Draft.NFBattleCreek.NEPA.pdf

Finding of No Significant Impact Page i North Fork Battle Creek Barrier Modification and Fish Passage Improvement Project

DRAFT

Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

North Fork Battle Creek Barrier Modification and Fish Passage Improvement Project

Shasta and Tehama Counties, California

September 2019

Project Proponent and Federal Lead Agency for NEPA U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Red Bluff Fish and Wildlife Office 10950 Tyler Road Red Bluff, CA 96080

Photo courtesy of Michael Love & Associates

Draft Finding of No Significant Impact Page i

Finding of No Significant Impact North Fork Battle Creek Barrier Modification and Fish Passage Improvement Project Lead Federal Agency:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605

Sacramento, CA 95825

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) proposes to grant funds, under the authority of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act’s (CVPIA) Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (AFRP) and / or use other federal or state funds to implement a fish passage improvement project with willing landowners in the Battle Creek watershed. The project involves barrier removal and stream enhancements to restore fish passage to the upper limits of North Fork Battle Creek.

In 1999, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed between the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, USFWS, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), where parties agreed to pursue what came to be called the Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project (BCRP). The BCRP is a cooperative, proactive undertaking by the public, interested parties, the Greater Battle Creek Watershed Working Group, state and federal agencies and PG&E to restore the anadromous fishery in the Battle Creek watershed. Upon completion, the BCRP will restore approximately 42 miles of habitat in Battle Creek and an additional six miles of habitat in its tributaries while minimizing the loss of clean and renewable energy produced by the hydroelectric project.

In 2005, a Final Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report was issued for the BCRP describing impacts associated with specific restoration efforts (Jones and Stokes 2005). The BCRP involves modifications to Battle Creek hydroelectric facilities located on North Fork Battle Creek, South Fork Battle Creek and Baldwin Creek, including removing five diversions dams and constructing fish screens and ladders on three other diversion dams. A powerhouse bypass and trailrace connector was proposed to prevent the mixing of North Fork Battle Creek and South Fork Battle Creek waters. Other elements include protecting a trout hatchery from diseases through the construction of a fish barrier weir; increasing instream flows; dedicating water rights for instream purposes at dam removal sites; and implementing adaptive management to ensure fisheries objectives are met. One of the components of the BCRP was the construction of the Eagle Canyon Diversion Dam Fish Screens and Fish Ladders which was completed in 2012. The Eagle Canyon Diversion Dam is located between the proposed action’s two project sites. The Eagle Canyon Fish Ladder will be fully operational upon completion of this proposed action.

Two natural barriers, the Upper and Lower Barrier Sites, consisting of large boulders that originated from the canyon walls, have formed boulder jumbles in the creek that are preventing the passage of salmonids at all flows.

The proposed action will provide access to an additional 4.36 stream miles of high-quality habitat along North Fork Battle Creek for winter-run and spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead, with an additional 3.64 stream miles of moderate-quality habitat for steelhead made available by the BCRP. Fish passage improvement has been identified as priority actions in the CVPIA PEIS, AFRP Final Restoration Plan and CALFED’s Ecosystem Restoration Plan, as well as several CDFW publications and plans.

The USFWS is the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Documents reviewed in the preparation of this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) include:

• CVPIA Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS)

• AFRP Final Restoration Plan

• Environmental Assessment (EA): North Fork Battle Creek Barrier Modification and Fish Passage

Improvement Project

• Eagle Canyon Fish Passage Improvements in Battle Creek: Lower and Upper Barrier Sites Final Designs

• Intra-USFWS Section 7 Evaluation Form

• Section 7 Programmatic Biological Opinion from NMFS

• Intra-USFWS Section 106 Consultation Compliance Memo

These documents are incorporated by reference, as described in 40 CFR 1508.13.

Draft Finding of No Significant Impact Page ii

Alternatives Several alternatives were described and discussed by the North Fork Battle Creek Barrier Modification and Fish Passage Improvement Project Technical Advisory Committee for the two sites including:

Lower Barrier

1. Removal of Constricting Boulders (proposed action)

2. Pool and Chute Fishway

3. No Action

The proposed action was selected for the Lower Barrier Site because it provides suitable passage conditions over a range of flows and requires minimal inspection, maintenance and repairs.

Upper Barrier

1. Nature-Like Channel Regrade (proposed action)

2. Vertical Slot Fishway with Exit Tunnel

3. Super Active Baffle with High-Flow Channel Regrade

4. No Action

The proposed action was selected for the Upper Barrier Site because it provides suitable passage conditions over a range of flows and requires minimal inspection, maintenance and repairs.

Environmental Impacts Based upon information contained in the EA, we have determined this federal action would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The basis for a FONSI is as follows:

As a result of formal consultation under the Endangered Species Act and inclusion of project design features / resource protection measures into the proposed action, short-term adverse impacts to federally listed or special-status species may occur, however long-term benefits would be realized. The short-term adverse effects would not significantly affect the recovery of Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon or Central Valley steelhead. No adverse impacts to designated critical habitats are expected. The short-term negative impacts are minimal compared to the potential net increase in production due to the restored access to an additional 4.36 stream miles of high-quality habitat along North Fork Battle Creek for winter-run and spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead, along with an additional 3.64 stream miles of moderate-quality habitat for steelhead.

1. Short-term, minor impacts to wildlife and fisheries may occur from implementing activities related to the fish passage improvement. However, resource protection measures have been incorporated into the proposed action to minimize effects. The intent of this project is to improve salmonid fish passage conditions. The proposed activities would remediate the current passage impediments by removing the natural boulder barriers in the project area.

2. The proposed action is not expected to have long-term adverse effects on wildlife or fisheries. The passage impediments will be removed and the replanting of impacted vegetation will ensure that the action does not result in a net loss of terrestrial habitat.

3. Resource protection measures have been incorporated into the project as project design features to minimize adverse effects on air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, hazardous and toxic materials, hydrology and water quality, and soils and geology. The proposed action is expected to have no negative impact on flooding potential.

4. The proposed action is not expected to have adverse effects on wetlands or floodplains pursuant to Executive Orders 11990 and 11988.

5. Neither short- nor long-term adverse effects on human health or the environment, nor disproportionate adverse effects to low-income or minority populations are expected, pursuant to Executive Order 12898.

Draft Finding of No Significant Impact Page iii

6. Based on field surveys and a cultural resources evaluation, the project would have no adverse effect on cultural resources. However, unknown subsurface cultural resources could be impacted during ground-disturbing activities associated with the proposed project. In the event subsurface cultural remains over 50 years of age are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, all work will cease at the general area of discovery and the USFWS regional archaeologist, or other lead agency archaeologist, will be notified immediately.

In addition to analyzing effects on biological and cultural resources, the EA evaluated the following aspects of the physical and human environment for potential significant effects as a result of the proposed action alternative:

• Aesthetics

• Agriculture Resources

• Air Quality

• Cumulative Impacts

• Environmental Justice

• Greenhouse Gas Emissions

• Hazardous and Toxic Materials

• Hydrology and Water Quality

• Land Use Planning

• Mineral Resources

• Noise

• Population Growth and Housing

• Public Health and Hazards

• Public Services

• Recreation

• Soils and Geology

• Transportation and Traffic

Project design features to minimize environmental effects were incorporated into the proposed action alternative to reduce impacts to a level below significance for those issues for which potentially negative impacts were anticipated.

Public Review and Comment

An initial public scoping notice was published in the legal sections of the Red Bluff Daily News and the Redding Record Searchlight on January 8, 2019. No public comments were received.

Conclusion Therefore, the USFWS, as lead federal agency for the proposed AFRP funding of the North Fork Battle Creek Barrier Modification and Fish Passage Improvement Project, has determined that the proposal does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under the meaning of section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (as amended). As such, an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. An EA has been prepared in support of this finding and is available upon request to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Red Bluff Fish and Wildlife Office, 10950 Tyler Road, Red Bluff, CA 96080.

Donald Ratcliff, Central Valley Supervisor Date

Draft Environmental Assessment Page iv

Contents

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Overview

1.2 Purpose of This Document

1.3 Project Location

1.4 Purpose and Need for Action

1.5 Battle Creek Technical Team

1.6 Regulatory Framework

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.1 Alternative Development

2.2 Lower Barrier Site

2.2.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action

2.2.2 No Action Alternative

2.2.3 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed

2.3 Upper Barrier Site

2.3.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action

2.3.2 No Action Alternative

2.3.3 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed

2.4 Requirements and Design Features Incorporated into the Proposed Action

3.0 Affected Environment

3.1 Environmental Resources not Considered in Detail

3.1.1 Agricultural Resources

3.1.2 Environmental Justice

3.1.3 Land Use Planning

3.1.4 Mineral Resources

3.1.5 Population Growth and Housing

3.1.6 Public Health and Hazards

3.1.7 Public Services

3.2 Affected Environment

3.2.1 Aesthetics

3.2.2 Air Quality

3.2.3 Biological Resources

3.2.3.1 Vegetation and Plant Communities

3.2.3.2 Wildlife

3.2.3.3 Wetlands and Other Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S

3.2.3.4 Fisheries

3.2.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources

3.2.5 Hazardous and Toxic Materials

3.2.6 Hydrology and Water Quality

3.2.7 Noise

3.2.8 Recreation

3.2.9 Soils and Geology

3.2.10 Transportation and Traffic

4.0 Environmental Consequences

4.1 Concept of Impact Analysis

4.1.1 Type of Impact

4.1.2 Duration of Impact

4.1.3 Intensity of the Impact

4.1.4 Mitigation of Impacts

4.2 Aesthetics

4.2.1 Methodology

4.2.2 Alternative 1 - Proposed Action

4.2.3 Alternative 2 - No Action

Draft Environmental Assessment Page v

4.3 Air Quality

4.3.1 Methodology

4.3.2 Alternative 1 - Proposed Action

4.3.3 Alternative 2 - No Action

4.4 Biological Resources

4.4.1 Vegetation and Plant Communities

4.4.1.1 Methodology

4.4.1.2 Alternative 1 - Proposed Action

4.4.1.3 Alternative 2 - No Action

4.4.2 Wildlife

4.4.2.1 Methodology

4.4.2.2 Alternative 1 - Proposed Action

4.4.2.3 Alternative 2 - No Action

4.4.3 Wetlands and Other Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S

4.4.3.1 Methodology

4.4.3.2 Alternative 1 - Proposed Action

4.4.3.3 Alternative 2 - No Action

4.4.4 Fisheries

4.4.4.1 Methodology

4.4.4.2 Alternative 1 - Proposed Action

4.4.4.3 Alternative 2 - No Action

4.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources

4.5.1 Methodology

4.5.2 Alternative 1 - Proposed Action

4.5.3 Alternative 2 - No Action

4.6 Hazardous and Toxic Materials

4.6.1 Methodology

4.6.2 Alternative 1 - Proposed Action

4.6.3 Alternative 2 - No Action

4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.7.1 Methodology

4.7.2 Alternative 1 - Proposed Action

4.7.3 Alternative 2 - No Action

4.8 Noise

4.8.1 Methodology

4.8.2 Alternative 1 - Proposed Action

4.8.3 Alternative 2 - No Action

4.9 Recreation

4.9.1 Methodology

4.9.2 Alternative 1 - Proposed Action

4.9.3 Alternative 2 - No Action

4.10 Soils and Geology

4.10.1 Methodology

4.10.2 Alternative 1 - Proposed Action

4.10.3 Alternative 2 - No Action

4.11 Transportation and Traffic

4.11.1 Methodology

4.11.2 Alternative 1 - Proposed Action

4.11.3 Alternative 2 - No Action

4.12 Cumulative Effects and Other NEPA Considerations

4.12.1 Cumulative Effects

4.12.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

4.12.3 Local Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity Relationship

5.0 Consultation and Coordination

Draft Environmental Assessment Page vi

5.1 Tribes, Agencies, and Organizations Contacted or Consulted

5.2 Public Review and Comments

6.0 Compliance with Environmental Laws and Regulations

7.0 List of Preparers and Participants

8.0 References

9.0 Persons Consulted

List of Figures Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Location Map Figure 3. Site Aerial Photo Figure 4. Aerial View of the Lower Barrier, Figure 5. View of the Lower Barrier, Looking Upstream Figure 6. View of the Lower Barrier, Looking Downstream Figure 7. Aerial View of the Upper Barrier, Looking Upstream Figure 8. Aerial View of the Upper Barrier, Looking Downstream Figure 9. View of the Upper Barrier, Looking Upstream Figure 10. View of North Fork Battle Creek Canyon Figure 11. View of South Upland Terrace Figure 12. View of the Groundwater Seep Figure 13. Vegetation / Major Biocommunities Map Figure 14. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Map Figure 15. Delineation of Waters of the U.S Figure 16. Delineation of Waters of the U.S Figure 17. Delineation of Waters of the U.S Figure 18. Delineation of Waters of the U.S Figure 19. Delineation of Waters of the U.S Figure 20. Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project Schematic Figure 21. Flow Duration Curves for Lower Barrier Site Figure 22. Flow Duration Curves for Upper Barrier Site Figure 23. Soil Survey Map

List of Tables Table 1. Required Permits and Approvals Table 2. Summary of Potentially Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S Table 3. Fish Species Known to Occur in Battle Creek Table 4. Minimum Instream Flow Releases Table 5. LBS Peak Flows for Selected Return Periods Table 6. UBS and Digger Creek Peak Flows for Select Return Periods Table 7. Impacts to Preliminary Waters of the U.S Table 8. Typical Construction Equipment Noise Table 9. Compliance with Environmental Laws and Regulations

Draft Environmental Assessment Page vii

List of Appendices Appendix A: 100% Design Plan Drawings Appendix B: Vascular Plant Species Observed Within or Near the Project Site Appendix C: Potentially-occurring Special-status Vascular Plant Species Appendix D: Faunal Species Observed Within or Near the Project Site Appendix E: Potentially-occurring Special-status Faunal Species Appendix F: USFWS ESA Concurrence Letter Appendix G: NMFS ESA Programmatic Biological Opinion

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations AFRP Anadromous Fish Restoration Program APCD Tehama County Air Pollution Control District APE Area of Potential Effect AQMD Air Quality Management District BCRP Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project BMP Best Management Practice CA State of California CALFED CALFED Bay-Delta Program CARB California Air Resources Board CCR California Code of Regulations CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulation cfs Cubic Feet per Second CH Critical Habitat CH4 Methane CHP California Highway Patrol CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base CNPS California Native Plant Society CO2 Carbon Dioxide CSA Cotton, Shires and Associates CVPIA Central Valley Project Improvement Act dbh Diameter at Breast Height DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane DOORS Diesel Off-Road On-Line Reporting System DPS Distinct Population Segment DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control EA Environmental Assessment EFH Essential Fish Habitat EIS Environmental Impact Study EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ERP Ecosystem Restoration Program ESA Endangered Species Act ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit FDCs Flow Duration Curves FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact fps Feet per Second GHG Greenhouse Gas GPS Global Positioning System HEC-RAS Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System LBS Lower Barrier Site LEQ Energy-Equivalent Level MLA Michael Love & Associates MOU Memorandum of Understanding N2O Nitrous Oxide NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NEIC Northeast Information Center NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFBC North Fork Battle Creek NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NSVAB Northern Sacramento Valley Air Basin OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark PCE Primary Constituent Element PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement PERP Portable Equipment Registration Program PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric

Draft Environmental Assessment Page viii

PM10 Particulate Matter less than 10 Microns in Diameter psi pound-force per square inch RPM Resource Protection Measure RWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board SCAQMD Shasta County Air Quality Management District SR State Route Sub Terra Sub Terra Consulting SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan TAC Project Technical Advisory Committee TCAPCD Tehama County Air Pollution Control District TES Tehama Environmental Solutions, Inc.

UBS Upper Barrier Site USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey

Draft Environmental Assessment Page 1

Project Title:

North Fork Battle Creek Barrier Modification and Fish Passage Improvement Project

Lead Agency Name and Address:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Contact information for the lead agency is listed below:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Ms. Laurie Earley, Supervisory Fish Biologist Red Bluff Fish and Wildlife Office 10950 Tyler Road Red Bluff, CA 96080

(530) 527-3043, ext. 262 laurie_earley@fws.gov

Project Location:

The project is located within Eagle Canyon on North Fork Battle Creek and Digger Creek, at approximately 15 river miles upstream of the confluence with the Sacramento River, west of Manton, in Shasta and Tehama Counties, California (Figure 1). Specifically, the project is located in Sections 24, 25, and 36, Township 30 North, Range 1 West, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian; within the 7.5-minute United States Geological Survey (USGS) Shingletown quadrangle map (Figure 2). The project includes the potential work areas for the two fish barrier modification sites including potential staging areas and access roads (Figure 3).

General Plan Designation:

There are two parcels to the north of Eagle Canyon in Shasta County and two parcels south of the canyon in Tehama County. The Shasta County parcels are in the Eastern Upland Planning area boundary and the General Plan designation for the parcels is Rural Residential (RB). The General Plan land use designation for the two Tehama County parcels within the project site is Upland Agriculture (U-A).

Zoning:

One Shasta County parcel is zoned Unclassified (U) and the second parcel is split-zoned Unclassified / Habitat Protection (U), (HA). The Tehama County parcels are zoned Agricultural / Upland District (AG-1).

Draft Environmental Assessment Page 2

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Overview

Under the authority of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), USFWS has developed an Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (AFRP) with the broad goal of doubling natural production of anadromous fish (those that spawn in fresh water but spend their adult life in salt water) in the rivers and streams of the Central Valley.

The Battle Creek Watershed is a focal area for restoring populations of Chinook salmon and steelhead in the Sacramento River Basin. In 1999, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed between the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), USFWS, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), where parties agreed to pursue what came to be called the Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project (BCRP). The BCRP is a cooperative, proactive undertaking by the public, interested parties, the Greater Battle Creek Watershed Working Group, state and federal agencies and PG&E to restore the anadromous fishery in the Battle Creek watershed. Upon completion, the BCRP will restore approximately 42 miles of habitat in Battle Creek and an additional six miles of habitat in its tributaries while minimizing the loss of clean and renewable energy produced by the hydroelectric project.

The AFRP and other ecosystem restoration programs have recommended a fish passage improvement project (hereafter referred to as project, proposed project or proposed action) in the Battle Creek watershed. The objective of the project is to work with willing landowners to modify two natural fish passage barriers on North Fork Battle Creek to allow three federally listed salmonid species access to optimal habitat that will be made available through the BCRP.

Improving fish passage at these sites will restore anadromous fish access to historic spawning, rearing and holding stream habitat. The project is being funded by the USFWS through the AFRP and other federal and state funds including the Proposition 50 CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program.

1.2 Purpose of This Document

This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared by Tehama Environmental Solutions, Inc. (TES) under agreement number F18AP00099 with the USFWS. The EA has been prepared to comply with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4331 et seq.) The USFWS is the lead agency under NEPA.

The purpose of this EA, under NEPA, is to determine whether the proposed action would result in significant effects on the environment which would then require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), or alternatively, whether the level of effects on the environment are such that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) can be supported by the federal lead agency. This EA describes the environmental resources in the project area, analyzes the effects of the proposed action and a No Action alternative on the environment, and proposes avoidance and minimization measures as design features to reduce any effects to less than significant levels.

1.3 Project Location

The proposed project is located within Eagle Canyon on the North Fork Battle Creek and Digger Creek, at approximately 15 river miles upstream of the confluence with the Sacramento River, west of Manton, in Shasta and Tehama Counties, California (Figure 1). Specifically, the project is located in Sections 24, 25, and 36, Township 30 North, Range 1 West, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian; within the 7.5-minute United States Geological Survey (USGS) Shingletown quadrangle map (Figure 2). The project area includes the potential work areas for the two barrier modification sites including potential staging areas and access roads (Figure 3).

Draft Environmental Assessment Page 3

Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map

Draft Environmental Assessment Page 4

Figure 2. Site Location Map

Draft Environmental Assessment Page 5

Figure 3. Site Aerial Photo

Draft Environmental Assessment Page 6

Figure 4. Aerial View of the Lower Barrier. Photo date: March 01, 2016. Photo courtesy of Michael Love and Associates.

Figure 5. View of the Lower Barrier, Looking Upstream. Photo date: February 29, 2016. Photo courtesy of Michael Love and Associates.

Figure 6. View of the Lower Barrier, Looking Downstream. Photo date: June 15, 2015. Photo courtesy of Michael Love and Associates.

Figure 4. Aerial View of the Lower Barrier, Figure 5. View of the Lower Barrier, Looking

Upstream Figure 6. View of the Lower Barrier, Looking

Downstream

Draft Environmental Assessment Page 7

Figure 7. Aerial View of the Upper Barrier, Looking Upstream

Figure 8. Aerial View of the Upper Barrier, Looking Downstream

Figure 9. View of the Upper Barrier, Looking Upstream

Figure 7. Aerial Vew of the Upper Barrier, Looking

Upstream. Photo date: June 08, 2016. Photo courtesy of Michael Love and Associates.

Figure 8. View of the Upper Barrier, Looking Downstream. Photo date: June 15, 2015. Photo courtesy of Michael Love and Associates.

Figure 9. View of the Upper Barrier, Looking Upstream. Photo date: June 15, 2015. Photo courtesy of Michael Love and Associates.

Draft Environmental Assessment Page 8

Figure 10. View of North Fork Battle Creek Canyon

Figure 11. View of South Upland Terrace

Figure 12. View of the Groundwater Seep

Figure 10. View of North Fork Battle Creek Canyon Looking Southeast. The upland terrace can be seen in the background. Photo date: August 15, 2018

Figure 11. View of South Upland Terrace, Looking South. Site is in the vicinity of where the crane would be positioned for the Lower Barrier site. Photo date:

August 22, 2018.

Figure 12. View of the Groundwater Seep Wetland, Looking Southeast. The feature is composed of seeps and waterfalls on the south canyon wall. Photo date:

August 22, 2018.

Draft Environmental Assessment Page 9

1.4 Purpose and Need for Action

NEPA regulations require the federal lead agency to describe the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding, when considering a project. The information in this section addresses both of these requirements by providing information as to why USFWS is considering the proposed project.

Purpose

The purpose of the proposed action is to modify two natural fish passage barriers on North Fork Battle Creek to allow three federally listed salmonid species access to optimal habitat that will be made available through the BCRP. The two barriers are composed of large boulders and have been documented as complete barriers to upstream salmonid fish migration.

Need

Battle Creek is an important tributary to the Sacramento River, especially for the recovery of salmonids in California’s Central Valley. Several restoration actions and projects have been underway in Battle Creek, focusing on habitat for three federally listed species of salmonids including endangered winter-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), threatened spring-run Chinook salmon and threatened steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (National Marine Fisheries Service et al. 1999). Additionally, a 100-year-old hydroelectric system of dams, canals, and powerhouses operates in the Battle Creek watershed. PG&E currently owns these power generation facilities. The restoration actions and projects have worked to obtain a way for power generation to occur while also providing adequate temperatures and flows needed to restore populations of salmonids within the creek.

The BCRP has a goal to “restore 42 miles of habitat in Battle Creek and 6 miles in the tributaries, while minimizing the loss of renewable energy”. The Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project, consists of multiple dams, diversions, canals, and powerhouses, of which eight dams fall within the BCRP area. In order to achieve the goals of the BCRP, five dams will be removed and new fish screens and ladders will be constructed at the remaining three dams. Additionally, water transfers between North Fork Battle Creek and South Fork Battle Creek will be eliminated and PG&E will provide higher instream flows. The agreement for the BCRP was memorialized with the signing of the 1999 MOU (National Marine Fisheries Service et al. 1999) between the partners, including CDFW, NMFS, USFWS, Reclamation and PG&E.

Natural barriers have been documented to be present within the Battle Creek watershed (Thomas R. Payne and Associates 1991, 1998; Brown and Newton 2002; Earley 2016). The MOU included fish passage conditions in the monitoring section of the document (National Marine Fisheries Service et al. 1999). Additionally, it noted that an adaptive management plan was needed for the BCRP. The draft adaptive management plan was finished in 2004 and was intended to be used to guide monitoring and to make further adjustments to PG&E operations (Terraqua Inc. 2004). The Battle Creek adaptive management plan broke the goal into three objectives: population, habitat and passage. Passage Objective 3 explained the adaptive management approach to address the natural barriers within Battle Creek (Terraqua Inc. 2004). The objective is to provide reliable upstream passage of adult salmon and steelhead to their appropriate habitat over natural obstacles within the BCRP area, while maintaining an appropriate level of spatial separation among the runs (Terraqua Inc. 2004). The objective listed the monitoring approaches, the trigger events, response, response limits, reporting and responsibilities. If an obstacle impedes salmonids from accessing preferred habitat, the response stated that the barrier should be modified, and if it could not be modified, water acquisition was the next option (Terraqua Inc. 2004). It was listed that the resource agencies were responsible for either providing or seeking funding to complete the monitoring and any possible modifications needed (Terraqua Inc. 2004).

It is important to provide access above Eagle Canyon Dam, as this reach has been identified as the optimal habitat for winter-run Chinook salmon. Two barriers have been documented to prevent passage (Brown and Newton 2002; Bottaro et al. 2013; Earley 2016), one below Eagle Canyon Dam, herein referred to as the Lower Barrier Site

Draft Environmental Assessment Page 10

(LBS) located at stream mile 5.06, and one above the dam, referred to as the Upper Barrier Site (UBS) located at stream mile 5.41. Both sites are located within Eagle Canyon, which is a small slot canyon (Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. 2017). The barriers consist of large boulders that need to be physically modified in order to provide fish passage. Previous efforts by CDFW in 1997 and 2012 have failed to improve passage at the LBS and no attempts have been made to modify the UBS.

As a result of the needs identified above, the objectives for this proposed project are to:

• increase water depth at low fish passage flows,

• reduce channel velocity,

• reduce vertical drops,

• increase existing pools or create new pools,

• reduce the overall slope of the channel, and

• create variable swim paths.

1.5 Battle Creek Technical Team

The project is being implemented by the USFWS in cooperation with willing private landowners and the project Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The TAC includes representatives from USFWS, NMFS, CDFW, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and several private consulting firms.

1.6 Regulatory Framework

In addition to NEPA, the proposed project is subject to a variety of federal, state and local laws, regulations and policies as identified in Section 6 Compliance with Environmental Laws and Regulations of this document. The proposed project will require several federal, state, and local agency permits and approvals prior to implementation (Table 1).

Table 1. Required Permits and Approvals

PERMITS AND APPROVALS AGENCY

FEDERAL

Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation National Marine Fisheries Service & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

STATE

Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification Central Valley Region Water Quality Control Board

California Endangered Species Act California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Construction General Stormwater Permit California State Water Resources Control Board

National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultation California Office of Historic Preservation

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Dewatering And Other Low Threat Discharges To Surface Waters Permit* Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board

LOCAL

Shasta County Fugitive Dust Permit Shasta County Air Quality Management District

Tehama County Fugitive Dust Permit Tehama County Air Pollution Control District

Building and Grading Permits** Tehama County Public Works

Building and Grading Permits** Shasta County Resource Management Department

* May be required depending on the method of dewatering proposed.

** May be required.

Draft Environmental Assessment Page 11

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.1 Alternative Development

Multiple alternatives were identified and evaluated as possible long-term fish passage solutions for both barrier sites. These alternatives are documented in an Alternatives Analysis Report that was prepared for the project (Michael Love & Associates 2017a). The alternatives were analyzed based on numerous factors including fish passage, operations and maintenance, location and condition of existing dam, stream characteristics, stream hydrology, biological criteria and economics. The project was developed by the TAC as a collaborative effort with participation from many different disciplines represented by state and federal public and private entities.

2.2 Lower Barrier Site

The two alternatives that were described and discussed by the TAC for the LBS included:

1. Removal of Constricting Boulders (proposed action)

2. Pool and Chute Fishway

The proposed action was selected for the Lower Barrier Site because it provides suitable passage conditions over a range of flows and requires minimal inspection, maintenance and repairs.

2.2.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action

TAC members agreed that the preferred alternative would modify the existing channel in the vicinity of the primary drop through removal of boulders to improve fish passage conditions. Michael Love & Associates (MLA) was contracted by CDFW to prepare designs to the 100 percent level (Appendix A) along with a Basis of Design Memorandum (Michael Love & Associates 2017b).

Design Overview

The existing LBS primary drop is a narrow chute that drops into the shallow and narrow pool (Pool 4). Boulders on the south bank and the bedrock wall on the north bank constrict both the chute and pool. The constriction creates conditions for extreme turbulence and high velocities across the entire wetted channel and throughout the water column. The extreme turbulence is likely a primary condition that blocks fish passage.

The LBS design includes removing approximately 190 cubic yards of boulders and a minor amount of bedrock.

This involves removing boulders (B71, B131, B72), Complex boulders and additional boulders within Pool 4 and the primary drop chute. The rock would be lifted out of the canyon and disposed of at the top of the canyon rim or hauled offsite. Removing the large boulders, along with some minor bedrock modification, would widen the primary drop, create multiple pathways for fish to ascend, and widen Pool 4, which would create more pool volume. Reducing the constriction and increasing the pool volume should result in less turbulence, decreased velocity, and additional holding areas for fish.

As part of the boulder removal, the design includes the creation of two new chutes (referred to as the north and south chutes) that extend upstream of Pool 4. The north chute is intended to provide a low-flow passage path while at higher flows the south chute is anticipated to have better passage conditions. The north chute is anticipated to be constructed within bedrock. Therefore, it is anticipated that the construction would be able to meet the design dimensions for the chute, as presented in the design drawings. The north chute is a trapezoidal channel with a bottom width of approximately two feet and a depth of at least one foot. The side slopes would vary.

Draft Environmental Assessment Page 12

The profile includes two grade breaks. The initial slope, extending upstream from Pool 4, is approximately 80 percent and eight feet long. Although steep, it is anticipated that this lower section would be backwatered by Pool 4 under most flow conditions. The middle section of the north chute has a slope that is approximately 25 percent and is approximately 19 feet long. Although this is still steep, passage over similar features downstream of the LBS within Eagle Canyon exist and provide passage. The final section is approximately 11 feet long and has no slope. Field adjustments may be made based on conditions revealed during rock removal.

The south chute is shorter than the north chute but has similar design characteristics. The material comprising the south chute is unknown (boulders verses bedrock), and field adjustments may be required. The general approach is to construct the chute with a minimum 2.5 feet width and with a minimum depth of one foot. Like the north chute, there are two profile grade breaks. The downstream section, extending from Pool 4, has a slope of 80 percent and is approximately eight feet long. The lower section is anticipated to be backwatered at most flows. The middle section has an approximate slope of 25 percent and is approximately eight feet long. The upstream section is approximately eight feet long and has a 10 percent slope. Pool 4 is anticipated to double or triple in width. This increased width would create low-velocity areas for fish to approach the primary drop and stage their attempt to move upstream.

Construction

Site access is extremely limited to the LBS. A crane (removal system) would be used to deliver materials and equipment to the site and to remove rock from the site. The lifting capabilities of such systems varies, but 8,000 pounds is a conservative estimate.

Prior to beginning the rock removal process, rockfall hazards would be mitigated. This would likely involve scaling off smaller rocks and anchoring in-place, with rock bolts, larger rocks that are at risk of falling during construction.

The Engineering Geologic Investigation Technical Memorandum (Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. 2016) provides additional rock stability details.

Rock would be removed by first drilling holes into the boulders and bedrock and then using hydraulic rock splitters, or other techniques to break the rock into pieces that are small enough to be lifted by the removal system. Existing trees in the stream riparian area, along the canyon walls, and up on the canyon rim would need to be removed and / or limbed to accommodate the removal system. This includes trimming the trees present along the south bank of Battle Creek at the LBS.

A dewatering system would be installed to bypass streamflow around the worksite. This may not need to be installed until the larger boulders that are outside of the wetted channel are removed. It is assumed that the water bypass would be installed in mid-summer when flows are close to the minimum bypass flow of 35 cubic feet per second (cfs). Materials for the dewatering system may be brought in by the removal system or by helicopter.

The project schedule is dependent on acquiring all environmental permits and landowner agreements, and favorable stream flows in mid-summer. It is anticipated that construction of one of the barrier sites will occur in 2020 and the other barrier site will occur in 2021. If all environmental permits and landowner agreements are not acquired, or if mid-summer stream flows are too high to accommodate the stream diversion system, the project schedule may be delayed for one to several construction seasons.

Anticipated Fish Passage Performance

An existing conditions two-dimensional hydraulic model based on the 90 percent design drawings was developed and executed using a wide range of flows. The water surface profiles flows would increase from 35 cfs (low fish passage design flow) to 382 cfs (high fish passage design flow). To assess the change in flow conditions associated with rock removal, maps of a hydraulic model output were created for existing and proposed conditions for 35 cfs, 120 cfs, 250 cfs, 382 cfs and 1,600 cfs.

Draft Environmental Assessment Page 13

At the low passage design flow of 35 cfs, the north chute provides sufficient depth for passage, while the south chute does not. At all other flows the south chute provides sufficient depth and lower water velocities, making it the preferred passage route. At flows from 35 cfs to 250 cfs, the analysis predicts that even smaller, weaker swimming Chinook salmon could swim through the north chute and south chute, respectively. Based on the spring-run Chinook length data provide by USFWS for Battle Creek, 90 to 100 percent of the fish would be able to swim through one of the two chutes at flows between 35 cfs and 250 cfs. At the high passage design flow of 382 cfs, only the larger (top 30 percentile) Chinook salmon are predicted to have the swimming abilities to burst through the velocities in the south chute, while the north chute would be too swift for any fish to pass. This design is considered to provide passage from 35 cfs to 250 cfs, while larger salmon and steelhead would be able to pass at even higher flows.

Expected Design Life

The LBS design is anticipated to function as constructed for an indefinite period, which could be for hundreds of years. The exact life expectancy is uncertain and dependent on future rockfall. Rockfall may occur at any time, and can be triggered by strong ground shaking from earthquakes. In most cases, maintenance in the form of rock removal could restore fish passage functionality.

Anticipated Maintenance Requirements

The LBS design would likely require little to no debris or sediment removal. There is the possibility that a large log or other woody debris could become lodged between rocks in an orientation that creates undesirable passage conditions, requiring removal. This has occurred at other locations within North Fork Battle Creek.

Access for inspection and maintenance would be along the south bank of the channel. Improved site access, from the flume catwalk down to the channel, could be installed if desired and acceptable to PG&E. Removal of debris or demolition of rock fallen into the channel needing to be removed would be infrequent, but would likely need to occur during the low-flow season, after the fish migration period. Therefore, it may be difficult to perform timely maintenance.

The LBS design has a low susceptibility to rockfall hazards. In the event that rocks do fall into the channel after construction, they would likely only cause minor changes to fish passage hydraulics and could even improve passage conditions. There is the potential for very large boulders to fall onto the chute or into the pool, creating undesirable passage conditions that require repair in the form of rock removal.

The LBS is generally not susceptible to damage from boulders that could be mobilized by flow. Flows that mobilize them are likely infrequent and involve extreme depths and velocities. Boulders in transport during these events are expected to pass through the LBS without coming to rest, similar to existing conditions. The design is also not considered susceptible to scour. Field observations of the channel upstream of the project suggest that the channel bed is primarily bedrock, with some large boulders. This material is anticipated to be stable and resistant to scour and headcutting, extending to the next upstream boulder drop.

If a large boulder were to move or fall into the channel reach and create undesirable fish passage conditions, then removal of the boulder would be necessary. Depending on the size, location and orientation of the boulder, several methods could be used to break the rock into small pieces rather than remove it completely. If removal from the canyon is necessary, then large equipment (e.g. crane) would be necessary.

Post-Construction Monitoring As-built Survey

Immediately following construction, or as construction is finalized, a survey of flow paths and other key channel elements could be completed. This would form the basis for follow up surveys. Due to the relatively high flows and dangerous conditions in the channel much of the year, follow up surveys would be conducted during the low-

Draft Environmental Assessment Page 14 flow period. The follow up surveys should focus on the same key flow paths and channel elements and capture any new developments.

Startup Monitoring

Channel adjustments around existing boulders in response to the implemented project is most likely to occur following the first several high-flow events. During the year following construction, the site could be inspected following each major flow event (> 1,000 cfs) and any changes to the site configuration and flow patterns be noted. In addition to visual inspection, time-lapse cameras could be installed at the LBS to document passage conditions at various flows. This monitoring could be extended if there are only a few high-flow events during the first year, or if channel adjustments are noted.

Biological Monitoring

Monitoring for fish migration through the project site would help indicate whether it is successful. Adult Chinook salmon and steelhead currently reach Pool 2 at the LBS. The monitoring could include field spawning and snorkel surveys upstream and downstream of the LBS to document passage success. Another means to document passage conditions is through implementing a study plan that challenges individual fish to pass through the site.

This may involve transport and release of radio-tagged adult Chinook salmon immediately downstream of the site and monitoring their passage attempts. This could be conducted across a range of flows.

Inspection and Maintenance

After the first year, site inspection may occur less frequently, possibly only after the high-flow season. The inspection would be focused on identifying any debris that has accumulated and potentially negatively impacts to passage conditions. It would also be used to identify any rockfall or boulder shifting / scour that has changed passage conditions.

Design Limitations and Uncertainties

The complexity of the LBS and nature of the selected approach for restoring fish passage introduces several notable design limitations and uncertainties for the LBS project. The primary limitation is with respect to the unknown subsurface conditions, boulder interactions related to stability, and presence, or lack of bedrock. The design, as presented, is based on the best available data and observations from multiple site visits. The data were captured and site visits occurred during varying flow conditions. Boulders were individually studied and their relationship with adjacent boulders noted, but uncertainty remains with how the boulders would behave once the removal process begins and what additional boulders or bedrock may be exposed once the surface boulders are removed.

For example, during the last site visit, of many to the LBS, a new sieve had formed in a location that had previously appeared comprised of interlocked boulders, cobbles and gravel. The sieve formed near the upstream end of the south chute, allowing flow to be conveyed under boulder B75, among others. Although this new sieve did not result in a design change, it demonstrates the unpredictable nature of the project site.

Related to the above discussion, the actual final dimensions of Pool 4 after construction may be smaller than shown in the design drawings. This may result for a couple of reasons. First, the interdependence of indicated boulders to be removed may be significant enough that removal of the boulders could cause the south bank to become unstable. There are many boulders outside the approximate limits of grading that have diameters in the tens of feet that should remain in place. Second, the boulders that are indicated to be removed may not go as deep as indicated by the finish grade contours. This is less of a concern because any in-situ boulder buried under the current boulders could be modified or removed to meet the design intent.

Construction of the two chutes is also related to the unknown subsurface concerns. It is assumed that the north chute would be constructed within bedrock. If the bedrock is not present, then the chute would need to be

Draft Environmental Assessment Page 15 constructed through boulders, which may be less stable and require more field adjustments during construction than bedrock. The south channel would be constructed into an unknown material (boulder or bedrock). It is assumed that the chute would be constructed out of boulders, either in-situ or placed. The long-term stability of the chute is uncertain.

Substantial instability in the upstream end of the channel modification could cause upstream channel adjustments in the form of headcutting. Although this is a possibility, it is anticipated that any headcut would be arrested by existing large boulders or bedrock. If a headcut propagates upstream, potential exists for an increase in the water surface drop at the next upstream boulder constriction, potentially degrading passage conditions.