas and Electric Company (PG&E}and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) entered into the HEA with the following parties: American Rivers; Arthur G. Baggett,lr.; California Department of Fish and Game (DEG}; U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USES); National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS}; and State Water Contractors, Inc. Under the agreement, pG&E and DWR had 2 years to jointly identify, evaluate, and select the most promising and cast-effective action (s) to expand spawning, rearing, and adult holding habitat for spring-run Chinook salmon and steefhead in the Sacramento River Basin, as an alternative to the resource agencies and other parties seeking project-specific fish passage prescriptions or license conditions in the new Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licenses for PG&E's Upper North Fork Feather River Hydroelectric Project and Poe Hydroelectric Project and far DWR's Oroville Facilities Project (all of which are located in the Feather River system). Mare background information on the HEA can be found in the Draft Habitat Expansion Plan (PG&E and DWR 2009) and the Final Habitat Expansion Plan (PG&E and DWR 2010}, which are briefly described below. Draft Habitat Expansion Plan As required by Section x.1.3 of the HEA, PG&E and DWR (Licensees) prepared a Draft Habitat Expansion Plan (HEP} and submitted it to the HEA Parties on November 20, 2009. The braft HEP described how the first phase of the HEA had been implemented and presented the Licensees' recommended actions. Recommended actions included detailed descriptions of the estimated contribution to the Habitat Expansion Threshold specified in the HEA, apre-feasibility cost estimate, a proposed implementation schedule, the responsibilities of each licensee, and the rationale for selecting the actions. In the Draft HEP, the Licensees identifed two groupings of habitat expansion and enhancement actions that each met the goals, terms, and conditions of the HEA: (1) the Lower Yuba River Habitat Expansion Actions (Lower Yuba River Actions); and (2) the Battle Creek, Big Chico Creek, and Antelope Creek Habitat Expansion Actions (Three-Creek Actions). The Licensees proposed to select one of these two groups of actions, as modified in response to comments received, to be included in the Final HEP and, ultimately, implemented under the HEA. Final Habitat Expansion Plan As required by Section 4.2 of the HEA, the Licensees prepared the Final HEP and submitted it to NMFS for approval on November 19, 2D10. The HEA originally identified a 180-day period for completion of 2 the Final HEP. However, the Licensees received significant comments on the Draft HEP, and NMFS commented that the Draft HEP was deficient and recommended that the Licensees request an extension of 6 months to complete the Final HEP. The Licensees requested and were granted a 6-month extension for the purposes of (1) responding to the comments on the Draft HEP, most significantly to address questions regarding the estimates of the contributions of the recommended actions to the Habitat Expansion Threshold (HET) and the eligibility of some of the actions; (2) further developing the actions presented in the Draft HEP; and (3J re-evaluating potential actions in the Upper Yuba River based on new information provided by NMFS. The recommended actions in the Final WEp consisted of the fallowing three components, collectively referred to as the Lower Yuba River Actions: ^ Expansion of spawning habitat at Sinoro Bar in the Englebright Dam Reach above the Deer Creek confluence; ^ Expansion of spawning habitat at Narrows Gateway in the Narrows Reach Below the Deer Creek confluence; and ^ The option of planning for and installing a seasonally operated segregation weir on the Yuba River below the outlet of the Narrows Paal to segregate spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon, if deemed necessary by the resource agencies tNMFS, USFWS, and DFG). The recommended actions were modified since the Draft HEP based~on comments and additional information. The Licensees removed the Three-Creek Actions from consideration in the Final HEP based on anticipated full or partial funding for the actions from other sources. The Licensees re-evaluated potential actions in the Upper Yuba River based on additional information provided 6y NMFS and determined that these actions presented technical, legal, social, and logistical hurdles that preclude their completion in a timely manner. Therefore, the Licensees could not recommend the Upper Yuba River Actions far consideration under the HEA at the time the Final HEP was completed. The Lower Yuba River Actions, however, would achieve the goals of the HEA by expanding habitat in the Yuba River below Englebright Dam to support spawning, rearing, and adult holding ofspring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead. This group of actions was estimated to expand the habitat sufficiently to exceed the HET. The actions rated favorably on a number of HEA criteria, including supporting segregation between lap-run and spring-run Chinook salmon and having a high potential to establish another independent, self-sustaining population of spring-run Chinook salmon in the Sacramento River Basin. Activities since Completion ofthe Final Habitat Expansion PIan Water Quality Certif cation for the Uroville Facilities On December 15, 2010, the State Water Resources Control Board ~SWRCB) adapted a Water Quality Certification for the Oroville Facilities FERC Project 2100 that included Condition S9, requiring DWR to implement the HEA. The inclusion of Condition S9 created a new regulatory framework that necessitating amending the HEA. DWR's Notice of Intent to Withdraw from the HEA On December 24, 2010, DWR issued its Notice of Intent to Withdraw from the HEA due to the SWRCB's issuance of the Water Quality Certification for the Oroville Facilities that included terms that were materially inconsistent with the terms of the HEA as defined in Section 11.2.2 of the HEA. DWR then offered to meet with the other HEA Parties to discuss options for alleviating DWR's concerns, in accordance with Section 7.3..3.2 of the HEA. The HEA Parties agreed to amend the HEA to resolve the . inconsistencies. Amended HEA The Amended Habitat Expansion Agreement for Centro! Valley Spring-Run ChinoakSalmon and California Central Valley5teelhead (Amended HEA), dated March 2011, was negotiated to resolve material inconsistencies between the Water Quality Certification far OravilEe Facilities FERC Project 2100 and the original HEA. The agreement became effective May 9, 2011 and was entered into by the following parties: DWR; PG&E; American Rivers; DFG; USFS; NMF5; USFWS; and State Water Contractors, Inc. The Amended HEA recognizes that "the inclusion of Condition 59 in the WQC [for the Oroville Facilities] creates a new regulatory framework which necessitates amending the August 2007 Agreement to account for this new regulatory framework." Among other changes, the Amended HEA changed Section 11.2.2 of the HEA to state the following: "The Parties agree that issuance of Condition S.9 of the water quality certification for the Oroville Facilities is not a basis far withdrawal from this Agreement:' In addition, to account for the new regulatory authority over the HEA given to the SWRCB and FERC, Section 11.2.3 was added to provide that a "Party may withdraw from the Agreement if...the SWRCB, FERC or court does not provide a decision or authorization necessary to timely implement [an] approved plan ar imposes conditions materially inconsistent with the approval and its timely implementation." Once the Amended HEA became effective, DWR rescinded its Notice of Intent to Withdraw from the HEA by letterto the Amended HEA Parties on May 10, 2011. Then, DWR distributed copies ofthe fully executed Amended HEA to aEl Parties on 3une 2, 2011. NMFS 60-day Pre-Approval Consultation on the Final Habitat Expansion Plan Section 4.2.2 of the Amended HEA identifres that "prior to approving the Final Habitat Expansion Plan, NMFS shall commence a ii0-day consultation process with all Parties, SWRCB, and directly affected and responsive third parties:' On February 21, 2012, NMFS initiated the 60-day consultation period and held three meetings, on February 23., 24, and 28, 2012. The stated purpose of the meetings was to provide a briefing on NMFS Endings in their review ofthe HEP, solicit comments, discuss a schedule for final determination, and discuss options for moving forward..The Licensees attended alf three meetings and participated in the presentation by providing an overview of the Amended HEA, the steps taken to meet the habitat expansion objectives of the Amended HEA, and a description of the proposed actions presented by the Licensees in the Final HEP. 4 Biological Opinion fvr the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Operation anti Maintenance of Englebright and Daguerre Point Dams and Englebright reservoir on the Yuba River On February 29, 203.2, NMFS transmitted its biological opinion for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Carps) operation and maintenance of Engfebright and Daguerre Point dams and Engfebright Reservoir on the Yuba River (Yuba River BiOp). The Corps has publicly stated that the Yuba River BiOp "requires actionsthat are outside ofthe Corps' authority" (httg://www.spk.usace.army.mii/or~anizationslcesnk- co/lakes/En~lebrieht YubaRiverBiaOp.htmlaccessed on April 18, 2012). The jeopardy opinion for spring-run Chinook salmon, California Central Valley steelhead, and green sturgeon, includes a Channel Restoration Program in the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative, which directs the Carps to develop a Channel Restoration Plan for the Engfebright Dam Reach and upper portions of the Narrows Reach of the Yuba River. The Licensees recognize that the inclusion of these channel restoration actions in the biological opinion, making them responsibility of the Corps, calls into question the eligibility of the Proposed Actions in the Final HEP. However, in light of the Corps questioning their authority to implement requirements of the Yuba River BiOp as well as their recognized funding constraints, it seems unlikely that the Corps would be able to implement the channel restoration in a timeframe comparable to that which the Licensees could implement the Proposed Actions in the Final HEP. Section 3.2 of the HEA states that Existing Requirements and Conditions are those that are expected to occur in a timeframe comparable to the actions in the HEA. The Carps BiOp cannot be considered an Existing Requirement and Condition because the implementation of that RPA is many years away and in fact may not ever occur due to a variety of factors, whereas implementation of the HEP can begin upon NMFS' approval Therefore, despite the apparent overlap between the Final HEP and the Yuba River BiDp, we believe thatthe Proposed Actions should be considered eligible under the Amended HEA. Attachment B Response to Technical ©oc~ment Prepared by Carl Mesick 1 J Mesick: (Gravel size too large) -Using nearby mine tailings to save money will likely yield maferial that is too large far successful spawning. S#eering Commiffee~ Response: Section 3.3.1.3 of the Final HEP states "Gravel would be purchased and hauled from a local quarry to the project site by truck and distributed by hearty equipment." Pasternack et al. (2010) suggested that ' downstream flailing berms may provide suitably sized gravel. To clarify, this statement doesn't mean the entire supply of gravel will come from tailings. However,.it would be cost efficient to use ahy appropriately sized gravel from nearby mine tailings. 2) Mesick: (Few spring-run would utilize proposed site] - !n 2009, only 42% offish migrated into the Narrows Reach. This would not only make it difficult to reach the HET of an increase of 2, 000 fo 3, 000 adult spring-run, it will also make the proposed segregafion weir useless. ' Steering Committee Response: Section 3.2.3.1 of the Final HEP states "Lack of suitable spawning habitat in the Englebright Dam Reach and the Narrows Reach" has been identified as one of five primary limiting factors to establishing a viable, independent spring-run Chinook salmon population in the tower Yuba River. Once habitat is improved, the number of fish utilizing this stretch of river should increase. The following citations describe the potential for spring-run Chinook utilization in the proposed area: • "The suitability of the river far 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 4-mile reach between the Narrows Pool and the Highway 20 Bridge known as Timbuctoo Bend (HEP 3.2.3.1)." • "Little spawning habitat now exists [n the 2-mile reach extending from the Narrows Pool upstream to Englebright Dam because of its steep gradient, lack of sediment supply, and armoring by rock debris (Pasternack 2008)." • "Spring-run Chinook salmon are known to hold in this reach and attempt to spawn despite the lack of suitable spawning habitat (NMFS 2007)." Finally, Mesick cites Alber's 2009 telemetry study when only 42% of spring-run Chinook that migrated past Daguerre Point Dam made it as far as the Englebright Dam Reach (10 of 24 fish). However, in Alber's 20'10 telemetry study, it appears that 88% of spring-run Chinook that migrated past Dagperre Point Dam made it to the Englebright Dam Reach (1~ of 17 fish). 3j Mesick: (Water femperatures were not considered in HEPj -High Temperatures might resulf in subsfanfial spring-run mortality due fo surface water releases from Englebright Reservoir when reservoir levels are low and due to low flows below Daguerre Point Dam during Dry water year types. Response to Technical Document Prepared by Carl Mesick Steering Commr'ftee Response: Section 4.2 of the HEP discusses the flow and Temperature conditions in the action area in addition to describing how the Yuba Accord provides enhanced water temperaturelflaw conditions for salmonids in the Englebright Dam Reach (HEP 4.2}. The I-ower Yuba River Accord has taken into account the risk of [ow-flow conditions in critically dry years. The Accord has a set of "flaw schedules" for a variety of conditions from "ideal" flows (no limits or constraints) to "survival" flows (extreme draught years). The "survival" flow schedule allows for the minimal release of water to faster the survival of drought year returning adults (Yuba County Water Agency et a1. 2007). http:llwww.yubaaccordrmt.comlYuba%20Accord%20DocumentslYuba%20Accord% 20FIow%20Schedu[eslYuba%20Accord%20FIow%20Schedules%20and%20Reser voir%201ndex.~odf 4) Mesick: (Unnaturally large gravel beds wifh inadequate adulf refugia may result in low spawner use and low egg survival) -Spawning habifaf rehabilitation projects in The Englebright Dam reach may not be effective because dredger tailings could be used fo consfrucf unnaturally large gravel beds wifh an inadequate amounf of adulf refugia. The plan proposes a uniform secfion of spawning gravel. No modeling was conducfed so if is possible thaf the design would be abnormally unstable during high flow releases. Steering Committee Response: Pasternack et al. (2010) acknowledge the common misconception that gravel injections over degraded historical spawning grounds will trigger successful spawning "regardless of the suitability of the hydraulic and cover conditions." Additionally, Pasternack recommends the HEP follow a SHIRA (Spawning Habitat [ntegrated Rehabilitation Approach) framework in its restoration attempts. SHIRA has been applied successfully in spawning habitat restorations on the Mokelumne, Tr[nity, American, Feather, and Yuba Rivers. In addition to re-grading the proposed project site to attain an idea[ riffle-to-riffle slope, Pasternack et al. (20'10} suggests "incorporating 1-2 pools would provide 'holding habitat, and with the addition of boulders and streamwood, there would be adult spawner refugia in proximity to redd construction points and juvenile habitat." Finally, Section 3.3.1.2 of the HEP calls for Sinoro Bar's current "rapid-pool" and "chute-pool" configuration to be modified into "riffle-pool" and "run-pool"`sequences. Additionally, "morphological diversity would be incorporated by creating a functional mosaic of geomorphic forms, rather than excessively large contiguous areas of uniform habitat. In particular, holding pawls with associated cover would be incorporated into the design of the expanded spawning habitat...the effort to reshape the streambed would include design considerations for maximizing the sustainability of this action." References: California Department of Wafer Resources and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 2010. Habitat Expans[on Agreement for Central Valley Spring-Run Chinook Salmon and California Central Valley Steelhead --Final Habitat Expansion Plan. {ICF J&S 00854.08} Sacramento, CA. November. z Response to Technical Document Prepared by Carl Mesick Massa, D., Bergman, J., and Kreb, B. 2010. Lower Yuba River Accord Monitoring and Evaluation Plan: Annual Escapement Survey Report September 8, 2009 -January 14, 2010. Prepared for The Lower Yuba River Accord Planning Team. June. Marysville, CA. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007. Biological Opinion for the Operation of Englebright and Daguerre point Dams an the Yuba River, California. File Number, 151422-SWR-2006-SA00071:MET {POTS #2007101232). National Marine Fisheries Service, Sacramento, CA. Pasternack, G.B. 2008. SHIRR-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. 2010. Estimate of the Number of Spring-Run Chinook Salmon That Could Be Supported by Spawning Habitat Rehabilitation at Sinoro Bar on the Lower Yuba River. Prepared for Habitat Expansion Agreement Committee (California Department of Water Resources and Pacific Gas and Electric Company). July. Yuba County Water Agency, California Department of Water Resources, and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2007. Final Environmental [mpact ReportJEnvironmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord. October. Marysville, CA.