BattleCreek_EIP_Dec2013_1.pdf

BATTLE CREEK SALMON AND STEELHEAD

RESTORATION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

P R E P A R E D F O R :

915/978‐5248

P R E P A R E D B Y :

206/801‐2820

December 2013

Contents

Battle Creek Environmental Implementation Plan Introduction to the Battle Creek Environmental Implementation Plan

Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project Schedule

Volume 1, Preconstruction Wildlife and Plant Survey Plan

Volume 2, Worker Environmental Education Program

Volume 3, Vegetation Protection and Exclusion Area Fencing Plan

Volume 4, Environmental Compliance Construction Monitoring Program

Volume 4.1, Vegetation Protection and Exclusion Area Fencing Monitoring Plan

Volume 4.2, Construction Area Fish Management Plan

Volume 4.3, Migratory Bird Treaty Act Compliance Program

Volume 4.4, Threatened Endangered, and Special-Status Species Monitoring Program

Volume 5, Comprehensive Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Program

Volume 5.1, Habitat Compensation Approach

Volume 5.2, Corps Jurisdictional Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan

Volume 5.3, Riparian Restoration Plan

Volume 5.4, Oak Planting Plan`

Volume 5.5, Upland Vegetation Conservation Easement Plan

Volume 5.6, Stillwater Plains Mitigation Bank Plan

Volume 6, Noxious Weed Inventory Survey Plan

Volume 7, Construction Contractor Plans and Programs

Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project Environmental Implementation Plan i

December 2013

ICF 00104.09

Introduction to the Battle Creek

1.0 Purpose of the Environmental Implementation Plan

The purpose of the Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project Environmental Implementation Plan (EIP) is to serve as a stand-alone document that provides detailed instructions for implementing mitigation measures outlined in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (DFW’s) Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan (MMRP) (California Department of Fish and Game 2007) and the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings (State Water Board 2008) that were prepared for the Restoration Project in compliance with CEQA. Portions of the EIP were also prepared in compliance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) biological opinion (USFWS 2005a), the USFWS Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (USFWS 2005b), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) biological opinion (NMFS 2005) that were prepared for the Restoration Project.

ICF International has prepared this EIP in coordination with the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), NMFS, USFWS, DFW, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), and the State Water Board, as well as other parties as noted throughout this EIP.

2.0 Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration

Project Overview

2.1 Background

The signatories to the 1999 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)—Reclamation, USFWS, NMFS, DFW, and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)— proposed the Restoration Project as an opportunity to reestablish approximately 42 miles of prime salmon and steelhead habitat on Battle Creek, plus an additional 6 miles of habitat on its tributaries (Figure 1). Restoration will be accomplished primarily through the modification of PG&E’s Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project’s (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] Project No. 1121) (Hydroelectric Project’s) facilities and operations, including instream flow releases.

2.2 Location

Battle Creek is a tributary to the Sacramento River. The Battle Creek watershed is situated on the volcanic slopes of Mount Lassen in southeastern Shasta and northeastern Tehama Counties. The Restoration Project area is on North Fork and South Fork Battle Creek in southern Shasta and northern Tehama Counties on land south of Shingletown and State Route (SR) 44 and north of Paynes Creek and SR 36 (Figure 1).

The Restoration Project includes the portion of the Hydroelectric Project downstream from the natural fish barriers (Figure 2). The upper project limit on North Fork Battle Creek is the natural fish barrier upstream from the North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion Dam, 14 miles upstream from the confluence with South Fork Battle Creek. The upper project limit on South Fork Battle Creek is Angel Falls, the natural fish barrier approximately 6 miles upstream from the South Diversion Dam. The lower project limit is the confluence of the Coleman Powerhouse tailrace channel and mainstem Battle Creek.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Introduction

Preconstruction Wildlife and Plant Survey Plan

2.3 Project Description

The Restoration Project involves modifications to the following facilities at nine dam sites located on North Fork Battle Creek and South Fork Battle Creek and three of its tributaries: Soap, Ripley, and Baldwin Creeks (Figure 2).

• North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion Dam

• Eagle Canyon Diversion Dam

• Wildcat Diversion Dam, Pipeline, and Canal

• Baldwin Creek Fish Barrier

• Coleman Diversion Dam/Inskip Powerhouse

• Lower Ripley Creek Feeder Diversion Dam

• Inskip Diversion Dam/South Powerhouse

• Soap Creek Feeder Diversion Dam

• South Diversion Dam/South Canal

The Restoration Project includes reoperation and modification of these hydropower facilities, which will increase and stabilize streamflow for the purpose of significantly increasing cold water and stream area and providing a reliable migratory pathway over obstacles in the Restoration Project area. The Restoration Project also includes modifying the facilities at remaining diversion dams to substantially improve the reliability and effectiveness of upstream and downstream fish passage.

New fish screens and fish ladders that meet NMFS and DFW criteria are being constructed at three diversion dams (North Battle Creek Feeder, Eagle Canyon, and Inskip Diversion Dams). Five diversion dams are being removed (Wildcat, Coleman, South, Soap Creek Feeder, and Lower Ripley Creek Feeder Diversion Dams). Connectors are included at Inskip Powerhouse and South Powerhouse to prevent the discharge of North Fork Battle Creek water to South Fork Battle Creek and the mixing of flow sources. Higher minimum flow requirements (i.e., MOU minimum instream flow requirements) will increase instream flows, subsequently lowering water temperature, increasing stream area, and providing reliable passage conditions for adult salmonids in downstream reaches. In addition, the MOU minimum instream flow requirements support future adaptive management that may incorporate new information related to flows needed to facilitate passage, increase habitat area, and improve water temperature conditions.

The MOU signatories decided to implement these modifications in Phase 1A, Phase 1B, and Phase 2.

Table 1 summarizes the individual components of each phase of the Restoration Project. The sections that follow describe restoration activities associated with each phase of construction.

B U T T E

G L E N N

M E N D O C I N O

S H A S T A

T E H A M A

T R I N I T Y

Burney

Mount Shasta

Mount Lassen Mount Lassen

Red Bluff

Chico

Redding

Chester

Shasta Lake

Project Area

Figure 1-1 Location of the Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project

5.

F E

IS

/E

IR

Miles

6 12 180

SHASTA LAKESHASTA LAKE

ReddingRedding

Red BluffRed Bluff

Project Area

G ra ph ic s/ Pr oj ec ts /G ra ph ic s:P ro je ct _G ra ph ic s:_

_P ro je ct

_G ra ph ic s:0

.0

Ba tt le

C re ek :2

Su rv ey S um m ar y

Re po rt (0

4-

):F ig

_1 -1

_P ro je ct

_L oc at io n.

in dd (1

1/

/1 3)

S S

Figure 1 Location of the Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project

North Battle Creek Reservoir

McCumber Reservoir

Al Smith Diversion Dam

Keswick Diversion Dam

North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion Dam

Volta Powerhouse

Volta Powerhouse #2

Eagle Canyon Diversion Dam

Wildcat Diversion Dam

Darrah Springs Hatchery

Baldwin Creek Flow Augmentation and Fish Barrier Coleman Forebay

Coleman Powerhouse

Coleman National Fish Hatchery

Coleman National Fish Hatchery Weir

Coleman Diversion Dam

Inskip Diversion Dam

South Diversion Dam

South Powerhouse

Inskip Powerhouse

Lower Ripley Mount Lassen Trout Farm

Willow Springs Aquaculture Facility

Mount Lassen Trout Farm Jeffcoat Aquaculture Facilities

Creek Feeder

Upper Ripley Creek Feeder

K E E R C E L T T A B K R O F H T U O S

K E E R C E L T T A B

K R O

F H T R O

N

K E E R C E L T T A B k e e r C y e l p i R p i k s n I l a n a

C l a n a C n a m e l o C l a n a C n o i n U h t u o S l a n a

C

Soap Creek

Feeder p a o S k e e r C s s o r C y r t n u o

C l a n a C h t r o N e l t t a B k e e r

C r e d e e F l A h t i m S l a n a

C k c i w s e K l a n e l g a

E n o y n l n t c d l i W l a n a

C k e e r C n i w d l a

B

Lower Ripley Creek Feeder Diversion Dam

Upper Ripley Creek Diversion

Soap Creek Feeder Diversion Dam

O

T N

E

M

A

R

A

S

E

V

I

Grace Lake

Lake Nora

Natural Fish Barrier

Natural Fish Barrier

Upper Project Limit

Lower Project Limit

Upper Project Limit

WILDCAT DIVERSION DAM

ASBURY PUMP STATION

AND DIVERSION DAM

EAGLE CANYON DIVERSION DAM

NORTH BATTLE CREEK

FEEDER DIVERSION DAM

Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project

Figure 2 Restoration Project Facilities Prior to the Start of Construction and Project Construction Phases

G ra ph ic s/ Pr oj ec ts /0

.0 9_

(0 1-

) S

S

N

COLEMAN DIVERSION DAM INSKIP DIVERSION DAM SOUTH DIVERSION DAM

SOAP CREEK FEEDER

DIVERSION DAM

LOWER RIPLEY CREEK FEEDER

DIVERSION DAM

Phase 1A

Phase 1B

Phase 2

Phases of Restoration Project Construction

Table 1. Restoration Project Components

Project Site Name Phase 1A Components Phase 1B Components Phase 2 Components North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion Dam

Install fish screen and ladder Set new minimum instream flow for North Battle Creek Feeder reach ranging from 47 to 88 cfs Improve access road

NA NA

Eagle Canyon Diversion Dam

Install fish screen and ladder Remove segment of the Eagle Canyon spring collection facility Set new minimum instream flow for Eagle Canyon reach ranging from 35 to 46 cfs Improve access trail

NA NA

Wildcat Diversion Dam, Pipeline, and Canal

Remove dam, pipeline and canal Improve access roads and trail

NA NA

Baldwin Creek Fish Barrier

Install instream flow release monitoring and recording equipment Set minimum instream flow for Baldwin Creek at 5 cfs Install fish barrier

NA NA

Coleman Diversion Dam and Inskip Powerhouse

NA Construct Inskip Powerhouse and Coleman Canal connector

Replace Inskip Powerhouse bypass

Improve access road

Remove dam

Lower Ripley Creek Feeder Diversion Dam

NA NA Remove dam

Inskip Diversion Dam and South Powerhouse

NA NA Install fish screen and ladder Construct South Powerhouse and Inskip Canal connector (tunnel) Set minimum instream flow for Inskip reach ranging from 40 to 86 cfs

Project Site Name Phase 1A Components Phase 1B Components Phase 2 Components Soap Creek Feeder Diversion Dam

NA NA Remove dam

South Diversion Dam/South Canal

NA NA Remove dam Decommission canal cfs = cubic feet per second.

2.4 Restoration Activities

2.4.1 Phase 1A

Phase 1A improvements include facility modifications on North Fork Battle Creek and Baldwin Creek. For Phase 1A, fish passage improvements on North Fork Battle Creek have been achieved by installing fish screens and ladders at the North Battle Creek Feeder and Eagle Canyon Diversion Dams and removing the Wildcat Diversion Dam and appurtenant conveyance systems. Phase 1A also includes requiring a minimum 5 cubic feet per second (cfs) flow release in Baldwin Creek and installing a fish barrier below Asbury Diversion Dam on Baldwin Creek to prevent anadromous fish from migrating above the dam and potentially contaminating spring waters used by the Darrah Springs State Fish Hatchery.

2.4.2 Phase 1B

Phase 1B improvements on the lower South Fork Battle Creek include installing a tailrace connector from Inskip Powerhouse to Coleman Canal and a new Inskip Powerhouse bypass. The new tailrace connector passes water from Inskip Powerhouse to the Coleman Canal, eliminating the powerhouse discharge to South Fork Battle Creek. The new water bypass facility consists of three sections: (1) the upland pipeline section beginning at Eagle Canyon Canal; (2) the downslope chute section; and

(3) the Coleman Canal connector section. With this bypass system, a shutdown of the Inskip Powerhouse does not affect the continued operation of downstream Coleman Powerhouse and prevents the bypassed water from discharging to South Fork Battle Creek.

2.4.3 Phase 2

Phase 2 of the Restoration Project includes additional fish passage improvements on South Fork Battle Creek by removing the South, Soap Creek Feeder, Lower Ripley Creek Feeder, and Coleman Diversion Dams; installing a fish screen and ladder on the Inskip Diversion Dam; installing a tailrace connector from South Powerhouse to Inskip Canal; and decommissioning the South Canal. The new tailrace connector will be constructed to pass water from South Powerhouse to the Inskip Canal, eliminating the powerhouse discharge to South Fork Battle Creek. By the time Phase 2 is implemented, all proposed changes to the facilities located on North Fork Battle Creek will be completed in Phase 1A, and the new tailrace connector and powerhouse bypass at the Coleman Diversion Dam/Inskip Powerhouse project site will be completed in Phase 1B.

3.0 How to Use This Document

The EIP is divided into seven separate volumes, providing detailed instructions on how to implement mitigation measures described in DFW’s MMRP (California Department of Fish and Game 2007) and the State Water Board’s CEQA Findings (State Water Board 2008). The EIP has also been designed for optimum accessibility, readability, and ease of use, guided by the concepts and tools described below.

3.1 Organization

Consistency with the MMRP and Other Environmental Documents

Recognizing the importance of DFW’s MMRP and the State Water Board’s CEQA Findings in directing the EIP’s content, a parallel outline has been adopted for presentation of the various mitigation measures, which are described in the volumes that follow this introduction. Similar terminology used in the MMRP is retained in the EIP unless otherwise indicated. The EIP was also prepared to be consistent with USFWS’s biological opinion (USFWS 2005a), the USFWS Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (USFWS 2005b), and the NMFS biological opinion (NMFS 2005) that were prepared for the Restoration Project.

3.2 Parallelism in the Implementation Plan

Each volume in the EIP follows a consistent structure and format to facilitate review and use, based on mitigation requirements for the Restoration Project. There are seven mitigation requirements presented in this EIP: preconstruction wildlife and plant surveys, worker environmental education, vegetation protection and exclusion area fencing, environmental compliance construction monitoring, comprehensive habitat mitigation and monitoring, noxious weed inventories, and construction contractor plans and programs. In each mitigation measure–based volume, the following information is discussed

• introduction,

• background and purpose,

• definitions (optional, included if needed),

• methods,

• schedule,

• reporting, and

• references.

3.3 Audience

The EIP has been written for two audiences: field survey staff and field monitoring staff, as well as Reclamation staff that are interested in following along with Restoration Project mitigation requirements. As a result, the level of detail and writing tone are tailored to the skill sets and backgrounds of these target audiences.

3.4 Intent as a Living Document

The EIP should be updated in response to major revisions to the MMRP based on Battle Creek Environmental Team recommendations. The EIP may also be updated by field survey staff and field monitoring staff to include efficiencies in conducting the work, as well as “lessons learned” after surveying and monitoring at past project sites, in preparation for surveying and monitoring at future project sites.

4.0 Organization of this Environmental Implementation

Plan

This EIP is organized as follows:

• Volume 1, Preconstruction Wildlife and Plant Survey Plan

• Volume 2, Worker Environmental Education Program

• Volume 3, Vegetation Protection and Exclusion Area Fencing Plan

• Volume 4, Environmental Compliance Construction Monitoring Program

Volume 4.1, Vegetation Protection and Exclusion Area Fencing Monitoring Plan

Volume 4.2, Construction Area Fish Management Plan

Volume 4.3, Migratory Bird Treaty Act Compliance Program

Volume 4.4, Threatened Endangered, and Special-Status Species Monitoring Program

• Volume 5, Comprehensive Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Program

Volume 5.1, Habitat Compensation Approach

Volume 5.2, Corps Jurisdictional Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan

Volume 5.3, Riparian Restoration Plan

Volume 5.4, Oak Planting Plan`

Volume 5.5, Upland Vegetation Conservation Easement Plan

Volume 5.6, Stillwater Plains Mitigation Bank Plan

• Volume 6, Noxious Weed Inventory Survey Plan

• Volume 7, Construction Contractor Plans and Programs

5.0 References

California Department of Fish and Game. 2007. Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan, adopted by the California Department of Fish and Game as a Responsible Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) for a Funding Approval for the Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project as analyzed in the Final EIR/EIS Certified by the Lead Agency. March 14.

California State Water Resources Control Board. 2008. Application for a 401 Water Quality Certification for the Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project in Shasta County. Appendix A, California Environmental Quality Act Findings and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project. December 12.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005. Biological and Conference Opinion for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project. Southwest Region, National Marine Fisheries Service. File Number 151422SWR1999SA1277:MET. Issued June 22, 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005a. Biological opinion (1-1-04-F-0190), Battle Creek Salmon and

Steelhead Restoration Project, Shasta and Tehama Counties, California. June. Sacramento, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005b. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report. Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. Sacramento, CA. June.

Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project and Environmental Implementation

Plan Schedule

1.0 Introduction

Developing a schedule for implementing the Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project (Restoration Project) EIP is complicated by several factors.

There are three phases of Restoration Project construction: Phase 1A, Phase 1B, and Phase3 (Attachment 1 and Table 1).

Implementation of each mitigation measure may take place before the start of construction, during construction, or after construction is complete (Table 2).

Some mitigation measures have a unique schedule, or specific environmental timeframes, that it must follow (Table 3).

To address the complexities of developing a schedule for implementing the EIP, a set of tables (Tables 1, 2, and 3) has been developed that takes the reader through each step of the scheduling process to arrive at a comprehensive schedule for all mitigation measures that are referenced in this EIP. Each table is explained below.

2.0 Phased Approach and Project Schedule

Implementation of the Restoration Project has been divided into three separate construction phases:

Phase 1A, Phase 1B, and Phase 2. The project sites that will be constructed under each phase more or less follows its own schedule. The most current version of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s working draft construction contract summary schedule for the Restoration Project is presented in Attachment 1. A shortened version of this schedule, which is referenced throughout this EIP, is presented in Table 1 and presents the overall construction schedule for each project site.

3.0 Preconstruction, During Construction, and

Postconstruction Mitigation

Each mitigation measure is scheduled to take place before construction begins (preconstruction), during construction, or after construction is complete (postconstruction).

Table 2 outlines the timing of when each mitigation measure should take place, and how the timing relates to the Restoration Project construction schedule. A more detailed schedule for each measure is described in the volumes referenced on the table.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Schedule

4.0 Environmental Timeframes

Some mitigation measures have a unique schedule that it must follow, as it can only be implemented during certain times of the year. Table 3 presents the environmental timeframes associated with each project site. The purpose for implementing these timeframes is to minimize impacts on fish and wildlife (i.e., migratory birds), as well as to perform biological surveys during the optimal time of year when the surveys should take place. Table 3 includes instream work timeframes (Volume 4.2, Construction Area Fish Management Plan);

Migratory Bird Treaty Act vegetation removal timeframes (Volume 4.3, Migratory Bird Treaty Act Compliance Program); and preconstruction survey timeframe for raptors, riparian birds, bats, and special-status plants (Volume 1, Preconstruction Wildlife and Plant Surveys Plan).

The timeframes are described in greater detail in the volumes referenced above.

Table 1. Proposed Construction Schedule for the Restoration Project by Project Site

Date

Anticipated Completion Date

Phase 1A

Wildcat Diversion Dam, Pipeline and Canal

January 2010 February 2012

February 2010 December 2015

North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion Dam

February 2010 December 2015

June 2013 December 2013

Phase 1B Coleman Diversion Dam/Inskip Powerhouse

January 2011 October 2014

Phase 2 Coleman Diversion Dam/Inskip Powerhouse

Coleman Diversion Dam Removal July 2015* December 2016*

Lower Ripley Creek Feeder Diversion Dam

July 2015* December 2016*

Inskip Diversion Dam/South Powerhouse

July 2015* December 2016*

Soap Creek Feeder Diversion Dam Soap Creek Feeder and Dam Removal July 2015* December 2016*

South Diversion Dam and South Canal South Diversion Dam and South Canal Removal

September 2015* December 2016*

Table 2. Implementation of Mitigation Measures Before, During, and After Construction

EIP Volume Mitigation Measure Before Construction

During Construction

After Construction

Volume 1

Preconstruction Wildlife and Plant Surveys X (see Table 3)

Volume 2

Worker Environmental Education Program X

Volume 3

Vegetation Protection and Exclusion Area Fencing Placement X

Volume 4.1

Vegetation Protection and Exclusion Area Fencing Monitoring X

Volume 4.2

Construction Area Fish Management Program X (see Table 3)

Volume 4.3

Migratory Bird Treaty Act Compliance X (see Table 3) X

Volume 4.4

Threatened, Endangered, and Special‐Status Species Monitoring X

Volume 5.1

Habitat Compensation Approach X

Volume 5.2

X

Volume 5.3

Riparian Restoration X X X

Volume 5.4

Oak Planting Plan (i.e., Oak Tree Monitoring) X X X

Volume 5.5

Upland Vegetation Conservation Easement X X

Volume 5.6

Stillwater Plains Mitigation Bank Agreement X

Volume 5.7

Inskip Revegetation Plan X

Volume 6

Noxious Weed Inventory X X

Volume 7

X

Table 3. Environmental Timeframes for the Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project

Project Site

Fish Birds Bats Plants

Salmon/ Steelhead (Instream Work Timeframe)

(Vegetation Removal Timeframe)

Raptors Riparian Birds

Maternal Colonies

Roosting Sites

Migrant Stopover Sites

Hibernation Sites

Special‐Status Plants

Plants

Cooper’s Hawk Osprey Golden Eagle Bald Eagle

Little Willow Flycatcher

California Yellow Warbler

Yellow‐breasted Chat

Early May Mid‐Jun

Early May Mid‐Jun

Canal

Early May Mid‐Jun

Early May Mid‐Jun

Early May Mid‐Jun

Inskip Diversion Dam/South Powerhouse

Early May Mid‐Jun

Coleman Diversion Dam/Inskip Powerhouse

(*) U.S. Fish and Wildlife granted an extension to the vegetation removal timeframe at these project sites. The extension allowed vegetation to be removed through March 15.

Attachment 1 Working Draft Construction Contracts Summary

Schedule for the Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project

BATTLE CREEK SALMON & STEELHEAD RESTORATION PROJECT

‘Working Draft’ CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS SUMMARY SCHEDULE

(September 2013)

Printed 9/4/13

CONTRACT FERC LICENSE

AMENDMENT

APPLICATION

PLANS/SPECIFICATIONS KEY PROJECT ELEMENT(S) CONTRACT

AWARD

VEGETATION

CLEARING

ON-SITE

NOTICE

TO PROCEED

CONTRACT

COMPLETION

1A – 1 Phase 1A North Fork Screens and Ladders Eagle Canyon Dam Screen and Ladder North Battle Creek Feeder Dam Screen & Ladder

Oct 2009 Completed

Feb 2010 Completed

Dec 2011 Completed

1A – 1A Phase 1A NBCF Dam Access Road Completion (Includes Cutslope Stabilization)

Upper road cutslope stabilization and rock mesh netting at pedestrian bridge abutment

Precast concrete block wall at lower road, jersey barrier and paving

July 2013 N/A Oct 2013 Feb 2014

1A – 1C Phase 1A NFSL Civil, Mechanical, and Electrical Design Changes

Implementation of civil, mechanical, and electrical related Screen & Ladder Design Changes, based on hydraulic evaluations and facility operation/functionality needs

Aug 2014 N/A Mar 2015 Dec 2015

1A – 1E Phase 1A NFSL Gate Actuator Modulation Installation of automatic modulation control for head gate actuators at NBCF and Eagle Canyon Diversion Dam

Dec 2013 N/A Dec 2013 Feb 2014

1A – 2 Phase 1A Wildcat Dam and Canal Removal Wildcat Dam and Wildcat Canal Removal, including pipeline Sep 2009

Jan 2010 Completed

Completed

1A – 2A Phase 1A Wildcat Site Road Erosion/Drainage Repair Sep 2011

Sep 2011 Completed

Feb 2012 Completed

1A – 3 Phase 1A Baldwin Creek Barrier Weir (Asbury Pump & Diversion Dam )

Barrier Weir Dec 2012

Jun 2013 Dec 2013

1B – 1 Phase 1B Hydropower Facility Modifications – Stage 1

Inskip PH Tailrace Connector Pipe and Penstock Bypass Jun 2010

Jan 2011

Mar 2013

1B – 2 Phase 1B HFM – Stage 1 “A” Access Road Drainage & Coleman Canal Outlet Improvements

“A” Road drainage improvements, sediment cleanup at Upper Jump Basin and Coleman Canal. (Provo Crew)

N/A N/A Aug 2013 Aug 2013

1B – 3 Phase 1B HFM – Stage 1 Safety and Facility Access Improvements

Walkway access to tailrace connector inlet & outlet, concrete ramp at two outlets, install delineators on “A” road & guardrails for arch culvert, wasteway inspection hatch, Inskip PH downspout drainage, control panel protections, lower jump basin drain pipes and Coleman Canal undercut rock slope protection repair.

Jun 2014 N/A Jun 2014 Oct 2014

2 – 1 Phase 2 Hydropower Facility Modifications – Stage 2

South PH Tailrace Connector Tunnel, including dike Lower Ripley Creek Feeder Dam Removal Coleman Dam Removal Inskip Screen and Ladder

Dec 2014

(Sep 2014 – Feb 2015)

July 2015 Dec 2016

2 – 2 Phase 2 South Dam and Canal Removal South Dam and South Canal Removal Soap Creek Feeder Dam Removal

Feb 2015 (Sep 2015 – Feb 2016)

Sep 2015 Dec 2016

Environmental Work Windows Timeframes

Migratory Bird Clearing (Vegetation Removal) Sept. 1/Oct. 1 – Feb. 1/ Mar. 1 (Note: If vegetation cannot be cleared prior to this timeframe, additional mitigation measures will be implemented).

Salmon/Steelhead Instream Work

Beginning as early as May 1 (stream conditions permitting) until November 1: South Diversion/South Canal Site, Soap Creek Feeder Diversion Dam Site, Inskip Diversion Dam/South Powerhouse Site, Lower Ripley Creek Feeder Diversion Dam Site, North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion Dam Site and Asbury/Baldwin Creek.

Beginning as early as May 1 (stream conditions permitting) until September 1: Wildcat Diversion Dam/Wildcat Canal Site and Coleman Diversion Dam/Inskip Powerhouse Site

Beginning as early as May 1 (stream conditions permitting) until September 1: Eagle Canyon Diversion Dam, Work inclusive of percussion impacts (e.g., blasting) Beginning as early as May 1 (stream conditions permitting) until November 1: Eagle Canyon Diversion Dam/Eagle Canyon Canal, Work exclusive of percussion impacts (e.g., blasting)

Volume 1

Volume 1

1.0 Introduction

The Preconstruction Wildlife and Plant Survey Plan, Volume 1 of the Battle Creek Environmental Implementation Plan, has been developed to comply with environmental regulations and laws applicable to the Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project (Restoration Project).

Preconstruction surveys are required under Mitigation Measure 22 through 28 found in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (DFW’s) Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan (MMRP) (California Department of Fish and Game 2007) and the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings (State Water Board 2008) that were prepared for the Restoration Project in compliance with CEQA. Preconstruction surveys are also required under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS’s) biological opinion (biological opinion number 1-1-04-F-0190, USFWS 2005a) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (USFWS 2005b) prepared for the Restoration Project.

ICF International has prepared this Plan in coordination with the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and USFWS.

2.0 Background and Purpose

The impact analysis conducted for the Restoration Project (Jones & Stokes 2005) identified several Threatened, Endangered, and Special-Status Species (TESS) that may be affected by project construction. These species are listed in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1. Threatened, Endangered, and Special-Status Species that may be affected by Restoration Project Construction

Species Scientific Name Plants slender Orcutt grass Orcuttia tenuis Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop Gratiola heterosepala Ahart’s paronychia Paronychia ahartii Wildlife valley elderberry longhorn beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens little willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii brewsteri osprey Pandion haliaetus Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus California black rail Laterallus jamaicensis foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii

Environmental Implementation Plan 1-1 December 2013

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Volume 1

Species Scientific Name northwestern pond turtle Clemmys marmorata marmorata spotted bat Euderma maculatum western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes long-eared myotis Myotis evotis small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum long-legged myotis Myotis volans Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis pallid bat Antrozous pallidus Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii Fish Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Central Valley fall-/late fall-run Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Central Valley steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss River lamprey Lampetra ayresi

ICF International biologists have been conducting surveys for TESS species and their habitats at the Restoration Project sites since 2000. The purpose of the Preconstruction Wildlife and Plant Survey Plan is to identify TESS individuals occurring on site so that measures found in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Compliance Program, and Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species Monitoring Program (Volumes 4.3, and 4.4 of this Environmental Implementation Plan) can be implemented so that construction activities are in compliance with the USFWS Biological Opinion (USFWS 2005a) and the USFWS Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (USFWS 2005b) prepared for the Restoration Project.

3.0 Methods

This Preconstruction Wildlife and Plant Survey Plan include:

contacting landowners;

performing regularly scheduled preconstruction surveys for special-status wildlife and plant species;

conducting preconstruction clearance surveys prior to the onset of construction activities;

and preparing letter reports, as well as the draft and final summary report, summarizing survey results.

3.1 Contact Landowners

ICF International will be responsible for contacting the landowners on behalf of Reclamation to inform them of upcoming preconstruction surveys and to receive their permission for ICF International biologists to access their property to conduct the surveys.

Environmental Implementation Plan 1-2 December 2013

Battle Creek project sites and corresponding landowners/property managers are presented in Table 1-2.

Table 1-2. Landowners and Property Mangers to Contact for each Battle Creek Project Site

Project Site Landowner/Property Manager Phase 1A Project Sites North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion Dam PG&E (Michael Strawn) Eagle Canyon Diversion Dam PG&E (Michael Strawn)

Shirley Davis John Newell and Brad Bugdanowitz

Wildcat Diversion Dam, Pipeline, and Canal PG&E (Michael Strawn) Horace and Peggy Crawford Ed and Beverly Shaw The Nature Conservancy (Jake Jacobson)

Baldwin Creek Fish Barrier PG&E (Michael Strawn) DFW (Mike Berry) Bruce McCampbell

Phase 1B Project Site Coleman Diversion Dam/Inskip Powerhouse PG&E (Michael Strawn) Phase 2 Project Sites South Diversion Dam PG&E (Michael Strawn) South Canal PG&E (Michael Strawn)

Bureau of Land Management (Kelly Williams) Mark Winning Sandra C. Lee-Rogero, c/o Lee Douglas Outfitter Properties (Erich Vaden, Lannie Johnson)

Soap Creek Feeder Diversion Dam PG&E (Michael Strawn) Bureau of Land Management (Kelly Williams) Lee Douglas

Inskip Diversion Dam/South Powerhouse PG&E (Michael Strawn) Outfitter Properties (Erich Vaden, Lannie Johnson)

Lower Ripley Creek Feeder Diversion Dam PG&E (Michael Strawn) Outfitter Properties (Erich Vaden, Lannie Johnson)

Coleman Diversion Dam/Inskip Powerhouse PG&E (Michael Strawn)

The landowners identified above will be contacted at least one week before surveys are anticipated to take place. Communication will occur primarily through email correspondence, except for those landowners that do not have access to email, including Shirley Davis and Ed and Beverly Shaw. For these exceptions, Shirley Davis will be contacted via fax, and Ed and Beverly Shaw will be contacted via phone.

Environmental Implementation Plan 1-3 December 2013

Information communicated to the landowners will include:

purpose for conducting preconstruction surveys, dates when surveys are anticipated to occur, project sites where surveys are anticipated to take place, names of the biologists conducting the surveys, wildlife species and/or botanical species to be surveyed, survey methods, and tentative survey dates for additional surveys to be conducted during the remainder of the field season.

ICF International will only conduct surveys at those project sites where permission is received from the landowner to access their property.

3.2 Preconstruction Survey Methods

The following describes methods used for preconstruction surveys. These methods do not include conducting protocol-level surveys for any federally listed wildlife species that have the potential to occur in the project vicinity or that are detected during preconstruction surveys;

however DFW protocol-level surveys will be implemented for plant surveys.

Surveys at the project sites will be conducted to determine the presence or absence of the following special-status species or taxa.

Federal and state listed plants

Special-status plants

Valley elderberry longhorn beetle

Nesting bald eagle and other raptors

Nesting riparian birds and Vaux’s swift

Bats, including maternity colonies, bat roosts, migrant stopover sites, and hibernation sites

The survey methods for each special-status species listed above are described below.

3.2.1 Listed and Special-Status Plants

An ICF International botanist will conduct a focused botanical survey of each project site prior to construction. The survey will follow DFW’s 2009 Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations (California Department of Fish and Game 2009) for rare and endangered plant surveys but will focus on three target plant species: two listed plants (slender Orcutt grass, federally listed as threatened and state listed as endangered; and Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop, state listed as endangered) and one special-status plant species (Ahart’s paronychia, a special-status species), which was identified during previous botanical surveys as occurring close to the Coleman Diversion Dam project site.

Survey effort will be focused on suitable habitats for the three target plants, and survey intensity will vary depending on species richness, habitat type and quality, and the probability of the target plants occurring in a particular habitat type. Depending on the terrain, various survey patterns will be used to survey the sites, including meandering and intuitive controlled transects

Environmental Implementation Plan 1-4 December 2013 in areas that contain suitable habitat for the three target plants. All plants encountered will be identified to the level necessary to determine whether or not they are special-status species.

These field surveys will be conducted when the three target plants are evident and identifiable.

The botanists may visit nearby known reference populations to verify that the target plants are evident at the time of the field survey (all three species are known to occur at Hog Lake, approximately 12 miles southwest of the nearest project sites). The survey for Ahart’s paronychia is scheduled for late April, and the survey for Slender Orcutt grass and Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop is scheduled for mid-June. Plant surveys are valid for three years and do not need to be repeated each year before beginning construction.

Any new populations of the target plants identified during preconstruction surveys will be mapped on topographical maps, flagged, photographed, and documented on California Natural Diversity Database field forms (Attachment 1). If possible, the botanists will use global positioning system (GPS) receivers to obtain coordinates for each population.

3.2.2 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle

Elderberry shrubs are known habitat for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle, a federally listed as threatened species. The final EIS/EIR for the Restoration Project (Jones & Stokes 2005) disclosed the number of elderberry shrubs that occur at the project sites, however, as required by the MMRP and the State Water Board CEQA findings, preconstruction surveys will need to be completed prior to the start of construction in order to calculate the final number of shrubs that would be impacted and to identify those shrubs that will require vegetation protection fencing.

Surveys will be conducted before late September to allow for any new elderberry shrubs to be transplanted during the November to February transplanting season. The timing and methods for the preconstruction elderberry shrub surveys were derived from the Conservation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999).

Elderberry shrubs with stems larger than 1-inch (2.54 cm) in diameter provide suitable habitat for the federally threatened valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Prior to any ground-disturbing construction activities a qualified ICF International wildlife biologist will survey the entire construction area, as well as a minimum 100-foot buffer surrounding the construction area to determine the status of these shrubs and whether they are occupied by valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Any elderberry shrubs with basal stems greater than 1-inch (2.54 cm) in diameter will be counted, recorded on the data form (Attachment 2), and searched thoroughly to determine if any valley elderberry longhorn beetle exit holes are present. During this survey, all elderberry shrubs will be flagged and their locations recorded using a hand-held GPS unit.

3.2.3 Nesting Bald Eagles and Other Raptors

In compliance with the federal ESA, California ESA, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act, Reclamation seeks to avoid or minimize the “take” of bald eagle nests, eggs, and nestlings that may result from construction-related impacts associated with the Restoration Project. Reclamation’s objectives include avoiding the direct loss of active nests from vegetation removal and trampling, as well as avoiding indirect disturbance of nesting birds from construction and helicopter noise, motion and disturbance by construction personnel and/or equipment, artificial lighting, and other activities that might cause nest abandonment by bald eagles or other raptors during the breeding season (February through late August).

Environmental Implementation Plan 1-5 December 2013

The timing and methods for the preconstruction bald eagle surveys were derived from the Bald Eagle Breeding Survey Instructions (California Department of Fish and Game 1999) and the Protocol for Evaluating Bald Eagle Habitat and Populations in California (Garcia and Associates and Pacific Gas and Electric Company 2004).

ICF International wildlife biologists will conduct preconstruction surveys for nesting bald eagles and other raptor species (e.g., peregrine falcon, osprey, golden eagle, Cooper’s hawk, red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk) at the Battle Creek project sites on three separate visits selected in late February to early March, late April through May, and early June through July.

ICF International wildlife biologists will establish a minimum of four survey stations at locations providing expansive views of the individual project sites. These stations will be numbered, flagged, and identified using GPS. Biologists will spend approximately 30 minutes at each survey area scanning for raptors using binoculars and spotting scopes. Data (including negative results) will be recorded at 15-minute intervals on standardized data forms (Attachment 3). Transects will be walked throughout the project sites to search all trees and other suitable nesting substrates for active raptor nests or signs of nesting activity (e.g., white-wash, plucking posts, or stick nests).

Any bald eagles or other raptors exhibiting nesting behavior (e.g., territorial displays, pair bonding, carrying food or nesting material) will be followed to find the exact nest locations, if possible. All located nests within the construction zones, or within an approximately 0.5-mile (0.8 km) radius will be identified on maps and aerial photographs, and their coordinates will be recorded using GPS. If such behaviors are observed, or an existing raptor nest is found, additional measures will be implemented to avoid take under the federal ESA (see the Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species Monitoring Program, Volume 4.4 of this Environmental Implementation Plan).

3.2.4 Nesting Riparian Birds and Vaux’s Swift

In compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Reclamation seeks to avoid or minimize the take of nests, eggs, and nestlings of special-status bird species that may result from construction-related impacts of the Restoration Project. Reclamation’s objectives include avoiding the direct loss of active nests from vegetation removal and trampling, as well as minimizing indirect disturbance of nesting birds from construction and helicopter noise, motion and disturbance by construction personnel and/or equipment, artificial lighting, and other activities that might cause nest abandonment or failure during the breeding season (early March through late August) for native bird species that are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The final EIS/EIR for the Restoration Project, MMRP and the State Water Board CEQA findings, describe specific monitoring and protection commitments. These include work-exclusion zones for special-status bird species if nesting pairs or active nests are observed in, or adjacent to, the project sites (e.g., Vaux’s swift, little willow flycatcher, California yellow warbler, and yellow-breasted chat).

ICF International wildlife biologists will survey all suitable riparian habitats at the Battle Creek project sites for presence of specific breeding riparian passerine birds and Vaux’s swift. The surveys will be conducted in three separate visits between May 15 and July 10.

The primary bird census method will be an area search, adapted from previous riparian studies performed in the Sacramento Valley and Sierra Nevada foothills (Ralph et al. 1993). The area search method will involve conducting a census of the entire riparian vegetation area within 500 feet (76 m), if feasible, of the project sites. Each area search plot will be covered in approximately one hour to provide comparable search time at each plot. Typically, observers

Environmental Implementation Plan 1-6 December 2013 will cover at least three survey areas between 5:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. The order of sites surveyed will be varied for each survey to reduce time-of-day effects.

Biologists will be supplied with data forms (Attachment 4), aerial photographs, and vegetation maps. The biologists will begin the surveys by filling out the observer and census information at the top of the form, including the air temperature, percent cloud cover (percent of sky covered in clouds), and approximate wind speed (Beaufort scale). During the survey, biologists will record the name of each species seen and/or heard, as well as any observed nesting behaviors (e.g., territorial males, gathering nest material, carrying food, or active nests). For each individual of each species, observers will record a single letter describing the nature of the detection (e.g., C = call, S = song, V = visual) and any observed evidence of nesting. Following the surveys, all data forms will be reviewed by another qualified observer to ensure they are accurate and complete, and each data sheet will be photocopied and archived in the project files.

If any special-status passerine birds are found nesting within the survey areas, nest trees will not be removed or disturbed, and further consultation and measures will be taken to avoid or minimize disturbance (for details see Migratory Bird Treaty Act Compliance Program, and Vegetation Protection and Exclusion Area Fencing Plan, Volumes 3 and 4.3 of this Implementation Plan).

3.2.5 Bats

Potential bat species that could occur at the project sites include spotted bat, western red bat, fringed myotis, long-eared myotis, small-footed myotis, long-legged myotis, Yuma myotis, pallid bat, and Townsend’s big-eared bat. ICF International wildlife biologists will survey all suitable habitats at the Battle Creek project sites for roosting bats and/or bat signs.

There is no officially recognized protocol for bats; however, the survey methods described here are standard methods that are widely accepted and commonly practiced. Surveys will be conducted within the proposed project sites, and will include all habitats within 200 feet (60 meters) of the project site boundaries.