Call to order: Patti Kroen, Facilitator at 9 a.m.

Attendees:  See Attachment 1 for list of attendees. Attendees approved the December 18, 2002 draft Agenda without change and the November 25, 2002 meeting summary with minor revisions/corrections. 

Protocols Discussion:

Participants discussed revised draft protocol distributed to the participants in advance of the meeting for review (Attachment 2 of this summary).  The group discussed ‘attribution’ and agreed to suggested additional language allowing participant to be identified if he/she chooses.  After discussing two options to the section describing dispute resolution, participants asked Mike Taylor to revise the section to include both (a) and (b) on page 4.  The group discussed the decision-making process for the group and the language needed to describe acceptance or agreements during meetings. Eric Theiss will provide proposed language regarding agreement to Mike Taylor.

The group discussed distributing meeting material in advance for participants planning to teleconference in for meetings.  The group agreed to send meeting materials when practical, to the Facilitator so that she can distribute them to participants planning to teleconference in who will request the material from the Facilitator at least 24 hours in advance of a meeting.  The participants discussed teleconferencing and acknowledged that ideal conditions for every meeting may not be possible.  They also discussed meeting cancellation protocol and Eric Theiss offered to provide minor proposed language changes.

Participants discussed the appropriateness of additional statements under Attachment A to the Protocols.  USFS is comfortable with the ‘Reservation of Authority’ language included on page 5 of the current draft. The group agreed that others may provide brief statements to be included if they choose but it might just complicate the process and take valuable time that could be better spent getting to settlement.

Agreements

·       Whenever possible, meeting materials will be provided to the Facilitator at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting for distribution to participants who plan to teleconference into the meeting.  Participants planning to teleconference in need to notify the Facilitator at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting to receive materials.

q      Action Item 2:  Mike Taylor of the Protocols Sub-Committee will use single-text editing and accept revisions agreed to during this meeting.  He will then further revise the draft protocols as discussed during this meeting.  Eric Theiss will provide additional proposed language.  Participants will review the revised protocol prior to the January 27^th meeting and provide specific comments at the January 27^th meeting.

Due Date:  January 27, 2003

Resource/Time Matrix Discussion:

PG&E distributed copies of a matrix entitled “Dominant Elements for Developing an Instream Flow Regime, Upper North Fork Feather River Project’ (from Appendix A of USFS comment letter on UNFFR draft License Application) with a page describing where information on individual ecosystem attributes may be found in the draft License Application (See Attachment 3 to this summary).  The Resource/Time matrix was described as a holistic approach and participants agreed that rows could be added to include social benefits and other drivers including lake level.  Additional tables would be needed to consider ecosystem attributes for Mountain Meadows and Butt Lake.

Participants discussed the primary goal of LAWLAF Committee to expand the table, adding ecosystem and social/economic drivers that are related to lake level and including drivers for Mountain Meadows.  The group agreed that a short accompanying statement indicating why a particular driver is important would be helpful.  A secondary goal of LAWLAF is to look at alternative operating scenarios within the context of the drivers.  Participants agreed that no attributes should be deleted at this time but may be relegated to lesser importance later.

Agreements

·       Participants agreed to use the Resource/Time Matrix.

q      Action Item 3:  LAWLAF will expand Resource/Time Matrix to include ecosystem and social/economic drivers related to lake level (including Mountain Meadows) and will provide 2-3 sentences on each explaining why included.

Due Date:  2003

Resource Specific Discussion – River Ecology:

Chris Herrala with PG&E distributed a handout with information specific to the Upper North Fork Feather River Project on several ecosystem attributes including gravel replenishment, bar replenishment and bed movement, riparian vegetation alteration, sediment production, large woody debris recruitment, macroinvertebrate production and amphibian resources (see Attachment 4 to this summary).  The information on sediment transport and channel maintenance includes threshold values, periodicity, historic and existing conditions, and findings.  Chris indicated that the median particle size in the North Fork Feather River is cobble size and movement of this size takes more flow than can be safely released and he reminded participants that PG&E doesn’t have the ability to spill from Butt Valley Reservoir.  SWRCB noted that lower Butt Creek may have more fines than are desirable and the system may not be stabilized and PG&E added the number of redds recorded there during sampling is higher than for other streams.

PG&E provided historic and current photos of the stream channels to indicate how the riparian community has adapted to the current flows and periodicity.  It was noted that there is not much gravel recruitment now, the flows are lower and the floodplain is less accessible for material movement.  PG&E reported that large woody debris is generally not available or stable and is unlikely to have influence on geomorphic processes under existing or historical flows.

Stuart Running with PG&E distributed a handout that described ecosystem attributes including water temperature, and fish spawning, habitat and passage (see Attachment 5 to this summary).   Participants discussed temperature and flow relationships and the question of balancing benefits of cold water downstream vs. cold water in Lake Almanor.  The group acknowledged that the temperature issue should be carried through the entire system to evaluate effects.  Participants discussed the 20°C maximum temperature cold water standard set by SWRCB and understood this to be less than absolute for fish mortality.  All acknowledged that the depletion of the cold water pool at Lake Almanor would be an important factor to consider when developing operational scenarios.

Fish spawning data, habitat information, and fish passage were briefly discussed.  PG&E noted that they propose to remove Gansner Bar and the old weir on Lower Butt Creek and Eric Theiss requested a more detailed discussion of this at some future date with appropriate NMFS staff involvement.

Adaptive Management Considerations:

After a brief discussion on adaptive management concepts, the group agreed to table the discussion until relevant.

Meeting Schedule for Next Six Months – Critical Path Deadlines and Future Agendas:

Participants discussed schedule and agreed that the goal is to have a settlement agreement by the target date of July 31, 2003.  They discussed the need to identify issues, identify areas of disagreement, identify information needed to resolve the issue, and prioritize these in order to achieve the goal of developing and agreeing to consensus-backed license articles or conditions in the limited time available. FWS noted that the LAWLAF Committee will start this process for the flow/lake level issue and expects the committee to develop three lists: flow drivers, Lake Almanor water level drivers, and Hamilton Branch drivers.  In response to a question regarding FERC jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional issues, PG&E acknowledged it is willing to discuss non-jurisdictional issues within the settlement negotiations.  The participants agreed to schedule twice monthly meetings at PG&E’s Chico facility and adjust if necessary.  The meeting dates are as follows:

February 13 and February 28

March 13 and March 27

April 10 and April 24

May 8 and May 22

June 12 and June 26

Participants identified the following list of other issue areas to be covered:

Ø     Water Quality

Ø     Public Access

Ø     Safety

Ø     Erosion

Ø     Recreation

Participants agreed to group recreation and access issues for discussion at the February 13^th, 2003 meeting.  Plumas County will lead the recreation and access discussion.  Water quality and erosion were grouped and scheduled for discussion at the March 13^th, 2003 meeting after Prattville modeling is available (due in February).  SWRCB and Plumas County are jointly responsible for leading the discussion on water quality and erosion.

Agenda for Next Meeting: January 27^th, 2003

The following items are scheduled for discussion at the January 27^th meeting:

Ø     Report from LAWLAF Committee

Ø     Hamilton Branch

Ø     Additional Studies

Ø     Focus and prioritize issues

Attachment 1:  List of Attendees

Marvin Alexander                2105 Comm.

Bob Baiocchi*                    Anglers Comm.

Chris Christofferson            USFS

Bill Dennison                       Plumas Co Sup.

Jerry Duffy                         Dyer Mtn.

Wayne Dyok                       MWH

Christi Goodman                  Plumas Co.

Chris Herrala                       PGE

Robert Hughes                    DFG

Tom Jereb                          PG&E

Brian Kempkes                    ACAAWWF

Curtis Knight*                      Cal Trout

Patti Kroen                          Kroen

Ken Kundargi                      DFG

Jerry Mensch*                    CSPA

Carolyn Rech                      DFG

Stephen Reynolds                CGS

Steve Robinson                   MMC

Stuart Running                    PGE

Sharon Stohrer                   SWRCB 

Robert Shulman                   Plumas County

Mike Taylor                         USFS

Eric Theiss                          NMFS

Harry Williamson                 NPS

Bill Zemke                           PG&E

* Participated via teleconference

Attachment 2:

Draft

Upper North Fork Project, FERC No. 2105

Relicensing Collaborative Protocols

Subject of Collaborative

            The subject of the collaborative process is the Upper North Fork Feather River Project and its impacts.

Goal of Collaborative

            On October 22, 2002, PG&E filed an application for new license for the Upper North Fork Feather River Project.  The current license will expire on October 31, 2004.  PG&E is following an “enhanced traditional” process for obtaining a new license.  Through the collaborative process, all participants will seek to reach a settlement agreement supported by sound scientific data, which resolves all relevant resource issues in support of issuance of a new license for the Upper North Fork Project by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  It is the intent of the participants that such settlement agreement will be used as the basis for all regulatory approvals needed for license issuance.

Participation

            a.  Collaborative Participants: The initial participants, most of whom attended the first collaborative meeting on October 28, 2002, are:  PG&E, U.S. Forest Service, California Department of Fish and Game, California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), National Parks Service, 2105 Committee, Mountain Meadows Conservancy, Forest Community Research, Plumas County, Dyer Mountain Associates, American Whitewater, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Chico Paddleheads and Shasta Paddlers.

            b.  Additional Participants and Public Involvement:  Collaborative meetings will be publicly noticed and open to additional participants that may include agencies, Tribes or members of the public.  Each additional participant will be asked to respect these protocols, and its continued participation after such request will be considered acceptance of such protocols.

            c.  Attendance at Meetings:  Participants will make a good faith effort to have a representative attend every meeting of the full collaborative or any subgroup of which the participant is a member.  If a participant is unable to attend a meeting, the participant will to the extent possible, provide input prior to the meeting.

d.  Participant Representation:  Each participant will identify one primary representative in any given action or decision by the collaborative.  The representative will have the necessary authority to speak on behalf of the participant.  Each representative will keep its agency, organization, or constituency informed of the status and actions of the collaborative.  Agencies with statutory or regulatory authorities preserve such authorities while participating fully in the discussions.  Although attendance in person is encouraged, a conference call connection will be made available for each meeting for those that cannot attend.

e.  SWRCB Participation:  Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary in these protocols, the following describes SWRCB participation in the collaborative process.  It is the policy of the SWRCB to promote voluntary settlements among the parties to adjudicative proceedings before the SWRCB, and to assist applicants and members of the public by providing them with information concerning requirements applicable to SWRCB approvals.  The SWRCB will participate in the collaborative process in order to help guide the parties towards a settlement that is likely to obtain the necessary regulatory approvals.  Participants recognize that the requirements for the SWRCB to avoid bias, prejudice, or interest in contested matters subject to its approval prevent the SWRCB from making any prior commitment as to the outcome of the SWRCB’s decision-making process.  The participants anticipate, however, that a settlement agreement, or relevant portions thereof, is likely to form the basis of approval by the SWRCB if the settlement agreement, or relevant portions thereof, takes into account any concerns raised as part of the collaborative process by SWRCB staff, and all other participants approve the settlement agreement.  See Attachment A for the SWRCB Collaborative Process Participation Statement.

f.  Compliance:  Each participant will abide by these protocols.

Personal Conduct

a.  Respect: Participants will be afforded an opportunity to present their viewpoints.  Participants will listen to and be respectful of one another.

b.  Preparation:  Each participant will actively prepare for each meeting.  A participant will timely distribute any information it commits to provide, review all other information relevant to the agenda, and be prepared to effectively discuss each topic on the agenda.

c.  Commitments:  Each participant will keep its commitments.

d.  Disagreements:  All participants will seek mutual gain as the solution to each disagreement.

e. Communicating Interests:  Every participant will communicate its interests on topics under consideration.

f. Negotiation:  Participants who disagree with decisions, topics discussed or direction taken by the collaborative will not “try the proposal in the media” outside the collaborative process as a means of influencing decisions or discrediting collaborativeparticipants.

g. Advice

Facilitation

a.  Facilitator:  The Participants will select an independent facilitator, to be paid for by PG&E, Plumas County, and the Forest Service on a percentage basis. 

b.  Role of Facilitator:  The facilitator will actively manage the collaborative process in a neutral manner.  The facilitator will assist in the development of draft agendas, chair full collaborative and subgroup discussions as appropriate, provide process oversights, and work to build consensus to meet the goal of the collaborative. 

Procedures

a.  General Process: The collaborative will focus on interests rather than positions and will work toward a settlement agreement that satisfies the interests of all participants.  The general process the collaborative will follow will be: (1) set goals and protocols, (2) identify interests and needs, (3) gather and evaluate adequate scientific information on which to make decisions, (4) generate multiple options, and (5) reach consensus on a settlement agreement.

b.  Meeting Notices and Locations:  Plumas County Supervisor Bill Dennison will send out meeting notices.  PG&E will make arrangements for agreed meeting locations.

c.  Records: The collaborative will keep a written record of all meetings.  These notes will be prepared to concisely identify all major topics of discussion, decisions reached, open issues, action items and schedule.  Flip charts will be used during meetings to create a preliminary record.  The participants will review and confirm the accuracy of that preliminary record before the conclusion of the meeting.  PG&E and Plumas County staff will combine to write the meeting minutes in consultation with the facilitator.  Statements or comments attributed to a particular member or organization should not be included in meeting notes.  Meeting notes and other documents prepared by the collaborative may be distributed by collaborative members to their constituencies after revisions suggested by collaborative members have been incorporated into the documents and the collaborative has agreed that the meeting notes or document in question is final or complete.

            c.  Caucus: A participant may call for a caucus at any time during any full collaborative or subgroup meeting.

            d.  Halting the Collaborative: The collaborative may be halted upon consensus of the participants.  The departure of one or more participants does not halt the collaborative if the remaining participants choose by consensus to continue.  If PG&E withdraws from the collaborative, PG&E will request the FERC not to proceed with the traditional process for a minimum of 60 days to allow participants to prepare to participate in the that process.

e.  Subgroups: The collaborative may form subgroup to address specific issues.  This procedure may be appropriate for issues that are of limited interest to the full collaborative, or issues that warrant in-depth discussion and subsequent recommendation to the full collaborative.

f.  Meeting Agendas: Unless otherwise agreed, each full or subgroup meeting will be conducted pursuant to a written agenda, which identifies topics, allocated times for discussion, purpose of discussion (information or action) and the written agenda, together with any material requiring review or preparation for the meeting will be sent out at least one week prior to the meeting.  Unless otherwise agreed, the draft agenda will be prepared by Plumas County Supervisor Bill Dennison for a full meeting, and by the chair for a subgroup meeting.  At the start of the each meeting, the participants will review, revise as appropriate, and adopt the agenda they will follow for subgroup meetings will be developed by the subgroup chair with input and assistance by the subgroup members.

g. Scheduling of Meetings: The participants will adopt a meeting schedule.  Initial meetings of the full collaborative are scheduled for November 25 and December 18, 2002, and January 8, 9 and 27, 2003.  Additional meetings will be scheduled as appropriate.  Each subgroup will schedule its meetings.

Decision Making

a.         a.  Decisions by Consensus: The participants will make decisions by consensus.   Consensus means that the participants state that they can live with the decision. ( See Dispute Resolution below as alternative language)  If a participant cannot live with the decision, it will have the option to enter into separate negotiations with one or more of the other participants. Successful resolution of the issue(s) will then be brought back to the collaborative for approval.A participant may then proceed to dispute resolution according to the FPA if an agreement is not reached.

Silence will not be construed as agreement.  However, any Participant that misses a meeting will make a good faith effort to review meeting notes and express any concerns they may have on proposed decisions prior to the next meeting.

b.     b.  Dispute Resolution:  Each Participant in the collaborative Plenary Group and TWGs

 will make a good faith attempt to reach agreement on all issues, as described in Section a. Decisions by Consensus3.9 -Decision-Making.  If consensus regarding a particular issue is not achieved after reasonable efforts, the issue will be considered to be in dispute.  Where a working group or subgroupTWG has an issue in dispute, the dispute will be referred to the collaborative Plenary Group

            If the IFG does not resolve the disputed issue by the self-imposed deadline, the collaborative Plenary Group may: 1) extend the IFG review period up to 30 days, 2) arrange for a FERC facilitator/mediator or a third-party facilitator/mediator, if the pParticipants determine that such action would help resolve the dispute, or 3) declare the issue as unresolved.  If disputes on PM&E measures are not resolved by the time the FERC declares that the Application is Ready for Environmental Analysis, the disputing parties  SMUD is required to submit its license application to FERC, the preliminary draft EA prepared by SMUD will present the disputed PM&E measures s to the FERC in the form of alternative measures.

            cb.  Non-Binding Nature of Decisions: The participants recognize that decisions made during the collaborative are the necessary basis for final settlement agreement.  A participant is not bound by such decisions and will be bound only by executing the final settlement agreement. The collaborative may publish information it develops prior to reaching a final settlement agreement, if appropriate to assist FERC in the licensing proceeding.

dc.  Decision Development and Documentation:  All decisions will be documented in the written record of meetings.  As appropriate, the participants will use a single text approach for development of decisions and the settlement agreement itself.  Under this approach, all comments on a written document under discussion will be made in the form of proposed revisions to the actual document. 

ed.  Reservation of Authority:  Agencies with statutory or regulatory authorities preserve such authorities while participating fully in the discussions.

Communications

a.  Informal Communications:  A participant may communicate informally with any other participant and the facilitator.  However, all participants recognize that open communications in the collaborative meetings are the necessary basis for reaching settlement agreement.

b.  Formal Communications:  Other than meetings, e-mail will be the primary means of formal communication in the collaborative among participants. The initiator of any such e-mail will ensure distribution to all collaborative participants or subgroup members, as applicable.  A secondary list of potentially interested parties will be informed of meetings and meeting agendas and any public mailings but not be included in other communications until such time as they become a participant.  All participants in the collaborative will receive copies of PG&E’s submittals to the FERC.

c.  Teleconferencing: 

Safeguards For Participants

a.      Good Faith: All participants will make best efforts to reach a settlement agreement consistent with the collaborative goal. 

b.      Confidential Information.  Settlement offers and other communications for the purpose of negotiation are confidential and will not be disclosed publicly or otherwise used in any ongoing or future litigation (including the licensing proceeding itself) to the maximum extent allowable under applicable law.  A party desiring that a settlement offer or other communication to be confidential must clearly mark or otherwise identify the offer or communication as confidential in advance of disclosure.

c.      Proprietary Information: A participant that has relevant proprietary information may require that all participants commit not to publicly disclose the information, as the condition for making the information available to the collaborative.  Such a participant may also elect to withhold proprietary information (in the event of a non-disclosure agreement), in which event the participant will provide non-proprietary information intended to serve the same use.

Schedule

            The participants will develop and follow a milestone schedule intended to help them reach a final settlement agreement.  The participants will work with FERC to determine a schedule that is realistic and compatible with the relicensing process as conducted by FERC.

If meetings need to be postponed, relocated

Amendments to Protocols

The participants may amend these protocols by consensus.  Any such revision will be written.

Attachment A

SWRCB Collaborative Process Participation Statement

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards are the principal state agencies responsible for administering the state’s water quality control program.  (Wat. Code, §§ 13000-14958.)  This includes responsibility to grant, waive, or deny water quality certification as provided for under section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act.  (Wat. Code, § 13160; see generally 33 U.S.C. § 1341.)  The SWRCB issues water quality certification before a license to operate a hydropower project may be issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).  In addition, the SWRCB is the state agency responsible for administering surface water rights throughout the state.  (Wat. Code, §§ 1000-5976.) 

Where the SWRCB’s regulatory approval is required, the SWRCB has a legal duty, independent of any arguments raised by parties to the proceeding before the SWRCB, to assure that the requirements for that approval are satisfied. In this case, the SWRCB has an independent statutory duty under the Clean Water Act and the applicable regional water quality control plan to ensure that the operation of the Upper North Fork Feather River Project will not adversely affect water quality or the beneficial uses of the affected lakes and stream reaches within the North Fork Feather River drainage.

The SWRCB agrees to participate in the development of information regarding the Upper North Fork Feather River Project that may lead to a settlement among the interested parties.  It is the policy of the SWRCB to promote voluntary settlements among the parties to adjudicative proceedings before the SWRCB.  It is also the policy of the SWRCB to assist applicants and members of the public by making available information about the requirements of the programs it administers.  The SWRCB will participate in the collaborative process with a view towards encouraging settlement among the parties and other persons interested in proceedings before the SWRCB, and providing applicants, protestants and other interested persons with information concerning the requirements applicable to SWRCB approvals.

While the SWRCB can provide information that will help guide the parties towards a settlement that is likely to obtain the necessary regulatory approvals, however, the SWRCB cannot make a prior commitment to the outcome of any regulatory approval that must be issued by the SWRCB.  The SWRCB acts in an adjudicative capacity when it acts on a request for water quality certification, water right application, change petition, or other water right approval that may be required for or requested in connection with a proposed project.  The SWRCB must be an impartial decision-maker, avoiding bias, prejudice or interest, in any adjudicative proceedings conducted in accordance with the SWRCB’s regulatory approvals.  Consistent with its adjudicative responsibilities, including its obligation to consider any arguments that may be raised or information provided by parties to a SWRCB proceeding, the SWRCB cannot execute any settlement agreement or make any other commitment that would be binding on the SWRCB as part of its action on a request for water quality certification or other necessary SWRCB permit, license, or other regulatory approval.

Attachment 3:

Dominant Elements for Developing an Instream Flow Regime, Upper North Fork Feather River Project*

                                                                                          Month

* From Appendix A of USFS comment letter on UNFFR draft License Application, dated July 24, 2002.

Notes:    1) Bold X indicates primary drivers.

               2) Nutrient considers both organic and superfine sediment movement.

               3) Braiding at the mouth of tributary channels can preclude fish passage.

Ecosystem Attributes

1.            Channel Maintenance – Information on channel maintenance flows are presented in the Upper North Fork Feather River License Application Exhibit E (UNFFR LA) sections E.1.11 Geomorphology, pages E3.1-331 to 339; E3.1.11.2 Channel Hydraulic Conditions, pages E3.1-369 to 395; and Licensee response to the State Water Resources control Board (SWRCB) comment letter of July 25, 2002 in section E.9 Agency Consultation and Forest Service (FS) comment letter of July 24, 2002 in section E.9.

2.            Sediment Transport – See above

3.            Water Temperature – Information on water temperatures in river reaches are presented in section E2.0 Water Use and Quality, pages E2.X to X; section E3.1.12 Impacts of Existing Operation, pages E3.1-478 to 485 for existing flows; and section E3.1.15 Anticipated Impacts of continued Operation, pages E3.1-515 to 517 for proposed flow releases.

4.            Wetland/Riparian – These communities are discussed in Botanical Resources, section E3.3.3.2 , pages E3.3-8 to 12.  Proposed flow releases are expected to increase each reaches water surface by an average of about 4 to 4 ½ inches and 5 ft in width.  NEED TO CHECK WITH MIKE FRY ABOUT ANY POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THESE NEW WIDER STREAM WIDTHS.   

5.            Hyporheic – Not discussed in UNFFR LA.  Proposed operation of the Project is not expected to have any affect on the existing hyporheic zone and the organisms that inhabit it.

6.            Nutrient – Not discussed specifically in the UNFFR LA.  This subject can also be discussed as part of the sediment transport in item 2 above.  I DON’T REALLY THINK THAT THIS IS A REAL DRIVER.

7.            Fish Spawning – This information was presented in section E3.1.10 Instream Flow Study-Spawning, pages E3.1-306 & 307. 

8.            Fish Habitat – Fish habitat descriptions are described in section E3.1.2 Existing Aquatic Habitats, pages E3.1-6 to 18; fish population information is described in section E3.1.3.2 Fish Population Studies, pages E3.1-21 to 94; fish population comparisons are presented using the Gerstung (1973) table from a response to FS comments of July 24, 2002 in section E9; results of the IFIM study are presented in section E3.1.10.3 Instream Flow Study - Results, pages E3.1-319 to 328; effects of continuing project operation on fish habitats is presented in section E3.1.12 Impacts of Existing Operation, pages E3.1-459 to 503; and section E3.1.15 Anticipated impacts of Continued Operation, pages E3.1-506 to 517.

9.            Fish Passage – Fish barriers are identified in UNFFR LA section E3.1.6 Barrier Identification, pages E3.1-161 to 172; section E3.1.12 Impacts of Existing Operation, pages E3.1-495 to 498: and section E3.1.15 Anticipated Impacts of Continuing Operation, page E3.1-509.

10.          Woody Transport – Woody debris transport is discussed in section E3.1.11.4 Large Woody Debris Function and Recruitment, pages E3.1-431 to 458, section E3.1.12 Impacts of Existing Operation, pagesE3.1-500 to 503.

11.          FYF Egg Laying/Rearing – Foothill yellow-legged frog discussions are presented in sections E3.1.5.2 Sensitive Amphibians and Aquatic Reptiles, pages E.1-105 to 147 for study results and section E3.1.12 Impacts of Existing Operations, pages E3.1-459 to 504.

12.          Snowmelt Runoff – See response to items 1 and 2 above as relates to natural flow variation in the Seneca, Belden, and lower Butt Creek reaches in response to both FS and SWRCB comment letters of July 24 and 25, 2002 respectively in section E.9 Agency Consultation.

Attachment 4:

Sediment Transport and Channel Maintenance (items 1, 2, 4, 10, and 12):

Gravel Replenishment

Threshold

Seneca Reach

·        Tracer gravel studies indicate 700 cfs mobilizes gravels and some cobbles at most of the representative locations (E3.1-390).

Belden Reach

·        Tracer gravel studies indicate 700 cfs mobilizes gravels and some cobbles at some locations (E3.1-390).

·        Modeling indicates approximately 1,100 cfs mobilizes gravels (20 – 50 mm) at remaining locations (Appendix E3.1-12, p. 5-54 through 5-56)

Periodicity

Seneca Reach

·        5 years in 32 exceed 700 cfs on 114 separate days at NF2 (immediately below Canyon Dam) (Table ARFS-1).

·        6 years in 20 exceed 700 cfs on 99 separate days at NF47 (immediately above Caribou 1 P.H.) (Table ARFS-5)

Belden Reach

·        15 years in 32 exceed 700 cfs on 279 separate days at NF70 (immediately below Belden Forebay Dam) (Table ARFS-7).

·        10 years in 32 exceed 1,100 cfs on 180 separate days at NF70 (Table ARFS-7).

·        Accretions may account for increased frequency over a portion of the reach.

·        Flows in excess of 2,000 cfs occurred during 9 of last 30 years (Appendix E3-12, p. 5-72).

Existing Condition

Seneca Reach

·        Gravel sized substrate mobilized approximately 1-year in every 6 (Table ARFS-1) over entire reach (streamgage NF2 data).

·        Gravel sized substrate mobilized approximately 1-year in every 4 over portion of reach (potentially from Ohio Creek confluence downstream) (streamgage NF47 data) (Table ARFS-5).

Belden Reach

·        Based on 700 cfs threshold indicated by tracer gravel studies, gravel sized substrate mobilized and transported in the Belden Reach at least every other year (E3.1-390).

·        Based upon modeling threshold of approximately 1,100 cfs, gravel sized substrate mobilized and transported approximately 1-year in every 3 (Table ARFS-7).

Summary Findings

Seneca and Belden Reaches

·        The stream channel is neither aggrading or degrading (license application Page E3.1-331 to 457 and this is the major measure of overall channel stability and geomorphic “stream health” (Rosgen 1996).

·        Gravel recruitment and mobilization is occurring regularly and overall geomorphic condition is good, as evidenced by excellent fish recruitment and production in Seneca Reach (Licensee Response to Comments – FS letter Page 4, Paragraph 3, Page 6, Paragraph 1).

·        Unable to make flow releases below Butt Valley Reservoir Dam

Bar Replenishment and Movement of Median Bed Particle Size (Item 2)

Threshold

Seneca Reach

·        Modeling (Shields, Rosgen, Andrews methods) indicates median bed size particles may be mobilized at a few sites with flows as low as 1,600 cfs (E3.1-390; Licensee Response to Comments – FS letter Page 12, Paragraph 3).

·        Modeling indicates greater than 3,000 cfs may be necessary at some locations for mobilization of median particle size (E3.1-390).

·        Higher and longer duration flows are necessary for bed-load transport (E3.1-387).

Belden Reach

·        Modeling (Shields, Rosgen, Andrews methods) indicates median bed size particles may be mobilized at a few sites with flows as low as 1,600 cfs (E3.1-390; Licensee Response to Comments – FS letter Page 12, Paragraph 3).

·        Modeling indicates greater than 5,000 cfs may be necessary at some locations for mobilization of median particle size (E3.1-390).

·        Higher and longer duration flows necessary for bed-load transport (E3.1-387).

Periodicity

Seneca Reach

·        Physically unable to make flow releases of sufficient magnitude for transport of median bed material throughout reach.  Canyon Dam low-level outlet release limited to 2,100 cfs.

·        Cannot spill. (E3.1-390).

Belden Reach

·        Flows in excess of 2,000 cfs occurred during 9 of last 30 years (Appendix E3-12, p. 5-72).

·        Some transport of cobble sized substrate is occurring (7 of last 30 years) (Appendix E3.1-12 p. 5-74 through 5-75).

·        Physically unable to make flow releases of sufficient magnitude for transport of median bed material throughout reach.  Belden Dam capable of controlled releases up to about 5,000 cfs, however Caribou Road begins to flood at 2,500 cfs (E3.1-390).

Summary Findings

Seneca and Belden Reaches

·        Some coarsening of bed material is noted in the Belden Reach and portions of the Seneca Reach.

·        The stream channel is neither aggrading or degrading (license application Page E3.1-331 to 457 and this is the major measure of overall channel stability and geomorphic “stream health” (Rosgen 1996).

Riparian Vegetation Alteration (Item 4)

Threshold

Seneca Reach

·        Flows in excess of 2,100 cfs necessary to alter mature vegetation (including blackberry) (based upon observations of 1997 flood event) (E3.1-386).

Belden Reach

·        Flows in excess of 3,500 cfs necessary to alter mature vegetation (including blackberry) (E3.1-386).

Periodicity

Seneca Reach

·        Physically unable to make flow releases of sufficient magnitude.  Canyon Dam low-level outlet release limited to 2,100 cfs.

·        Cannot spill. (E3.1-390).

Belden Reach

·        Physically unable to make flow releases of sufficient magnitude.

·        Belden Dam capable of controlled releases up to about 5,000 cfs, however Caribou Road begins to be compromised / flood at approximately 2,500 cfs (plus accretion flows) (E3.1-390).

Existing Condition

Seneca and Belden reaches

·        Riparian vegetation has responded to existing baseflow regime and provides a source of allochthonous food production, stream shading, and bank stabilization.  (Licensee Response to Comments – SWRCB letter dated July 25, 2002 Page 3, Paragraph 3).

Summary Findings

Seneca Reach

·        Unable to make streamflow releases of sufficient magnitude to remove vegetation or maintain original stream corridor.

·        Physical removal (back to pre-project stream margins) utilizing mechanical means might create water temperature concerns and reduce allochthonous food production, potentially degrading fish habitat (Licensee Response to Comments – SWRCB letter dated July 25, 2002 Page 3, Paragraph 3).

Belden Reach

·        Unable to make streamflow releases of sufficient magnitude to remove vegetation or maintain original stream corridor.

·        Physical removal (back to pre-project stream margins) utilizing mechanical means would only exacerbate water temperature concerns and reduce allochthonous food production, potentially degrading fish habitat (Licensee Response to Comments – SWRCB letter dated July 25, 2002 Page 3, Paragraph 3).

Sediment Production (Item 2):

Butt Creek, Seneca, and Belden reaches –

• Hillslope processes are dominant sediment production mechanisms (shallow landslides and rockfalls the principal types) (E3.1-425).
• Most of the streambanks are very stable, with protective vegetative cover and large cobble to boulder size materials as part of the banks (E3.1-425).
• Hillslope recruitment processes are not related to streamflow conditions (E3.1-425).

Existing Conditions

Seneca Reach

• 0.3 % of sediment features have high fluvial entrainment potential, 4 % have moderate potential (E3.1-415)

Belden Reach

• 0.3 % of sediment features have high fluvial entrainment potential, 1.5 % have moderate potential (E3.1-406).

Historical Conditions

Seneca Reach

• 3.6 % of sediment features had high fluvial entrainment potential, 2.4 % had moderate potential (E3.1-415).

Belden Reach

• 2.3 % of sediment features had high fluvial entrainment potential, 45 % had moderate potential (E3.1-406).

Periodicity of Fluvial Recruitment

Seneca Reach

• Historically not a large percentage of potential sources was available (6 % vs. 4.3 %).  Little recruitment from above Canyon Dam, due to channel slope and bedform (wet meadows).
• Physically unable to make flow releases of sufficient magnitude to recruit any appreciable volume of sediments.
• Canyon Dam low-level outlet release limited to 2,100 cfs.
• Cannot spill. (E3.1-390).

Belden Reach

·        Physically unable to make flow releases of sufficient magnitude to recruit sediments.

·        Belden Dam capable of controlled releases up to about 5,000 cfs, however Caribou Road begins to flood at 2,500 cfs (E3.1-390).

Summary Findings

Seneca and Belden

• The stream channel is neither aggrading or degrading (license application Page E3.1-331 to 457 and this is the major measure of overall channel stability and geomorphic “stream health” (Rosgen 1996).

Large Woody Debris Recruitment (Item10):

Periodicity

Seneca Reach

• 141 LWD observations (approximately 12.4 per mile).  15 LWD jams.
• Average diameter 1.1 ft., average length 34 ft.  50 %  are hardwoods (e.g., alder) and 50 % are softwoods.
• 12 % (17 pieces) in low-flow channel, 50 % (71 pieces) within bankfull zone, 10% (14 pieces) on sideslopes (E3.1-439 through E3.1-441).

Belden Reach

• 21 LWD observations (approximately 2.7 per mile).  No LWD jams.
• Average diameter 0.9 ft., average length 41 ft.  Majority (12) are hardwoods (e.g., alder).
• 33 % (7 pieces) in low-flow channel, 24 % (5 pieces) within bankfull zone, 43 % spanned all three zones (E3.1-433 through E3.1-434).

Existing Conditions

Seneca Reach

• 90 %of LWD does not have any significant geomorphic function.
• 5 % (7 pieces) retains sediment, 3 % (4 pieces) maintains scour pool, and 1 % (2 pieces) provides either bank protection our source of scour (E3.1-440).

Belden Reach

• LWD does not have any significant geomorphic function and does not create or maintain bed forms (e.g., pool formation or bank protection) (E3.1-437).

Summary Findings

Seneca and Belden

• It is very unlikely that additional recruitment from toe-of-slope areas under conditions of higher peak flows would result in a greater influence on channel geomorphology (E3.1-453).

Summary:

Sediment Transport and Channel Maintenance

Gravel Replenishment

• Spawning gravel recruitment and transport has good recurrence interval

Bar Replenishment and Transport of Median Particle Size Substrates

• Unable to accomplish with existing flow facility capabilities

Riparian Vegetation                                                           

• Unable to alter with existing flow capabilities
• Original corridor cannot be maintained with baseflows project is capable of sustaining

Sediment Production

·        Unable to significantly influence with project releases.

Large Woody Debris Recruitment

• Unlikely to influence geomorphic processes under existing or historical flows.
• Generally not highly available or stable.

Macroinvertebrate Production (Item 5):

Existing Conditions

Seneca Reach

• BMI measures (e.g., richness, Shannon Weiner Diversity Index, percent dominant taxon) essentially the same as reference reach values (upper Butt Creek) at all sites except Canyon Dam upper and lower (E3.1-221 through E3.1-259).
• Basically, no appreciable difference in BMI measures from 1 mile below Canyon Dam to bottom of reach.
• By way of caution, the CSBP may not have sufficient resolution to assess spatial or temporal trends in the BMI community (Licensee Response to Comment, SWRCB Letter dated July 25, 2002, Page 4, Paragraph 2 and Page 19, Paragraph 2) (Licensee Response to Comment, FS Letter Page 8, Paragraph 2).

Belden Reach

• BMI measures (e.g., richness, Shannon Weiner Diversity Index, percent dominant taxon) reflective of moderate impairment, as compared to reference reach values (lower Yellow Creek) at all sites(E3.1-221 through E3.1-259; Licensee Response to Comment, SWRCB Letter dated July 25, 2002, Page 4, Paragraph 2 and Page 19, Paragraph 2; Licensee Response to Comment, FS Letter Page 8, Paragraph 2.
• Impairment likely attributable to influences from Belden Forebay Dam and recreational use.

Summary Findings

Seneca and Belden

• Seneca Reach is largely unimpaired (as compared to reference reach on upper Butt Creek) (E3.1-225 through E3.1-260).
• Belden Reach is moderately impaired (E3.1-225 through E3.1-260).

Amphibian Resources (Item 11):

Existing Condition

Seneca Reach

• No amphibian target species observed in project area
• Very limited suitable habitat for reproduction (E3.1-130 through E3.1-138).
• No high quality habitat identified for FYLF or MYLF (E3.1-130 through E3.1-138).
• Flow Evaluation Studies - Increased water velocities and depths resulted in substantial reductions in available habitat for FYLF at 250 cfs flows and further reductions at 400 cfs (E3.1-143)

Belden Reach

• No amphibian target species observed in project area
• Very limited suitable habitat for reproduction (E3.1-130 through E3.1-138).
• No high quality habitat identified for FYLF or MYLF (E3.1-130 through E3.1-138).
• Flow Evaluation Studies - Increased water velocities and depths resulted in substantial reductions in available habitat for FYLF at 350 cfs flows and further reductions at 600 cfs and 850 cfs (at locations above confluence with EBNFFR) (E3.1-144 through E3.1-147).
• The one site below the confluence with the EBNFFR did not experience substantial reductions in habitat at 350 or 600 cfs.

Butt Creek Reach

• No amphibian target species observed in project area
• Very limited suitable habitat for reproduction (below project features) (E3.1-130 through E3.1-138).
• No high quality habitat identified for FYLF or MYLF (E3.1-130 through E3.1-138).

Historical Condition

Seneca Reach

• No historical records of occurrence for any of the target species.

Belden Reach

• No historical records of occurrence for any of the target species.

Butt Creek Reach

• No historical records of occurrence for any of the target species.

Summary Findings

Seneca, Butt Creek, and Belden Reaches

• No historical records of occurrence for any of the target species.
• Stream gradient and channel type likely precluded occurrence of target species within stream corridor under unimpaired flow conditions

Attachment 5:

Water Temperature (Item 3)

– Information on actual water temperatures in river reaches are presented in section E2.5.2 Results of Water Temperature Monitoring, pages E2-141 to182; section E2.6 Impacts Related to Existing Project (as related to stream reaches), pages E2-431 to 449; and Aquatic sections E3.1.12 Impacts of Existing Operation, pages E3.1-478 to 485 for existing flows; and section E3.1.15 Anticipated Impacts of Continued Operation, pages E3.1-515 to 517 for proposed flow releases.

·        Results of 2000 and 2001 water temperature monitoring are presented in Table E2.5-4, pages E2-142 to 147 for the project area.

Seneca Reach

• Simulations are presented in Figure E2.6-25 and 27, which presents simulated temperatures based on the average water year, normal meteorology, and existing and modified Prattville Intake configuration for June through September, respectively.

Lower Butt Creek Reach

• Currently, no releases are made to the lower Butt Creek Reach.  Flows range year-around between 13 to 17 cfs, and temperatures range from about 10.3 to 10.6^o C.

• Simulations showed that releases associated with a surface release would range from 14.1 to 22.9^o C and a deep-water release would range from 12.3 to 22.8^o C, both much warmer than the current condition.  No additional simulations were performed.

Belden Reach

• Table E2.6-14 summarizes the predicted Belden Dam (monthly median) release temperatures under various environmental and Prattville Intake configurations.

• Table E2.6-16 summarizes the monthly median temperatures in the NFFR, above the Confluence with the East Branch and above the Belden PH, under various management and Prattville Intake scenarios.

• Under the existing Prattville Intake configuration (excluding dry years) releases from Canyon Dam of less than 300 cfs has a negligible impact on release temperatures at Belden Dam.

• Belden Dam Release temperatures associated with the modified Prattville Intake ranges from 2.4 to 4.6^o C cooler than the existing condition for the June through August period.

• The cold water pool in Lake Almanor (section E2.6.4) is predicted to decrease by about 50% between mid-June and early August under both the current (35 cfs) and proposed (75 cfs-) release flows from Canyon Dam under normal year and meteorological conditions.  However under the Prattville modification scenario, the rate of depletion of this cold water pool would be accelerated, resulting in an additional 10 to 15% reduction by early June, 15 to 20 % by early August, and 20 to 25% by early September relative to the current or proposed flow releases.

• Flow releases in excess of 75 cfs from Canyon Dam would only exacerbate the rate of depletion, resulting in extending the period of decreased coldwater pool availability to the fishery in Lake Almanor.  Flow releases in excess of 300 cfs under the modified Prattville Intake scenario, can also negatively affect temperatures in the Seneca Reach in the late summer.

Fish Spawning (Item 7)

(The following information is presented in greater detail section E3.1.10 Instream Flow Study-Spawning, pages E3.1-306 & 307, and in response to FS comments letter of July 24, 2002 in section E.9 Agency Consultation, and Appendix E3.1.11 of Vol. 7) 

• Trout spawning in rivers such as the North Fork Feather river is typically opportunistic, occurring in pockets of gravel with suitable depths and velocities, rather than in broad bands on riffles and runs more common among salmon.

• Estimated rainbow trout redd densities within the Belden and Seneca reaches ranged from a low of six redds/mile in the Waller-East Branch Reach of the Belden bypass (average of 17/mile) reach to 128 redds/mile in the Seneca Reach (average of 79/mile), and averaged 37 redds/mile for both reaches combined (Appendix E3.1-11 of Vol. 7 of License Application).

• Estimated number of trout redds in Butt Creek Reach was 171/mile.

• Based on an average of 600+eggs/female (as found in the 6-year CDFG study on the Rock Creek-Cresta reaches), the average number of redds/mile equate to more than 22,000 eggs/mile in the mainstem reaches and more than 100,000 eggs/mile in lower Butt Creek.

• However, the high number of eggs/mile in lower Butt Creek Reach are due to its optimal water temperature, excellent water quality, and relatively high base flow compared to other tributaries in the Seneca Reach.  It should also be noted that trout spawning is generally only available in the lower 0.8 miles.

• Compared to the Rock Creek-Cresta reaches downstream, the mainstem of the upper North Fork Feather River appears to be more valuable to trout spawning than its tributaries.

Fish Habitat (Item 8)

(The following fish habitat descriptions are described in greater detail in section E3.1.2 Existing Aquatic Habitats, pages E3.1-6 to 18; fish population information is described in section E3.1.3.2 Fish Population Studies, pages E3.1-21 to 94; fish population comparisons are presented using the Gerstung (1973) table from a response to FS comments of July 24, 2002 in section E9; results of the IFIM study are presented in section E3.1.10.3 Instream Flow Study - Results, pages E3.1-319 to 328; effects of continuing project operation on fish habitats is presented in section E3.1.12 Impacts of Existing Operation, pages E3.1-459 to 503; and section E3.1.15 Anticipated impacts of Continued Operation, pages E3.1-506 to 517.)

• The Habitat Suitability Study (Appendix E3.1-11 of Vol. 7 of License Application) estimated a range of about 600 to 900 adult rainbow trout per mile in the Seneca Reach and 200 to 600 adult rainbow trout in the Belen Reach.

• Fish population studies conducted by Licensee were used to develop the estimated number of trout (rainbow and brown combined) per mile for 2000 and 2001 in the Seneca and Belden reaches shown in the table below.  Estimated number of trout for the lower Butt Creek and upper Butt Creek sites are also included for comparison purposes.

*Based on Gerstung (Table 2) 1973

• Due to differences between the length of fish considered to be adults between the Gerstung report and Licensee’s population studies, some synthesis of the data was required in order to adequately compare the numbers of adult fish per mile.  Specifically, Gerstung only included fish with lengths greater than six inches in his analysis.  Licensee’s study classified salmonids into three age classes: 0+, 1+, and 2+.  The age 1+ class included fish between five inches and approximately seven inches.  The mean length of age 1+ fish in the Licensee’s study was approximately six inches; therefore, we deleted half of the age 1+ trout from the population estimates.

• Based on Table 2 in Gerstung (1973), the six sites sampled in the Seneca Reach in both 2000 and 2001 ranged from the bottom 32% to the top 2% of California trout streams.

·        The population estimates within the Belden Reach are generally lower than in the Seneca Reach.

·        The generally lower ranking of all sites in the Belden Reach is probably due to the presence of several dozen campsites in this area and the easy access provided by the road that parallels most of the river in this reach, resulting in heavier fishing pressure than in the upstream Seneca Reach.

·        Estimated trout populations at Site 113, upper Butt Creek, fell within the top 17% of California trout streams in both 2000 and 2001, and Site 114, lower Butt Creek was ranked within the top 46% for both sampling efforts.

·        Compared to the Gerstung (1973) data, the Seneca and upper Belden reaches were within the top 17% of California trout streams, with several sites being within the top 2%.  The lower Belden Reach (on the mainstem NFFR below the fish barrier) had a population density estimate of 178 fish per mile, placing it within the top 68% of California trout streams.

Proposed Minimum Instream Flows

Seneca Reach –

• The proposed minimum flow of 75 cfs year-round would provide for increases in habitat for the spawning and adult life stages of rainbow trout and adult Sacramento sucker over that currently provided by the 35-cfs minimum flow.

• Results of the IFIM study indicate that the WUA index for spawning and adult rainbow trout would increase by about 50 and 59 percent, respectively, and that adult sucker WUA index would increase by 76 percent.
• Conversely, predicted WUA for juvenile rainbow trout and macroinvertebrate diversity both decrease with flow releases above about 35-50 cfs (depending on which flow curve is used, one-velocity or depth).  The WUA index for juvenile rainbow trout is predicted to only decrease by about 1-2 percent at 75 cfs, and the WUA for macroinvertebrate diversity would decrease by up to 16 percent.

• Consequently, the proposed release flow is a compromise to maximize adult habitat for rainbow trout and Sacramento sucker, while minimizing impacts on rearing habitat for juvenile rainbow trout and the macroinvertebrate community, which supplies the food base for trout and other aquatic organisms.

• Also, a release flow of 75 cfs would have negligible impact on released water temperatures (i.e., 0 to 0.2 °C increase) in this reach under all modeled water year, meteorological, and Prattville Intake modifications as discussed in Section E2.6.4.

Belden Reach –

• The proposed minimum flow of 140 cfs year-round would provide for the same level of flow, and aquatic habitat, on a year-round basis that is currently provided only during the late spring and summer months (late April through early September).

• In the upper Belden Reach (above the East Branch NFFR), this year-round flow schedule would result in a predicted increase in the WUA index during the September to early April period for spawning and adult rainbow trout (a relative increase of approximately 50 percent) and adult Sacramento sucker (a relative increase of approximately 60 percent) and no change for juvenile rainbow trout or macroinvertebrate diversity compared to what is provided under the existing 60-cfs release.

• Because flows in the East Branch NFFR dominate flows in the NFFR down to Belden Powerhouse during the late spring and early summer, the proposed 140 year-round flow would not affect the predicted WUA for either the spawning or juvenile rainbow life stages during this time; however, these higher flows would provide some additional habitat for adult rainbow trout and Sacramento sucker in the late summer to early fall when flows in the East Branch now decrease typically to less than 100 cfs.
•  
• Consequently, the proposed release flow is a compromise to maximize adult habitat for rainbow trout and Sacramento sucker, while minimizing impacts on rearing habitat for juvenile rainbow trout and the macroinvertebrate community, which supplies the food base for trout and other aquatic and terrestrial species.

Lower Butt Creek Reach –

• Currently, the spring flows that make up the majority of flow in the lower Butt Creek result in relatively low water temperatures (about 10 to 13 °C year-round) and excellent water quality.

• As described in detail in Section E3.1.12, this stream reach contained the highest number (tied with Hamilton Branch) of native aquatic molluscs in the project area.
•  

·        It also had the highest number of trout redds per mile (171/mile) of the three bypass reaches.

• Results of the IFIM study also indicated that the predicted WUA indices for all life stages of rainbow trout and macroinvertebrate diversity under the present condition were at, or close to, maximum values over the range of simulated discharges (5 to 35 cfs).
•  
• Consequently, the best way to maintain the quality and unique nature of this stream reach is to continue with the current practice of not providing release flows from Butt Valley Reservoir.

Fish Passage (Item 9)

(The following information on the identification of fish barriers are provided in greater detail in UNFFR LA section E3.1.6 Barrier Identification, pages E3.1-161 to 172; section E3.1.12 Impacts of Existing Operation, pages E3.1-495 to 498: and section E3.1.15 Anticipated Impacts of Continuing Operation, page E3.1-509.)

·        Manmade barriers include the Gansner Bar Fish Barrier on lower Belden Reach, four streamflow gaging weirs (two on upper Butt Creek, one below Canyon Dam, and an abandoned weir on lower Butt Creek), and two road culverts (Waller Creek and Fern Canyon Creek.

·        Natural barriers to spawning trout were evaluated on nine tributaries in the Seneca and Belden reaches: Ohio, Salmon, and Clear Creeks and Muggins and Kirkham ravines in the Seneca Reach and Mosquito and Belden creeks and Deadwood Canyon in the Belden Reach.  Table E3.1.6-1 (page E3.1-165) presents the results of these surveys.

·        Salmon Falls, about 2.6 miles below Canyon Dam, is a complete upstream barrier to spawning or migrating fish in the Seneca Reach.

·        A detailed description of the projects dams and other identified fish barrier impacts on the resident fish species, sensitive amphibians/aquatic reptiles, and mollusc species are presented in section E3.1.12 Impacts of Existing Operation, pages E3.1-495 to 498.

·        Based on comments received in comments on the draft license application, we have conducted additional surveys of all major tributaries in the Belden Reach and around Lake Almanor.

Spawning Barrier Removal

Lower Butt Valley Creek –

• Removal of the abandoned stream gage weir (NF-9) would facilitate additional trout spawning potential in lower Butt Creek by providing improved access to approximately 0.5 miles of stream channel.

Lower Belden Reach –

·        Removal of the Gansner Bar fish barrier near the lower end of the upper Belden Reach would allow access to about an additional 6.8 miles of the NFFR up to Belden Dam, not presently available for spawning to fish from the mainstem NFFR.