Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.10.25 Board Correspondence - FW_ Government Agency Submittal submitted in FERC P-2107-065 by USFWS,et al.From:Clerk of the Board To:Clerk of the Board; Connelly, Bill; Cook, Holly; Cook, Robin; Durfee, Peter; Jessee, Meegan; Kimmelshue, Tod; Kitts, Melissa; Krater, Sharleen; Lee, Lewis; Little, Melissa; Pickett, Andy; Ritter, Tami; Stephens, Brad J.; Sweeney, Kathleen; Teeter, Doug; Zepeda, Elizabeth; Loeser, Kamie Cc:Nuzum, Danielle Subject:Board Correspondence - FW: Government Agency Submittal submitted in FERC P-2107-065 by USFWS,et al. Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 8:08:56 AM Please see Board Correspondence - -----Original Message----- From: 'FERC eSubscription' <eSubscription@ferc.gov> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 5:55 AM Subject: Government Agency Submittal submitted in FERC P-2107-065 by USFWS,et al. .ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening attachments, clicking on links, or replying.. On 6/10/2025, the following Filing was submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Washington D.C.: Filer: USFWS Fish and Wildlife Services (as Agent) Docket(s): P-2107-065 Lead Applicant: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Filing Type: Government Agency Submittal Description: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service submits response to FERC's 05/07/2025 request for Formal Consultation and Informal Conference on the Temporary Minimum Instream Flow Variance for the Poe Hydroelectric Project under P-2107. To view the document for this Filing, click here https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_num=20250610- 5009__;!!KNMwiTCp4spf!HOv18HIx2Cv7N2P7E_csIWPf27LsGPTakB0FXFqWgZJgQKZh54foly3f2x_KIkzgz85calxBtVrspnYj5rXUKxQ6wNVr3TxdLhIA$ To modify your subscriptions, click here: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please do not respond to this email. Online help is available here: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.ferc.gov/efiling-help.asp__;!!KNMwiTCp4spf!HOv18HIx2Cv7N2P7E_csIWPf27LsGPTakB0FXFqWgZJgQKZh54foly3f2x_KIkzgz85calxBtVrspnYj5rXUKxQ6wNVr3d-L47DJ$ or for phone support, call 866-208-3676. BEFORE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that U.S Fish and Wildlife Service’s Biological Opinion on the Temporary Variance of Flow Requirements for the Poe Hydroelectric Project, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Project #2107-065 has this day been electronically filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and served, via deposit in U.S. mail or by electric mail, upon each other person designated on the Service List for Project P-2107-065 compiled by the Commission Secretary. Dated at Sacramento, California, this 9th of June, 2025. A. Leigh Bartoo San Francisco Bay-Delta Fish and Wildlife Office 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 8-300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Aondrea_bartoo@fws.gov Document Accession #: 20250610-5009 Filed Date: 06/10/2025 AONDREA BARTOO Digitally signed by AONDREA BARTOO Date: 2025.06.09 15:24:46 -07'00' United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE San Francisco Bay-Delta Fish and Wildlife Office 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 8-300 Sacramento, California 95814 In reply refer to: ECOSphere #2023-0084372-S7-004 FERC #2107 June 9, 2025 Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street NE, Room 1A Washington, DC 20426 Subject: Formal Consultation and Informal Conference on the Temporary Minimum Instream Flow Variance for the Poe Hydroelectric Project, FERC #2107 in Butte County, California Dear Secretary Reese: This letter is in response to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) May 7, 2025 request for initiation of formal consultation and informal conference with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) proposed Temporary Minimum Instream Flow Variance (Variance; proposed project) for the Poe Hydroelectric Project (Project) in Butte County. Your request was received by the Service on May 7, 2025. At issue are the proposed Variance’s effects on the federally threatened North Feather Distinct Population Segment (DPS) foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii)(frog) and its proposed critical habitat. This DPS was listed as threatened on August 29, 2023 (88 FR 59698). Critical habitat was proposed on January 14, 2025 (90 FR 3412) and occurs within the Action Area from Poe dam to the upper extent of Oroville Reservoir, approximately eight river miles. Additionally at issue are the proposed Variance’s effects on the proposed as threatened northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata)(turtle). This response is provided under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), and in accordance with the implementing regulations pertaining to interagency cooperation (50 CFR 402). The federal action on which we are consulting is the variance request consisting of temporary reductions in the monthly minimum instream flow as required by Project license conditions. The Variance Biological Assessment (BA) was submitted to FERC on April 10, 2025 by the PG&E. The variance from monthly minimum flows would remain in effect from the time that the Project releases from Poe dam achieves 500 cubic feet per second (cfs) or June 1 (whichever occurs later) until November 15, 2025. Pursuant to 50 CFR 402.12(j), FERC referenced the April 10, 2025 PG&E BA for our review in your May 7, 2025 letter and requested initiation of formal consultation and informal conference. The findings conclude that the proposed Variance may affect and is likely to adversely affect the frog, may affect and is not likely to adversely affect the frog’s proposed Document Accession #: 20250610-5009 Filed Date: 06/10/2025 2 Secretary Reese critical habitat, and that the proposed Variance may affect and is not likely to adversely affect the turtle. In considering your request, we based our evaluation on the May 7, 2025 letter, the April 10, 2025 BA, Project (FERC # P-2107) email correspondence and meetings from 2023-2025, meetings and email exchanges between PG&E and the Service from 2024 to 2025, and other information available to the Service. The Service concurs with FERC’s determination that the Variance may affect and is not likely to adversely affect the frog’s proposed critical habitat and the turtle. The remainder of this Biological Opinion pertains to the impacts of the proposed Variance on the frog. Consultation History Sept 2024-Jan 2025 Email exchange and meetings between PG&E and Service. April 10, 2025 PG&E filed the BA with FERC. May 7, 2025 Service received FERC’s request for formal consultation and informal Conference. May 2025 Service and PG&E met and exchanged emails correspondence to discuss the Variance activities and conservation measures. BIOLOGICAL OPINION Description of the Proposed Action The Project (FERC #2107) is located on the North Fork Feather River, approximately 22 miles northeast of Oroville, California. The current Project license was issued on December 17, 2018. The Project consists of the Poe reservoir and dam, with associated spillway, radial gates, tunnel, powerhouse, and switchyard. PG&E proposes to conduct safety-related maintenance on the Poe dam and associated facilities. The maintenance on some of these facilities will necessitate the exclusive use of the low-level outlet for flow releases downstream while the activities are ongoing. The low-level outlet has a capacity between 100 and 150 cfs (depending on the height of Poe reservoir). PG&E has requested a variance of no less than 100 cfs to conform with this capacity. The proposed Variance is anticipated to implement all maintenance activities over the summer of 2025, including the reductions of instream flows. License Required Flows and Proposed Variance Flows The Project’s license-required minimum instream flows are specified in Table 1 below. The recession of flows reached the minimum flow of 500 cfs as of May 22, 2025 and will remain at this rate until this Variance is approved by FERC or until September when minimum flow reduces to 400 cfs. PG&E and FERC propose with the current Variance to implement temporary instream flows of no less than 100 cfs for June through November. The water year is currently designated as Document Accession #: 20250610-5009 Filed Date: 06/10/2025 3 Secretary Reese Wet, this results in a reduction in flow (difference) of 400 cfs for June through August, 300 cfs for September, 150 cfs for October, and 175 cfs for November. Table 1: Minimum Instream Flow by Month and Water Year Type. Month Water Year Type Wet Normal Dry Critically Dry October 250 250 180 180 November 275 275 180 180 December 300 300 180 180 January 325 325 180 180 February 350 350 225 225 March 350 350 300 300 April 400 400 325 300 May 500 400 350 300 June 500 400 350 300 July 500 400 350 300 August 500 400 350 300 September 400 400 300 250 PG&E and FERC propose to use varying means to reduce flow from 500 cfs to 100 cfs. If there is sufficient time, they propose to utilize the rate of one foot of stage change over three weeks. However, this recession rate would take approximately five weeks to achieve the 100 cfs instream flow (starting at 500 cfs). PG&E conducted Protocol 1 recession (10% decrease per day) from May 17 through 22, and flows continue to remain steady at 500 cfs (with an additional buffer) as of June 2, 2025. PG&E and FERC are proposing to make flow changes sub-500 cfs every two to three days, due to facility limitations in making flow changes at or less than 15 cfs. Table 3 of the BA (page 13) includes a daily breakdown of proposed flow changes of the proposed Variance over the entire period of the recession. Proposed Conservation Measures The foothill yellow-legged frog is known to occur throughout the North Fork Feather River affected by the proposed Variance. All life stages of the frog have been detected at multiple locations over the decades of surveys that have been conducted within this reach. Suitable breeding habitat occurs in many areas along this portion of the river. PG&E has included several measures within the BA intended to reduce impacts to the frog. The general measures include: • Environmental awareness training for all construction personnel expected to conduct Variance maintenance activities; • All wildlife species found within the construction areas (including staging and parking areas) will be allowed to move away on their own and will not be handled except by approved biologists; • All vehicles and equipment will be searched underneath before being moved to avoid crushing wildlife; • Vehicle speeds on unpaved roads will not exceed 15 miles per hour (mph); • All construction materials, spoils, or other debris will be removed from the area upon completion of the activities; and Document Accession #: 20250610-5009 Filed Date: 06/10/2025 4 Secretary Reese • Any frog suspected of being a listed species found within the Action Area after the start of construction activities will be reported to PG&E biologist. The PG&E biologist will provide additional instruction to construction personnel. PG&E has proposed additional measures for frog eggs and tadpoles that may be present during the implementation of the proposed Variance flows: • Ramping from 500 cfs to 100 cfs at a rate of one foot over three weeks, ramping at 10% every other day, or 10% every day. PG&E will implement the slowest recession rate possible that achieves the 100 cfs flow by August 1; • Conduct frog surveys at sites 4 and 7 once every three days over the duration that flows are reducing from 500 cfs to 100 cfs; and • Implement a frog rescue for any egg masses or tadpoles that may be impacted by receding flows at frog survey sites 4 and 7. Additionally, frog rescue will take place at frog survey site 1b, in the event breeding season surveys earlier in 2025 detected eggs or tadpoles at that location. Rescue will follow Service guidance for translocating frog egg masses and tadpoles (details included in the Reasonable and Prudent Measures section below). In addition to those measures proposed in the Variance, PG&E has subsequently proposed to modify data collection as included in the Project’s Frog Monitoring Plan during the Variance period: • Provide an estimate of number of tadpoles, when encountered; • When potentially impacted by a receding shoreline, provide an assessment of rescued tadpole condition; • Restricting data collection during frog rescue to include estimated numbers of each life stage observed (including numbers rescued) at each subsite on each day and their condition if rescued, and other parameters frog crews determine essential to collect and time allows; and • Establish photo points for sites 4 and 7 (and subsite 1b potentially). Photos of entire subsites (preferably from across the river) will be taken at approximately 500 cfs, 300 cfs, and once the minimum flow has been achieved under the Variance. Some subsites may be excluded due to vegetation obscuring most or all of the nearshore area. Additional photos providing a more detailed inspection of habitat shall be taken as frog crew time allows. Action Area The Action Area is defined in 50 CFR § 402.02, as “all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action.” For the proposed Variance, the Action Area encompasses the North Fork Feather River and associated nearshore riparian habitat from the Poe dam to the high-water mark of the Oroville reservoir downstream, approximately eight river miles. Analytical Framework for the Jeopardy Determination Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that Federal agencies ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species. “Jeopardize the continued existence of” means to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or Document Accession #: 20250610-5009 Filed Date: 06/10/2025 5 Secretary Reese indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species (50 CFR § 402.02). The jeopardy analysis in this biological opinion considers the effects of the proposed Federal action, and any cumulative effects, on the range-wide survival and recovery of the listed species. It relies on four components: (1) the Status of the Species, which describes the current range-wide condition of the species, the factors responsible for that condition, and its survival and recovery needs; (2) the Environmental Baseline, which analyzes the current condition of the species in the Action Area without the consequences to the listed species caused by the proposed action, the factors responsible for that condition, and the relationship of the Action Area to the survival and recovery of the species; (3) the Effects of the Action, which includes all consequences that are caused by the proposed Federal action, including the consequences of other activities that are caused by the proposed action but that are not part of the action; and (4) the Cumulative Effects, which evaluates the effects of future, non- Federal activities in the Action Area on the species. The Effects of the Action and Cumulative Effects are added to the Environmental Baseline and in light of the status of the species, the Service formulates its opinion as to whether the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species. Status of the Species For the most recent comprehensive assessment of the species’ range-wide status, please refer to the Species Status Assessment Report for the Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii) (Service 2023). Threats evaluated during that review and discussed in the final document have continued to act on the species since the 2023 Status Assessment was finalized. The North Feather DPS is located primarily in Plumas and Butte counties. The North Feather DPS is the smallest analysis unit and contains 118 stream segments with recent (i.e., 2000–2020) frog observations. Occupancy in the North Feather DPS is intermediate compared to that of other analysis units. The eastern and southwestern (near Lake Oroville) portions of the unit appear to be either declining in occupancy or extirpated. Abundances of frogs in the North Feather DPS largely are unknown but egg mass densities are very low in the two regulated stream reaches that have long-term monitoring (Rose et al. 2020). In the early to mid-2000s, local declines in abundance and the distribution of egg masses occurred within the Cresta reach. These declines likely were due to multiple factors, such as rapid recession rates following end of spill operations and recreational pulse flows for whitewater boating from 2002 to 2005 (Hayes et al. 2016; GANDA 2018). The regulated flow regime has since been modified (last recreational pulse flows during the breeding and rearing period in the Cresta reach were in 2005) but the population continues to return limited recruitment, although population numbers increased for 2019-2021 (PG&E 2024a). The North Feather DPS has the highest average relative risk of population decline among the four northern analysis units. Only 16 of the 109 analyzed stream segments are in the low-risk category and 34 stream segments are in the high-risk category. There does not appear to be a spatial pattern associated with the highest risks of decline in this DPS but the lowest risks are in stream segments along the West Branch Feather River in Butte County. Document Accession #: 20250610-5009 Filed Date: 06/10/2025 6 Secretary Reese The major threats that likely have or are contributing to the decline of the frog in the North Feather DPS include altered hydrology, nonnative species (bullfrogs and crayfish), agriculture, mining, urbanization (including roads and recreation), fires (and resulting landslides), and climate change. The North Feather DPS is one of the most hydrologically altered part of the frog’s range and contains a high density of hydropower dams (CDFW 2019) where pulse flows from hydropeaking are generally much greater in frequency and intensity compared to other sources of flow fluctuations (Greimel et al. 2018). Some breeding populations in regulated reaches are so small that they may even be at risk of collapse from signal crayfish dislodging egg masses and/or consuming early-stage tadpoles (Rombough and Hayes 2005; Wiseman et al. 2005; Dillingham 2019), in addition to other threats. The Poe reach, which has historically supported a robust frog population, also has seen declines in recent years. Egg mass detections in 2022 (70 egg masses), 2023 (41 egg masses), and 2024 (57 egg masses) were well below the average number detected for the previous 16 years (103 average egg masses for 2006-2021). Additionally, the Service determined Butte Creek frogs likely were negatively impacted when a PG&E canal failed on August 9, 2023, sending 3900 cubic yards of sediment into the creek (PG&E 2024b; Service 2023). Since most of the 2023 cohort was in the tadpole stage on the date of this event, a large proportion of those individuals may have been lost. It is unclear to the Service at this time if this event will have a long-term impact on this previously robust population. The Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Conservation Assessment (Service 2023) identified the five major risk factors affecting the frog throughout its range as 1) water development and diversion, 2) climate change, 3) introduced species, 4) mining, and 5) habitat loss, urbanization, and fragmentation (Hayes et al. 2016). These risks also impact the North Feather DPS. Life Cycle of the Frog The frog is a stream-obligate species and is primarily observed in or along the edges of streams (Zweifel 1955; Kupferberg 1996). Most frogs breed along mainstem water channels and overwinter along smaller tributaries of the mainstem channel (Kupferberg 1996; GANDA 2008). Habitat within the stream includes shallow water rocky substrate mostly free of sediments with interstitial spaces to allow for predator avoidance. Stream morphology is a strong predictor of breeding habitat because it creates the microhabitat conditions required for successful oviposition (i.e., egg-laying), hatching, growth, and metamorphosis. Frogs that overwinter along tributaries often congregate at the same breeding locations along the mainstem each year (Kupferberg 1996; Wheeler and Welsh 2008). During the nonbreeding season, the smaller tributaries, some of which may only flow during the wet winter season, provide refuge while the larger breeding channels may experience overbank flooding and high flows (Kupferberg 1996). Frogs require stream flow regimes to have or mimic natural flow patterns. Natural flow patterns include high winter flows with a slowly diminishing hydrograph combined with increasing water temperature into the spring and early summer, with stable over-summer minimal flows. Higher winter flows can maintain and/or increase quality and quantity of breeding habitat by widening and diversifying channel morphology, improving rocky substrate conditions, and increasing sunlight through vegetation reduction (Lind et al. 1996; Lind et al. 2016; Power et al. 2016). The reduction in flows and increasing water temperatures also are cues for the frog to initiate breeding. As a result, frogs rely on natural, predictable changes during the hydrological cycle to optimize early life-stage growth and survival (Kupferberg 1996; Bondi et al. 2013). Document Accession #: 20250610-5009 Filed Date: 06/10/2025 7 Secretary Reese During their lifecycle, frogs feed on a variety of plants and animals. During tadpole development, food sources include algae, diatoms, and detritus that are scraped from submerged rocks and vegetation (Ashton et al. 1997; Fellers 2005). Juvenile and adult frogs prey upon many types of aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates including snails, moths, flies, water striders, beetles, grasshoppers, hornets, and ants (Nussbaum et al. 1983). Adult frogs primarily use waterway corridors to migrate or disperse (Bourque 2008) and make their movements over multiple days (GANDA 2008). While most frogs are found in, or very close to, water, juveniles and adults also have been observed moving through upland areas along intermittent drainages or in moist habitat outside of riparian corridors (Service 2023, pp. 64–65). Routes need to connect breeding areas and overwintering habitat without exposing frogs to large physical barriers (e.g., roads, development, reservoirs) or a high risk of predation. These migration and dispersal routes provide for metapopulation connectivity and allow for ease of mobility (for post- metamorphic life stages) within a metapopulation and between different metapopulations. Both breeding/rearing and overwintering sites need to be distributed across the metapopulation area. Frog occupancy (i.e., presence of breeding adults in a given area) also must be well distributed, such that dispersers are able to repopulate extirpated areas of the metapopulation. A sufficiently resilient frog metapopulation should have a network of quality breeding/rearing sites (often on or near the mainstem channel) and overwintering sites (often on tributaries of the mainstem) that are connected by habitat suitable for migration and dispersal (Service 2023). In-depth discussion of habitat and population elements required for the frog is in the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 52–70). Environmental Baseline Environmental baseline refers to the condition of the listed species or its designated critical habitat in the Action Area, without the consequences to the listed species or designated critical habitat caused by the proposed action. The environmental baseline includes the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other human activities in the Action Area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the Action Area that have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of State or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in process. The impacts to listed species or designated critical habitat from ongoing Federal agency activities or existing Federal agency facilities that are not within the agency’s discretion to modify are part of the Environmental Baseline. Previous Consultations Within or Adjacent to the Action Area PG&E and FERC previously requested ESA consultation in 2023 for activities similar to the current proposed Variance. The Service issued an informal Conference concurrence on July 27, 2023 in response to FERC’s July 18, 2023 request for informal Conference for the frog. The FERC issued a license amendment on July 28, 2023 to allow the variance of the Project’s minimum instream flows from July through September of 2023. However, FERC did not issue a license amendment to allow the maintenance on the Project facilities to occur, so although flows were reduced, the other activities did not take place. PG&E reported subsequent to implementation of the 2023 variance that they had unintendedly violated one of the conditions of FERC’s license order for the variance, by not stopping the recession of flows upon detection of impacts to frog tadpoles. On April 16, 2024, FERC directed that PG&E request the Service’s assessment of the impacts to the species from Document Accession #: 20250610-5009 Filed Date: 06/10/2025 8 Secretary Reese the 2023 variance and violation of license condition. The Service provided our assessment to PG&E on June 11, 2024, and PG&E included that letter in their response to FERC (FERC elibrary ascension # 20240315-5227). The Service issued a biological opinion on March 14, 2025 for the Rock Creek-Cresta Hydroelectric project’s (FERC #1962) amendment for the frog, which included updates to the monthly minimum instream flows, recession rates, and frog monitoring, among others (Service File # 2023-0084497- S7). Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog The Environmental Baseline does not include the effects of the action under review in this biological opinion. In this case, the effects of the action are those resulting from the implementation of the proposed Variance from June through November 2025, as proposed by FERC and PG&E, and are, therefore, not included in the Environmental Baseline for this consultation. The Service evaluated historical flows for the Poe reach (including past operations of the Project), unimpaired flows (using flow from the East Branch Feather River {East Branch}), and survey data from 2002 through 2024 for the Environmental Baseline. Other past, present, and ongoing impacts of human and natural factors (including proposed Federal projects that have already undergone section 7 consultation) contributing to the current condition of the species in the Action Area are included in the Environmental Baseline for section 7 consultation purposes. To provide a comprehensive description of the Environmental Baseline, a qualitative look at historical operations of the Project is included to further inform the current condition of the species in the Action Area, along with all of the other factors contributing to the current condition. The Status of the Species and Environmental Baseline provides the basis to determine the current range- wide status of the species in the Action Area to inform a complete picture for the frog at the time of this consultation. The cumulative effects and effects of the proposed Amendment are then added to this status and baseline to inform whether the proposed Amendment is likely to jeopardize the frog. The population within the Poe reach has been monitored annually since 2002 by PG&E crews. Population estimates are most readily conducted by surveying for egg masses, as generally each breeding female will lay no more than one egg mass a year (Storer 1925, Wheeler et al. 2006). Population estimates have varied since surveys began in the early 2000s (Figure 1). Interannual change in egg mass detections ranges from a maximum of 150% increase (2011-2012) to 75% decrease (2010-2011), with an overall average interannual change for all 24 years of 18%. Monitoring efforts in 2023 and 2024 were hampered by a number of factors (high-water years restricting safe survey access early in the spring, landslides and fires periodically restricting access as well as visibility within the water, among others). Long-term impacts are further complicated by the persistent and increasing impact of fires, which often result in landslides within the Project area or in areas hydrologically-connected to the Poe reach. Increased fine sediment is known to negatively impact egg and tadpole life stages, as well as aquatic invertebrates that provide part of the frog’s dietary requirements. Many of the years with the lowest number of observed egg masses were years with significantly higher rainfall and snowmelt (and greater instream flows), which likely restricted access for frog crews to later in the summer. This restriction would have made detecting egg masses Document Accession #: 20250610-5009 Filed Date: 06/10/2025 9 Secretary Reese considerably more challenging and likely resulted in a much lower percentage of egg masses being detected, rather than the result of fewer egg masses having been present. More years of consistent Figure 1: Egg mass detections 2002-2024, taken from PG&E Results of 2024 Surveys for Foothill Yellow- Legged Frog (Rana boylii) on the Poe Reach of the North Fork Feather River (PG&E 2025). monitoring is required to better understand population trends within the Poe area (GANDA 2018; Dillingham 2019; Rose et al. 2020), as it is unclear to the Service if the inter-annual population variability is due to environmental conditions resulting in fewer frogs or detectability by frog survey crews (or some combination of both). Historical Hydrological Regime The Service reviewed the hydrological regime for the Poe reach and East Branch North Fork Feather River (East Branch) from 2002 through 2024, from April 1 to September 30 of each year, with an emphasis on the recession sub-500 cfs in each year. The Service utilized the East Branch as a proxy for a natural hydrology and spring recession. The comparison of these two datasets allows an approximation of how Poe operations has impacted the local frog population over these decades, given that the East Branch has no significant impoundments (serves as a proxy for the “without project” alternative). The Service selected this range of dates due to the frog surveys that were conducted over the same years. Additionally, special emphasis was given to the years 2019 through 2024, due to the issuance of the new license in December 2018 and subsequent implementation of new instream flows and recession rates. All five years (2019-2024) spring recession hydrographs are included in Attachment 1. Following is a more in-depth analysis of the 2023 hydrograph as an example (Figure 2) with additional detail for the sub-500 cfs portion of the recession (Figure 3). Document Accession #: 20250610-5009 Filed Date: 06/10/2025 10 Secretary Reese Figure 2: Poe reach (Pulga) hydrograph for 2023 with East Branch Feather River and dates when egg masses and tadpoles were present. Figure 3: Poe reach (Pulga) hydrograph for 2023 with East Branch Feather River when flows were sub-500cfs and dates when egg masses and tadpoles were present. Document Accession #: 20250610-5009 Filed Date: 06/10/2025 11 Secretary Reese Figure 4: 2023 Flows and Frog Breeding Periods, taken from PG&E Results of 2023 Surveys for Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii) on the Poe Reach of the North Fork Feather River (PG&E 2024). 2023: Eggs and/or tadpoles were present from June through at least early September (Figure 4). 2023 was a wet water year type. The spring recession continued from April through the first half of July (see Figure 2). The first observed egg mass in the Poe reach was oviposited on June 1. Due to the oviposition timing of observed egg masses, the East Branch recession would have been expected to result in moderate losses of egg masses. PG&E crews detected a total of 41 egg masses in the Poe reach, approximately 17 of which became impacted (scoured, stranded, or frayed), although it is not certain what percentage of these egg masses were impacted as a direct result of Poe operations. Tadpoles likely experienced moderate losses (stranding) by the continuation of the recession into mid-July for both East Branch and Poe. From mid-July through September, East Branch remained relatively steady (with a very slight reduction in flow over this period) and would have been expected to result in very small or negligible losses to tadpoles. Due to the implementation of the 2023 variance, Poe flows reduced from approximately 550 cfs in early August to 170 cfs in early September. PG&E crews detected 22 tadpole groups at frog survey sites 4 and 7 in 2023, all of which were subjected to reduced flows during the August recession. Multiple individual tadpoles were detected as stranded, with some entire tadpole groups being impacted. In our June 11, 2024 letter to PG&E, we determined that somewhere between 1 and 12.6% of detected tadpoles were killed by the 2023 variance operations. Overview 2019-2024: Potential impacts to eggs from the Poe and East Branch recessions varied between years. 2020 through 2022 Poe hydrographs had little or no recession, with a steady (or nearly steady) flow for the entire frog egg and tadpole periods, while the East Branch had varying degrees of increased flow and subsequent recession. The recession associated with East Branch would have been expected to have some impacts to both eggs and tadpoles, while the relatively flat Document Accession #: 20250610-5009 Filed Date: 06/10/2025 12 Secretary Reese Poe hydrograph would not have been expected to harm eggs or tadpoles. An absence of a typical spring hydrograph for three of the six most recent years may be impacting the timing of breeding as frogs are assumed to utilize receding flows as one instigator of breeding. The relatively large egg mass detections in 2020-2022 may have been partially due to the early access frog survey crews had to each breeding site, at least in relation to the other water years with higher spring flows, or these years potentially could have had a larger number of females laying eggs. For the years 2019, 2023, and 2024, moderate impacts would have been expected for egg masses with both the East Branch and Poe hydrographs. Some impacts to tadpoles would have been anticipated for both hydrographs for 2019, 2023, and 2024, with potentially more impacts from the 2023 Poe hydrograph to older tadpoles than for the East Branch hydrograph that year. Effects of the Proposed Action Effects of the action are all consequences to listed species or critical habitat that are caused by the proposed action, including the consequences of other activities that are caused by the proposed action but that are not part of the action. A consequence is caused by the proposed action if it would not occur but for the proposed action and it is reasonably certain to occur. Effects of the action may occur later in time and may include consequences occurring outside the immediate area involved in the action. The analysis that follows is generally qualitative. Knowledge of currently available scientific information can provide basic information but may not enable prediction of how a species will respond to changes in its environment, particularly aggregate effects of multiple factors because aggregate and cumulative impacts are difficult to predict. This is because aggregate and cumulative impacts usually require a time component such as sequential exposure to a stressor. With a changing climate and fire regime, some stressors may be increasing in frequency or impact over time. Additionally, knowledge of a species is typically evolving over time, which can result in the illumination of some stressors having larger (or smaller) consequences to the species than historically understood. The Service acknowledges these interpretive limitations of this effects analysis. The following analysis is comprised of 1) sub-500 cfs recession hydrographs; 2) frog rescue, and 3) photo analysis of habitats. Sub-500 cfs Recession Hydrographs The Service reviewed the hydrological regime from approximately 500 cfs down to the minimum proposed flow in the Variance for the Poe reach from 2019 through 2024. The Service utilized the Poe reach hydrology as the baseline flow and the proposed Variance rules and restrictions for the “with project” flow. The comparison of these two datasets allows an evaluation of how the proposed Variance may have impact the local frog population within the historical dataset, and therefore an approximation of how the Variance may impact the frog in 2025. Special emphasis was given to 2023, as a very similar variance of flows was conducted that year. The spring recession hydrographs for all six years (2019-2024) are included in Attachment 2. Below is a more in-depth analysis of 2023. Document Accession #: 20250610-5009 Filed Date: 06/10/2025 13 Secretary Reese 2023: Eggs and/or tadpoles were present from June through September. 2023 was wet water year type. The Poe reach had an extended peak in flows starting in March and continuing through June. The first observed egg mass in the Poe reach was oviposited on June 1. The implementation of proposed Variance flows would not have been expected to result in impacts to eggs, as the proposed recession would not have begun until after all eggs had hatched. The Variance would have been expected to impact tadpoles, as the Variance would have shifted the sub-500 cfs recession to July 15 through July 28 (10%/day) or July 15 through August 20 (1foot/3 weeks) (see Figure 5). Figure 5: Poe reach (Pulga) hydrograph for 2023 with 1 foot/3 weeks and 10%/day recessions when flows were sub-500 cfs, including dates when tadpoles were present. Overview 2019-2024: The Variance recession would have been expected to impact eggs in 2020 and 2021, but not in the other years analyzed. For those impacts in 2020 and 2021, eggs would have been present for the first 19 days (2021) and 14 days (2020) of the Variance recession. Of those eggs present on the first day of the Variance recession, most would have been anticipated to be lost with the 10% per day recession and a significant, albeit smaller number of eggs would have been anticipated to be lost with the one foot per three weeks recession. As for both 2020 and 2021, some percentage of egg masses present at the start of the recession would have been closer to hatching, and those may have been able to hatch prior to becoming stranded. However, egg losses during these periods could have been significant had the Variance been implemented. The Variance recession would have had fewer impacts to tadpoles than eggs in 2020 and 2021, as most impacts from those years mostly would have occurred when eggs were present. For the remaining years (2019, 2022 through 2024), potentially significant impacts would have been anticipated to tadpoles had the Variance been implemented. As the 2023 variance was implemented similarly to the currently proposed one foot over three weeks recession, direct impacts were observed and assessed in that year and can be extrapolated. Impacts to tadpoles in 2023 under the proposed 10% per day recession likely would have been significantly greater than for the proposed one foot over three weeks recession. For 2019, 2022, and 2024, at the recession of one foot over three weeks, the Service anticipates that tadpole losses would have been similar to those observed in 2023, while tadpole impacts associated with the recession of 10% per day would have been Document Accession #: 20250610-5009 Filed Date: 06/10/2025 14 Secretary Reese anticipated to be significantly greater. All of the tadpole habitat present at the start of the Variance would have been dry before the completion of the flow recession (shift from 500 cfs to 100 cfs) and any tadpoles that were unable to move with the receding shoreline would have been killed. Given the tendency of tadpoles to remain in place during flow changes, this could have meant that a significant portion of the tadpole cohort in these years could have been lost had the Variance been implemented. 2025: If any eggs are present when the Variance is implemented, they may become stranded, while any eggs rescued will be subjected to handling (stress, potential injury or mortality). Tadpoles may be stranded or scoured during the implementation of the proposed Variance. Tadpoles typically prefer the shallowest margins of the river edge and have very limited swimming abilities (Kupferberg et al 2011). During periods of flow transition, tadpoles typically find refugia in the interstitial spaces within the substrate and do not actively follow the receding shoreline (Kupferberg et al 2011)(Lind et al 2010). This can result in stranding and desiccation during periods of transitions where the shoreline recedes below where tadpoles are holding. The slowest recession proposed allows the Poe reach recession rate to more closely mimic a natural recession; however, impacts are still expected even with the slowest recession proposed (greater impacts would be associated with the two faster recessions proposed). Frog survey crews detected the start of breeding in the Poe reach on May 6 (first egg mass detected). Given that the proposed Variance would not begin until at least the issuance date of this biological opinion and FERC’s subsequent approval of the action, it is likely that the action would not impact egg masses, as most (possibly all) would be anticipated to have hatched by the start of the recession. Therefore, it is possible that any impacts from the proposed Variance would be exclusively on tadpoles. Given the preceding analysis for the 2019-2024 period, impacts to tadpoles from the proposed Variance could potentially be significant. Frog Rescue PG&E proposes to implement a Frog Rescue every three days during the recession period when flows are transitioning from 500 cfs to the minimum proposed in the Variance. During this period, eggs and tadpoles in danger of desiccation or stranding from receding flows will be translocated within the river to locations within the appropriate depth range for the life stage and that will be protected from reducing flows. Although the Frog Rescue will occur only at discrete locations (frog survey sites 4, 7, and potentially 1b), its implementation is anticipated to reduce some of the impacts from receding flows, thereby reducing the overall impact of the Variance recession for the Poe reach. Additionally, both frog survey sites 4 and 7 have had a larger number of egg masses and tadpoles in recent years, compared to the other frog survey sites, making these two locations the best choice to focus rescue efforts in 2025. For instance, between 2020 and 2024, sites 4 and 7 held between 45% and 86% of the total number of egg masses detected over the entire reach. With the potential inclusion of site 1b (if breeding is detected), this could additionally further minimize the impact of the Variance action. Not all rescued tadpoles are expected to survive (due to condition upon discovery); however, PG&E proposes to utilize experienced frog crews who are able to translocate any life stage with minimal disturbance to individuals, therefore maximizing their potential to survive. Additionally, given the frequency with which frog crews will be performing Document Accession #: 20250610-5009 Filed Date: 06/10/2025 15 Secretary Reese rescue (every three days), the Service anticipates that the majority of impacted tadpoles at sites 4 and 7 (and potentially 1b) will be rescued. Habitat Photos Documenting through photography all subsites (excluding those subsites where vegetation obscures most or all of the nearshore habitat) of frog survey sites 4 and 7 at three flow levels is anticipated to allow the Service to further determine how frog habitat changes over the course of the proposed Variance recession. Combining this photo documentation with any observed impacts in 2025 should additionally assist the Service in understanding what proportion of tadpoles may be anticipated to be impacted from such an action in the future and more accurately understand how the Variance impacted tadpoles in 2025. The photography itself is not anticipated to impact frogs. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, Tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the Action Area considered in this biological opinion. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act. During this consultation, the Service did not identify any future non-federal actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the Action Area of the proposed project. Conclusion After reviewing the current Status of Species for the frog, the Environmental Baseline for the Action Area, the Effects of the Proposed Action, and the Cumulative Effects, it is the Service’s biological opinion that the Variance, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the frog, nor result in adverse modification or destruction to critical habitat. The Service reached this conclusion because the project-related effects to the species and critical habitat, when added to the Environmental Baseline and analyzed in consideration of all potential cumulative effects, will not rise to the level of precluding recovery, reducing the likelihood of survival of the species, nor adverse modification of critical habitat based on the following: (1) PG&E has proposed an extensive frog rescue that would be expected to reduce overall impacts of the Variance; (2) PG&E has proposed to recede flows in as slowly a manner as possible over the course of the Variance; 3) PG&E will photo document habitat at three flow levels at sites 4 and 7, assisting in the future management of the species; and (4) PG&E will continue to collaborate with the Service periodically to ensure Poe impacts to the frog are minimized to the greatest extent practicable. INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm in the definition of “take” in the Act means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such [an] act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, Document Accession #: 20250610-5009 Filed Date: 06/10/2025 16 Secretary Reese feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not the purpose of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the Act provided that such taking is in compliance with the proposed protective measures and the terms and conditions of an incidental take statement and occurs as a result of the action as proposed. The measures described below are non-discretionary and must be undertaken by the FERC so that they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to the applicant, as appropriate, for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The FERC has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement. If the FERC (1) fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions or (2) fails to require the applicant to adhere to the terms and conditions of the incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are added to the permit or grant document, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the FERC or PG&E must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in the incidental take statement [50 CFR §402.14(i)(4)]. Amount or Extent of Take Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog The Service anticipates that incidental take of the frog will be difficult to detect due to its life history and ecology. It is difficult to determine the number of eggs and tadpoles that could be injured or killed because 1) eggs are typically lain in well-hidden locations, cryptic in appearance, and are present typically for short periods of time; 2) tadpoles are small and are sometimes partially covered by or camouflaged by algae within the interstitial spaces of the substrate; and 3) both eggs and tadpoles quickly decompose or are consumed by scavengers when stranded. Conservation measures proposed by PG&E and FERC and described in the “Description of the Proposed Action” will reduce, but do not eliminate, the potential for incidental taking of the frog. Incidental take associated with this action is expected in the following forms: harassment of juvenile and adult frogs as well as harassment, mortality and harm of eggs and tadpoles. The Service anticipates injury and mortality of eggs and tadpoles could occur as a result of stranding or scouring resulting from flow changes and also anticipates harassment, injury, and mortality from handling during rescue. Therefore, the Service anticipates that all frogs inhabiting the Action Area will be subject to incidental take in the form of harm, harass, injury, or mortality. If the conditions described above are not maintained, the amount or extent of the anticipated level of incidental take will be considered exceeded and reinitiation will be required pursuant to 50 CFR 402.16. Upon implementation of the following reasonable and prudent measures, incidental take of the frog associated with the proposed Amendment will become exempt from the prohibitions described in section 9 of the Act. No other forms of take are exempted under this opinion. Effect of the Take In the accompanying biological opinion, the Service determined that this level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species. Document Accession #: 20250610-5009 Filed Date: 06/10/2025 17 Secretary Reese Reasonable and Prudent Measures All necessary and appropriate measures to avoid or minimize effects on the frog resulting from implementation of this project have been incorporated into the project’s proposed conservation measures. Therefore, the Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measure is necessary and appropriate to minimize incidental take of the frog: 1. All conservation measures, as described in the May 7, 2025 request for consultation, the Variance filed with FERC on April 10, 2025 (including the BA), and during subsequent meetings between PG&E and the Service in May 2025, and restated here in the Project Description section of this biological opinion, shall be fully implemented and adhered to. 2. PG&E shall maintain regular communication with the Service staff lead during implementation of the recession, meet with the Service upon completion of the Variance to discuss the 2025 monitoring results no later than December 31, 2025, and provide a detailed report of the proposed Variance and observed impacts to the frog no later than March 31, 2026. Further, these reasonable and prudent measures shall be supplemented by the terms and conditions below. Terms and Conditions In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the FERC must ensure compliance with the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measure described above. These terms and conditions are nondiscretionary. The following Terms and Conditions implement Reasonable and Prudent Measure 1: 1. FERC and PG&E shall include full implementation and adherence to the conservation measures as a condition of any permit or contract issued for the Variance. 2. FERC or PG&E shall require that all personnel associated with the Variance activities are made aware of the conservation measures and the responsibility to implement them fully. a. Handling of a federally-listed species shall be done by an amphibian biologist with appropriate experience (commensurate education and experience as expected for a Recovery Permit). PG&E shall make available upon request the curriculum vitae of any biologists proposed to handle the species. 3. PG&E is authorized to conduct monitoring and rescue activities for any life stage of the frog that may result in take from implementation of this Variance: a. The Service anticipates survey efforts may result in harassment (capture, handle, release) within the geographic boundaries and time limitation specified previously in this Biological Opinion. b. Frogs will not be retained for more than five minutes of processing. Tadpoles will be rewetted at least every 30 seconds. c. If captured frogs exhibit signs of distress (e.g., lack of response to stimuli or erratic behavior), they will be immediately released at the point of capture (with the Document Accession #: 20250610-5009 Filed Date: 06/10/2025 18 Secretary Reese exception of rescued tadpoles, which can be moved even if non-responsive). d. Amplexing pairs of frogs will not be disturbed, captured, or handled. 4. Translocation Protocols (frog rescue): a. Egg masses: When translocating egg masses, the object the egg mass is attached to (rock, woody debris, etc.) shall be moved without detaching the egg mass (eggs wetted during entire transfer). If the object cannot be moved, the egg mass shall be carefully detached before moving. Egg masses shall be translocated to water no more than two feet deep, protected from scouring flows, and shall only be moved once during flow transitions. b. Rearing Baskets: In the event an egg mass cannot be safely translocated due to a longer flow transition period (would require more than one translocation), that egg mass shall be placed in a flow-through rearing basket designed to protect eggs from predators and placed within the edge-water of the North Fork Feather River. Eggs placed in baskets may be reared at any suitable location within the Poe reach, as long as eggs remain wetted and protected during a minimal transportation time. PG&E shall monitor the basket(s) closely during the remainder of the flow transition, ensuring the eggs remain below the water level at all times and are not flushed into the main river channel. Any PG&E staff may monitor rearing baskets once in place, as long as the staff receives appropriate instruction from the frog crews on how to properly maintain the baskets. c. Release of tadpoles: Once the eggs have begun to hatch, the tadpoles and remaining eggs shall be removed from the basket, tadpoles allowed to move freely, and the remaining unhatched eggs placed in a hydrologically-protected location along the shoreline where they will remain inundated until all viable eggs are hatched. Frog crews also may alternatively choose to maintain unhatched eggs within the rearing baskets, should an egg mass have an extended hatching period (releasing tadpoles as they hatch). Tadpoles hatched from eggs that are reared at a different location than where they were laid, should be preferentially released at the original egg mass location, if practicable. Should conditions prevent the safe release of tadpoles to original locations, frog crews are permitted to release tadpoles at the location of rearing or another location within the Poe reach providing high quality tadpole habitat. The alternative location of tadpole release may be determined by the frog crews, using the best available information on breeding location habitat suitability. PG&E shall ensure all tadpoles are released within the still waters of the river’s edge, and not subjected to flows greater than 10 centimeters per second, and preferentially released within flows less than 5 centimeters per second. The following Terms and Conditions implement Reasonable and Prudent Measure 2: 1. The FERC or PG&E shall contact the Service’s San Francisco Bay-Delta Fish and Wildlife Office at (916-930-5603) within 5 working days to report direct encounters between listed species and Poe staff (not including staff affiliated with the frog crews) and their equipment whereby incidental take in the form of harassment occurs. If the direct encounter results in harm, injury, or death, the encounter must be reported immediately. If the encounter occurs after normal working hours, the FERC or PG&E shall contact the San Francisco Bay-Delta Fish and Wildlife Office at the earliest possible opportunity the next working day. When Document Accession #: 20250610-5009 Filed Date: 06/10/2025 19 Secretary Reese injured or killed individuals of the listed species are found, the FERC or PG&E shall follow the steps outlined in the Salvage and Disposition of Individuals section below. 2. For those components of the action that will require the translocation of eggs or tadpoles, PG&E shall submit weekly email updates beginning on the first week that such actions occur and continuing until no further translocations are required for this Variance to the San Francisco Bay-Delta Fish and Wildlife Office staff lead. The weekly email updates should provide sufficient details such that the Service is kept aware of approximate numbers translocated of each life stage and the location. However, the Service is aware that given the large field effort, these details may not always be available each week. The Service requests that PG&E coordinate on a weekly basis to the best of their ability. 3. PG&E shall provide a detailed summary to the Service of the previous year’s survey and translocation efforts no later than March 31, 2026. This summary shall include the number of egg masses observed, date of oviposition (when Gosner backdating is available), number of tadpoles and other life stages observed, location for all life stages observed, eventual fate of each life stage (if known), flows within the Poe reach for the entire egg and tadpole period, and other pertinent information. The summary can be a stand-alone document or may be included in a larger Poe licensing report. Salvage and Disposition of Individuals: Injured listed species must be cared for by a licensed veterinarian or other qualified person(s), such as the Service-approved biologist. Adult and juvenile individuals killed from direct contact with Poe personnel or equipment must be sealed in a resealable plastic bag containing a paper with the date and time when the animal was found, the location where it was found, and the name of the person who found it, and the bag containing the specimen frozen in a freezer located in a secure site, until instructions are received from the Service regarding the disposition of the dead specimen. The Service contact person is the FERC Coordinator at the San Francisco Bay-Delta Fish and Wildlife Office at (916) 930-5603. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to develop information. The Service recommends the following action: The Service recommends that PG&E continue to work closely with the Service to determine the best applicable management for the frog within the Action Area, including protective ramping rates and other measures that reduce impacts to various life stages of the species from implementation of the Poe project. PG&E shall keep the Service informed (and encourage discussion) at appropriate times of the year (especially as data is produced), at licensing meetings, Project emails, or other correspondence as appropriate. Document Accession #: 20250610-5009 Filed Date: 06/10/2025 20 Secretary Reese In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or benefiting listed species or their habitats, the Service requests notification of the implementation of any conservation recommendations. REINITIATION—CLOSING STATEMENT This concludes formal consultation and informal conference on the temporary flow variance for the Poe project. You may ask the Service to confirm the conference concurrence as a consultation concurrence, issued through informal consultation, if the action hasn't occurred yet or is ongoing when, and if, the turtle is listed or critical habitat for the frog is finalized. The request must be in writing. If you determine that the proposed action has not changed and the Service finds that there have been no significant changes in the action as planned or in the information used during the conference, the Service will confirm the conference concurrence as the consultation concurrence on the proposed project and no further section 7 consultation will be necessary. As provided in 50 CFR §402.16, (a) Reinitiation of consultation is required and shall be requested by the Federal agency, where discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action has been retained or is authorized by law and: (1) If the amount or extent of taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (2) If new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; (3) If the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the biological opinion or written concurrence; or (4) If a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified action. (b) An agency shall not be required to reinitiate consultation after the approval of a land management plan prepared pursuant to 43 U.S.C. 1712 or 16 U.S.C. 1604 upon listing of a new species or designation of new critical habitat if the land management plan has been adopted by the agency as of the date of listing or designation, provided that any authorized actions that may affect the newly listed species or designated critical habitat will be addressed through a separate action- specific consultation. This exception to reinitiation of consultation shall not apply to those land management plans prepared pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1604 if: (1) Fifteen years have passed since the date the agency adopted the land management plan prepared pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1604; and (2) Five years have passed since the enactment of Public Law 115-141 [March 23, 2018] or the date of the listing of a species or the designation of critical habitat, whichever is later. Document Accession #: 20250610-5009 Filed Date: 06/10/2025 21 Secretary Reese If you have any questions regarding this biological opinion, please contact A. Leigh Bartoo at Aondrea_bartoo@fws.gov. Sincerely, Donald Ratcliff Field Supervisor Attachment 1: Yearly Spring Hydrographs for Years 2019-2024, Poe and East Branch Attachment 2: Yearly Spring Hydrographs for Years 2019-2024, Poe and Variance ecc: Katherine Schmidt, FERC Anna Urias, PG&E Michael Maher, CDFW Kurt Sable, Forest Service Jessica Dyke, SWRCB Jeff Venturino, AW Chris Shutes, CSPA Tracey Fergussen, Plumas County Document Accession #: 20250610-5009 Filed Date: 06/10/2025 22 Secretary Reese Literature Cited Ashton, D.T., A.J. Lind, and K.E. Schlick. 1997. Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boylii) Natural History. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, CA. Bondi, Cheryl A., Sarah M. Yarnell, and Amy J. Lind. 2013. Transferability of habitat suitability criteria for a stream breeding frog (Rana boylii) in the Sierra Nevada, California Bourque, R.M. 2008. Spatial Ecology of an Inland Population of the Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boylii) in Tehama County, California. Master’s Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2019. Status Review of the Foothill Yellow- legged Frog (Rana boylii) in California. Report to the Fish and Game Commission. Accessed March 26, 2020. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=174663&inline. Dillingham, C.P. 2019. Cresta Reach Survey and in-situ captive propagation. Final Report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Plumas National Forest. Fellers, G.M. 2005. Rana boylii Baird, 1854(b). Pp. 534–536 In M. Lannoo (editor) Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of United States Species. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. GANDA (Garcia and Associates). 2008. Identifying Microclimatic and Water Flow Triggers Associated with Breeding Activities of a Foothill Yellow‐Legged Frog (Rana boylii) Population on the North Fork Feather River, California. Report prepared for the California Energy Commission, PIER Energy‐Related Environmental Research Program. CEC‐500‐2007‐041. GANDA (Garcia and Associates). 2018. Draft Results of 2017 Surveys for Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii) on the Cresta and Poe Reaches of the North Fork Feather River. Prepared for PG&E. March 2018. Greimel, F., L. Schülting, W. Graf, E. Bondar-Kunze, S. Auer, B. Zeiringer, and C. Hauer. 2018. Hydropeaking impacts and mitigation. Pp. 91–110 In Riverine Ecosystem Management, Aquatic Ecology Series 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-319-73250-3_5. Hayes, M.P., C.A. Wheeler, A.J. Lind, G.A. Green, and D.C. Macfarlane (Technical Coordinators). 2016. Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Conservation Assessment in California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW- GTR-248. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California. Kupferberg, S.J. 1996. Hydrologic and geomorphic factors affecting conservation of a river- breeding frog (Rana boylii). Ecological Applications 6:1332–1344. Kupferberg, S.J., A.J. Lind, V. Thill, and S.M. Yarnell. 2011. Water Velocity Tolerance in Tadpoles of the Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii): Swimming Performance, Growth, and Survival. Copeia 2011(1):141-152. Document Accession #: 20250610-5009 Filed Date: 06/10/2025 23 Secretary Reese Lind, A.J., H.H. Welsh, Jr., and R.A. Wilson. 1996. The Effects of a Dam on Breeding Habitat and Egg Survival of the Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boylii) in Northwestern California. Herpetological Review 27(2):62–67. Lind, A., C. Bondi, and S. Yarnell. 2010. Rana boylii: Tadpole Behavior, Movement, and Algal Food Resources under Natural and Hydro-Peaking Flow Conditions. Final Report to the California Energy Commission. Lind, A.J., H.H. Welsh, Jr., and C.A. Wheeler. 2016. Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii) Oviposition Site Choice at Multiple Spatial Scales. Journal of Herpetology 50(2):263–270. Nussbaum, R.A., E.D. Brodie, and R.M. Storm. Amphibians and reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. Caxton Press, 1983. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). 2024a. Summary of Annual foothill yellow-legged frog survey results presented at the RCC Ecological Resources Committee meetings from 2018-2024. PG&E. 2024b. PG&E Butte Canal Debris Flow Mitigation Project Completion Report. January 11, 2024 notice to the State Water Resources Control Board. PG&E. 2025. Final Results of 2024 Surveys for Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii) on the Poe Reach of the North Fork Feather River. May 2025. Oakland, CA. Prepared by Kleinfelder. Power, M.E., S.J. Kupferberg, S.D. Cooper, and M.L. Deas. 2016. Pp. 713–752 In H. Mooney and E. Zavaleta (editors). Ecosystems of California. Univ of California Press. Rombough, C.J., and M.P. Hayes. 2005. Rana boylii (foothill yellow-legged frog): predation: eggs and hatchlings. Herpetological Review 36(2):163–164. Rose, J.P., S.J. Kupferberg, and B.J. Halstead. 2020. Identifying drivers of population viability for the Foothill Yellow-legged Frog, Rana boylii, using time series of egg mass counts. Final U.S. Geological Survey Restricted-File Federal Interagency Report to the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. 105 pp. Storer, T.I. 1925. A Synopsis of the Amphibia of California. University of California Publication Zoology 27:1-342. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2023. Species Status Assessment Report for the Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii) Version 2.11. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, California Service. 2023. Additional Information Request response letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the Canal Failure, Overtopping, and Erosion Incidents for the DeSabla-Centerville Project, No. P-803. February 27, 2024. Storer, T.I. 1925. A synopsis of the amphibia of California (Vol. 27). University of California Press. Document Accession #: 20250610-5009 Filed Date: 06/10/2025 24 Secretary Reese Wheeler, C.A., H.H. Welsh, Jr., and T. Roelofs. 2006. Oviposition Site Selection, Movement, and Spatial Ecology of the Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii). Final Report to the California Department of Fish and Game Contract No. P0385106, Sacramento, CA. Wheeler, C.A. and H.H. Welsh, Jr. 2008. Mating Strategy and Breeding Patterns of the Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii). Herpetological Conservation and Biology 3(2):128–142. Wiseman, K.D., K.R. Marlow, R.E. Jackman, and J.E. Drennan. 2005. Rana boylii (foothill yellow- legged frog): predation. Herpetological Review 36(2):162–163. Zweifel, R.G. 1955. Ecology, Distribution, and Systematics of Frogs of the Rana boylii Group. University of California Publications in Zoology 54(4):207–292. Document Accession #: 20250610-5009 Filed Date: 06/10/2025 25 Secretary Reese Attachment 1 Yearly Spring Hydrographs for Years 2019-2024 Poe (Pulga) and East Branch Feather River Flows in cfs Document Accession #: 20250610-5009 Filed Date: 06/10/2025 26 Secretary Reese Document Accession #: 20250610-5009 Filed Date: 06/10/2025 27 Secretary Reese Attachment 2 Yearly Spring Hydrographs sub-500 cfs (2019-2024) Poe (Pulga) with 1ft/3 weeks and 10%/day proposed recessions Flows in cfs Document Accession #: 20250610-5009 Filed Date: 06/10/2025 28 Secretary Reese Document Accession #: 20250610-5009 Filed Date: 06/10/2025 Document Content(s) 20250609_COS_2025 variance filing.pdf.....................................1 20250609_Poe MIF Variance_signed.pdf .....................................2 Document Accession #: 20250610-5009 Filed Date: 06/10/2025