Final_Task4_HydraulicCharacterization.pdf

FINAL

Eagle Canyon Fish Passage Improvements in Battle Creek

Lower and Upper Barrier Sites

Existing Site and Hydraulic Characterization Technical Memorandum

October 2016

Prepared for:

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Agreement Number D1499019)

Prepared by:

Eagle Canyon Fish Passage Improvements in Battle Creek, Alternatives Analysis Report Page i

Eagle Canyon Fish Passage Improvements in Battle Creek, Existing Site and Hydrualic Characterization Page ii

FINAL

Eagle Canyon Fish Passage Improvements in Battle Creek, Lower and Upper Barrier Sites

Existing Site and Hydraulic Characterization Technical Memorandum

Prepared for:

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Agreement Number D1499019

Prepared by:

Michael Love P.E.

Principal Engineer License No. C71681 Michael Love & Associates, Inc.

mlove@h2odesigns.com ● (707) 826-2411 x1

Travis James P.E.

Senior Project Engineer License No. C76663 Michael Love & Associates, Inc.

ptjames@h2odesigns.com ● (707) 826-2411 x5

October 2016 mailto:Mlove@h2odesigns.com mailto:ptjames@h2odesigns.com

Page iii

Table of Contents

1 Introduction 2 Previously Completed Work

2.1 Previously Completed Work by MLA Design Team

2.2 Previously Completed and Relevant Studies by Others

Fish Passage and Fish Monitoring Studies Hydrology Studies

3 Project Location and Site Descriptions

3.1 Project Location

3.2 Eagle Canyon

3.3 Lower Barrier Site

General Site Description Mapped Boulders and Boulder Complexes Summary of Geophysical Exploration to Estimate Depth to Bedrock

3.4 Upper Barrier Site

General Site Description Mapped Boulders and Boulder Complexes Mapped Sieves Summary of Geophysical Exploration to Estimate Depth to Bedrock

4 Fish Passage Performance Criteria

4.1 Target Fish Species and Life Stage

4.2 Migration Timing

4.3 Fish Size

4.4 Minimum Depth for Swimming

4.5 Adult Anadromous Salmonid Swimming Abilities

Adult Chinook Swim Speeds Adult Steelhead Swim Speeds Routing Fish through High Velocities using 2-D Model Results

4.6 Leaping Abilities

4.7 Pool Depth for Leaping

4.8 Turbulence

5 Hydrology and Fish Passage Flows

5.1 Available Hydrologic Data Sources

5.2 Fraction of Flow Contributing to USGS Coleman Fish Hatchery Gage

5.3 Historical Flow Conditions

5.4 Minimum Instream Bypass Flows

5.5 Fish Passage Flows and Migration Delays

3-Day High-Flow Migration Delay Feeder Dam Fish Passage Design Flows Eagle Canyon Dam Fish Passage Design Flows Flow Duration Analysis LBS Flow Duration UBS Flow Duration

5.6 Peak Flows

6 Field Data for Characterizing Hydraulic Conditions

6.1 Boulder and Flowline Mapping

Page iv

6.2 Time-Lapse Cameras

6.3 Water Level Loggers

6.4 Lower Barrier Site

Water Surface Mapping Timelapse Camera Installations Water Level Logger Installation Discharge Measurements

6.5 Upper Barrier Site

Water Surface Mapping Timelapse Camera Installations Water Level Logger Installation Discharge Measurements

7 Methods for Characterizing Existing Hydraulic Conditions

7.1 Stage-Discharge Rating Curves

Lower Barrier Site Upper Barrier Site

7.2 Hydraulic Model Development: Peak Flow Events

Lower Barrier Site Upper Barrier Site

7.3 Hydraulic Model Development: Fish Passage Flows

Lower Barrier Site SRH-2D Development Upper Barrier Site SRH-2D Development

8 Characterization of Existing Hydraulic Conditions Results

8.1 Lower Barrier Reach

Discharge Rating Curves Water Surface Mapping HEC-RAS Hydraulic Results Fish Passage Hydraulic Modeling Results Fish Passage Conclusions

8.2 Upper Barrier Reach

Discharge Rating Curves Water Surface Mapping and Observations HEC-RAS Hydraulic Results Fish Passage Hydraulic Discussion Fish Passage Conclusions

9 Conclusions 10 References

Page v

Attachments Attachment A – Project Sites Plan and Profile Drawings

Attachment B – Lower Barrier Site Photographs

Attachment C – Upper Barrier Site Photographs

Attachment D – Hydrology Support

Attachment E – Flow Measurement Data Tables

Attachment F – HEC-RAS Plan View Figures

Attachment G – Discharge Rating Curve Data Tables

Attachment H – Lower Barrier Water Surface Mapping Results

Attachment I – Lower Barrier HEC-RAS Result Figures and Data Tables

Attachment J – Lower Barrier SRH-2D Result Figures

Attachment K – Upper Barrier Water Surface Mapping Results

Attachment L – Upper Barrier HEC-RAS Result Figures and Data Tables

1 INTRODUCTION

Battle Creek has historically been regarded as a uniquely important watershed because of the abundance and broad diversity of Chinook salmon and steelhead that used this stream. The year round influence of cold water springs allowed for such diversity to develop, including winter-run Chinook salmon, which is now in danger of extinction. Hydroelectric facilities and operations and other human factors likely caused the extirpation of winter-run from the Battle Creek watershed in the early 1900s (Reynolds et al. 1993).

After many years of planning, there is currently a major restoration project being completed by many organizations and led by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) on Battle Creek: The Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project (USBR Restoration Project). Upon its completion, the goal of the USBR Restoration Project is to reestablish approximately 42 miles of prime salmon and steelhead habitat on Battle Creek, plus an additional six miles on its tributaries.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has retained the services of Michael Love & Associates, Inc. (MLA) to design and develop construction ready documents to improve upstream fish passage conditions at two natural fish barriers on North Fork Battle Creek (NFBC): Lower Barrier Site (LBS) and Upper Barrier Site (UBS). This Eagle Canyon Fish Passage Improvement Project (Project) is being completed for CDFW under Agreement Number D1499019 (Agreement).

This Technical Memorandum (TM) presents the existing site and hydraulic characterization findings for both sites as required by Task 4 of the Agreement. Per the Agreement, MLA is to complete the following work under Task 4:

• characterize the flow patterns through both barrier reaches over a range of fish passage flows,

• map water surface elevations in, and around, each feature and produce water surface profiles,

• conduct streamflow discharge measurements,

• overlay water surface maps on the base map to shown flow extents,

• document locations where passage conditions are suitable and alternative, or potential, passageways around obstructions exist at specific flows,

• identify where fish passage improvements are required, and

• develop a technical memorandum describing the work completed under this task (this document).

Findings presented in this TM, along with previous work products, serve as the basis for developing the strategic modifications necessary to improve fish passage conditions at the LBS and UBS.

Potential fish passage modifications will be presented in the Alternatives Analysis Report, which will be completed subsequent to this TM.

This TM is organized in the following manner:

• Section 2 Previously Completed Work: Presents the work completed previously by the MLA Design Team for this Project and work completed by others that are specifically relevant to the introduction of the work presented in this TM.

• Section 3 Project Location and Site Descriptions: Presents, in general, the Project location and then in more detail the Project sites.

• Section 4 Fish Passage Performance Criteria: Presents the identified fish passage performance criteria utilized for this Project to evaluate the hydraulic conditions as they relate to existing fish passage and future alternatives.

• Section 5 Hydrology and Fish Passage Flows: Presents the project hydrology which includes a description of the flow releases from the dams affecting the Project, defining the peak flows used for this Project, and defining the fish passage design flows used for this Project.

• Section 6 Field Data for Characterizing Hydraulic Conditions: Presents the field data work completed under Task 4 for this Project.

• Section 7 Methods for Characterization of Existing Hydraulic Conditions: Presents the methodology used to characterize the existing hydraulic conditions.

• Section 8 Characterization of Existing Hydraulic Conditions Results: Presents the findings of the existing conditions hydraulic assessment.

• Section 9 Conclusions Presents the conclusions of this TM.

2 PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED WORK

2.1 Previously Completed Work by MLA Design Team

Work presented in this Technical Memorandum (TM) is based on work documented in early TMs.

Together, this TM, previously completed TMs, and future TMs will serve as a collection of documents detailing the work completed for this Project, each relying on others to minimize repeating information. Table 2-1 presents the previously completed TMs for this Project.

Table 2-1. A list of previously completed technical memorandums completed for this Project.

Associated Task Technical Memorandum Title Primary Author Status

Task 2 North Fork Battle Cr Eagle Canyon Survey Report GMA Hydrology, Inc. Finalized, January 2016

Task 2 Final Eagle Canyon Fish Passage Improvement Project Task 2: Topographic Surveying and Boulder Mapping Results

Michael Love & Associates, Inc.

Finalized, May 5, 2016

Task 3 Engineering Geologic Investigation Technical Memorandum Eagle Canyon Fish Passage Improvement in Battle Creek

Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc.

Finalized, August 2016

GMA Hydrology’s (GMA’s) North Fork Battle Cr Eagle Canyon Survey Report presents the work completed to develop the base topographic data for the Project. This included brining control to the Project sites, obtaining LiDAR data, conducting ground base scans, conducting traditional Total Station surveys, conducting sonar-based bathometric surveys, and obtaining low-elevation aerial photographs of the sites.

MLA’s Final Eagle Canyon Fish Passage Improvement Project Task 2: Topographic Surveying and Boulder Mapping Results technical memorandum provided the findings of the work completed under Task 2 by MLA. This included the labeling of boulders for both sites, identifying hydraulic control for both sites, identifying high and low flow alignments, and delivering all of the electronic information developed by both MLA and GMA.

Cotton, Shires and Associates’ (CSA’s) Engineering Geologic Investigation Technical Memorandum Eagle Canyon Fish Passage Improvement in Battle Creek provided the findings of their engineering geologic investigation. This included a rigorous investigation of the UBS and a more qualitative investigation of the LBS.

2.2 Previously Completed and Relevant Studies by Others

This section presents some of the relevant studies completed by others within the Battle Creek watershed that are particularly relevant to this Project.

Fish Passage and Fish Monitoring Studies

There have been several fish passage and fish monitoring studies completed for Battle Creek. The most relevant studies obtained for this Project include:

• Thomas R. Payne & Associates’ (TRPA’s) 1998 Battle Creek Fisheries Investigations, Task 4:

Surveys of Barriers to the Upstream Migration of Anadromous Fish (TRPA, 1998)

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Monitoring Adult Chinook Salmon, Rainbow Trout, and Steelhead in Battle Creek, California, from November 2002 through November 2003 (Brown and Alston, 2007)

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Monitoring Adult Chinook Salmon, Rainbow Trout, and Steelhead in Battle Creek, California, from March through November 2007 (Newton et. al., 2008)

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS’s) Monitoring Adult Chinook Salmon, Rainbow Trout, and Steelhead in Battle Creek, California, from March through November 2014 (Bottaro and Brown, 2015)

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Summary of the Pilot Assessment of Three Potential Fish Barriers on Battle Creek (Earley, 2014)

The TRPA (1998) study cataloged numerous potential natural passage impediments throughout the Battle Creek watershed. Figure 2-1 presents the map developed by TRPA with the current Project’s barrier locations identified. Of the potential barriers identified by TRPA on NFBC below river mile (RM) 6, all were identified as passable at flows greater than 35 cfs with the exception of one. The barrier identified at RM 5.14 (NF5.14) is this Project’s LBS. TRPA estimated that NF5.14 was a complete barrier to all fish at all flows but later indicated that some salmonids, in good condition, could pass this falls at very high flows.

Figure 2-1. Locations of identified barriers (TRPA, 1998) with the current Project's barriers labeled in red.

TRPA’s barrier NF5.40 was described as consisting of a cascade below a 3.5 feet high falls at approximately 4.5 cubic feet per second (cfs). The horizontal distance from a pool below the cascade to the top of the falls was 8 feet. TRPA concluded that at 35 cfs, the pool below the cascade was large enough to allow Chinook salmon and steelhead passage. NF5.40 is located immediately downstream of this Project’s UBS, and downstream of the Digger Creek confluence.

Lacking from the 1998 TRPA study is the identification of the UBS. For reasons unknown, their report makes no mention of this barrier, which is located immediately upstream of the Digger Creek confluence.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has completed monitoring within Battle Creek since 1995. During this monitoring period they have never recorded a redd upstream of the LBS (RM 5.14). They conclude that LBS may block salmonid passage at low and moderate flows, with a potential alternative passageway at infrequent high flows.

Earley (2014) identified the UBS and referred to it as Barrier B. Earley concluded that the UBS was a complete barrier at low and moderate flows, with the potential for an alternative passage route around the barrier at high flows.

Hydrology Studies

There have been several studies of Battle Creek hydrology as part of the larger Restoration Project.

For this Project, the hydrologic studies most utilized are list below. The data utilized from these studies will be further detailed in Section 5.

• Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Plan (Ward and Kier, 1999)

• Memorandum of Understanding: to Memorialize the Agreement Regarding the Proposed Battle Creek

Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project, Located in the Battle Creek Watershed in Tehama and Shasta Counties, California (MOU, 1999)

• Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project Fish Ladder and Fish Screen Features: Inskip Diversion, North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion, Eagle Canyon Diversion, Preliminary Engineering Concepts Technical Report (DWR, 2000)

• Hydrology of North and South Fork Battle Creeks (USBR, 2001)

Ward and Kier (1999) developed a restoration plan for the Battle Creek Working Group. They developed a ratio for the flow split between the north and south forks of Battle Creek based on the long term flow gage data collected at the USGS Coleman Hatchery Gage (USGS 11376550).

In 1999 the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California of Department of Fish and Game (CDFW), and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU).

Amongst other things, the MOU details the instream flow requirements downstream of various diversion dams within the Battle Creek Watershed.

Department of Water Resource (DWR, 2000) utilized the information contained within the MOU and the data developed by Ward and Kier (1999) to develop their conceptual level engineering fish passage solutions for Eagle Canyon Diversion Dam and North Fork Feeder Dam, both on the north fork (see Figure 3-2 in Section 3.1), as well as other dams on the south fork of Battle Creek. DWR, based on discussions with PG&E, slightly modified the flow split ratio developed by Ward and Keir (1999).

During the development of the DWR conceptual designs, USBR prepared a detailed report on the hydrology of Battle Creek (USBR, 2001). The USBR report, along with the MOU, and the field data collected by MLA, provides the basis for the hydrology used for this Project.

3 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTIONS

3.1 Project Location

Battle Creek is located in northern Tehama and southern Shasta counties, California. Battle Creek is tributary to the Sacramento River. Battle Creek is approximately 60 miles long and has a watershed area of approximately 364 square miles. Battle Creek watershed includes the western slopes of Lassen Peak in the southern Cascade Range. In addition to precipitation and snowmelt runoff, Battle Creek receives flow from numerous cold water springs. Battle Creek has the highest base flow (dry-season flow) of any tributary to the Sacramento River between the Feather River and Keswick Dam (Ward and Kier, 1999).

The focus of this Project is two sites located on North Fork Battle Creek (NFBC). Figure 3-2 provides an overview of the USBR Restoration Project components, being completed by USBR, with the location of the two barriers associated with this Project labeled, as well as other important features that will be referred to within this TM.

Figure 3-1. Project location map.

Figure 3-2. Battle Creek Schematic for USBR Restoration Project with this Project's site locations and the location of various flow gages indicated.

3.2 Eagle Canyon

North Fork Battle Creek created Eagle Canyon as it cut its way through a volcanic plateau. Moving upstream along NFBC, Eagle Canyon begins to form at approximately RM 3.87, where it is approximately 550 feet wide and 106 feet deep. At the LBS (RM 5.14), the canyon is approximately 350 feet wide and 200 feet deep. At the UBS (RM 5.46), the canyon is approximately 50 feet wide and 50 feet deep. The canyon continues to narrow and become less deep moving further upstream.

Digger Creek flows into NFBC at RM 5.44, immediately downstream of the UBS. Digger Creek, at the NFBC confluence, is confined within its own canyon, and has a similar depth and width as NFBC upstream of the UBS.

Figure 3-3 presents the Eagle Canyon long profile from RM 4.65 to RM 5.82 derived from the USFWS provided LiDAR generated digital terrain model. Average slopes and the locations of the LBS and UBS and Eagle Canyon Dam are identified. As seen, the average slope immediately downstream and upstream of the LBS is 7.3 percent and 6.2 percent, respectively. Between Eagle Canyon Dam and the UBS the average channel slope is 7.9 percent. Upstream of the UBS, the slope is much more gradual, at 2.6 percent.

Figure 3-3. Eagle Canyon long profile from RM 4.65 to RM 5.82.

3.3 Lower Barrier Site

The Lower Barrier Site (LBS) is located approximately 600 feet downstream of the Eagle Canyon Dam (lat: 40.423197°, long: -121.921655°) at RM 5.14. Attachment A includes plan and profile view drawings of the LBS. The following sub-sections describe the general layout of the LBS and the location and arrangement of mapped boulders. Attachment B includes annotated photographs referred to in the below sections.

General Site Description Figure 3-4 presents an aerial photograph of the LBS at a flow of approximately 120 cfs. Figure 3-5 presents the detailed channel profile through the LBS based on field-run survey completed for this Project. Refer to GMA (2016) for additional survey details.

Pool 1 is the downstream most pool surveyed as part of this Project. It receives flow from Pool 2.

Pool 2 is approximately 41 feet long with a relatively deep (approximately 7 ft deep under low flow conditions) scour hole located at the head of the pool. Adjacent to Pool 2 along river right is a bedrock shelf that contains several pot holes of varying depths (Figure B-1, Attachment B). To enter Pool 3 from Pool 2, under low flow conditions, a fish must swim through Sieve A, where water flows under a boulder. The exact dimensions of the sieve are not known as it was unsafe to conduct measurements, but as seen in Figure B-1, the sieve can easily convey 120 cfs. Pool 3 is short and approximately 5.7 feet deep under low flow conditions. A second large sieve (Sieve B) separates Pool 3 and Pool 4. Pool 4 is 8 feet long and approximately 3 feet deep at low flow. It is located immediately downstream of the primary drop.

The primary drop and receiving pool, Pool 4, is the focus of this Project for the LBS (Figure B-2 and B-3). The drop is approximately 34.5 feet long and 8.4 feet in height, as measured from the pool water surfaces. The average slope is 32.5 percent, with the lower portion of the drop being much steeper. At the top of the drop, the channel is approximately 22 feet wide, but quickly narrows to approximately 6 feet wide as it is pinched by very large boulders and the bedrock canyon wall.

In October 2012, CDFW conducted an operation to remove a boulder (referred to as R1 in Smelser (2012)) that further restricted the channel width of the primary drop. Explosives were utilized to remove the boulder (RBF, 2012). Although much of the boulder was reduced to small pieces, it is believed that some large fragments of that boulder remain within the primary drop and possibly within Pool 4. Smelser (2012) also identified a bedrock cornice located at the head of the drop. He described it as a remnant pothole rim that protrudes into the flow at the top of the chute that forms the primary drop. No modifications were made to the bedrock cornice during the 2012 effort.

Spawning and redd surveys completed by USFWS between 2001 and 2013 yielded no indications of anadromous fish above the primary drop (Earley, 2014). During the initial site visit for this Project in June 2015, an adult steelhead was observed in Pool 2, but no fish were observed upstream of the primary drop.

Figure 3-4. Aerial image of the Lower Barrier Site taken on February 10, 2016 at a flow of 120 cfs.

Figure 3-5. Lower Barrier Site channel profile.

Upstream of the primary drop is Pool 5 (Figure B-2), marking this Project’s upper reach. Pool 5 is approximately 300 feet long and relatively shallow (1.9 residual depth) and wide compared to Pools 2, 3, and 4.

Overall, the LBS contains many large (over ten feet in diameter) boulders. The majority of the large boulders are located on river left (looking downstream) and extend as indicated in Figure 3-4.

Smelser (2012) and CSA (2016) both concluded that most of the large boulders originated from the southern (river left) upper canyon wall. Smelser speculated that these large boulders originated from blasting during construction of the Eagle Canyon flume and tunnels, now operated by PG&E.

Upslope of these boulders, but below the southern canyon wall and tunnel portal is a slope formed of small (12 inches and smaller) angular rock fragments. These appear to have been spoiled in this location during construction of the adjacent tunnel.

Mapped Boulders and Boulder Complexes Under Task 2 of this Project, MLA individually labeled each boulder greater than approximately 3 feet in diameter (MLA, 2016). The boulders are labeled in the Attachment A drawings. Figure 3-6 presents an aerial overview of the LBS with eleven boulder/boulder complexes labeled. When Figure 3-6 only lists a single number (e.g. B75) then the label is referring to a single boulder, otherwise the label is indicating many boulders grouped together into a boulder complex. The exception is the bedrock shelf which is neither. The remainder of this section briefly describes each boulder/boulder complex. As the Project progresses these complexes will be separated into individual boulders as necessary to describe various components of the Project.

Description of Labeled boulders and boulder complexes:

• Boulder B138: An approximately 18 feet long (parallel with flow), 17 feet wide (perpendicular to flow), and 21 feet tall boulder (Figure B-4). Smelser (2012) concluded that this boulder weighs approximately 650 tons.

• DS Complex: A grouping of boulders downstream and behind B138 ranging in size from 8 feet to less than 3 feet in diameter. When entering the LBS, you first enter this complex of boulders.

• Boulder B95: An approximately 11 feet long, 12 feet wide, and 7 feet tall boulder (Figure B-

4). Sieve A is located between B95 and the bedrock shelf.

• Boulder 131: An approximately 15 feet long, 11 feet wide, and 11 feet tall boulder (Figure B- 4 and Figure B-5). Boulder B131 is situated on top of the bedrock shelf immediately downstream of Pool 4. Smelser (2012) concluded that this boulder weighs approximately 90 tons.

• Boulder B71: An approximately 8 feet long, 16 feet wide, and 6 feet tall boulder. Boulder B71 forms the top of Sieve B. Smelser (2012) concluded that this boulder weighs approximately 140 tons.

• Middle Complex: Comprised of numerous boulders ranging in size from 14 feet (boulder near B71) to less than three feet in diameter (Figure B-5 and Figure B-6).

• Upper Complex: Comprised of several boulders ranging in size from 7 feet to less than 3 feet in diameter (Figure B-7).

• B72 Complex: Includes many large boulders. Boulder B72 is the largest boulder within the complex and is 10 feet long, 17 feet wide, and 7 feet tall. Smelser (2012) concluded that this boulder weighs approximately 170 tons. Smelser (2012) determined the approximate weight for several other boulders within this complex weighing between 80 and 20 tons. Figure B-5, Figure B-6, Figure B-7, Figure B-8, Figure B-9 present different sides of the B72 Complex.

• Boulder B75: An approximately 12 feet long, 9 feet wide, and 7 feet tall boulder (Figure B- 9). B75 is situated between the B72 Complex and the Bear Hallow Complex.

• Bear Hallow Complex: It contains several large boulders with the largest being 17 feet long, 20 feet wide, and 20 feet tall (Figure B-9). A small hollow is formed under these boulders.

Figure 3-6. LBS aerial image with boulders and boulder complexes labeled. Flow approximately 120 cfs.

Summary of Geophysical Exploration to Estimate Depth to Bedrock Cotton, Shires and Associates (CSA) conducted a geophysical exploration of the subsurface conditions at the LBS using Refraction Microtremor (ReMi) technology (CSA, 2016). In total, two ReMi lines (RM1 and RM2) were deployed parallel to, and south of, the channel.

RM1 began near the toe of the bank adjacent to the downstream end of Pool 2 and extended to boulder B75. CSA’s interpretation of the results from this ReMi line indicate that bedrock is approximately 14 feet below ground at the mid-point of the line, located at the south east corner of boulder B138 (Figure 3-6). This would place bedrock at approximately elevation 1353.5 feet, which falls between the pool bottoms of Pool 2 and Pool 3 (Figure 3-5).

RM2 was located about 30 feet to the south of RM2, and higher up the slope. Interpretation of RM2 results suggest that the bedrock is approximately 10 feet below ground at the mid-point of this line, which is across from the bedrock shelf and mid-point of Pool 2. This would place the bedrock surface at approximately elevation 1364.0 feet. This elevation is coincidental with portions of the bedrock shelf on the opposite side of the channel.

3.4 Upper Barrier Site

The UBS is located approximately 4 miles downstream of the North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion Dam (Feeder Dam) and approximately 600 feet upstream of the Eagle Canyon Dam. (lat:

40.425147°, long: -121.917139°). It is located immediately upstream of the confluence with Digger Creek. Attachment A includes plan and profile view drawings of the UBS. The following sub-sections describe the general layout of the UBS and location and arrangement of mapped boulders.

Attachment C includes annotated photographs referred to in the below sections.

General Site Description Figure 3-7 presents an aerial image of the UBS accompanied by a channel profile. Overall, the UBS is larger and more complicated than the LBS. The profile shown in Figure 3-7 is sampled along just one of many potential flow paths. Unlike the discussion for the LBS, the UBS sieves are not labeled in Figure 3-7 due to their complexity. Instead, a separate UBS sieve map is presented at the end of this section.

The UBS study area extends over approximately 350 feet of channel length, from station 1+10 to 2+35 on the profile. The overall channel slope is 8.5 percent. Immediately upstream of station 2+35 is the primary drop. Much of this channel reach is formed and controlled by very large boulders (over 10 feet in diameter) delivered to the channel from the adjacent bedrock cliffs.

Following the profile in Figure 3-7 from downstream to upstream, the UBS study area begins in Pool 1. Pool 1 is approximately 57 feet long and approximately 4.5 feet deep under low flow conditions (Figure C-1, Attachment C). Pool 2 and located at the confluence of NFBC and Digger Creek (Figure C-1). Pool 2 is short at low flows and less than a foot deep. Pool 2 becomes deeper and longer as flows increase. Pool 3 is a small pool that is not located on the profile presented in Figure 3-7. Pool 3 under low flows is approximately 1.75 feet deep and is nearly disconnected from the remainder of the channel (Figure C-2). Under higher flows, flow is conveyed through Pool 3 along the secondary alignment. Flow along the secondary alignment will be discussed in more detail below.

Pool 4 is approximately 20 feet long and has low flow depth of 2 feet. Pool 4 receives flow from a large sieve connected to Pool 5 (Figure C-3), which will be discussed later. Pool 5 is located between a series of sieves and primarily receives flow from Pool 6, but other connections exist which will be discussed in 3.4.3. Figure C-4 provides an overview of the pool configuration looking downstream.

Pool 6 is connected to Pool 7 via a large sieve. Pool 7 is the pool located immediately downstream of the primary drop (Figure C-5 and Figure C-6). Pool 7 contains several large boulders that separate the pool into smaller pools under low flow conditions. The individual pools (connected via sieves) become one large pool at relatively high flows, which will be discussed further in Section 3.4.3.

The primary drop is approximately 12.5 feet long and tall. The face of the drop consists of several large boulders protruding into the flow path. The lower portion of the drop is nearly vertical. Flow approaching the drop is conveyed through Pool 8.

Pool 8 is approximately 6 feet deep under low flow conditions and approximately 30 feet long. The deepest portion of the pool is against the right canyon wall. Flow is constricted between a large boulder located in the center of the channel and the bedrock canyon wall. The constriction causes the channel to make several abrupt turns as it approaches the primary drop (Figure C-7).

Pool 9 is the final pool within the UBS study area (Figure C-7). Pool 9 is approximately 43 feet long and approximately 2.3 feet deep under low flow conditions. Pool 9, like Pool 8 is confined to the right canyon wall under low flow conditions. Upstream of Pool 9 are three large boulders which create a barb into the channel, forcing the majority of flow towards the right canyon wall, except at high flows. These boulders also produce a water surface drop of several feet in height, as observed during higher flows.

Figure 3-7. Upper Barrier Site overview aerial image and profile. Photograph with NF Battle Creek flowing at approximately 195 cfs upstream of Digger Creek.

Mapped Boulders and Boulder Complexes Under Task 2 of this Agreement, MLA individually labeled each boulder greater than approximately 3 feet in diameter (MLA, 2016). The boulders are labeled in the Attachment A drawings. Figure 3-8 presents an aerial overview of the UBS with 16 boulder/boulder complexes labeled. Figure 3-9 and Figure 3-10 provide oblique aerial views of these features. Features labeled as a single number (e.g.

B154) refers to a single boulder. Otherwise the label indicates many boulders grouped together into a boulder complex. As the Project progresses, these complexes will be separated into individual boulders as necessary to describe various components of the Project.

CSA (2016) presents the engineering geologic investigation findings for the UBS. CSA provides significantly more detail with respect to the canyon walls and potential rock fall hazards.

The following are brief descriptions of the 16 boulder/boulder complexes identified for the UBS.

• DS Complex: Includes all of the boulders in the channel downstream of the other mapped boulder complexes and upstream of Pool 1. These boulders are relatively small compared to the remainder of the boulders discussed for this Project.

• Next Day Complex: This complex is dominated by large boulders that previously toppled from the canyon wall’s Block Party Complex, which is discussed below. The Next Day Complex extent goes beyond that shown in Figure 3-8. Boulder B167 is a large boulder within this complex that is partially visible in Figure 3-8, and visible in the forefront of the complex in Figure 3-9. B167 is approximately 14 feet long (parallel with flow), 20 feet wide (perpendicular to flow), and 12 feet tall. This boulder has several other large boulders surrounding it.

• Block Party Complex: This complex is described in greater detail in CSA (2016). In summary, the Block Party Complex consists of many blocks that have a high failure potential. Some blocks are detached from the canyon wall, but have yet to topple.

• Second Complex: This complex consists of relatively small boulders ranging in size from 9 feet to less than 3 feet in diameter.

• Pool 6 Complex: This complex includes boulders located within Pool 6 and includes the boulders controlling the pool elevation along the secondary alignment. The primary boulder within the complex, B64, can be seen in Figure 3-8, Figure 3-9, and Figure 3-10 with the pothole at the water’s edge. This boulder is 19 feet long, 13 feet wide, and 4 feet tall.

• Table Complex: This complex is dominated by boulder B119. It is referred to as the table complex because B119, from many vantage points, appears to be floating as it is propped up on several smaller boulders. Boulder B119 is 22 feet long, 16 feet wide, and 7 feet tall. It is supported in-part by B154.

• Boulder B154: This boulder is 14 feet long, 13 feet wide, and 9 feet tall. B154 is a link between the Table Complex and the Fallen Giants, as both complexes have large boulders resting on B154.

• Fallen Giants Complex: This complex includes several large boulders. These boulders may have been derived from the Land of the Giants Complex, discussed next.

• The Land of the Giants Complex: This complex is discussed in greater detail within CSA (2016). In summary, this complex includes many, very large and tall blocks that are in various stages of active toppling.

• Boulder B53 (Tree Boulder): This is a single, very large boulder. It is approximately 10 feet long, 12 feet wide and 20 feet tall.

• B116 Complex: This is a small complex with one relatively large boulder (B116) and other smaller boulders. This complex is sandwiched between the Tree Boulder and the Table Complex and provides tailwater control for Pool 6. Boulder B116 is 6 feet long, 8 feet wide, and 9 feet tall.

• Upper Complex: Consists of many boulders of varying sizes. In general, the tops of these boulders have a higher elevation than other boulders within the UBS, although the boulders closer to the center of the channel have portions that are exposed to flow more frequently.

• B64 Complex: Consists of several boulders that forms the tailwater control for Pool 7. This complex is dominated by boulder B64, which is beneath the label in both Figure 3-8 and Figure 3-10. Boulder B64 is approximately 16 feet long, 9 feet wide, and 6 feet tall.

• Toe Complex: Comprised of relatively smaller boulders. The largest having diameters of 8 feet. These boulders, like the Upper Complex’s boulders, are set at a relatively high elevation along the toe of the river right canyon wall.

• Hidden Complex: Includes several large boulders that are below the Upper Complex and downstream of the B20 Complex. There are two primary boulders in this complex with diameters of 14 feet and 9 feet.

• B20 Complex: Consists of three large boulders. The largest boulder is B20, at 17 feet long, 11 feet wide, and 9 feet tall.

Figure 3-8. UBS bolder/boulder complexes, upstream. Flow at time of photograph was 195 cfs.

Figure 3-9. UBS isometric view of boulder/boulder complexes looking downstream when flow 195 cfs.

Figure 3-10. UBS isometric aerial view of boulder/boulder complexes looking upstream when flow 195 cfs.

Mapped Sieves The UBS has many sieves throughout the reach. These are locations where water flows under the boulders, and is generally hidden from view. The sieves are both large and small. On February 10, 2016, the sieves were mapped at a flow of 87 cfs. On June 7 and 8, 2016, the site was visited from a safe distance due to high flows conditions at 195 cfs, and notes were taken with respect to the sieves. Both dates provided insight into the flow routing through the various sieves and their role in the over hydraulics of the UBS.

In total, 13 sieves have been identified. The sieves have been labeled A through M in Figure 3-11.

The red lines indicate the approximate path the flow takes through the sieve, although the precise path for some sieves is unknown. If there is no line associated with a label it indicates that the sieve is directly below the label and that the flow path is short. The following describes each sieve as it is currently understood. See Attachment A, Figures A-6 and A-7, for alignment stations noted in the below descriptions.

• Sieve A: A large sieve located on the primary alignment (PA) at station (STA) 1+40 (Figure 3-12 (a)). This sieve conveys all the flow it receives without overtopping the boulders, except at very high flows. Time-lapse camera UB2 captured surging within Pool 5 upstream of Sieve A, but the boulders were not overtopped.

• Sieve B: Located beneath the Table Complex and in particular under Boulder B119 (Figure 3-12 (f)). This sieve appears to receive flow from the secondary alignment (SA) at approximately STA S1+60. Although B119 is relatively open to viewing, the flow was not high enough on the February visit to witness the exact path of the flow, and during the June visit, the path was obscured. Regardless, it is believed that this sieve can convey a substantial amount of flow.

• Sieve C: The size and path of Sieve C is unknown, but it appears to convey flow at even the lowest of streamflows. A noticeable amount of flow emerges into a perched pool upstream of B199 and then flows over this flat boulder before reentering the main channel.

• Sieve D: Located at PA STA 1+60 (Figure 3-12 (b) and (c)), this sieve conveys a substantial portion of the total flow at low and moderate streamflows. The dimensions and configuration of Sieve D are unknown as it has been unsafe to access it, but the ground based survey scans was able to penetrate the opening and provide some insight. The sieve is relatively small and the opening near the water surface is approximately 1.75 feet wide. At higher flows it is assumed the sieve cannot convey the upstream flow and the primary boulder forming the sieve (B123) is overtopped at the contact point with boulders B121 and B120.

• Sieve E: At low flows this sieve receives flow from Sieve F, but at moderate flows it is assumed additional flow is received from the pool immediately upstream of Sieve D. Sieve E is slightly larger than Sieve D and is visible in Figure 3-12 (c).

• Sieve F: This is a long and narrow sieve located at the toe of the large Tree Boulder (B53) (Figure 3-12 (d)). During the February visit, it was estimated that Sieve F conveyed approximately 10 percent of the flow exiting Pool 6 (Sieve G = 85% and the secondary alignment (SA) = 5%). The upstream end of Sieve F is located at SA STA 1+87.

• Sieve G: A large sieve located at the toe of the Tree Boulder (B53) (Figure 3-12 (d)) that conveys a substantial portion of the flow at low and moderate streamflows. Once Pool 6’s water level is high enough, water begins to flow down the SA, maintaining a relatively constant water level in Pool 6 and flow through Sieve G. During the February visit, it was estimated that 85 percent of the flow exiting Pool 6 passed through Sieve G. Sieve G is located on the PA at STA 1+85.

• Sieve H: Located at PA STA 2+10 (Figure 3-12 (e) and (f)). Sieve H appears to be large in cross sectional area. The sieve is approximately 12 feet long and passes flow from Pool 7 to Pool 6. During the February visit, Sieve H was conveying nearly all the streamflow (87 cfs).

During the June visit (195 cfs), a substantial amount of flow was still conveyed by Sieve H, but an nearly equal amount appeared to be conveyed through Sieve I.

• Sieve I: Until the June site visit, Sieve I was unknown. Flow in Sieve I disappears and it exact exit point is unknown, but it is currently assumed to exit near the end of Sieve G (Figure 3-12 (f)).

• Sieve J: A small sieve separating two of the pools within Pool 7 (Figure 3-12 (f)). Under low flows, Sieve J is dry. During higher flows, the momentum of the flow pushes water directly towards Sieve I’s inlet. As the water backs up, it is forced through Sieve J and then flows through Sieve H.

• Sieve K: Sieve K is short and conveys water downward to a pool below the boulders of the Upper Complex. Currently is it believed that this flow joins Sieve I.

• Sieve L: The first sieve upstream of the primary drop (Figure 3-12 (f)). Water from Pool 8 can flow downward through vertical sieves next to the primary drop and then through Sieve L before make an abrupt left turn and entering Pool 7. Underwater photography indicates that Sieve H is comprised of numerous small openings between a complex of moderate sized boulders rather than on single opening boulders.

• Sieve M: As the most upstream sieve, it is located between boulders B20 and B19. The opening is triangle in shape and about 4 feet tall and 2 feet wide at the base. Under low flows, Sieve M is dry. When Pool 8 is elevated, flow begins to enter Sieve M and then pass through Sieve K, or enter Pool 7 under higher flows.

Summary of Geophysical Exploration to Estimate Depth to Bedrock CSA conducted a geophysical exploration of the subsurface conditions at the UBS using Refraction Microtremor (ReMi) technology (CSA, 2016). In total, two ReMi lines (RM1 and RM2) were deployed parallel to the channel: one adjacent to the primary drop at the upstream end of the study reach and the other located adjacent to Pool 1 at the downstream end of the study reach.

RM1 began upstream of the primary drop and extended downstream, across from Pool 6. CSA’s interpretation of the results from this ReMi line indicate that weathered bedrock is approximately 5.6 feet below ground at the mid-point of the line, located a short distance upstream of the primary drop and boulder B20. This would place bedrock at approximately elevation 1485.5 feet. This elevation matches the existing pool bottom elevation at Pool 8, immediately upstream of the primary drop.

RM2 was located along the right bank adjacent to Pools 1, 2, and 3. CSA concluded that the top of weathered bedrock at the center of this line was approximately 8.6 feet below the ground surface, at elevation 1469. The pool bottom elevation in adjacent Pool 1 is at approximately the same elevation.

Figure 3-11. UBS sieve map with approximate flow alignments. Aerial photograph taken on June 8, 2016 during 195 cfs flow event.

Figure 3-12. Photographs of UBS sieves: (a) Sieve A, NFBC flow 87 cfs (b) Sieve D, NFBC flow 17 cfs (c) Sieves D and E, NFBC flow 87 cfs (d) Sieves G and F, NFBC flow 17 cfs (e) Sieve H, NFBC flow 87 cfs (f) Sieves B, H, I, and L, NFBC flow 87 cfs.

4 FISH PASSAGE PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

This section identifies the fish passage assessment criteria used in conjunction with the existing hydraulic conditions characterization to conduct the existing fish passage assessment for the LBS and UBS. The following sub-sections identify the fish passage assessment criteria used with respect to swimming abilities, leaping abilities, pool depth, and turbulence for the target fish species and life stage.

4.1 Target Fish Species and Life Stage

Historically, NFBC supported steelhead and all four runs of Chinook: winter-, spring-, fall-, and late fall-run. This project is intended to improve upstream passage conditions for adult anadromous Chinook salmon and steelhead trout that are expected to migrate from the ocean to NFBC, and attempt to pass through the LBS and UBS to use upstream spawning habitat.

The returning steelhead, listed as threatened by Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) are from the California Central Valley (CCV) steelhead Distinct Population Segment (DPS) as defined by NMFS (2014). The returning winter-run Chinook, listed as endangered by both state and federal ESAs, are within the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) as defined by NMFS (2014). The returning spring-run Chinook, listed as threatened under state and federal ESAs, are within the spring-run Chinook ESU as defined by NMFS (2014). Fall- and late fall-run Chinook are currently listed as a species of concern under the federal ESA.

The target species and life stages for this Project include steelhead and Chinook adults. Juvenile upstream passage is not considered. Where appropriate, downstream passage of juvenile or steelhead kelts will be discussed.

4.2 Migration Timing

Timing of salmon and steelhead migration in the Sacramento River tributaries is summarized in Table 4-1, along with general timing for spawning and rearing. The migration period for spring and winter Chinook and steelhead trout, the three focus races and species of salmonids for this project, have migration periods that overlap and extend throughout the entire year. Therefore, the hydrology throughout the entire year should be considered when evaluating fish passage flows.

4.3 Fish Size

The swimming ability of a fish is often directly related to the size, or length, of the fish. USFWS provided the size of adult wild spring run Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) returning to Battle Creek. These measurements were taken from fish trapped, measured, and passed over the Coleman Fish Hatchery weir between 2001 and 2016. A histogram and cumulative frequency curve of the spring-run Chinook and steelhead are provided in Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2. The provided data for O. mykiss appeared to include both adult resident rainbow trout and anadromous steelhead. Therefore, a cutoff of 16 inches (40 cm) was used to differentiate between adult resident (less than 16 inches) and anadromous forms of the fish. The data was provided in fork length, but much of the fish swim speed literature uses total length.

Therefore, fork length was converted to total length using ratios provided in FishBase (Froese and Pauly, 2016). They reported the ratio of total length-to-fork length as 1.03 and 1.02 for Chinook and steelhead, respectively.

Table 4-1. Seasonal occurrence of select life stages of anadromous salmonids in the Upper Sacramento River, from Ward and Kier (1999), based on Schafter (1980) and Vogel and Marine (1991)

Figure 4-1. Length of wild spring-run Chinook salmon captured and released upstream of the Colman Fish Hatchery weir on Battle Creek.

Figure 4-2. Length of presumed anadromous steelhead captured and released upstream of the Colman Fish Hatchery weir on Battle Creek. A minimum length of 40 cm was used to differentiate between adult resident and anadromous trout.

4.4 Minimum Depth for Swimming

The current scope of work recommends minimum water depth over features (i.e. weirs) of 0.5 feet.

For longer distances, such as through a chute or bypass channel, the minimum water depth is typically defined as the flow sufficient to submerge the fish’s body. This requires an estimate of the fish body depth (excluding fins). FishBase (Froese and Pauly, 2012) used photographs to develop a morphometric relationship of total fish length-to-body depth of 0.215 for Chinook and 0.228 for steelhead. Table 4-2 provides calculated body depths for various lengths of Chinook and steelhead.

Table 4-2. Typical body depth of Chinook and steelhead based on fish length (Froese and Pauly, 2012)

Fish Length Chinook Body Depth (inches)

Steelhead Body Depth (inches) (inches) (cm)

18 46 3.9 4.1 22 56 4.7 5.0 24 61 5.2 5.5 26 66 5.6 5.9 28 71 6.0 6.4 30 76 6.5 6.8 34 86.36 7.31 7.8 38 96.52 8.17 8.7

4.5 Adult Anadromous Salmonid Swimming Abilities

Fish swimming abilities are often broken into three categories: sustained (cruising), prolonged, and burst (sprinting or darting). Bell (1991) defined three categories as the following:

• Sustained – a speed that can be maintained for a long period of time (hours),

• Prolonged – a speed that can be maintained for minutes, and

• Burst – a single effort, not sustainable for more than seconds

CDFW, per the current scope of work for this project, recommends a maximum water velocity of 4 feet per second (fps) for any proposed fish passage facilities at the LBS and UBS. This water velocity is considered conservative and aimed at passage of weaker individual fish swimming at prolonged speeds for a distances between 100 and 200 feet (CDFG, 2002). However, the current task is to evaluate existing fish passage conditions at the sites. Therefore, published swim speed and time to fatigue (exhaustion) data was reviewed to establish the range of swimming abilities among the population of the two species of adult anadromous salmonids, Chinook salmon and steelhead trout.

Adult Chinook Swim Speeds Bell (1991) provided a range of swim speeds for Chinook salmon, with the a mean swim speeds reported as follows: sustained speed of 2 fps, prolonged speed of 7.5 fps, and burst speed of 16 fps.

Hunter and Mayor (1986) developed swim speed equation using data from Weaver (1963) for burst swim speed (VBurst) of Chinook salmon in meter/second (m/s):

𝑽𝑽𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 = 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏.𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝑳𝑳𝑻𝑻𝑳𝑳𝟎𝟎.𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑𝑩𝑩−𝟎𝟎.𝟓𝟓 Equation 4-1

Where; LTL = Total Fish Length (m) t = time to exhaustion (s)

Time to exhaustion for the swim speeds used to develop this equation ranged…