Summary of the Pilot Assessment of Three Potential Fish Barriers on Battle Creek

Summary of the Pilot Assessment of Three Potential Fish Barriers on Battle Creek Laurie A. Earley March 2014 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Red Bluff Fish and Wildlife Office 10950 Tyler Road, Red Bluff, CA 96080 Introduction Battle Creek is an important tributary to the Sacramento River, especially for the recovery of salmonids in California s Central Valley. Several restoration actions and projects have been underway in Battle Creek, focusing on habitat for three federally listed species of salmonids; the endangered winter Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, the threatened spring Chinook Salmon (Chinook), and threatened Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss (NMFS et al. 1999). Additionally, a 100-year-old hydroelectric system of dams, canals, and powerhouses operates in the Battle Creek watershed. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) currently owns these power generation facilities. The restoration actions and projects have worked to obtain a way for power generation to occur while also providing adequate temperatures and flows needed to restore populations of salmonids within the creek. Several restoration actions have been completed on Battle Creek, while some are still underway. In 1992, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) federally legislated doubling populations of Central Valley salmonids (cited in Newton and Brown 2003). Through CVPIA, the Anadromous Fisheries Restoration Program (AFRP) was created. AFRP outlined actions to restore Battle Creek, which included increase flows past PG&E s hydropower diversions in two phases to provide adequate holding, spawning and rearing habitat for anadromous salmonids (USFWS 1997; Newton and Brown 2003). The CVPIA Water Acquisition Program increased minimum flows of 3 cfs in the North Fork and 5 cfs in the South Fork (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] license) to 25 cfs below Eagle Canyon Dam on the North Fork and 35 cfs below Coleman Dam on the South Fork from 1995 to 2001 (Brown and Newton 2002). In 1999 a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed, stating there would be continued support from federal and state agencies and PG&E in the development of the Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project (BCRP; Ward and Kier 1999). CALFED Bay-Delta Program and PG&E (Brown and Newton 2002) funded the BCRP. However, planning, designing, and permitting for the BCRP took longer than anticipated. Therefore, money was contributed from Ecosystem Restoration Program (ERP) of CALFED to fund the Interim Flow Project, which purchased water in 2001 so flows in the North Fork could remain > 3 cfs (Brown and Newton 2002), and an agreement was reached in 2002 and 2003 to include the South Fork (Brown and Alston 2007; Alston et al. 2007). Currently, the construction for the BCRP is underway, with an anticipated completion date of October 2015 (USBR 2013). Following the completion of the BCRP, project flows will be provided by PG&E below diversions on the North and South Forks as prescribed in the Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Plan (Restoration Plan; Ward and Kier 1999). 1

Providing flows on Battle Creek is not only important for holding, spawning, and rearing of salmonids, but it is important for accessing these specific habitats. Thomas R Payne and Associates (TRPA; 1991) found historic observations of Salmon above Inskip (rm 8.02) and South Diversion (rm 14.39) Dams on the South Fork Battle Creek (Figure 1). Therefore, it appeared that there were no substantial barriers on the South Fork until the Panther Grade Falls (rm 19.07; Figure 1) which was documented as a natural limit to anadromy (Tehama County 1983 cited in TRPA 1991). However, some believe these falls are passable to some salmonids and the real limit to anadromy is upstream several miles at Angel Falls (rm 22.47; Figure 1; Newton and Brown 2003). The BCRP project limit on the South Fork is Panther Grade Falls. Historic observations on the North Fork reported salmon by Wilson Hill Road Bridge (rm 8.82; TRPA 1991), which is between Eagle Canyon Dam (rm 5.23) and North Fork Feeder Dam (rm 9.42; Figure 1). The BCRP project limit is located at Whispering Falls/Suhl Falls (rm 13.17) which is a total barrier to all fish (Figure 1). A survey was completed prior to 1988 that reported a partial barrier at low flows in the North Fork above Eagle Canyon Dam (Elektra Power cited in TRPA 1991). In 1988, a barrier survey was completed for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW, formerly California Department Fish and Game) to classify potential barriers within Battle Creek, as part of a comprehensive fisheries investigation (TRPA 1998). The assessment found 26 potential barriers within Battle Creek, of which 21 of them were located in the North Fork (Figure 1). TRPA (1991; 1998) suggested that fish passage could be facilitated by: 1) modifying low flow barriers, monitor, and modify or remove new low flow barriers, 2) provide flows of at least 30 cfs during migration periods and monitor for new barriers, or 3) combination of physically modifying barriers and increase flows in increments until impediments are deemed passable. Although fish passage barriers were documented in Battle Creek, the stream was still recognized as an important tributary for salmonid recovery. The MOU included fish passage conditions in the monitoring section of the document (NMFS et al. 1999). Additionally, it noted that an adaptive management plan (AMP) was need for the BCRP (NMFS et al. 1999). The draft AMP was finished in 2004 and was intended to be used to guide monitoring and to make further adjustments to PG&E operations (Terraqua Inc. 2004). The BCRP goal of restoring and enhancing 42 miles of anadromous fish habitat in Battle Creek and 6 miles of habitat in its tributaries, while minimizing the loss of renewable energy was broken out into three subsets of objectives in the Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project Adaptive Management Plan (BCRP AMP; Terraqua Inc. 2004). These objectives included population objectives, habitat objectives, and passage objectives. Passage objective 3 explained the adaptive management approach to address the natural barriers within Battle Creek (Terraqua Inc. 2004). The objective is to Provide reliable upstream passage of adult salmon and steelhead to their appropriate habitat over natural obstacles within the Restoration Project Area while maintaining an appropriate level of spatial separation among the runs (Terraqua Inc. 2004). The objective listed the monitoring approaches, the trigger events, response, response limits, reporting, and responsibilities. If an obstacle impedes salmonids from accessing preferred habitat, the response stated the barrier should be modified and if it could not be modified, water acquisition was the next option (Terraqua Inc. 2004). It was listed that the resource agencies were responsible for either providing or seeking funding to complete the monitoring and any possible modifications needed (Terraqua Inc. 2004). The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Red Bluff office has completed two reconnaissance surveys since monitoring began in 1995. The first survey was completed in 2

2001, mainly to determine the feasibility of monitoring the middle reaches of Battle Creek, above Eagle Canyon dam and Coleman dam to the BCRP limits (Newton and Brown 2003). Part of this survey was to determine if there were additional fish passage barriers that were not recorded by TRPA (1991; 1998). The survey recorded that passage into the North Fork reaches may be limited by natural barriers (Newton and Brown 2003). It was also documented that large boulders (10-25 ) were present within the first 1000 ft of the reach above the Digger Creek confluence (upstream of Eagle Canyon Dam) that could potentially prevent passage (Unpublished data, USFWS). No barriers in the South Fork were documented (Newton and Brown 2003). During regular snorkel surveys in 2001 and 2002, Brown et al. (2005) identified another potential low flow barrier between Wildcat Dam and Eagle Canyon Dam. This barrier appeared to block fish when flows were < 30 cfs (Brown and Alston 2007). In 2011, another reconnaissance survey was completed on the North Fork between North Fork Feeder Dam and above Digger Creek. In this section, two potential barriers were observed, however it was noted that a full evaluation could not be completed until project flows were obtained (Bottaro et al. 2013). On a separate field visit, the barrier above Digger Creek confluence was noted (R. Bottaro, USFWS Red Bluff, personal communication). TRPA (1991; 1998) documented a potential total barrier (rm 5.06 1 ) below Eagle Canyon Dam. Through routine monitoring, the USFWS confirmed that this barrier was impeding passage, because no fish were observed above this location 2. In 2012, CDFW blasted this rock and they plan to continue working to improve passage at this barrier. To determine if there were other potential barriers requiring modification further assessments are needed. Ideally, barrier assessments could be completed during the routine snorkel surveys. The purpose of this pilot study was to determine the feasibility of barrier assessments and to refine the methodologies for measuring the barriers. This pilot study was completed in 2013 and would assess barriers near Eagle Canyon Dam. Barrier Selection Methods Prior to the survey, monitoring data was evaluated to determine which locations should be assessed. Spatial data for live Chinook and redd locations were mapped along with locations of potential barriers. If it appeared that there was limited passage or if redds were not observed above a potential barrier, the location was marked. Additional locations were evaluated based on potential barriers from TRPA (1991; 1998; Table 1) and other observations made by USFWS. Accessibility of sites was also considering during the site selection process. Because of the limited time and staff, only barriers that could be evaluated within one day were selected. Barrier Measurements Once the sites were selected, a crew of three went to the locations. Photographs and datasheets from the TRPA (1991; 1998) study were taken into the field to make sure the location was the same. All sites were evaluated using visual observations and physical measurements were taken. These measurements were similar to those preformed on Clear Creek (Newton and Brown 2004). These measurements included: 1 Original river mile (rm) from TRPA (1991; 1998) is 5.14. 2 A Chinook carcass was retrieved from the barrier during a 2006 snorkel survey. 3

1) Vertical height: height from the water surface of the plunge pool to the water surface flowing over the barrier, 2) width at base of passage route, 3) breadth (horizontal distance parallel to flow from the top to bottom of the structure), 4) depth of plunge pool, 5) water velocity at the top of the barrier, and, 6) water velocity at the tail out of the barrier. Based on these measurements, it was determined if these potential barriers were passable by adult salmonids (Newton and Brown 2004). Assumptions of swimming and jumping capabilities were referenced from Powers and Osborn (1985) in both TRPA (1991; 1998) and Newton and Brown (2004). The same assumptions were used in this analysis. Additionally, it was assumed that for a successful jump, the jump pool depth needed to be 1.25 times the vertical height or > 8 ft. (Reiser and Peacock 1985; cited in Newton and Brown 2004). The location was documented with photographs and drawings. Additionally, waypoints were collected using a high precision sub-foot GPS unit, Trimble GeoXH hand held GeoExplorer series (Trimble Navigation Ltd, Sunnyvale, CA). Barrier Selection Results Maps were created using data collected during snorkel surveys from 2001-2013 to assess the locations of live fish observations (Figure 2) and redd observations (Figure 3) compared to potential barriers. The main area of focus was Eagle Canyon Dam (ECD; rm 5.23) area because ECD is the current limit of anadromy and there are several potential barriers in close proximity. Very few live fish (Figure 2) and only one redd (Figure 3) had been observed above the potential barrier at rm 4.46 (Table 1; Figure 2; Figure 3). TRPA (1998) stated that this was impassable to fish at low flows, but would be passable at undetermined higher flow. This potential barrier (barrier 3) was selected to be part of the pilot study. Above barrier 3 the next several questionable locations were barriers 6, 9, and B (Table 1). Barrier 6 is the location where CDFW made modifications in 2012 and will continue to modify this barrier. Therefore, barrier 9 and B were the other locations within the area. Barrier 9 was noted to be a low flow barrier for Chinook and resident Rainbow Trout, but was passable to Steelhead at all flows (TRPA 1991; 1998). At 35 cfs, the barrier appeared to be passable to Chinook but still an impediment to Rainbow Trout (TRPA 1991; 1998). We would assess this barrier to verify that the increase in flow was not a problem for Chinook. Barrier B, often referred as the above Digger Creek barrier has not been evaluated previously (Table 1). Because of the limited information on this location, this was an ideal site to include in the assessment. Barrier Measurements A three-person crew went out to Battle Creek on August 27, 2013. The discharge for the North Fork below Eagle Canyon Dam was unknown because the DWR gauging stations were not in service (Bottaro et al. 2012). The flow above ECD was estimated to be 63 cfs (G. Geary, PG&E, personal communication). Based on the flow at the PG&E minimum flow gage at the Wildcat site, flows below Eagle Canyon Dam were estimated to be 38 cfs (G. Geary, PG&E, personal communication). 4

Barrier 3 To access the location of barrier 3, the crew hiked into the canyon where the Eagle Canyon diversion flume turns into the canal downstream of Eagle Canyon dam. After hiking into the canyon, the crew waded upstream 50 yd to the location of the barrier. The crew verified that they were at the correct location using the TRPA (1991) photograph (Figure 4A) and the TRPA field datasheets (Unpublished data, TRPA). The crew took another photograph (Figure 4B) trying to match the photo point from TRPA (1991). Additional photographs were taken as needed. Field drawings and measurements were taken on field datasheets (Appendix 1). These falls are made of many boulders that appeared to have shifted since the first assessment (Figure 4A; Figure 4B; TRPA 1991; TRPA 1998). The increase in flow from 7 cfs (TRPA 1991; TRPA 1998) did not change the classification from boulder falls. This site has two small falls within this site. The total length of the falls was 8.7 ft and the height was 5 ft. The jump pool depth was 4.2 ft, a small holding spot within the falls had a depth of 3.5 ft, and at the upstream side of the falls was 1.2 ft deep. Based on the height and breadth of this location the required jump pool depth needed to be 6.25 ft deep. Flow velocity at the top of the falls averaged at 2.5 ft/s (max = 5.1 ft/s) and the velocity at the tail average 3.1 ft/s (max = 4.1 ft/s). There was a rock underwater between the two drops, which caused a pinch point and the water depth was 0.5 ft (Figure 5). The small holding pool was located right behind this rock. At the time of assessment, it appeared that the shallow rock would present a passage problem to some Chinook. It also appeared at higher flows it would not be an issue and that there would be other routes of passage. Barrier 9 In order to access the location of this site, the crew hiked into Digger Creek canyon and waded downstream to the barrier. However, this site can be accessed by directly hiking into the canyon downstream of the site, or by hiking down to Eagle Canyon Dam and wading upstream. The crew verified that they were at the correct location using the TRPA (1991) photograph (Figure 5A) and the TRPA datasheets (Unpublished data, TRPA). Another photograph was taken (Figure 5B); however, it was not at the exact photo point from TRPA (1991). Additional photographs were taken as needed and the field drawings and measurements were completed (Appendix 1). This barrier is composed of falls and cascade, consisting of bedrock and boulders. The falls height varies from 3.5 ft (river center) to 2.2 (river left) that drops into a 4.0 ft deep pool (Figure 6), which is followed by a cascade that flows into a 4.7 ft deep pool. The total height of this barrier is 7.8 ft (downstream water surface to top of falls). The intermediate jump pool depth would have to be > 2.8 ft deep in order for a Chinook to move upstream. The flow velocity at the top of the falls was 0.5 ft/s (max = 0.7) and at the tail it was 3.1 ft/s (max = 4.1 ft/s). The intermediate jump pool was extremely turbulent, but we did not collect any velocity measurements. At the time of assessment, it appeared that salmonids would be able to pass, however at lower flows this location may prevent passage upstream. Barrier B The crew accessed this site by hiking into the Digger Creek canyon and wading downstream to the confluence of Digger Creek and Battle Creek. Once at the confluence the crew hiked 5 yd upstream. Here they encountered the beginning of a boulder jumble (Figure 7) that continued approximately 20 yd upstream to where the potential barrier is located (Figure 8). There were no previous records of this barrier for comparison. This potential barrier is 7.4 ft fall composed of bedrock and boulders. Below the falls, there is a shallow pool (2 ft) that flows through a small chute to another pool that is 1.2 ft deep. For a fish to pass these falls, the jump pool would need to be > 9.3 ft deep. Additionally, outside of an inadequate jump pool there is a large boulder that lies over the falls (Figure 8). This 5

boulder would prevent fish from jumping up and over the falls. Velocity measurements were not taken because of an equipment malfunction. This location was difficult to measure and it may require additional measurements in the future. At the time of assessment, it appeared that salmonids would not be able to pass. It is possible that another passage route exists that we could not see, but we were confident in classifying this as a total barrier to all fish. Although there was water flowing over the river right side of the falls, this route did not appear to be passable because rocks at the bottom of the falls fill in the possible jump pool. Barrier Selection Discussion The barriers selected in part of the pilot assessment were relatively easy to access. The crew was able to hike in and out of the canyon near each of the locations. Future work may have to be completed during a walking or snorkel survey because the remainder of the potential barriers may not be easily accessible. Although, reconnaissance surveys were completed in 2001 (Newton and Brown 2003) the exact locations of the remaining boulders were not always recorded. The up-to-date locations of all the TRPA (1991; 1998) barriers would help to determine accessibility of the remaining sites. Recommendation 1: Collect new GPS waypoints and pictures of all the locations that were documented in TRPA (1991; 1998) using the sub-foot Trimble units. Additionally, a full assessment of the sites documented in TRPA (1991; 1998) should be completed, placing priority on those listed as a total barrier for either Chinook or Steelhead. Barrier Assessment One purpose of this assessment was to review the methodologies for measuring barriers. The crew was inexperienced in collecting the measurements and having the opportunity to practice the measurements will help with any future work that is completed. It was determined that additional measurements should have been taken at the sites, especially when there are separate sections of a barrier (cascade and falls). Proper equipment to complete the measurements of stream discharge would also be helpful for future work. There are gauging stations operated by California Department of Water Resources (DWR) on both the South Fork (BAS; rm 1.70) and North Fork (BNF; rm 0.88). However, PG&E diversions are upstream of these gauging sites, so the gauges would not provide an accurate reading for discharge in locations above these diversions. Barrier 3 Similar to the results in TRPA (1991; 1998) we believe that this location is a potential low flow barrier. However, we would classify this barrier as a partial barrier to both Chinook and Steelhead at the more recent flows since fish have been observed above. Since fish have been observed upstream of this location, it appears that increase in stream flow from 5 cfs to 40 cfs has helped passage (Figure 2). However, the limited number of observations would suggest that it is still a potential problem. Based on the jump pool depth recorded in this assessment, Chinook would not be able to complete the jump over the entirety of the falls. However, there is potential for fish to rest in the shallow intermediate pool, but the area of this pool is relatively small. In addition, there is a rock present on the downstream side of the pool, and a fish would likely hit the rock before getting to the pool. Having measurements of the two separate falls would be helpfully in determining whether the intermediate jump pool is deep enough for fish to move above this location. The prescribed flows in this reach (minimum flow 6

from ECD) vary from a 35-46 cfs depending on the time of the year (Ward and Kier 1999). With the inclusion of the Eagle Canyon springs there should be an additional 10-15 cfs at this location. It is important to determine if these flows are adequate for fish passage. The BCRP AMP states that if an obstacle is present, the site should be 1) modified or 2) if the barrier cannot be modified, water should be acquired to change instream flows to allow passage for the necessary passage windows (Terraqua Inc. 2004). Recommendation 2: Collect measurements of the separate sections of this potential barrier. Recommendation 3: Collect measurements at this location at different stream flows to determine when this barrier would not be an impediment to salmonids. Recommendation 4: Install a field video camera that would monitor passage during the spring Chinook migration period. Barrier 9 Similar to the results in TRPA (1991; 1998) we believe that this location is not a passage problem for Chinook at flows around 40 cfs. It was documented that the intermediate jump pool was adequate for Chinook at 35 cfs (TRPA 1991; 1998) and the remained true at 60 cfs. TRPA (1991; 1998) documented that Rainbow Trout were observed leaping at the falls at 35 cfs and were unsuccessful. We had no observations of fish attempting to jump, however Rainbow Trout may still have difficulty moving above at flows around 60 cfs. The prescribe instream flow listed for the reach between North Fork Feeder Dam and Eagle Canyon Dam is > 45 cfs year round (Minimum flow from North Fork Feeder Dam; Ward and Kier 1999). This flow should allow for passage of anadromous salmonids throughout the year. If there are concerns about Rainbow Trout passage, further investigations should be considered. Barrier B This barrier was not documented in previous surveys (TRPA 1991; 1998; Newton and Brown 2003). However, the FWS crew noted it during the reconnaissance surveys in 2001 (Unpublished data, USFWS). TRPA (1991; 1998) completed a very thorough survey, which would suggest that sometime between 1990 and 2001 boulders fell into the creek to create the boulder jumble and the passage barrier. This location appears to be a total barrier. There is a slight possibility that there is another route that cannot be observed because of the location of the boulders. The prescribe flow listed for this reach would increase the amount of flow that we observed at this location (Ward and Kier 1999). However, the rock lying on the falls would still likely prevent passage and it is difficult to determine if another passage route would be available. Further work needs to be completed to determine the next steps. The BCRP AMP lists assessment approaches (Terraqua Inc. 2004), but these approaches rely on fish being able to access the barrier location. At this time fish are unable to reach this location because Eagle Canyon Dam s fish ladder is closed. A decision should be made by the resource agencies to determine if fish should be allowed access to this site or if modifications should be completed first. Recommendation 6: Allow fish to pass upstream of Eagle Canyon Dam to observe whether fish can migrate pass this location. Recommendation 7: Resource agencies should work together to investigate how this barrier could be modified to allow passage upstream. 7

Recommendation 8: Complete a full survey of the creek to document any other potential barriers that were not included in the previous surveys Conclusion This assessment was successful for many reasons. Field crews were able to practice the field operations in assessing barriers and the protocol can be updated to incorporate multiple measurements at locations that have a combination of barrier classes (i.e. falls and cascade, two cascades, two falls, etc.). This assessment also provided more insight to three of the potential barriers that are within the area of ECD. The survey found that two locations should be further assessed because one is potentially still a low flow barrier and the other could possibly be a total barrier. At this time, these two locations (barrier 3 and B) should be the areas of focus, but if additional surveys are completed the other sites can be evaluated for future modifications. 8

References Alston, N. O., J. M. Newton, and M. R. Brown. 2007. Monitoring adult Chinook salmon, rainbow trout, and steelhead in Battle Creek, California, from November 2003 through November 2004. USFWS Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Red Bluff Fish and Wildlife Office, Red Bluff, California. Bottaro, R.J, L.A. Earley, and M.R. Brown. 2013. Monitoring adult Chinook salmon, rainbow trout, and steelhead in Battle Creek, California, from March through November 2012. USFWS Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Red Bluff Fish and Wildlife Office, Red Bluff, California Brown, M. R., and J. M. Newton. 2002. Monitoring adult Chinook salmon, rainbow trout, and steelhead in Battle Creek, California, from March through October 2001. USFWS Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Red Bluff Fish and Wildlife Office, Red Bluff, California. Brown, M. R., N. O. Alston, and J. M. Newton. 2005. Monitoring adult Chinook salmon, rainbow trout, and steelhead in Battle Creek, California, from March through November 2002. USFWS Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Red Bluff Fish and Wildlife Office, Red Bluff, California. Brown, M. R., and N. O. Alston. 2007. Monitoring adult Chinook salmon, rainbow trout, and steelhead in Battle Creek, California, from November 2002 through November 2003. USFWS Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Red Bluff Fish and Wildlife Office, Red Bluff, California. Elektra Power Corporation. 1986. Response to deficiencies in application for license for North Fork Battle Creek Project, Shasta County, California (FERC #8725). Filed before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, January 1986 by Elektra Power Corporation, Palo Alto, California. Newton, J. M. and M. R. Brown. 2003. Middle Battle Creek reconnaissance survey, 2001. USFWS Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Red Bluff Fish and Wildlife Office, Red Bluff, California. Newton, J. M., and M. R. Brown. 2004. Adult spring Chinook salmon monitoring in Clear Creek, California,1999-2002. USFWS Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Red Bluff Fish and Wildlife Office, Red Bluff, California. NMFS, BOR, USFWS, CDFG, and PG&E (National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company). 1999. Memorandum of understanding: Battle Creek Chinook salmon and steelhead restoration project. Powers, P. D., and J. F. Orsborn. 1985. Analysis of barriers to upstream migration: an investigation of the physical and biological conditions affecting fish passage success at 9

culverts and waterfalls. Project No. 82-14. Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. Reiser, D. W., and R. T. Peacock. 1985. A technique for assessing upstream fish passage problems at small-scale hydropower developments. Pages 423-432 in F. W. Olson, R. G. White, and R. H. Hamre, editors. Symposium on small hydropower and fisheries. American Fisheries Society, Western Division, Bethesda, Maryland. Tehama County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. 1983. Application for license for construction and operation of South Fork Hydroelectric Project (Preliminary permit No. 5350). Report prepared for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by Tudor Engineering Company, San Francisco, California and Environmental Science Associates, INC., Novato, California. November 1983. Terraqua Inc. 2004. Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project adaptive management plan. Draft. April. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and California Department of Fish and Game. Wauconda, WA TRPA (Thomas R. Payne and Associates). 1991. Draft Anadromous Fish Migration Barrier Survey of Battle Creek, Shasta and Tehama Counties. Report by TRPA to California Department of Fish and Game. TRPA (Thomas R. Payne and Associates). 1998. A 1989 survey of barriers to the upstream migration of anadromous salmonids: 1 of 8 components. Report by TRPA to California Department of Fish and Game. USBR (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation). 2013. Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project. http://www.usbr.gov/mp/battlecreek/. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1997. Revised draft restoration plan for the anadromous fish restoration program. Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the direction of the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program Core Group. Stockton, CA. Ward, M. B., and W. M. Kier. 1999. Battle Creek salmon and steelhead restoration plan. Report by Kier Associates to Battle Creek Working Group. 10

Tables 11

Table 1. The potential barriers located in TRPA (1991; 1998) and from FWS reconnaissance surveys, with the FWS river mile (rm), TRPA s rm, the reach (Ward and Keir 1999) the site is in, and fish passability for Chinook and Steelhead (TRPA 1991; 1998; low refers to low flows, high refers to high flows ~90 cfs, and unk is unknown). Locations with a numerical ID were observed in the TRPA (1991; 1998) and those with an alphabetical ID were observed during FWS surveys (Unpublished data, USFWS). ID FWS rm TRPA rm Reach Chinook Passability Steelhead Passability 1 1.67 2.16 Wildcat Temp low; Pass high Temp low; Pass high 2 2.07 2.36 Wildcat Partial low; Pass high Partial low; Pass high A 3.02 N/A Eagle Canyon 3 4.46 4.50 Eagle Canyon Temp low; Unk high Temp low; Unk high 4 4.77 4.84 Eagle Canyon Passable all flows Passable all flows 5 4.85 5.12 Eagle Canyon Passable all flows Passable all flows 6 3 5.06 5.14 Eagle Canyon Total <75; Unk >75 Total <75; Unk >75 7 5.09 5.22 Eagle Canyon Passable all flows Passable all flows 8 5.18 5.23 Eagle Canyon Passable all flows Passable all flows 9 5.35 5.40 N. B. Feeder Temp low; Pass high Passable all flows B 5.41 N/A N. B. Feeder 10 6.30 6.02 N. B. Feeder Partial low; Pass high Partial low; Pass high 11 8.19 6.96 N. B. Feeder Temp low; Pass high Temp low; Pass high 12 10.22 9.92 Keswick Total low; Partial high Total low; Unk high 13 10.97 10.72 Keswick Total all flows Total low; Unk high 14 11.01 4 10.78 Keswick Temp low; Pass high Temp low; Pass high 15 11.02 4 10.79 Keswick Total all flows Total low; Pass high 16 11.46 4 11.10 Keswick Total all flows Partial low; Pass high 17 11.57 4 11.31 Keswick Total all flows Total low; Pass high 18 11.76 4 11.45 Keswick Total all flows Total all flows 19 11.77 4 11.46 Keswick Total low; Partial high Total low; Pass high 20 11.78 4 11.48 Keswick Total all flows Total all flows 21 13.17 13.48 Keswick Total all flows Total all flows 22 3.17 3.15 Inskip Temp low; Pass high Temp low; Pass high 23 3.62 3.40 Inskip Passable all flows Passable all flows 24 3.90 3.61 Inskip Temp low; Pass high Passable all flows 25 4.27 3.81 Inskip Temp low; Pass high Temp low; Pass high 26 13.26 11.68 South Temp low; Pass high Temp low; Pass high C 5 19.07 N/A Above Panther 3 CDFW modified in 2012 and will continue to modify accordingly. 4 These may not be the exact location because FWS 2001 river miles were in tenths of a mile and there were no GPS locations for these barriers. 5 TRPA (1991; 1998) survey ended before this location; however, it was cited in TRPA (1991; 1998) as a b arrier from a Tehama County survey (1983). 12

Figure 13

Figure 1. A map of the potential barrier locations on Battle Creek, its tributaries, and the PG&E Diversion Dam locations. The red circles note the potential fish barriers that were identified in TRPA (1991; 1998) and by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 14

Figure 2. Sections of the North Fork and South Fork Battle Creek that are surveyed during spring run Chinook surveys with the live fish observations from 2001-2013. 15

Figure 3. Sections of the North Fork and South Fork Battle Creek that are surveyed during spring run Chinook surveys with the redd observations from 2001-2013. 16

A B Figure 4. Photographs of barrier 3 at rm 4.46 on North Fork Battle Creek from A) 1990 at approximately 5 cfs (TRPA 1991) and B) 2013 at approximately 40 cfs. 17

A B Figure 5. Photographs of barrier 9 at rm 5.35 on the North Fork Battle Creek from A) 1990 at 35 cfs (TRPA 1991) and B) 2013 at approximately 60 cfs. 18

Figure 6. Photograph showing the upstream portion of Barrier 9. This picture shows the intermediate jump pool and the different heights of the falls. The red line highlights the likely route of passage over the falls. 19

Figure 7. Photograph looking upstream at the beginning of the boulder jumble leading up to Barrier B. 20

Figure 8. Photograph looking upstream at barrier B, river mile 5.4 on the North Fork Battle Creek. 21

Appendix 22

Appendix 1. Field datasheets from the FWS pilot barrier assessment completed in August 2013. 23

Appendix 1. Continued 24

Appendix 1. Continued 25

Appendix 1. Continued 26

Appendix 1. Continued 27

Appendix 1. Continued 28