SD-B Final Technical Study Plan Package

FINAL TECHNICAL STUDY PLAN PACKAGE for the BIG CREEK HYDROELECTRIC SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE LICENSING PROCESS

August 2001 Prepared by

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON An Edison International SM Company FINAL TECHNICAL STUDY PLAN PACKAGE for the BIG CREEK HYDROELECTRIC SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE LICENSING PROCESS

August 2001 Prepared by

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON An Edison International SM Company

With Assistance From BIG CREEK HYDROELECTRIC SYSTEM FINAL TECHNICAL STUDY PLAN PACKAGE ALTERNATIVE LICENSING PROCESS

Copyright, 2001, Southern California Edison Company. All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of Southern California Edison Company.

Watershed above Florence Lake

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 2.0 COMBINED AQUATICS STUDY PLANS ...... 2-1 3.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY PLANS ...... 3-1 4.0 LAND MANAGEMENT STUDY PLANS ...... 4-1 5.0 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES STUDY PLANS ...... 5-1 6.0 TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY PLANS ...... 6-1 GLOSSARY APPENDIX A – DISTRIBUTION LIST APPENDIX B – COPIES OF COMMENT LETTERS APPENDIX C – SUMMARY TABLE OF WRITTEN COMMENTS AND APPROVED RESPONSES ON DRAFT TECHNICAL STUDY PLAN PACKAGE APPENDIX D – SUMMARY TABLE OF VERBAL COMMENTS AND APPROVED RESPONSES ON DRAFT TECHNICAL STUDY PLAN PACKAGE

PAGE

FIGURE 1-1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON BIG CREEK HYDROELECTRIC SYSTEM ...... 1-2 FIGURE 1-2 SCHEMATIC PROFILE OF THE BIG CREEK SYSTEM...... 1-4 FIGURE 1-3 RELICENSING APPROACH FOR THE BIG CREEK SYSTEM ...... 1-8 FIGURE 1-4 ALTERNATIVE LICENSING PROCESS SCHEDULE ...... 1-9

PAGE

TABLE 1-1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON’S BIG CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS IN THE UPPER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN ...... 1-2 TABLE 1-2 LIST OF DRAFT TECHNICAL STUDY PLANS ...... 1-11 TABLE CAWG 1-1 DESCRIPTION OF SPAWNING GRAVEL QUALITY ...... 2-7 TABLE CAWG 1-2 STREAMS TO BE HABITAT MAPPED...... 2-10 TABLE CAWG 1-3 PROJECT IMPOUNDMENTS AND RESERVOIRS TO BE CHARACTERIZED ...... 2-11 TABLE CAWG 1-A1 HABITAT TYPES AND CODES ADAPTED FROM MCCAIN ET AL. (1990) ...... 2-14 TABLE CAWG 1-A2 HAWKINS ET AL. (1993) LEVEL I AND LEVEL II HABITAT CLASSIFICATIONS ...... 2-15 TABLE CAWG 3-1 PROJECT STREAMS BY SIZE ...... 2-44 TABLE CAWG 3-2 PROPOSED INSTREAM FLOW APPROACH FOR PROJECT STREAMS.. 2-45 TABLE CAWG 4-1 LABORATORY WATER QUALITY MEASUREMENTS ...... 2-56 TABLE CAWG 4-2 NUMBER OF SAMPLES...... 2-57 TABLE CAWG 4-3 STATIONS INCLUDED IN 5-SAMPLE 30-DAY FECAL COLIFORM SAMPLINGS...... 2-59 TABLE CAWG 5-1 BIG CREEK BYPASS REACHES TO BE MONITORED DURING 2001- NUMBER OF UNITS TO BE INSTALLED BY LOCATION...... 2-71 TABLE CAWG 5-2 RESERVOIRS AND IMPOUNDMENTS WITH NUMBER OF LOCATIONS TO BE MONITORED DURING 2001 ...... 2-72 TABLE CAWG 5-3 POWERHOUSE TAILRACES TO BE MONITORED FOR WATER TEMPERATURE DURING 2001...... 2-73 TABLE CAWG 5-4 METEOROLOGICAL DATA SITES TO BE MONITORED DURING 2001 .. 2-73 TABLE CAWG 7-1 PROPOSED FISH SAMPLING TECHNIQUES FOR PROJECT STREAMS.2-90 TABLE CAWG 7-2 SAMPLING TECHNIQUES FOR PROJECT IMPOUNDMENTS ...... 2-91 TABLE CAWG 14-1 BIG CREEK PROJECT RESERVOIRS AND FOREBAYS ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT DIVERSIONS ...... 2-143 TABLE LAND 6-1 SCE PROJECT-RELATED ROADS ...... 4-22

Page

TABLE LAND 7-1 LIST OF SCE SPECIAL USE AUTHORIZATIONS IN THE BIG CREEK BASIN...... 4-29 TABLE LAND 10-1 SCE PROJECT-RELATED ROADS ...... 4-43

ADA American with Disabilities Act af acre-feet AGR agricultural supply AIR Additional Information Request ALP Alternative Licensing Process APE Area of Potential Effects APEA Applicant Prepared Environmental Assessment ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act BCC Big Creek Collaborative BCS Big Creek System BiCEP Big Creek Expansion Project BMI Benthic Macroinvertebrate CalEPPC California Exotic Pest Plant Council CAWG Combined Aquatics Working Group CDEC California Data Exchange Center CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second cm centimeter CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base CNPS California Native Plant Society CO carbon monoxide COLD cold freshwater habitat COMM commercial and sport fishing CSBP California Stream Bioassessment Procedure CVRWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board CWA Clean Water Act DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DHM disadvantaged, handicapped, and minority DTSPP Draft Technical Study Plan Package DWR California Department of Water Resources EA Environmental Assessment ECPA Electrical Consumer Protection Act EIS Environmental Impact Statement ESA Endangered Species Act ESAP Endangered Species Alert Program FAR floor-area ratio FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FL fork length FPA Federal Power Act FSCD First Stage Consultation Document FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWUA Friant Water Users Association

v LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

GIS geographic information system GLO General Land Office GPS global positioning system HAP Habitat Area Planning Hp horsepower HPP Historic Preservation Plan HSC Habitat Suitability Curves IFIM Instream Flow Incremental Methodology IIG Initial Information Gathering IIP Initial Information Package IND industrial supply ISD Initial Scoping Document km kilometer KOP Key Observation Point kW kilowatt LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan Ma million years ago mg/l milligrams per liter MOU Memorandum of Understanding m/s meters per second msl above mean sea level MTBE Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether MUN municipal and domestic supply MW megawatt MWh megawatt-hour NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOI Notice of Intent NOx oxides of nitrogen NRHP National Register of Historic Places O3 ground-level atmospheric ozone O&M operations and maintenance OHV off-highway vehicle PFC Proper Functioning Condition PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company PHABSIM Physical Habitat Simulation Models PM particulate matter PM&E Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measure POA Plan of Action POW hydropower generation PPH Portal Power House PSW USFS Pacific Southwest Research Station

vi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

PV present value QA/QC quality assurance/quality control RCD Resource Conservation District RPP Raptor Protection Program RV recreational vehicle SCE Southern California Edison Company SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SJ&E San Joaquin and Eastern railroad SJR San Joaquin River SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin SL standard length SMS Scenic Management System SNF Sierra National Forest SNTEMP Stream Network Temperature Model SO2 sulfur dioxide SPCC Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TL total length UDP Universal Design Principles USAN upper San Joaquin River water supply model USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation USC use/stage curve USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFS United States Forest Service USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey VELB valley elderberry longhorn beetle VQO Visual Quality Objective VRM Visual Resource Management WARM warm freshwater habitat WILD wildlife habitat WQ water quality WSE water surface elevation WSRA Wild and Scenic Rivers Act WUA Weighted Usable Area YBP years before present

vii INTRODUCTION

FINALTECHNICAL STUDY PLAN PACKAGE

Southern California Edison (SCE) is pleased to present the following Final Technical Study Plan Package (FTSPP) for the Big Creek Hydroelectric Projects (FERC Project Nos. 67, 120, 2085, and 2175). The FTSPP represents the technical approach deemed necessary to gather information that will be used to assess the environmental effects of relicensing SCE’s Big Creek Hydroelectric Projects and to identify potential protection, mitigation and enhancement measures. The distribution of the FTSPP is a key milestone in SCE’s Alternative Licensing Process (ALP) for the Big Creek Hydroelectric Projects.

The technical study plans were developed over the last 15 months (May 2000-July 2001) in collaboration with numerous stakeholders, collectively referred to as the Big Creek Collaborative (BCC). These stakeholders represent state and federal resource agencies, Native American tribes, local and regional authorities, non- government organizations, local communities, local businesses, and other members of the public. The BCC should be commended for their dedication, hard work, and collaborative spirit demonstrated during the study plan development phase. SCE encourages active participation in the Big Creek ALP by all parties interested in providing input on the future license terms and conditions for the Big Creek Hydroelectric Projects.

OVERVIEW OF BIG CREEK SYSTEM AND RELICENSING PROCESSES

SCE is relicensing its seven Big Creek Hydroelectric Projects, located in California’s upper San Joaquin River watershed, about 27 miles northeast of the City of Fresno and 240 miles northeast of the City of Los Angeles (Figure 1-1). The seven hydroelectric projects consist of nine powerhouses, 23 generating units and six major reservoirs and have a combined dependable operating capacity of about 1,000 megawatts (MW). The seven Big Creek Hydroelectric Projects are referred to as the Big Creek System (BCS) (Figure 1-2). The BCS is operated to meet Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license conditions, physical constraints, downstream water rights agreements, and power production needs.

In the BCS, SCE is utilizing both the traditional and alternative licensing processes. A detailed description of these regulatory processes was provided in SCE’s Initial Information Package (IIP) for the Big Creek Hydroelectric System – Alternative Licensing Process distributed in May 2000. An electronic copy of the IIP can be viewed on SCE’s Hydro Relicensing Website at: http://www.sce.com/bigcreek/index.shtml.

Non-Internet Public Information

This Figure has been removed in accordance with the Commission regulations at 18 CFR Section 388.112. This Figure is considered Non-Internet Public information and should not be posted on the Internet. This information is provided in Volume 4 of the Application for New License and is identified as “Non-Internet Public” information. This information may be accessed from the FERC’s Public Reference Room, but is not expected to be posted on the Commission’s electronic library, except as an indexed item.

INTRODUCTION

FINAL TECHNICAL STUDY PLAN PACKAGE

The website also provides an up-to-date schedule and chronology of activities associated with the Big Creek ALP.

The ALP is being used for four projects in the BCS including Big Creek Nos. 1 & 2 (FERC No. 2175); Big Creek Nos. 2A, 8, & Eastwood (FERC No. 67); Big Creek No. 3 (FERC No. 120); and Mammoth Pool (FERC No. 2085). The Traditional Relicensing Process was selected for the remaining three projects: Big Creek No. 4 (FERC No. 2017); Vermilion Valley (FERC No. 2086); and Portal Powerhouse (FERC No. 2174). The traditional process is being used for these three licenses to meet earlier FERC regulatory deadlines required for submission of those new license applications. Table 1-1 presents a summary of SCE’s Big Creek Hydroelectric Projects.

Table 1-1 Southern California Edison’s Big Creek Hydroelectric Projects in the Upper San Joaquin River Basin

FERC PROJECT LICENSE EXHIBIT M GENERATOR PROJECT NAME NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE CAPACITY (MW) Big Creek No. 4 2017 February 28, 19991 100.00 Vermilion Valley 2086 August 31, 20032 --3 Portal Powerhouse 2174 March 31, 20054 10.80 Mammoth Pool 2085 November 30, 2007 190.00 Big Creek Nos. 1 & 2 2175 February 28, 2009 154.85 Big Creek Nos. 2A, 8, and 67 February 28, 2009 384.80 Eastwood Big Creek No. 3 120 February 28, 2009 174.45

1 Big Creek No. 4 is operating under an annual license. A license application prepared under the Traditional Relicensing Process was filed in 1997. 2 Vermilion Valley is in the Traditional Relicensing Process with the Application filed in August 2001. 3 The Vermilion Valley Project does not contain any generation. 4 Portal is in 2nd Stage Consultation of the Traditional Relicensing Process with technical studies currently being initiated.

FINAL TECHNICAL STUDY PLAN PACKAGE

SCE acknowledges that any settlement agreements and the subsequent Applicant Prepared Environmental Assessment (APEA) developed in the Big Creek ALP may also recommend, if appropriate, protection, mitigation and enhancement measures for the three licenses undergoing the Traditional Relicensing Process (Big Creek No. 4, Vermilion Valley, and Portal Powerhouse). If necessary, SCE will request that FERC amend these earlier licenses, to modify the protection, mitigation and enhancement terms and conditions consistent with any settlement agreements.

SCE’S BIG CREEK ALTERNATIVE LICENSING PROCESS

On December 9, 1999, SCE filed a formal request with FERC to use the ALP to relicense four hydroelectric projects in the BCS. The request followed extensive collaboration, input and support from many of the stakeholders regarding the appropriateness and design of the ALP and development of draft communication protocols. On March 15, 2000, the FERC approved SCE’s request to follow the ALP. A kick-off meeting of the Big Creek ALP was conducted in May 2000. Over the last 15 months, numerous collaborative meetings have been held, leading to the preparation and distribution of the FTSPP. The following provides an overview of the Big Creek ALP and specific activities conducted during the study development phase.

GOALS OF THE ALP APPROACH

The specific goals of the Big Creek ALP are to: • Combine into a single process the pre-filing consultation, the environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act, and administrative processes for all four projects; • Facilitate more effective participation by, and improve communication among, SCE, resource agencies, Native American tribes, local and regional authorities, private interests, the public and FERC staff in a flexible pre-filing consultation process; • Promote cooperative efforts between SCE and the stakeholders to share information about resource impacts and mitigation and enhancement proposals and to narrow any areas of disagreement and reach a comprehensive settlement; • Facilitate an expeditious review of any agreements or offers of settlement for use as a basis for protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures for new hydropower licenses; and • Allow for the preparation of an APEA by SCE with input from the stakeholders.

FINAL TECHNICAL STUDY PLAN PACKAGE

HOW THE ALP WILL TAKE PLACE

A schematic overview of the relicensing approach for the BCS under the approved ALP is provided in Figure 1-3. A schedule of key activities during the ALP is presented in Figure 1-4. The Big Creek ALP consists of six major elements including: 1. Formalization by the stakeholders of the collaborative process for the ALP (i.e., ground-rules, communication protocols, and dispute resolution) by July 2000; 2. Initiation of a Basin planning process (i.e., identification of management objectives, key resource issues, existing information, and data gaps) by March 2001; 3. Development, implementation and interpretation of integrated technical studies for project resources (i.e., formulation of study objectives, scopes of work, study schedules, analytical methods, data analyses, and presentations) by March 2003; 4. Development and prioritization of enhancement and mitigation measures (i.e., identification of resource management alternatives and evaluation of tradeoff opportunities) by December 2003; 5. Development and negotiation of a Final Comprehensive Resource Settlement Agreement supported by a consensus of the stakeholders and consistent with other associated regulatory processes (i.e., identification of terms and conditions for new licenses) by December 2004; and 6. Submittal of an APEA and license application for each of the licenses formally included in the ALP starting in November 2005, along with any appropriate requests for license amendments for other traditionally relicensed projects within the Basin.

STUDY PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

The final technical study plans, provided in Sections 2.0 through 6.0, are the culmination of input from 94 collaborative meetings/conference calls conducted between May 2000 and July 2001. During the last 15 months, the BCC has convened as a Plenary Group and as smaller Working Groups. The Plenary Group is the decision-making group of the BCC responsible for approval of the ALP structure and technical study plans and reports. The Plenary Group will ultimately negotiate and approve any Comprehensive Resource Settlement Agreements. The Working Groups were formed at the direction of the Plenary Group to provide technical support during the study development and implementation phases of the ALP. To date, five technical Working Groups have been established to assist in preparation of the FTSPP. These technical Working Groups are:

Final EIS Amended Big Creek License License Potential No. 4 Conditions Amendment Conditions 2000 March 2005

Mammoth Pool Application/ APEA Consistent w/ Settlement Nov. 2005

Final Settlement Agreement Dec. 2004 3-Big Creeks Application/APEA Consistent with Basin Planning Process Settlement Feb. 2000 - March 2001 February 2007

Obtain FERC Formalize ALP Approval for ALP New Technical Studies Nov. 1999-July Aug.1999 -Mar. March 2000 - March 2003 2000 Mammoth Pool 2000 Application/ APEA Nov. 2005 Develop Enhancement/Mitigation Measures June 2001 - Dec. 2003

No Settlement Agreement Dec. 2004 3-Big Creeks Application/APEA February 2007

Final EA Amended Vermilion License Application License Conditions License Traditional August 2001 Potential August 2003 Conditions Relicensing Amendment March 2005 Figure 1-4 Alternative Licensing Process Schedule

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Task Name H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2

Formalize ALP Process

Initiate Basin Planning Process

Conduct New Technical Studies

Development of Enhancement/Mitigation Measures Negotiate Comprehensive Resource Settlement Agreement

Public Outreach

Information Management Framework

License Applications/APEA Collaborative Process INTRODUCTION

FINAL TECHNICAL STUDY PLAN PACKAGE

• Combined Aquatics Working Group1 • Cultural Resources Working Group • Land Management Working Group • Recreation Working Group • Terrestrial Working Group A comprehensive record of all meetings including meeting dates, agendas, meeting notes, presentation materials, and formal correspondence is posted on SCE’s Hydro Relicensing Website.

During the study plan development phase, the Plenary Group had the primary responsibility for identifying resource interests in the BCS, defining the overall relicensing basin study boundaries, developing stakeholder management goals and objectives, and identifying those resources and locations potentially affected by the BCS (Project Nexus). The Working Groups developed, in an iterative process, specific study plans that incorporated the resource interests and stakeholder management goals and objectives provided by the Plenary Group. A total of 67 study plans were developed by the Working Groups consisting of 14 Combined Aquatics, five Cultural Resources, 11 Land Management, 22 Recreation, and 15 Terrestrial study plans, listed in Table 1-2.

STUDY PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS

The study plan approval process used by the BCC occurred in three steps. The first step was reaching consensus (“willing to live with”) within each Working Group that the draft technical study plans under their purview were approved for distribution to the Plenary and the public. The Draft Technical Study Plan Package (DTSPP) containing the technical study plans, as approved by the Working Groups, was distributed to the Plenary and the public for review and comment on May 17, 2001. The distribution list for the DTSSP is presented in Appendix A. The DTSPP was the culmination of 82 collaborative meetings/conference calls conducted between May 2000 and May 2001.

The second step in the study plan approval process was obtaining and responding to comments received from the Plenary and the public on the DTSSP. Interested parties had the opportunity to provide written and/or verbal comments on the DTSPP during the 30-day comment period that ended on June 16, 2001. The Plenary met on June 13 and 14, 2001 to review the study plans and discuss/resolve

1 This group was originally established as three working groups (Aquatic Group, Water Quality and Use Group, Geology Group) that early in the process were merged to form one group, the Combined Aquatics Working Group (CAWG).

FINAL TECHNICAL STUDY PLAN PACKAGE

Table 1-2 List of Draft Technical Study Plans

COMBINED AQUATICS CAWG-1 Characterize Stream and Reservoir Habitats CAWG-2 Geomorphology CAWG-3 Determine Flow-Related Physical Habitat in Bypass Reaches CAWG-4 Chemical Water Quality CAWG-5 Water Temperature CAWG-6 Hydrology CAWG-7 Characterize Fish Populations CAWG-8 Amphibians and Reptiles CAWG-9 Entrainment CAWG-10 Macroinvertebrates CAWG-11 Riparian CAWG-12 Water Use CAWG-13 Anadromous Salmonids CAWG-14 Fish Passage CULTURAL RESOURCES CUL-1 Prehistoric Cultural Resources CUL-2 Historic Era (pre-1954) Cultural Resources CUL-3 Native American Places of Cultural Concern CUL-4 Curation of Archeological Collections and Historic Records CUL-5 Public Involvement in Historic Preservation LAND MANAGEMENT LAND-1 SCE Land Management Plan Assessment LAND-2 Multiple Use Opportunity Assessment LAND-3 Cumulative Effects Analysis LAND-4 Fire Prevention and Protection Adequacy Evaluation LAND-5 Storage Capacity and Generation Assessment LAND-6 Traffic/Circulation Study LAND-7 Special Use Authorization Assessment LAND-8 Facility Use Assessment LAND-9 Visual Quality Assessment LAND-10 Air Quality Assessment LAND-11 Volcanic and Seismic Assessment

FINAL TECHNICAL STUDY PLAN PACKAGE

Table 1-2 List of Draft Technical Study Plans (cont.)

RECREATIONAL RESOURCES REC-1 Flow Information Feasibility Study REC-2 Manage Spill-Event Feasibility Study REC-3 Whitewater Recreation Assessment Study REC-4 Whitewater Play-Site Feasibility Study REC-5 Reconnaissance Stream Corridor Recreation Assessment REC-6 Fisheries Habitat Evaluation REC-7 Fish Hatchery and Fish Stocking Evaluation REC-8 Angling Opportunities and Experience Assessment REC-9 Recreation Resources and Facility Inventory Assessment REC-10 Recreation Opportunities and Needs Assessment REC-11 Compliance with ADA Assessment REC-12 Hunting REC-13 Reservoir Access/Facility Assessment REC-14 Concessionaire Contracts Evaluation REC-15 Reservoir Recreation Water-Surface Elevation Study REC-16 Emergency Services Evaluation REC-17 Dispersed Recreation Opportunities and Needs Assessment REC-18 Use by Disadvantaged, Handicapped, and Minority Persons Assessment REC-19 Information and Interpretive Opportunities and Needs Assessment REC-20 Trails (Spring, Summer and Fall, Non-snow season) REC-21 Winter Recreation REC-22 Wilderness Areas TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES TERR-1 Vegetation Communities TERR-2 Invasive/Exotic Plant Species TERR-3 Special-Status Plant Populations TERR-4 Native American Plants TERR-5 Common and Special-Status Wildlife Species TERR-6 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle TERR-7 Migratory Waterfowl TERR-8 Raptors TERR-9 Bald Eagle and Osprey TERR-10 Great Gray Owl TERR-11 Riparian-Nesting Songbirds TERR-12 Special-Status Bat Species TERR-13 Mesocarnivores TERR-14 Mule Deer TERR-15 Other Game

FINAL TECHNICAL STUDY PLAN PACKAGE comments on the DTSPP. Written comments from five organizations were received by SCE on the DTSSP including USFS, USFWS, Sierra Forest Products, Aerie Preserve, and North Fork Rancheria. A copy of each comment letter received is presented in Appendix B.

During the comment period, a public meeting was held on June 13, 2001 in Fresno, California to provide interested parties with an overview of the study plans and to receive verbal comments. The public meeting was officially noticed in the Fresno Bee and Mountain Times on May 22 and 23, 2001, respectively. SCE’s website and quarterly Big Creek Relicensing Newsletter also provided additional notification of the public meeting. A total of eight participants provided verbal comments on the DTSPP during the public meeting. A complete transcript of the public meeting is posted on SCE’s Hydro Relicensing Website at: http://www.sce.com/bigcreek/index.shtml.

All written and verbal comments received on the DTSPP were summarized in tabular format. A draft response to each comment received was prepared by ENTRIX and distributed to the Plenary and Working Groups on July 2, 2001 for review. The Working Groups then met individually between July 2 and July 11, 2001 to review, revise, and approve the responses to comments. A summary of the written and verbal comments received on the DTSPP and approved responses are provided in Appendix C and Appendix D, respectively. In addition, the Working Groups reviewed and revised, as needed, the study plans to reflect the responses to comments. A total of 11 collaborative meetings (Plenary, public, and Working Group) were conducted in June and July 2001 to receive and address comments on the DTSPP.

The third step in the study plan approval process was obtaining the Plenary approval of the FTSPP. On July 12, 2001, the Working Groups met with the Plenary and recommended that the response to comments and revised study plans be approved. The Plenary approved both the response to comments and revised study plans at the July 12, 2001 meeting. Sections 2.0 through 6.0 of this document present the final Plenary-approved study plans for the Big Creek ALP (FERC Project Nos. 67, 120, 2085, and 2175).

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOALS & OBJECTIVES APPROVAL PROCESS

The development of stakeholder management goals and objectives for the relicensing of SCE’s BCS occurred in two steps. The first of these steps occurred early in the BCC (July 2000). Stakeholders participating in Plenary meetings were asked to provide interest-based management goals and objectives relevant to the relicensing of the BCS to the Plenary Group. Each stakeholder provided their initial input to the Plenary Group with the understanding that their management goals and

FINAL TECHNICAL STUDY PLAN PACKAGE objectives may be modified during the process to reflect changes in their organizations’ directives or as new information becomes available on resources in the BCS.

In the context of the Big Creek relicensing collaborative process, stakeholder goals represent “high-level” or strategic principles that reflect the resource interests of the stakeholder’s organization. These resource goals may have a broader or more regional scope than the Big Creek relicensing. In contrast, stakeholder management objectives identify more specific statements or resource outcomes that support the stakeholder goals, especially in the context of the Big Creek relicensing basin. Stakeholder objectives provide an important link between the goals of a stakeholder organization and the identification of information needed to assist in determining whether the goals are being met or what mitigation measures may be needed to better meet those goals.

The interest-based stakeholder management goals and objectives provided by the Plenary participants represented an initial effort by the parties to communicate and better understand the diverse and conflicting interests involved in relicensing of hydroelectric projects, not to challenge or resolve differences. Therefore, the initial stakeholder management goals represent only individual organization’s interests; the Plenary Group has not been asked to approve or endorse these initial stakeholder management goals or objectives.

The initial interest-based stakeholder goals and objectives provided to the Plenary Group are available for review on SCE’s Hydro Relicensing Website. The management goals and objectives provided on the website are organized by stakeholder organization. Updates to these interest-based stakeholder management goals and objectives can be tracked on the website.

The second step in the development of the stakeholder management goals and objectives for the BCC occurred during development of the draft technical study plans. A synthesized version of the stakeholder management goals and objectives was developed by ENTRIX prior to distribution of the draft study plans to the technical working groups. The synthesized version was developed by organizing, integrating, and consolidating similar stakeholder management goals and objectives presented by different organizations. Many of the individual stakeholder management goals and objectives provided by the BCC participants were similar in nature and protective of the same resource interests. Therefore, similar goals and objectives were identified, reviewed, and integrated into a single common goal or objective. The synthesized stakeholder goals and objectives were provided to the Plenary Group for review and approval, whereupon the Plenary Group agreed that their interests, as presented to date, were substantially captured in the synthesized version. The synthesized version of stakeholder management goals and objectives was intended to complement, not replace, the initial stakeholder management goals

FINAL TECHNICAL STUDY PLAN PACKAGE and objectives developed by each organization. Further, Plenary approval of the synthesized version did not imply that members of the Plenary agree with each of the goals and objectives; conflicting goals and objectives and strong disagreement between Plenary members are still present. The Plenary-approved synthesized stakeholder management goals and objectives were provided to the technical Working Groups after the November 8, 2000 Plenary Group meeting.

During the development of the draft technical study plans, the technical Working Groups reviewed and revised the synthesized stakeholder management goals and objectives. Most of the early modifications to the synthesized stakeholder management goals and objectives in the Working Groups were focused on clarifying the technical context or intent of the goals or objectives. However, during the latter stages of draft study plan development, new stakeholder management goals and objectives were provided directly to the Working Groups from several organizations: the United States Forest Service (USFS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and SCE. This presented the Working Groups with additional stakeholder management goals and objectives to be incorporated into the study plans. Adding these goals and objectives would have required additional integration with those already present. In the case of the NMFS management goals and objectives these were submitted for an anadromous fish plan that had not yet been prepared. The NMFS goals and other relevant goals and objectives were synthesized into that study plan which was subsequently approved by the Working Group. Several organizations also suggested additional edits to the synthesized management goals and objectives after the Working Groups had approved the study plans.

The BCC Plenary Group released the DTSPP for public comment, with inclusion of these recent additions and edits to the stakeholder management goals and objectives. However, these new stakeholder management goals and objectives and suggested edits are distinguished from the Plenary-approved synthesized version. The new individual stakeholder management goals and objectives and suggested edits are shaded and contain edit marks (underlined text denotes text proposed to be added and strikeout text represents text proposed for deletion). Each new edit to the goals and objectives is attributed to the stakeholder organization that provided the edit. In the FTSPP, the additional stakeholder management goals and objectives and suggested edits are still distinguished from the Plenary approved synthesized version.

UPCOMING PLENARY GROUP ACTIVITIES/DECISIONS

STUDY IMPLEMENTATION PHASE

The FTSSP will be used to focus and direct the technical studies deemed necessary by the BCC to gather information used to assess the environmental effects of relicensing SCE’s Big Creek Hydroelectric Projects and to identify potential protection, mitigation and enhancement measures. The study implementation phase

FINAL TECHNICAL STUDY PLAN PACKAGE of the Big Creek ALP is scheduled for completion in March 2003. Both the Plenary and Working Groups will remain active during the study implementation phase including providing technical input, participating in field activities, reviewing preliminary study results, identifying additional data needs, and reviewing/approving technical study reports.

Please forward any questions you may have in writing to Ms. Carla Anthony, at the address shown below.

Ms. Carla Anthony, Relicensing Coordinator Southern California Edison Northern Hydro Regional Office P.O. Box 100 Big Creek, California 93605

SCE and the BCC welcome your participation in this process.

COMBINED AQUATICS STUDY PLANS COMBINED AQUATICS STUDY PLANS TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

CAWG – 1 CHARACTERIZE STREAM AND RESERVOIR HABITATS ...... 2-1 CAWG – 2 GEOMORPHOLOGY...... 2-17 CAWG – 3 DETERMINE FLOW-RELATED PHYSICAL HABITAT IN BYPASS REACHES...... 2-35 CAWG – 4 CHEMICAL WATER QUALITY ...... 2-51 CAWG – 5 WATER TEMPERATURE ...... 2-63 CAWG – 6 HYDROLOGY...... 2-75 CAWG – 7 CHARACTERIZE FISH POPULATIONS...... 2-81 CAWG – 8 AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES...... 2-95 CAWG – 9 ENTRAINMENT ...... 2-103 CAWG – 10 MACROINVERTEBRATES ...... 2-111 CAWG – 11 RIPARIAN...... 2-119 CAWG – 12 WATER USE ...... 2-125 CAWG – 13 ANADROMOUS SALMONIDS...... 2-131 CAWG – 14 FISH PASSAGE ...... 2-139

RESOURCE INTERESTS:

Fisheries, Trout/Native Trout, Native Transition Zone Fish Community, Habitat

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S): 1. Protect special-status fish. 2. Conserve, protect and/or enhance/restore trout populations. 3. Protect and enhance the native transition zone fish community. 4. Manage sediment to maintain or restore instream aquatic habitats, riparian habitat, and water quality. 5. Manage instream large woody debris for fish habitat enhancement. 6. Enhance low quality aquatic habitat. 7. Maintain and restore water quality to meet goals of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, providing water that is fishable, swimmable, and suitable for drinking after normal treatment. [USFS] 8. Maintain and restore habitat to support viable populations of native and desired non-native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. Prevent new introductions of invasive species. Where invasive species are adversely affecting the viability of native species, work cooperatively with appropriate State and Federal wildlife agencies to reduce impacts to native populations. [USFS] 9. Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant and animal communities in riparian areas, wetlands, and meadows to provide desired habitats and ecological functions. [USFS] 10. Maintain and restore the distribution and health of biotic communities in special aquatic habitats (such as springs, seeps, vernal pools, fens, bogs, and marshes) to perpetuate their unique functions and biological diversity. [USFS] 11. Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity for aquatic and riparian species within and between watersheds to provide physically, chemically and biologically unobstructed movement for their survival, migration and reproduction. [USFS] 12. Maintain and restore the connections of floodplains, channels, and water tables to distribute flood flows and sustain diverse habitats. [USFS] 13. Maintain and restore soils with favorable infiltration characteristics and diverse vegetative cover to absorb and filter precipitation and to sustain favorable conditions of stream flows. [USFS]

14. Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to sustain desired conditions of riparian, aquatic, wetland, and meadow habitats and keep sediment regimes as close as possible to those with which aquatic and riparian biota evolved. [USFS] 15. Maintain and restore the physical structure and condition of stream banks and shorelines to minimize erosion and sustain desired habitat diversity. [USFS] STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S): 1. Preferentially manage habitat for Forest Service sensitive fish in Project waters. 2. Protect and preserve the physical integrity of the aquatic, riparian, and wetland habitats within and adjacent to the bypass reaches. 3. Maintain habitat conditions and flows favorable to the native transition zone community. 4. Maintain hydrological, geomorphological, sediment transport, and riparian conditions that provide favorable physical habitat conditions to support the native transition zone community. 5. Manage Project flow releases, reservoir sediment releases, and erosion from Project facilities to protect and enhance aquatic habitats, riparian habitats, and water quality. 6. Maintain large woody debris and their transport within Project waters. 7. Enhance low quality habitat that has the potential for improvement in Project waters. 8. Maintain or restore: (1) the geomorphic and biological characteristics of special aquatic features, including lakes, meadows, bogs, fens, wetlands, vernal pools, springs; (2) streams, including in-stream flows; and (3) hydrologic connectivity both within and between watersheds to provide for the habitat needs of aquatic-dependent species. [USFS] 9. Ensure a renewable supply of large down logs that: (1) can reach the stream channel; and (2) provide suitable habitat within and adjacent to the Riparian Conservation Area (RCA). [USFS] 10. Ensure that management activities, including fuels reduction actions, within RCAs and Critical Aquatic Refuges (CAR) enhance or maintain physical and biological characteristics associated with aquatic- and riparian-dependent species. [USFS] 11. Preserve, restore, or enhance special aquatic features, such as meadows, lakes, ponds, bogs, fens, and wetlands, to provide the ecological conditions and processes needed to recover or enhance the viability of species that rely on these areas. [USFS]

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Stream and reservoir habitat characterization for aquatic organisms including: 1. Determine existing habitats in Project bypass reaches by habitat mapping. 2. Determine existing channel types in Project bypass reaches (Level 1 field evaluation, Rosgen 1996). 3. Characterize existing habitat in Project reservoirs from morphometry and area-capacity curves. 4. Characterize the effect of water levels on available aquatic habitat in Project reservoirs. 5. Characterize the effect of water levels on fish passage from Project reservoirs to tributaries. 6. Determine sediment conditions for aquatic organisms during habitat mapping. 7. Determine substrate size class. 8. Evaluate spawning habitat during habitat mapping. 9. Evaluate fines that may affect habitat use during habitat mapping. 10. Characterize substrate composition. 11. Determine other channel conditions during habitat mapping. 12. Determine the presence of woody debris during habitat mapping. 13. Determine riparian conditions and shade during habitat mapping. 14. Characterize riparian community during habitat mapping. 15. Identify passage barriers in bypass reaches during habitat mapping. 16. Characterize the effect of water levels on fish passage between small tributaries and reservoirs, and/or bypass reaches. PROJECT NEXUS:

Physical habitat and its attributes may be changed by the presence of diversions and reservoirs. Alterations of flows may alter the processes that create and maintain habitat and habitat conditions. Sediment conditions may be affected by these structures and operations. Riparian conditions including vegetation and the presence of woody debris also may be affected.

GENERAL APPROACH:

INITIAL INFORMATION GATHERING STREAM HABITAT

Stream habitat mapping was carried out during 2000 as part of the Initial Information Gathering (IIG) activities. The principal purpose of this activity was to collect information that would provide a broad overview of fish habitat conditions in the Project Area and would facilitate the planning of subsequent sampling activities. The approach was to obtain as much of the needed information on the ground as feasible rather than rely on maps, aerial photography, or other data sources. The major elements of the approach are identified below.

· Rosgen channel typing-Level I was applied to Project streams. Channel types were evaluated using criteria developed by Rosgen (1996). Channel types are identified by slope, shape and pattern. The shape, slope and pattern of streams can be obtained by using aerial photography and existing inventories of geology, landform evolution, valley morphology, depositional history and associated river slopes. Channel slope measurements were made in the field to reduce reliance on maps and photographs. · Mesohabitat typing (Hawkins et al. 1993 and McCain et al. 1990) was performed. Aquatic habitat typing was performed using the approaches of Hawkins et al. (1993) and USFS R-5’s Fish Habitat Relationships Technical Bulletin (McCain et al. 1990). In general, mesohabitat is the stream channel structure aquatic organisms might use for shelter, feeding, spawning, rearing or other activity. The relative abundance and distribution of the types of structures can be linked to the particular geomorphology of the stream channel. · Substrate including the presence of fines and spawning substrate, pool depth, riparian vegetation, and woody debris was characterized and recorded. Potential passage barriers were identified and located in the field. · Riparian vegetation communities along bypass reaches was characterized primarily as components of habitat for aquatic organisms, this information will need to be supplemented by a combination of aerial photography and partial ground-truthing (CAWG-11). · Spatial referencing of data collections was performed using GPS and hipchain distances between measured coordinates on each stream reach. · The data will be analyzed and a spatial representation will be provided. The data will be stored in a database and a GIS representation of the results will be produced. A tabular representation of the streams and their reaches will be provided to prioritize study areas. Habitat and stream channel data will allow us to extrapolate additional fish habitat and fish population and distribution information for streams in the Project area. · CAWG will review the information collected to identify the need for any supplemental data collection.

RESERVOIR HABITAT

Reservoir habitat data are proposed to be collected to characterize conditions for fish and other aquatic organisms in Project reservoirs. Collection of reservoir habitat data was not part of the IIG data collection. The main elements of reservoir habitat collection are identified below. · Reservoir morphometry will be determined from bathymetric surveys. · Reservoir substrate will be characterized at low lake elevations by observation. If necessary substrates of deeper areas will be characterized using video or by sampling. · Available habitat in Project reservoirs will be evaluated based on area-capacity curves and reservoir morphometry.

· The effect of Project reservoir operations on reservoir habitat will be evaluated based on evaluating the effect of changing reservoir water levels on available habitat. · The effect of water levels on passage from Project reservoirs to tributary streams will be assessed based on data collected during field reconnaissance, operational data, and reservoir morphology.

METHODOLOGY:

HABITAT AND CHANNEL TYPING

Project streams were evaluated in the field using Level I Rosgen (1996) channel typing with supplemental data collection. Ground surveys were used to assign a Rosgen channel type (A through G) based on a visual assessment of the stream channel. Channel types, according to Rosgen, are identified by slope, shape and pattern. The shape, slope and pattern of streams can be obtained by using aerial photography and existing inventories of geology, landform evolution, valley morphology, depositional history and associated river slopes. Channel shape describes the cross-sectional profile of the steam channel (narrow and deep versus wide and shallow), and was described from ground surveys. Slope is the gradient of the stream channel and was measured in two ways. First, the overall gradient for a stream reach or segment was measured from topographic maps (USGS 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale). Second, the average gradient for individual aquatic habitats units was approximated from ground surveys using a clinometer and stadia rod. Channel pattern describes the course of the stream channel. The channel pattern can be described as single or multiple thread and sinuous. The sinuosity of a stream segment or reach was characterized from the USGS topographic maps and aerial photographs. It was determined by measuring the course of the stream channel and dividing it by the straight (aerial) distance of the stream (a sinuosity with a measurement of “one” would therefore be a straight stream channel).

During stream surveys, mesohabitat typing was performed following the procedures and criteria of Hawkins et al. (1993) and McCain et al. 1990. In general, mesohabitat units represent the basic stream channel structure that aquatic organisms use for shelter, feeding, spawning, rearing or other activities. Hawkins et al. (1993) outlines a hierarchy for types of aquatic habitats (Appendix A). First, the aquatic habitats are divided into fast and slow water types. Second, the fast water types are grouped into turbulent or non-turbulent types. Slow water types are further grouped into dammed pool or scour pool types. The next level of habitat typing uses the USFS Fish Habitat Relationships Technical Bulletin (McCain et al. 1990) (Appendix A). McCain et al. (1990) outlined procedures to inventory fish habitat using riffle, run and pool habitats as the three primary categories of habitat found in stream channels. Riffle and run habitats fall into the turbulent and non-turbulent categories described by Hawkins et al. Pool habitats are described by their position and cause of their formation; they are either dammed pool habitats or scour pool habitats. Habitat types were classified in the

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 2-5 Combined Aquatics CAWG – 1 Characterize Stream and Reservoir Habitats field according to both classification schemes. Habitat lengths and widths were measured to the nearest foot using a hip-chain for length and a stadia rod or tape for widths. The mean and maximum depth of each habitat type was measured to the nearest 0.1 feet with a stadia rod for depth of less than 20 feet. For depths in excess of 20 feet, a hand held depth finder was used.

During the habitat mapping surveys the stream channel substrate was characterized and recorded by the field team. The two most abundant class sizes of surficial substrate was visually estimated to the nearest ten percent. Streambed substrate classes are grouped as follows: 1. fines (silt/clay), <0.062 mm; 2. sands, 0.062 - 2 mm; 3. gravels, 2 - 64 mm; 4. cobbles, 64 - 256 mm; 5. boulders, 256 - 4096 mm; or 6. bedrock.

A sand card was carried by each field team to aid in the classification of sand and fine materials.

The presence of fines and spawning substrate, riparian vegetation, canopy and large woody debris were recorded on datasheets. Fines were measured as one of the substrate classes.

Spawning gravel is measured as the estimated amount (square feet) of spawning- sized gravel (0.25-3.0 inches diameter, adapted from Bjornn and Reiser (1991)) occurring in each habitat. In addition, habitat areas with spawning gravel are assigned a “Spawning Quality” score of “Poor, Fair, Good, or Excellent.” The score was based primarily on substrate composition, since much of the mapping was conducted during the summer and fall months when streamflow was lowest. The quality of spawning gravel was characterized based on the angularity of the gravels and embeddedness. Gravels of higher suitability for use by spawning trout are highly rounded. Gravel that is more angular is considered of lower quality for spawning. Generally, a “Good” or “Excellent” score was assigned to rounded spawning gravels with little sand and fines present and low embeddedness. Spawning gravels with high embeddedness and high proportion of sand received a “Fair” or “Poor” score, regardless of angularity. The scoring criteria are presented in Table CAWG 1-1.

Stream bank erodability was visually estimated in one of four categories: zero, low, medium or high. A score is assigned to the stream banks of each habitat. Zero is typically assigned to stream banks, which have very low erodability, such as bedrock. Low and medium scores are assigned to stream banks, which have good bank structures, such as an intact riparian zone or boulder/cobble dominated bank. High scores are assigned to stream banks that are very unstable, such as sand dominated stream banks.

Table CAWG 1-1 Description of Spawning Gravel Quality

SPAWNING QUALITY DESCRIPTION OF SUBSTRATE Excellent Round-shaped spawning gravels loose in substrate.

Good Round-shaped spawning gravels slightly embedded in substrate or moderately jagged-shaped spawning gravels loose in substrate. Fair Round-shaped spawning gravels embedded in substrate or moderately jagged-shaped spawning gravels slightly embedded in substrate. Poor Round or jagged-shaped gravels deeply embedded in substrate.

Riparian vegetation was described by the dominant vegetation covering the stream banks. Vegetative groups included no vegetation, grasses, shrubs, deciduous trees, coniferous trees, and mixed trees. Stream bank vegetation was characterized by the percentage category of stream bank covered by vegetation. The categories recorded were: zero, 1-25, 25-50, 50-75, and 75-100 percent. Canopy was measured to the nearest 10 percent using a spherical densiometer. Riparian vegetation communities along Project bypass reaches and streams will be further characterized as part of CAWG-11 from a combination of aerial photography and ground-truthing. Data obtained from ground surveys will be used to assist in characterizing the riparian vegetation communities observed in aerial photographs. When this information becomes available it will be added to the habitat database.

Large woody debris was counted in each stream habitat unit. The number recorded included total pieces of wood in or intersecting the active stream channel with a diameter of six inches or greater. Wood was counted if approximately 33 percent or greater of the total length of the wood was situated within the stream channel. In the case of debris jams or other accumulations of wood, all pieces of wood meeting the criteria were counted and included.

Potential fish passage barriers were visually assessed and characterized by experienced fish biologists. These included culverts, road crossings, debris jams, cascades, bedrock sheets, shallow riffles, and dewatered areas, among others. Photographs were taken and spatial coordinates collected using GPS for each of the barriers identified during the ground surveys.

Crews also identified the location of prominent features, such as tributaries, gaging stations, diversions, recreational facilities and other facilities with GPS coordinates.

The data collected from the habitat mapping surveys and channel typing are stored in a database and a GIS representation of the results will be produced. The database also will be used to produce a tabular summary of existing habitats by stream reach. The database output will provide detailed information on the

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 2-7 Combined Aquatics CAWG – 1 Characterize Stream and Reservoir Habitats aquatic habitat in Project streams. The analyzed data will also prioritize areas for protection, mitigation, enhancement, or further evaluation.

RESERVOIR HABITAT

Available habitat in Project reservoirs will be evaluated based on area-capacity curves and reservoir morphometry. The reservoir morphometry will be determined from aerial photographs and a bathymetric map of the reservoir. Surface dimensions for each reservoir will include maximum length, average breadth, surface area, length of shoreline and shoreline development index. Subsurface dimensions such as maximum depth, mean depth, and volume will be calculated from area-capacity curves and a bathymetric map for the reservoir.

For each major Project reservoir, a bathymetric survey will be conducted using a digital echosounder and GPS combination. Information collected from these surveys will be entered into GIS for production of maps and calculation of areas at different elevations. Reservoir substrates will be characterized at low lake elevations and by underwater video or grab samples in deeper locations. These and additional reservoir habitat data, described below, also will be added to the GIS. Some of the habitat parameters will be characterized from the GIS.

Each reservoir will be characterized by the shoreline steepness, near shore substrate, the presence of aquatic vegetation, and the presence of potential habitat structure. Shoreline steepness will be measured from reservoir morphometry and bathymetry. Nearshore substrate, the presence of aquatic vegetation, and the presence of potential habitat structure will be measured from reservoir surveys.

Habitat will be characterized for every one-meter elevation band within the normal operating range of the reservoir and every three-meter band below the normal operating range for different reservoir elevations. Reservoir habitat will be determined from reservoir morphometry. At each reservoir elevation the volume and areal extent of each band will be characterized to show the availability of habitat within the band. Each band represents different habitat available to different aquatic species and lifestages of aquatic organisms. The available habitat for each band will be compared to normal reservoir operations to determine the affect on different lifestages of fishes and other aquatic species. The amount of habitat change between different reservoir elevations can be used as an index of habitat quantity and of the project’s affects on this habitat.

We will also evaluate how changes in reservoir elevation will affect the amount and quality of protected shoreline habitats, such as coves. These protected areas have been found to have higher abundance of centrarchid fry than open shorelines (Meals and Miranda 1991, Nack et al. 1993).

The effect of water levels on passage from Project reservoirs to tributary streams will be assessed based on data collected during field reconnaissance, operational data, and reservoir morphology (also discussed in CAWG-14 Fish Passage).

Tributaries used by stream spawning fish will be identified in each reservoir. The reservoir elevation(s) that provide access to the stream will be determined from field surveys and reservoir morphometry during low reservoir elevations. In addition, each tributary stream will be surveyed to determine the reservoir elevation at which passage into the stream is limited.

Limnological conditions including physical properties and water quality also define the habitat of reservoirs (Busch and Sly 1992). Thermal stratification of lakes affects the quality of habitat for fish. The presence of stratification can facilitate the coexistence of both warm and cold water fish species by thermal partitioning of the lake environment. Temperature stratification also affects productivity and dissolved oxygen concentration. Temperature profiles of the Project reservoirs will be collected in conjunction with the Water Temperature (CAWG-5) and Chemical Water Quality Tasks (CAWG-4), as will profiles of other parameters including specific conductance. Transparency of waters also affects productivity and habitat. Transparency also will be measured in conjunction with these programs. The contribution of these limnological parameters will be included in the assessment of reservoir habitat.

STUDY AREA:

Streams and river segments that are included in this study plan are presented in Table CAWG 1-2. The streams that have been completed are marked with a C. Partially completed streams are marked P. Some stretches of stream reaches within the South Fork San Joaquin River occur in the Wilderness area and are extremely inaccessible and pose surveying safety concerns. Without aerial access, mapping of these may need to be completed from aerial photographs and relatively low-level overflights.

Reservoirs that are included in the reservoir habitat evaluation are listed in Table CAWG 1-3. The reservoirs proposed for evaluation of available habitat are those larger reservoirs that contain appreciable storage.

ANALYSIS:

Data collected during habitat mapping will be summarized and entered into a database. The database will contain all the information collected during the entire habitat characterization field program. Standard reports will be designed to provide tabular summaries of habitat types, channel types, substrate information, woody debris information, vegetation conditions, and pool depths by stream. Habitat data may also be summarized by stream segments, channel type within a stream segment and by habitat type. In addition to tabular data summaries, plots such as pie charts of habitat or channel composition also will be developed from the database. Spatial coordinates recorded with habitat mapping data also will be stored in the database. The database will be programmed to allow export of spatial information to a GIS system, such as ArcView or Arc/Info.

Table CAWG 1-2 Streams to be Habitat Mapped

SOUTH FORK SAN JOAQUIN RIVER INVENTORY YEAR Tombstone Creek C 2000 South Slide Creek C 2000 North Slide Creek C 2000 Hooper Creek C 2000 Crater Creek C 2000 Bear Creek C 2000 Chinquapin Creek C 2000 Camp 62 Creek C 2000 Bolsillo Creek C 2000 Camp 61 Creek C 2000 Cold Creek C 2000 Mono Creek (above Lake Edison) C 2000 Mono Creek (Vermilion Valley Dam to Mono Div. Forebay) C 2000 Mono Creek (Div. Forebay to San Joaquin River) C 2000 Warm Creek C 2000 SF San Joaquin River P 2000 Boggy Meadow Creek P 2000 Adit #2 Seepage (below Portal Forebay) C 2000 MAMMOTH REACH Rock Creek C 2000 Ross Creek C 2000 San Joaquin River (Mammoth Pool Dam to PH) C 2000 BIG CREEK REACH Rancheria Creek C 2000 Tributary to Big Creek C 2000 Big Creek (Dam 1 to PH 1) P 19971 Big Creek (Dam 4 to PH 2) C 19971 Big Creek (Dam 5 to PH 8) P 19971 Pitman Creek C 2000 Balsam Creek (Dam to Low. Div. Forebay) C 2000 Balsam Creek (Lower Div. Forebay to Big Creek) C 2000 Ely Creek C 2000 STEVENSON CREEK/STEVENSON REACH NF Stevenson Creek C 2000 Stevenson Creek (Shaver Lake to San Joaquin River) C 19971 SJR Stevenson Reach (Dam 6 to PH 3) P 2000 SJR Horseshoe Bend (Dam 7 to PH 4) C 1997 C – Complete P – Partial 1 To be supplemented

Table CAWG 1-3 Project Impoundments and Reservoirs to be Characterized

SURFACE CAPACITY LARGE DAMS WITH STORAGE ELEVATION (FT) (ACRE-FEET) Florence Lake Dam & Reservoir 7,329 64,406 Vermilion Valley Dam & Lake Thomas A. Edison 7,651 125,035 Huntington Lake Dams 1, 2, 3, 3a, & Reservoir 6,954 89,166 Shaver Lake Dam & Reservoir 5,371 135,568 Mammoth Pool Dam & Reservoir 3,361 123,000 Dam 7 & Redinger Lake Reservoir 1,414 26,119 MODERATE DIVERSION DAMS - SMALL IMPOUNDMENT Bear Creek Diversion Dam & Forebay 7,350 N/A Mono Creek Diversion Dam & Forebay 7,350 47 Portal Dam & Forebay 7,185 300 Balsam Dam & Forebay 6,675 1,547 Big Creek Dam 4 & Forebay 4,805 60 Big Creek Dam 5 & Forebay 2,950 49 San Joaquin River Dam 6 & Forebay 2,250 99 SMALL DIVERSIONS – MINIMAL OR NO IMPOUNDMENT Tombstone Creek Diversion 7,673 N/A North Slide Creek Diversion 7,520 N/A South Slide Creek Diversion 7,560 N/A Hooper Creek Diversion 7,505 3 Crater Creek Diversion 8,765 N/A Chinquapin Creek Diversion 7,273 N/A Camp 62 Creek Diversion 7,257 N/A Bolsillo Creek Diversion 7,535 N/A Warm Creek Diversion 8,004 N/A Rock Creek Diversion 3,336 N/A Ross Creek Diversion 3,359 N/A Pitman Creek Diversion 6,998 N/A Balsam Creek Diversion 4,881 N/A Ely Creek Diversion 4,845 N/A Habitat units within the database will be indexed for selection of sampling sites for fish, macroinvertebrate or instream flow studies. In combination with the GIS system, this will allow mapping of potential sites for these programs.

Reservoir morphometry will be entered into the GIS system for mapping, display of habitat information, and calculation of certain habitat characteristics. Operations information will be used with the GIS system to evaluate habitat availability at different depths and seasonally. Information on reservoir habitat availability also will be stored in the project database. For each reservoir, habitat area by band of

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 2-11 Combined Aquatics CAWG – 1 Characterize Stream and Reservoir Habitats elevation will be characterized. This will facilitate the analysis of the effects of changes in lake elevation on available habitat. Plots of habitat area and habitat volume vs. elevation will be prepared for each species and lifestage of interest and included in the Habitat Characterization Report.

A report on habitat and channel conditions in the Big Creek Project area will be prepared. The report will summarize conditions observed during stream habitat mapping. The report will also address reservoir habitat separately. Reservoir habitats will be characterized in terms relevant to the reservoir dwelling species. In Shaver Lake, available habitat and habitat conditions will be addressed for bass, as well as salmonids. In Lake Thomas A. Edison, Huntington Lake, Mammoth Pool, and Florence Lake the focus will be on salmonids.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

· The habitat characterization study provides much of the information used in describing the Project Area, as such, the information developed will be made available for use in: Geomorphology (CAWG-2), Determine Flow-Related Physical Habitat in Bypass Reaches (CAWG-3), Characterize Fish Populations (CAWG-7), Amphibians and Reptiles (CAWG-8), Macroinvertebrates (CAWG- 10), Riparian (CAWG-11), and Angling Opportunities and Experience Assessment (REC-8). · Reservoir studies will need to be coordinated with Water Use (CAWG-12). Information collected on reservoir habitat and bathymetry will be used by Geomorphology (CAWG-2), Entrainment (CAWG-9), and Angling Opportunities and Experience Assessment (REC-8). · The assessment of fish passage barriers will be coordinated with the Fish Passage study (CAWG-14), information collected in CAWG-1 will be used in CAWG-14. SCHEDULE:

Much of the stream habitat mapping was completed during 2000. Some additional work will be needed to complete that work in 2001. Reservoir habitat characterization will take place during 2001 - 2002.

REFERENCES:

Busch, W-D., and Sly, P. G., Editors. 1992. The Development of an Aquatic Habitat Classification for Lakes. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Fl.

Hawkins, C. P., J. L. Kershner, P. A. Bisson, M. D. Bryant, L. M. Decker, S. V. Gregory, D. A. McCullough, C. K. Overton, G. H. Reeves, R. J. Steedman, and M. K. Young. 1993. A hierarchical approach to classifying habitats in small streams. Fisheries. 18(6): 3-12.

McCain, M., D. Fuller, L. Decker, and K. Overton. 1990. Stream habitat classification and inventory procedures for northern California. FHR Currents: R-5’s fish habitat relationships technical bulletin. No. 1. US Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Arcata, CA.

Meals, K. and L. Miranda. 1991. Variability in abundance of age-0+ centrarchids among littoral habitats of flood reservoirs in Mississippi. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 11:298-304.

Nack, S., D. Brunnell, D. Green and J. Forney. 1993. Spawning and nursery habitats of largemouth bass in the tidal Hudson River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 12:208-216.

Rosgen, D. L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO.

Appendix CAWG 1-A

Table CAWG 1-A1 Habitat Types and Codes Adapted from McCain et al. (1990)

RIFFLE Low Gradient Riffle LGR High Gradient Riffle HGR CASCADE Cascade CAS Bedrock Sheet BRS FLATWATER Pocket Water POW Glide GLD Run RUN Step Run SRN Trench Chute TRC Edgewater EGW POOL Main Channel Pool MCP Lateral Scour Pool LSP Corner Pool CRP Secondary Channel Pool SCP Dammed Pool DPL Backwater Pool BWP Step Pool SPO Plunge Pool PLP Channel Confluence Pool CCP ADDITIONAL UNIT DESIGNATIONS Dry DRY Road-Crossing RDC Culvert under Road-Crossing RDC Concrete Box Culvert CBC

Table CAWG 1-A2 Hawkins et al. (1993) Level I and Level II Habitat Classifications

FAST WATER (RIFFLE/RUN) SLOW WATER (POOL)

Turbulent Non-Turbulent Scour Pool Dammed Pool

Riffle Habitat - High Run Habitat - Non- Pool Habitat - Formed Pool Habitat - Turbulence - Caused Turbulent - Caused by by Scour - Pool created Formed by Dam - by geomorphological geomorphological by erosion of stream Pool created by differences (i.e. differences (i.e. bank, boulder, bedrock, water blockage due gradient, bed gradient, bed etc. to debris, landslide, roughness, and/or step roughness, and/or step beaver dam, large development development boulders, etc.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Sediment Transport and Channel Maintenance, Habitat, Trout/Native Trout, Native Transition Zone Fish Community, Riparian Vegetation

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S): 1. Balance soil erosion and sediment transport to mimic natural sediment transport regime. 2. Provide for balanced sediment transport, channel bed material mobilization and distribution, channel structural stability, and woody debris distribution. 3. Conserve, protect and/or enhance/restore trout populations. 4. Protect and enhance the native transition zone fish community. 5. Protect riparian communities. 6. Manage Project flow releases, reservoir sediment releases, and erosion from Project facilities to protect and enhance aquatic habitats, riparian habitats, storage capacity [SCE] and water quality. 7. Manage instream large woody debris for fish habitat enhancement. 8. Modify flows to mimic natural sediment transport regime only when the need is demonstrated to assure the health of native species. [SCE] 9. Maintain and restore water quality to meet goals of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, providing water that is fishable, swimmable, and suitable for drinking after normal treatment. [USFS] 10. Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity for aquatic and riparian species within and between watersheds to provide physically, chemically and biologically unobstructed movement for their survival, migration and reproduction. [USFS] 11. Maintain and restore the connections of floodplains, channels, and water tables to distribute flood flows and sustain diverse habitats. [USFS] 12. Maintain and restore soils with favorable infiltration characteristics and diverse vegetative cover to absorb and filter precipitation and to sustain favorable conditions of stream flows. [USFS] 13. Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to sustain desired conditions of riparian, aquatic, wetland, and meadow habitats and keep sediment regimes as close as possible to those with which aquatic and riparian biota evolved. [USFS] 14. Maintain and restore the physical structure and condition of stream banks and shorelines to minimize erosion and sustain desired habitat diversity. [USFS]

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S): 1. Provide a flow regime that allows for natural sedimentation patterns and woody debris transport. 2. Provide infrequent large flows to shape and adjust the channel. 3. Apply Best Management Practices (USDA 1992, 2000) to minimize erosion from Project-related roads and other infrastructure. 4. Manage flow and storage to minimize unnatural shoreline and streambank erosion. 5. Follow Sierra National Forest (SNF) LMP Standards and Guidelines, Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, and the Region 5 Soil Quality Standards in achieving soils goals. 6. Maintain an inventory of erosion sources, such as SNF’s Watershed Improvement Needs Inventory. 7. Manage flow regime to maintain functionality of instream habitat, riparian habitat, wetlands, and meadows. 8. Maintain floodplain inundation and groundwater recharge functions. 9. Protect and preserve the physical integrity of the aquatic, riparian, and wetland habitats within and adjacent to the bypass reaches. 10. Maintain hydrological, geomorphological, sediment transport, and riparian conditions that provide favorable physical habitat conditions to support the native transition zone community. 11. Maintain or restore adequate quantity, quality, and timing of instream flows sufficient to sustain riparian habitat. 12. Mimic the shape of the natural hydrograph and restore instream flows (e.g., timing and quantity) sufficient to sustain riparian vegetation in areas of potential Project impact. 13. Maintain large woody debris and their transport within Project waters. 14. Manage Project flow releases, reservoir sediment releases, and erosion from Project facilities to protect and enhance aquatic habitats, riparian habitats, storage capacity [SCE], and water quality, and to maintain usable water storage and proper operation of hydroelectric facilities. [SCE] 15. Ensure a renewable supply of large down logs that: (1) can reach the stream channel; and (2) provide suitable habitat within and adjacent to the Riparian Conservation Area (RCA). [USFS]

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

This study will determine the effect of flows on the geomorphology of Project- affected streams and impoundments. Specifically, the study will address the following components: 1. Determine sediment conditions and sediment transport requirements. 2. Evaluate sediment sources (including tributaries) and conditions. 3. Map major sediment deposits. 4. Evaluate stream channel stability. 5. Compare unimpaired and Project-affected sediment regimes. 6. Evaluate timing, magnitude, and duration of unimpaired and Project-affected flows in relation to geomorphic effects. 7. Quantify and characterize sediment volume and grain size variation in Project reservoirs and impoundments. 8. Characterize effects of existing sediment management actions and large woody debris management. 9. Determine if the presence and amount of woody debris in Project-affected reaches is within the range of natural variability. 10. Determine functionality of riparian habitat. 11. Determine the effects of PM&Es on fluvial geomorphology. 12. Determine the effect of the Project on fluvial geomorphological features. PROJECT NEXUS:

The following Project-related structures and operations can adversely impact sediment transport regimes: diversions, reservoirs, channels with flow augmentation, tailraces, roads, point and non-point source discharges (i.e. wastewater treatment plants, fish hatchery), sluicing/sediment removal practices, rock drops, surge chamber discharge, tunnel spoils, spillways/forebay overflow, cloud seeding, and instream structures. These structures can result in the storage of sediments or the discharge of greater quantities of sediment than would occur under natural conditions.

These Project-related structures and operations (particularly the large storage reservoirs) also alter flow regimes, which can impact the occurrence of geomorphically significant flows. Potential adverse effects include loss of undercut banks, increased instream fine sediment, braiding, loss of channel capacity, reduced sediment transport capability, gravel displacement, unnatural channel scour, armoring, and impairment of the ability of the stream to maintain functional riparian and instream habitat. Project-related structures and operations can also impair the stream’s ability to transport the sediment delivered to it from source areas.

GENERAL APPROACH

STUDY PLAN SUMMARY

The Geomorphology Study will determine if Project operations adversely affect the sediment transport regime and geomorphic features. The Detailed Methodology portion of this study plan describes the specific tasks and methods to be applied in the study. The study plan is summarized in the following description of each of the six major steps:

STEP 1: REVIEW AND ANALYZE EXISTING DATA · Review existing information and develop a conceptual framework for the sediment transport regime within the Big Creek system. · Review and describe current and historic SCE sediment management practices. · Review existing aerial photography and maps as a basis for initial stream classification and to evaluate stream stability. · Review channel classification (based on Rosgen (1996) Level 1 surveys). · Determine timing, magnitude, and duration of geomorphically-significant and riparian/floodplain flows by analyzing hydrologic records and performing flood- frequency analyses (Leopold, et al., 1964).

STEP 2: QUALITATIVE RECONNAISSANCE FIELD SURVEY OF THE STUDY AREA

· Develop field data sheets and submit for CAWG review and approval. · Conduct field surveys within all Project reaches to describe existing geomorphic and sediment conditions. Surveys will include: - description of channel morphology, - description of the features of tributary inputs, - mapping of significant sediment sources and deposits, and - a geomorphic description of the sediment transport regime. · Conduct field surveys within all Project affected reaches to characterize parameters useful in assessing the effects of the Project-flow regimes on the streams’ ability to maintain dynamically stable, functional channels. These parameters include: - presence of vegetation encroachment in the bankfull channel, - geomorphic function of woody debris, - evaluation of bank stability, - alteration of channel morphology, - excessive buildup of fine sediment, and - excessive scour and erosion.

· Map floodplain and wetland areas, including abandoned floodplains (terraces) in all Project-affected reaches. These data will be used to identify specific sites in which to evaluate the frequency of riparian maintenance flows. · Evaluate potential for sediment delivery to the channel from upslope roads, based on the approach of Weaver and Hagans (1994), or similar USFS method. · Store field survey data in GIS. · Fully photo document field surveys. · Perform general, reconnaissance observations of potential reference areas in adjacent tributaries or subbasins.

STEP 3: DATA SYNTHESIS AND INTERPRETATION FOR PRESENTATION TO THE CAWG

· Evaluate the field survey results to determine impacted areas based upon comparison to stream segments upstream of Project diversions on the same stream (if fundamental controls are similar), and professional determination of the stability and functionality of the channel itself. · Describe the overall sediment transport regime in the relicensing basin, and within each Project-related stream and reservoir. Include determination of significant sources of sediment and erosion, dominant transport mechanisms within channel segments, effects of sediment trapping and sluicing at reservoirs, wave erosion and turbidity in reservoirs, importance of sediment input from tributary sources, significant sediment deposits in Project streams and at tributary mouths, and areas of unnatural channel scour and bank erosion. · Use field data and observations in conjunction with existing information on geology, soils, hydrology, and Project operations to evaluate the balance between sediment input to the channels, and their capacity to transport this sediment at current flows. · Use field channel morphology data and hydrological analyses (Step 1) in conjunction with information on riparian vegetation, floodplains and wetlands, to assess the relationship of in-channel and overbank flow frequency, magnitude, and duration. · Describe the type, quality, and limitations of available reference conditions for all project-affected reaches.

STEP 4: CAWG DETERMINES WHICH IMPACTED AREAS AND APPROPRIATE REFERENCE LOCATIONS ARE TO BE STUDIED FURTHER

· From the results summarized in Step 3, CAWG will select sites for quantitative study. The study sites may include: sensitive sites with potential Project- related impacts, representative sites for the range of identified stream types, stream gage locations, and reference reaches (unimpacted reaches). Unimpacted reaches may include stream reaches upstream of diversions and, if necessary, nearby unregulated streams of similar size, elevation, geology

and orientation. In addition to the CAWG-selected stream sites, Project reservoirs will also receive quantitative study. · If necessary, nearby unregulated streams may be identified as channel reference locations, in collaboration with the CAWG. The CAWG will determine additional survey requirements to supplement the initial reconnaissance level surveys performed in Step 2. Additional studies will be conducted at these locations during Step 5, and the data collected will be shared with the CAWG. Selection of final reference locations for quantitative analysis will be conducted in coordination with the CAWG.

STEP 5: QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF IMPACTED AREAS AND ASSOCIATED REFERENCE SITES · Design and install study [SCE] transects. The CAWG will determine the location of temporary and monumented transects. Within these sites, survey the following: - bed elevation profiles and cross sections, - substrate material including embeddedness, - bankfull channel elevation adjacent to gaging stations (if suitable indicators are present), and - assessment of floodplain connectivity, where applicable. · Elements of USFS Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) at sites selected by the CAWG not already conducted during initial field surveys (Step 2). · Elements of Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) at sites selected by the CAWG not already conducted during initial surveys (Step 2). · Compare data in project-affected reaches to similar data collected in reference reaches to assess the magnitude of project impact. · Use existing and, if necessary, additional measurements of sediment accumulation, including woody debris, in reservoirs, and ongoing monitoring of the effects of SCE’s sediment management practices to characterize: (1) watershed sedimentation rates; and (2) potential effects of Project operation and maintenance over time on downstream reaches. · Woody debris will be quantified in the sensitive stream reaches following SCI protocol.

STEP 6: DATA SYNTHESIS OF STEP 5 AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO CAWG

· The approach and methodologies used to complete the study will be described and presented to the CAWG. · The geomorphology data obtained from the project reaches will be compared to reference conditions to identify any differences in the stream channel geomorphology.

· Differences identified between project reaches and reference conditions will be evaluated to determine their geomorphological significance and whether they are attributable to project operations. · Of the areas surveyed in Step 5, determine which impacts are considered adverse and, of those, which can be attributed to Project operations. The hydrologic and field-based determination of geomorphically-significant flows, conducted in Steps 1, 2, and 5, will be used as part of this assessment of degree of impact by Project operations. · The CAWG will determine whether additional quantitative analysis is needed to supplement the studies conducted in Step 5.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

The Geomorphology Study will determine if Project operations adversely affect the sediment transport regime and geomorphology. The study plan includes six major steps:

Step 1: Review and Analyze Existing Data.

Step 2: Qualitative Reconnaissance Field Survey of the Study Area.

Step 3: Data Synthesis and Interpretation for Presentation to the CAWG.

Step 4: CAWG Determines Which Impacted Areas and Appropriate Reference Locations are to be Studied Further.

Step 5: Quantitative Study of Impacted Areas and Associated Reference Sites.

Step 6: Data Synthesis of Step 5 and Recommendations to CAWG.

Each step is described in detail below:

STEP 1: REVIEW AND ANALYZE EXISTING DATA

Several sources of existing information will be reviewed in order to develop a conceptual framework to guide the study. Information in the Initial Information Package regarding geology, soils, and hydrology will be brought together with information on Project operations to describe dominant sediment transport conditions likely to be encountered during the study. Key distinctions among channels to be delineated are streams with steep gradients and bedrock boulder channels and streams with gentler gradients and mobile alluvial beds. Historic and current SCE sediment management practices will be reviewed and described.

Historical aerial photographs, if available, will be obtained from SNF, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and SCE archives and used, along with topographic and geologic information, to describe the physical attributes (change in channel position with time, elevation

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 2-23 Combined Aquatics CAWG –2 Geomorphology ranges and gradient, channel elevation profile, protolith material, geologic controls) of Project streams and reservoirs. Aspects of the Rosgen Level I classification that are not typically determined in the field (i.e., valley type, valley slope, planform) will be determined from maps and aerial photography. The photos will be evaluated to provide input on the location, distribution, and magnitude of potential sediment sources, determine channel stability and to supplement data collected from other studies (e.g. CAWG-1).

Determination of Geomorphically-Significant Flows

A naturally functioning alluvial channel in equilibrium is capable of transporting the water and sediment delivered to it without significantly changing its geometry, streambed composition, or gradient through time. The flow conditions that promote this stability can be described as geomorphically-significant flows. These flows do the majority of the sediment transport and are considered most responsible for channel form. A natural flow regime typically includes flow ranges responsible for in-channel clearing and overbank flows to support riparian vegetation, along with channel-forming flows. However, in high-gradient, non- alluvial, or sediment supply-limited streams, relationships of peak flow frequency to channel form or aquatic habitat do not follow some of the well-established relations for alluvial channels. Non-alluvial, high gradient channels often have relatively stable bedrock/boulder hydraulic controls (e.g., cascade or step/pool channel types). As such, these stream types are generally more resistant to change than lower gradient alluvial channels and are less likely to adjust their shape and form due to project-related structures and operations. While all accessible stream reaches will be qualitatively surveyed, site-specific analysis would be concentrated in alluvial reaches in most instances.

In this step, hydrologic analysis will be used to provide an indication of the Project’s affect on geomorphically-significant flows. Flood-frequency analysis, using hydrologic data presented in the Initial Information Package, will be applied to Project streams to determine these flows. For alluvial systems, Andrews and Nankervis (1995) describe sediment transport and channel maintenance flows range between 0.8 and 1.6 times the bankfull discharge in gravel-bed rivers. For gravel-bed streams in the Rocky Mountain region, this study recommended that the channel maintenance flow be provided for an average of 15 days per year. This benchmark will be applied as an initial evaluation for Project streams with alluvial (sand or gravel beds) channels. This study will also attempt to quantify riparian and valley-forming flows using the concepts as defined in Hill et al. (1991), as appropriate. Flood-frequency analysis will be used in conjunction with field indicators to determine bankfull flow. Methods in Hill et al. (1991) will be used to guide the assessment of the magnitude, timing, frequency, duration, and rate of change of out-of-channel flows. These data will be used in the Riparian Study Plan (CAWG-11).

For high-gradient, non-alluvial, or sediment supply-limited streams (supply not limited by Project operations), field observations will be of greater importance.

The definition of bankfull flow provided in Leopold (et al. 1964) as the “channel forming flow or effective discharge,” and taken for most streams as the 1.5-year recurrence interval flow (as it is in Andrews and Nankervis (1995), is likely to under-estimate the channel-forming flows in the non-alluvial reaches (Grant, et al.1990). A range of return intervals from 1-10 years may be required to provide comparison to field indicators.

The flow duration curves developed in the Hydrology Study (CAWG-6) will then be used to determine the timing and duration of geomorphically-significant flows (indicated by the flood frequency analysis) in the Project streams. The magnitude, timing, duration, frequency, and rate of change of flows will be described where gaging data is available. The data will be displayed graphically, and as exceedence tables. Comparison will be made between regulated and unregulated flows. These data, taken together with the determination of geomorphically-significant flows, will describe the effect of Project operations on the occurrence of these flows.

STEP 2: QUALITATIVE RECONNAISSANCE FIELD SURVEY OF THE STUDY AREA

Channel Characteristics

Channel characteristics refer to the physical attributes of Project streams and reservoirs. Information on stream mesohabitats and channel-types will be obtained from the results of the Characterize Stream and Reservoir Habitats study (CAWG-1). We will also characterize the occurrence of riffles, runs, and pools in the affected streams, using the mesohabitat typing described by Hawkins, et al. (1993). These data will be supplemented by field observations of channel morphology and characteristics that may be affected by Project operation, as described below under “Sediment Regime Observations”.

Channel type will be described for all Project-reaches, with field data collection supplemented to include several specific parameters useful for assessing stream condition, including: vegetation encroachment within the active channel, large woody debris locations and amount, bank stability, and mapping of active and abandoned floodplain deposits.

Sediment Regime Observations

A detailed, qualitative, field evaluation of the sediment transport characteristics and sediment sources of the Project streams will be conducted. The field reconnaissance will include areas upstream of tributary diversions, with emphasis placed on the Project-affected reaches. Field data collection forms will be submitted to the CAWG for approval prior to the field study.

The assessment of channel characteristics and sediment regime observations will include:

· presence of vegetation encroachment in the low-flow channel, · observed emergent and/or woody vegetation in low-flow, or bottom width, channel, · geomorphic function of woody debris, · role in formation of habitat units, · role in bed or bank definition and stability, · verification of inventory data from the prior Level 1 survey, · evaluation of bank stability, · identify bank stability characteristics by channel type, instability mechanism, bank height and length, · alteration of channel morphology, · field evidence of change in alignment (lateral movement, avulsion), · observations of vertical instability (aggradation, degradation), · observations of changes in channel dimensions (width, depth), · excessive deposition of fine sediment, · presence of instream bars, observation of bar size and material, · type of depositional features associated with each channel type, · descriptions of the features of tributary inputs, · presence/absence of active and/or remnant deltas at confluences with main stem, · sediment characteristics of tributary inputs: lithology, grain sizes, stratigraphy of deposits, · mapping and characterizing sediment sources and deposits, · potential for sediment delivery from roads (Weaver and Hagans 1994), · length (along observed channel corridor) and estimated sediment volume, · type of sediment (size class based on visual observation), · identification of category of sediment source (e.g., moraine, residual bedrock weathering/colluvium, mass wasting—landslides, rockslides, or other specific sources such as roads, burns, timber harvest sites), · approximate thickness of accumulations, · indicators of scour and erosion, · comparison with reference reaches, · Project-related sediment starving, · Project-related structural controls, · dependence on channel type, and

· functionality of riparian habitat.

The surrounding watershed and channel areas will be observed to determine indications of erosion and sedimentation, and to assess the overall conditions of channel stability. In association with the channel typing surveys, deposits of sediment in the channel and on adjacent floodplains will be mapped on a topographic base map, and the magnitude of sources estimated.

Floodplains and wetland areas will be mapped and will include abandoned floodplains (terraces) in all Project-affected reaches. Wetlands will be mapped in studies CAWG-8 Amphibians and Reptiles, and CAWG-11 Riparian. These data will be used to identify specific sites in which to evaluate the frequency of riparian maintenance flows.

For reservoirs and impoundments, the following will be described in the field: 1) location and estimated volume of visible sediment deposits; and, 2) effects of wave erosion on turbidity. In addition, Project operations data regarding reservoir sediment and woody debris management methods and history will be collected and reviewed.

For roads, the potential for sediment delivery to the channel will be evaluated based upon the following factors: 1) water available for erosion; 2) drainage infrastructure; 3) texture of road material; 4) ground cover downslope from road; 5) slope shape and gradient; 6) distance to nearest stream; and 7) stability of the road material. The emphasis will be on roads within the direct upslope areas from Project reaches.

Supplemental Reference Reach Assessment

General reconnaissance of potential reference reaches in adjoining watersheds would be made to provide reasoned information about their suitability as a reference condition for portions of project affected reaches that lack an appropriate in-basin upstream reach. The CAWG will help focus the selection of potential reference reaches prior to the field observations, at the time of the data sheet approval.

STEP 3: DATA SYNTHESIS AND INTERPRETATION FOR PRESENTATION TO THE CAWG

The results of the review of existing information (Step 1) and the field surveys (Step 2) will be synthesized for presentation to the CAWG. The information will address issues at both the system or watershed scale and Project-reach specific levels, as appropriate, and will include the following elements.

Impacted areas will be identified as those with deleterious buildup of sediment or excessive erosion observed in comparison to a reference condition or upon professional judgement. The preferred reference condition will be comparison to unimpacted stream reaches. Comparison to a reference reach upstream of the

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 2-27 Combined Aquatics CAWG –2 Geomorphology diversion will be applied if the upstream reach has similar natural controls on the geomorphology and sediment regime (e.g. valley type, slope, geology, sediment sources). This approach is likely to apply to tributary diversions. In the absence of other reference condition information, the stability and functionality of the channel itself will be assessed using professional judgement and published information for the channel types present. If necessary, a nearby unregulated stream may be identified as a potential reference site and will be mapped and evaluated as described in Step 5, below. Conceptual surveys of these areas will be conducted prior to Step 4.

A conceptual sediment budget will be developed for the streams and reservoirs of the Licensing Basin based upon the results of Steps 1 and 2. The budget will identify locations, types, and relative magnitudes of sediment sources, and describe the location, volume, and trapping status of sediment traps (reservoirs and other impoundments). The budget will help identify areas subject to Project- related effects in the next steps, compared to the natural conditions that would be expected in the absence of the Project.

The sediment supply and channel condition observations collected in Step 2 will be used to evaluate the balance between sediment input to the channels, and their capacity to transport this sediment. Accumulations of instream sediment, excessive bank erosion, excessive scour, or loss of gravel relative to reference conditions are all possible indicators of imbalance due to Project conditions.

STEP 4: CAWG DETERMINES WHICH IMPACTED AREAS AND APPROPRIATE REFERENCE LOCATIONS ARE TO BE STUDIED FURTHER

From the results summarized in Step 3, CAWG will select sites for quantitative study. This step will include problem identification for reaches that appear to be impacted by Project operations. The type of problem identified will in large part determine the study methodology that is most appropriate to conduct in order to quantify the extent and nature of Project-related effects. The study sites may include: sensitive sites with potential Project-related impacts, representative sites for the range of identified stream types, stream gage locations, and reference reaches (unimpacted reaches). In addition to the CAWG-selected transects, Project reservoirs will also receive quantitative study.

If necessary, nearby unregulated streams with similar geomorphic and hydrologic characteristics (e.g., at approximately the same elevation, similar stream order, watershed area and hydrology, etc.) may be evaluated for use as potential channel reference sites. In collaboration with the CAWG, such potential reference locations will be identified for comparison to impacted stream reaches. Qualitative reconnaissance level surveys, as described in Step 2, will be conducted to characterize these potential nearby unregulated reference reaches. Data from these surveys will then be shared with the CAWG and used to make a determination of the appropriateness of nearby unregulated streams as channel

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 2-28 Combined Aquatics CAWG –2 Geomorphology reference locations. If necessary, the final selection of channel reference sites in nearby unregulated streams will be made in collaboration with CAWG.

Field characteristics of sediment, floodplain, and riparian condition will provide the basis for CAWG detailed study sites and transects selection. Sites selected as reference sites or representative sites for the stream types may, or may not, be monumented for permanent monitoring. Sites identified as sensitive sites, or some subset of such sites, would be monumented as permanent sites and transects. Stream gage sites would be surveyed if bankfull indicators are present and can be used to improve flood-frequency relationships. Collection of these data will be coordinated with the study to determine Flow-Related Physical Habitat In Bypass Reaches (CAWG-3). Stage-discharge relationships determined for each of the selected transects may provide useful information regarding initiation of motion, sediment transport, riparian maintenance flows, and potential for recruitment of large woody debris.

In some reaches or subwatersheds, the need for a specific detailed study may be clear at this step. Such detailed studies could include a quantitative sediment budget, flushing flow study, or others. If so, these more detailed studies will also be conducted in conjunction with Step 5.

STEP 5: QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF IMPACTED AREAS AND ASSOCIATED REFERENCE SITES

In this step, all Project streams will receive more quantitative study to augment the results of Step 2. The locations for quantitative study will be determined in Step 4, and be based upon either representative conditions in the Project stream, or areas of potential Project-related impact. Study and reference sites will be determined by the CAWG. Study and reference sites identified by the CAWG will be classified to level II Rosgen at a minimum.

For all identified transects, detailed field measurements will include surveying the channel profile into the floodplain and abandoned floodplain (if present), identification of bankfull elevation, water surface slope, and the wetted perimeter at the time of measurement. Substrate material will also be documented (Wolman pebble count and laboratory grain size analysis), and bank slope would be recorded for alluvial sections. An assessment of out-of-channel flow requirements for riparian vegetation/floodplain landforms will be completed at CAWG approved transect locations. In addition, measurement of channel dimensions, indicators of sediment accumulation (V* or other sediment accumulation indicator), quantitative analysis of flows required to initiate motion (Shields criterion), and quantitative comparison of sediment supply and transport capacity (expressed in tons/day or equivalent) will be analyzed at each site.

Large woody debris was surveyed in CAWG-1, as follows. Large woody debris was counted as the number of pieces of wood in the active stream channel (at the

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 2-29 Combined Aquatics CAWG –2 Geomorphology time of survey) with a diameter of six inches or greater and with a length greater than half of the width of the active stream channel. Wood was counted if approximately 33 percent or greater of the total length of wood was situated in the stream channel. The examination of large woody debris will be expanded at the selected transects to follow the SCI protocol, or a modification of the protocol, as determined by the CAWG based upon the nature of the potential Project-related impact.

The identified sensitive sites and if appropriate, the reference sites, will be evaluated using protocols outlined in the USFS Stream Condition Inventory (SCI). In addition to SCI, field studies may propose suitable additional attributes to record and evaluate (Step 2). SCI data will be evaluated using comparison to reference sites, the SCI reference variability database (Forest Service), published literature, and professional judgment. The following SCI protocols will be implemented at the transects identified by the CAWG for quantitative study sites:

· Cross section and width to depth ratio · Entrenchment · Rate stream bank stability · Bank angle · Stream shore water depth

The following SCI protocols will be available for use at certain sites, depending upon the nature of the potential Project-related impact:

· Pool tail substrate · Greater number of transects

The field approach for this step may incorporate Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) protocols, if determined to be necessary by the CAWG based upon the nature of the potential Project-related impact. It is anticipated that the specific PFC protocol will be the use of an interdisciplinary team of geologists, hydrologists, and botanists. A critical component will be team-based decisions regarding potential conditions at reference sites and representative sites.

The data from Step 2 and Step 5 will be used to determine areas potentially impacted by Project operations. The preferred reference condition will be comparison to unimpacted stream reaches. Comparison to a reference reach upstream of the diversion will be applied if the upstream reach has similar natural controls on the geomorphology and sediment regime (e.g. valley type, slope, geology, sediment sources). This approach is likely to apply to tributary diversions. For diversions where this comparison is not feasible, the next choice will be a geomorphically similar reach in an unregulated stream at approximately the same altitude. The third choice for comparison will be to regional hydraulic geometry relationships, by channel type (e.g., bankfull width, average depth, and

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 2-30 Combined Aquatics CAWG –2 Geomorphology cross-section area versus watershed area). Three curves will be developed for Project streams, and compared to curves for similar geomorphic and climatic areas. Project streams that fall substantially off the main curve may indicate adverse affects. Finally, in the absence of other reference condition information, the stability and functionality of the channel itself will be assessed using professional judgement and published information for the channel types present.

Reservoir bathymetrey from the CAWG-1 study will be compared to previous bathymetry, when available, and pre-reservoir topography. In addition to volume comparison, reservoir profiles will be evaluated to locate areas of sediment deposition, if any. Where possible, the type and character of these sediment deposits will be assessed visually when the reservoirs are drawn down during the late fall and early winter months.

STEP 6: DATA SYNTHESIS OF STEP 5 AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO CAWG

The results of these more detailed studies will be presented again to the CAWG, which will determine whether the observed effects are Project-related, and adverse.

The CAWG may also determine that more detailed study (for example, a sediment transport model) is required to make this determination. If adverse Project-related impacts are identified, then mitigation measures will be determined.

STUDY AREA:

The study area will include all areas indicated in the Objectives and Project effects matrix.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

The Geomorphology Study will be coordinated with: · CAWG-1 Characterize Stream and Reservoir Habitats · CAWG-3 Determine Flow-Related Physical Habitat In Bypass Reaches · CAWG-4 Chemical Water Quality · CAWG-5 Water Temperature · CAWG-6 Hydrology · CAWG-8 Amphibians and Reptiles · CAWG-11 Riparian · CUL-1 Prehistoric Cultural Resources · LAND-6 Traffic/Circulation · Bear Creek Sediment Clearing

SCHEDULE:

The Geomorphology Study will begin with review and analysis of existing data (Step 1) in 2001. Qualitative field studies will be initiated during the summer of 2001. More detailed study will be initiated during the summer of 2002.

REFERENCES:

Andrews, E. D. and J. M. Nankervis. 1995. Effective discharge and the design of channel maintenance flow for Gravel-bed Rivers. In: Natural and Anthropogenic Influences in Fluvial Morphology, American Geophysical Union, and Geophysical Monograph 89. Grant, Gordon E., Frederick J. Swanson & M. Gordon Wolman (1990): Pattern and origin of stepped-bed morphology in high-gradient streams, Western Cascades, Oregon. Geological Society of America Bulletin., 102: 340-352 Hawkins, C. P., J. L. Kershner, P. A. Bisson, M. D. Bryant, L. M. Decker, S. V. Gregory, D. A. McCullough, C. K. Overton, G. H. Reeves, R. J. Steedman, and M. K. Young. 1993. A hierarchical approach to classifying habitats in small streams. Fisheries. 18(6):3-12. Hill, M. T. and, W. S. Platts, R. L. Beschta. 1991. Ecological and Geomorphological Concepts for Instream and Out-of-Channel Flow Requirements. Rivers. 210, Volume 2, Number 1. Leopold, L. B., M. G. Wolman, John P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. Dover Publications, New York. 522 p. Lisle, T., and S. Hilton. 1991. Fine sediment in pools: an index of how sediment is affecting a stream channel. FHR Currents. December 1991. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Rosgen, D. L. and H. L. Silvey. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO. Printed Media Companies. Minneapolis, Minnesota. USDA Forest Service. 1992. Best Management Practices Evaluation Program: A User’s Guide. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. USDA Forest Service. 1996. Stream Condition Inventory, Draft protocol version 3.4 6/27/1996. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA: 80 pages plus forms. USDA Forest Service. 1997. An Approach for Quantifying Channel Maintenance Instream Flows in Gravel-Bed Streams - Draft. 98 pages. USDA Forest Service. 2000. Water quality management for Forest System lands in California, Best Management Practices. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. 138 pp.

US Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management. 1993. Riparian Area Management – Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition. TR 1737-9. Weaver, William E. & Danny K. Hagans (1994): Handbook for Forest and Ranch Roads. Pacific Watershed Associates, USDA Soil Conservation Service, Mendocino Resource Conservation District.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Fisheries, Trout/Native Trout, Native Transition Zone Fish Community, Habitat, Native Transition Zone Fish Community

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S): 1. Protect special-status fish. 2. Conserve, protect and/or enhance/restore trout populations. 3. Protect and enhance the native transition zone fish community. 4. Manage sediment to maintain or restore instream aquatic habitats, riparian habitat, and water quality. 5. Maintain or enhance flow-dependent instream habitat. 6. Maintain macroinvertebrate community integrity and abundance within Project bypass reaches. 7. Maintain and restore habitat to support viable populations of native and desired non-native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. Prevent new introductions of invasive species. Where invasive species are adversely affecting the viability of native species, work cooperatively with appropriate State and Federal wildlife agencies to reduce impacts to native populations. [USFS] 8. Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity for aquatic and riparian species within and between watersheds to provide physically, chemically and biologically unobstructed movement for their survival, migration and reproduction. [USFS] 9. Maintain and restore the connections of floodplains, channels, and water tables to distribute flood flows and sustain diverse habitats. [USFS] 10. Maintain and restore soils with favorable infiltration characteristics and diverse vegetative cover to absorb and filter precipitation and to sustain favorable conditions of stream flows. [USFS] 11. Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to sustain desired conditions of riparian, aquatic, wetland, and meadow habitats and keep sediment regimes as close as possible to those with which aquatic and riparian biota evolved. [USFS] STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S): 1. Preferentially manage habitat for Forest Service sensitive fish in Project waters.

2. Provide adequate minimum instream flows to support healthy and diverse trout populations and habitat conditions (e.g., spawning habitat, nursery or rearing habitat, adult habitat, and overwintering habitat) in the bypassed reaches. 3. Maintain habitat conditions and flows favorable to the native transition zone community. 4. Manage Project flow releases reservoir sediment releases, and erosion from project facilities to protect and enhance aquatic habitats, riparian habitats, and water quality. 5. Maintain sufficient instream flows to support downstream aquatic resources in Project bypass reaches. 6. Maintain adequate water quantity and quality to support macroinvertebrate populations. 7. Maintain or restore: (1) the geomorphic and biological characteristics of special aquatic features, including lakes, meadows, bogs, fens, wetlands, vernal pools, springs; (2) streams, including in-stream flows; and (3) hydrologic connectivity both within and between watersheds to provide for the habitat needs of aquatic-dependent species. [USFS] 8. Ensure that management activities, including fuels reduction actions, within RCAs and Critical Aquatic Refuges (CAR) enhance or maintain physical and biological characteristics associated with aquatic- and riparian-dependent species. [USFS] STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

An instream flow study is proposed to evaluate how flow changes resulting from Project operations may affect native fish and aquatic species in the Big Creek system. This study will help address the management goals and objectives outlined by the CAWG. Microhabitat variables, such as velocities and depths may be altered by changes in flows in the bypass reaches. This may result in alterations in flow-related habitat, which may affect aquatic populations and/or communities. Rapid changes in flow levels may also result in margin areas of the bypass reaches becoming dewatered, without providing sufficient opportunity for fish to move to secure locations, thereby resulting in stranding. To evaluate these potential effects, the following objectives need be addressed: 1. To determine flow-related physical habitat in bypass reaches using: · PHABSIM studies for bypass reaches of diversions that operate year-round or · Wetted Perimeter studies for diversions that operate primarily during the high flow season. 2. Determine the potential for stranding for aquatic organisms based on Project operations.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Velocities and depths may be altered by changes in flows in bypassed reaches. This may result in alterations in flow-related habitat.

GENERAL APPROACH:

Two primary approaches are presented for evaluating flow-related habitat. One approach focuses on larger streams that may be diverted throughout the year. The other approach focuses on smaller streams that are diverted primarily during the run off period. In addition, the potential for stranding of aquatic organisms associated with flow changes will be evaluated. Each of these approaches is discussed below.

FLOW-RELATED HABITAT LARGE AND MID-SIZED STREAMS DIVERTED ON A YEAR-ROUND BASIS 1. The Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) Physical Habitat Simulation (PHABSIM) models will be used to characterize the relationship of an index of fish habitat, weighted usable area (WUA), with flow in bypass reaches associated with large and mid-sized streams. In these streams, Project operations may affect the amount or quality of habitat available to fish and other aquatic organisms, especially during the late summer to fall period, when habitat bottlenecks most frequently occur. 2. The standard approach to PHABSIM in California uses the IFG4A hydraulic model. The IFG4A hydraulic model will be used to model physical microhabitat. 3. Bypass stream segments will be divided into study reaches based on the major channel types present (based on CAWG-1 Characterize Stream and Reservoir Habitats). These reaches will be summarized along with the mesohabitats present in each. The summary will discuss both major habitat types and any important, unique habitat types that should be represented in the habitat models. Recommendations will be made to the CAWG as to the reaches and habitat types to be represented and the number of transects to be measured and modeled. These results will be presented to the CAWG for approval. 4. Existing instream flow models that have previously been prepared for some of the Project bypass reaches will be reviewed for applicability and appropriateness for this work. These models will be summarized for the CAWG and will be used, if the CAWG deems the models representative and appropriate. If the models need to be supplemented to provide an adequate representation of habitat, recommendations to this effect also will be presented to the CAWG for their concurrence. 5. Data will be collected in Project bypass reaches for which no appropriate existing models are available or to supplement existing models when necessary.

6. Potential habitats and transect locations to be represented in new PHABSIM models will be reviewed with the CAWG. Final selection of transects for measurement will be made in the field with representatives of the CAWG. 7. Appropriate existing suitability criteria will be tested for transferability within the basin. Potential suitability criteria will be reviewed with the CAWG prior to use. Verified criteria will be used to represent target species and lifestages. Site-specific criteria will only be developed, if existing criteria cannot be verified. The results of verification testing will be presented to the CAWG for review prior to habitat modeling. 8. Based on initial results of the PHABSIM studies and review of hydrological data, a recommendation will be made to the CAWG with respect to the need for habitat time-series analysis. The CAWG will determine if time-series analysis will be used to supplement the other analyses. FLOW-RELATED HABITAT FOR SMALL DIVERTED STREAMS (GENERALLY DIVERTED ON A SEASONAL BASIS)

For small diversions, where diversion usually occurs during the peak run-off period and not during base (low) flow periods, a wetted perimeter/toe width approach will be used to characterize stream conditions in association with an assessment of channel maintenance flows. In these streams, Project operations are most likely to impact macroinvertebrate production and channel maintenance flows.

STRANDING

Potential for stranding will be determined analytically using the change in wetted perimeter with flow. This relationship can be determined from either PHABSIM or wetted perimeter transects. Change in wetted perimeter will be evaluated to determine the reduction in available area due to changes in flow. In areas where stranding is likely to be a problem, transects will be placed specifically for conducting this stranding evaluation. A separate empirical evaluation will be made in conjunction with the proposed whitewater controlled release study. This will be conducted in conjunction with CAWG-7.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

PHABSIM S TUDIES

This section summarizes the methods to be employed in conducting the instream flow studies.

REVIEW OF EXISTING PHABSIM MODELS

SCE developed PHABSIM models for various reaches of the San Joaquin River and Big Creek during studies conducted as part of the Big Creek Expansion Project (BiCEP) and other relicensing projects. These models will be evaluated for the CAWG to determine if they are adequate to meet the goals and objectives of the current studies. Criteria for use of these models will include whether:

1. channel changes have occurred that may affect the validity of use of models; 2. the transect’s habitat type is identified within the model; 3. the transect provides an accurate representation of the habitat types currently found in the reaches; 4. the transect is representative of channel-types and mesohabitat types; 5. model statistics for mean error and velocity adjustment factor fall within acceptable boundaries; and 6. the model meets the range of flows needed in this study or can be extended to meet this range.

The results of this review will be presented to the CAWG along with appropriate recommendations for use or the need for supplementary information.

NEW TRANSECTS

Where new transects need to be established, the procedures described in the following section will be used.

TRANSECT SELECTION

Transects for conducting the instream flow studies will be selected within each Project study stream, based on the results of the habitat survey. Within each stream, one unit of each channel type will be sampled, and within this channel type, all important habitat types and any important unique habitats (i.e., spawning habitat) will be represented in the instream flow models. These proposals will be made to the CAWG and the CAWG will have the opportunity to review candidate stream reaches, habitats to be represented, and transect placement prior to data collection.

Transects will be placed based on a stratified random sampling procedure. Stratification will be on channel-type and mesohabitat type. Study sites will be identified as sections of stream where all major habitat types are present within a reasonable proximity of each other.

· Channel type segments and study sites to be sampled will be selected randomly from among those available within a reasonable access time. · Transects will be placed randomly in each habitat unit to be sampled, except where such placement would result in passage through a hydraulic feature that cannot be modeled. In these cases, the transect will be placed at an alternate location. · Transects will not be placed in habitat types that cannot be modeled (i.e., cascades, falls) or in habitat types that do not provide habitat for fish (i.e., bedrock sheet flows). · Transects may be placed to capture pockets of suitable spawning gravel, to assist in evaluating stranding potential under Project operations, evaluate

potential low flow passage barriers, or to evaluate other unique or important habitats.

FIELD DATA COLLECTION · Data collection will be conducted using standard procedures and data reduction techniques as described by Trihey and Wegner (1981) and Trihey (1980). · Calibration flows will be selected that will enable the models to reliably simulate flows ranging from the current flows to the unimpaired summer/fall low flows, which were likely to be the most limiting flow conditions for habitat prior to Project effects. An additional water surface elevation will be collected at a higher flow in reaches where flows are currently augmented or whitewater flow releases may be made in the future. · One set of velocity data will be collected at the middle calibration flow for all Project streams where high flows (such as those that may be needed for whitewater rafting releases) are not a potential issue. The no-velocity modeling option will be employed in pools over six-foot deep. · Where high flows, such as those for whitewater rafting opportunities need to be assessed, two sets of velocity measurements will be collected, one at the lowest calibration flow, and the second at the high calibration flow. This will allow better extrapolation of the model into the flow ranges needed for whitewater recreation. A fourth water surface elevation will also be collected at these sites at a flow within the potential whitewater boating range.

HYDRAULIC MODELING

· The IFG-4A model will be used for hydraulic simulations.

Model calibration will incorporate the following guidelines:

· The stage discharge relationship for each transect will have a mean error of less than 10 percent. · 80 percent of simulated velocities at the calibration flow will be within 20 percent of the measured value. Velocities within the range of flows simulated will fall within reasonable bounds. · Velocity Adjustment Factors (VAFs) will lie within the range of 0.2 to 5.0 (Bovee pers. comm. 1998). · Where the stage-discharge relationship guidelines cannot be met, the transect will not be used in simulating habitat. Where VAFs are out of bounds, the flows where the VAFs are out will not be used in simulating habitat. HABITAT MODELING

Habitat modeling will be conducted using the HABTAE model of the PHABSIM programs. The species and lifestages to be modeled in each reach will be

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 2-40 Combined Aquatics CAWG – 3 Determine Flow-Related Physical Habitat in Bypass Reaches determined in coordination with the CAWG. The application of this model will result in WUA versus flow relationships for the target species for each habitat type. These results will be weighted according to the proportion of each habitat type present in each reach as determined from the habitat mapping to determine the reach habitat versus flow function. The WUA versus flow function for each reach will be used to evaluate the amount of flow needed in each reach to protect fish and other aquatic resources.

HSC SELECTION AND VERIFICATION

· Appropriate habitat suitability criteria for testing will be selected in conjunction with the CAWG. · It is anticipated that criteria will be needed for lifestages of rainbow trout, brown trout, hardhead, Sacramento pikeminnow, and Sacramento sucker. · If appropriate macroinvertebrate criteria are available, these can be used with the approval of the CAWG. · If appropriate amphibian criteria are available, these will be used with the approval of CAWG. · In the absence of other criteria, fry criteria will be used. · We propose the use of the Altered Flows Criteria for rainbow and brown trout and the use of the Pit River criteria for hardhead, Sacramento pikeminnow, and Sacramento sucker. · A single set of existing criteria will be used, and up to four life stages, where available and appropriate (fry, juvenile, adult and spawning), will be evaluated during the habitat-modeling phase. · Habitat criteria will be tested for their ability to accurately represent habitat use by fish in the Big Creek system prior to use in modeling. HABITAT CRITERIA SUITABILITY TESTING WILL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING STEPS:

· Existing criteria will be verified through evaluation of habitat utilization in streams within the Project boundaries. · Evaluation will be conducted using the Groshens and Orth (1994) testing approach. · Testing will require approximately 50-60 observations of fish habitat use for each species and life stage, and about 200 observations of habitat availability. · Project specific criteria will be developed only if existing criteria cannot be verified. · Observations of fish habitat utilization will follow standard snorkeling techniques. · Habitat availability will be determined from 10 equally spaced verticals along two transects placed randomly within each habitat unit sampled. · Upon the completion of testing, the results will be presented to the CAWG, along with recommendations for use of criteria or development of site-specific

criteria. The decision as to which criteria will be used will be made in concurrence with the CAWG. WETTED PERIMETER

The intended application of the wetted-perimeter approach is to use it as an index of the area available for macroinvertebrate production in riffles. The wetted perimeter approach also can be used to evaluate passage over riffles that may otherwise act as barriers to fish movement at lower flows. The habitat data collected during the CAWG-1 study will be summarized and analyzed to identify appropriate channel types and mesohabitats for application of this approach. After these data have been analyzed, the results and proposed channel types, mesohabitat types and reference sites for each stream will be presented to the CAWG. At that time, the specific number of sites and transects to be measured in each stream will be presented. With the CAWG’s concurrence, the following steps will be taken to collect and analyze data.

· Transects will be placed above and below Project diversions across similar habitat types (riffles if they are a major habitat type or runs if they are not) in coordination with the CAWG. · Transects will be placed through the mesohabitat units where macroinvertebrate samples were collected, or in conjunction with CAWG-2 studies, where appropriate. · Transect locations may be randomly selected (see PHABSIM section). · Stage measurements will target a minimum of three flow levels to establish a stage-discharge relationship. · This relationship would be used in conjunction with the bed profile to develop a wetted perimeter versus flow relationship. · Preliminary minimum instream flow recommendations will be determined based on inflection points in the wetted perimeter versus flow relationship. The CAWG will be provided the opportunity to review inflection point selection. STRANDING ANALYSIS

· The change in wetted perimeter with flow (available from the PHABSIM and wetted perimeter studies) will be used to evaluate the rate at which habitats become dewatered under typical operations. Transects will be placed to facilitate this analysis during the PHABSIM and wetted perimeter studies. · The magnitude of change will be used in conjunction with the frequency and timing of ramping events, extent of potential stranding area, and stranding rate studies from other rivers to evaluate the potential for stranding and determine if alternative stranding practices need to be developed and implemented. This analysis also will include an evaluation of the potential for stranding associated with whitewater flow releases. This will involve the placement of additional transects, if needed, and empirical observations as described in the CAWG-7 study plan.

PASSAGE ANALYSIS

· The effects of flow alterations on fish passage will be evaluated using the transects placed across riffles during PHABSIM and wetted perimeter studies. · Passage will be evaluated using the cross-sectional profiles and stage- discharge relationships developed in the PHABSIM and wetted perimeter analyses to determine the total width, total contiguous width, and proportion of the cross section greater than a critical passage depth, as well as the average velocity through the transect. · Specific criteria for use in this analysis, such as those of Thompson (1972), will need to be developed in consultation with the CAWG. The development of passage criteria is described in the CAWG-14 Fish Passage study plan.

STUDY AREA:

The study area will encompass the bypass reaches of all Project streams as outlined in Table CAWG 3-1. Any tributary identified as ephemeral will be excluded from this study. Table 3-2 presents the methodology that will be applied to each stream.

ANALYSIS:

The studies outlined in this document will be used to develop habitat-flow relationships for the various Project streams. These relationships will be used in conjunction with the results of other studies to determine if flow related habitat is significantly affecting fish populations in the Project streams. Analyses will include comparisons of habitat quantity and quality with fish populations, community structure, and size distribution (CAWG-7). This will include seasonal, monthly and 10-day minimum, and 1-day minimum habitat values. If, after review of results with the CAWG, it is concluded that a time-series analysis is needed, this will be conducted. WUA with flow results for Project reaches will be combined with water temperature results to assess the usability of habitat as well as its availability. In this analysis, temperature tolerances for fish species are considered in addition to habitat availability.

LIMITING FACTORS

The studies outlined in these plans will form the basis for an evaluation relating fish community structure, population size, and age/size composition to a variety of physical and biological factors that may affect fish populations. After the likely limiting factors in a given stream have been identified, these can be compared to Project operations to determine if, how, and to what degree these operations contribute to this limitation. Where limiting factors are related to Project operations, appropriate avoidance or mitigation measures will be designed to minimize and offset the impacts of that practice.

Table CAWG 3-1 Project Streams by Size

SURFACE CAPACITY LARGE STREAMS DIVERSION IMPOUNDMENT ELEVATION (FT) (ACRE-FEET) South Fork San Joaquin River Florence Lake Dam & Reservoir 7,329 64,406 (SFSJR Reach) San Joaquin River (SFSJR Reach) Mammoth Pool Dam & Reservoir 3,361 123,000 San Joaquin River (Mammoth San Joaquin River Dam 6 & 2,250 99 Reach) Forebay San Joaquin River (Stevenson Dam 7 & Redinger Lake Reservoir 1,414 26,119 Reach) San Joaquin River (Horseshoe None N/A N/A Bend, Stevenson Reach) Big Creek (Big Creek Reach) Huntington Lake Dams 1, 2, 3, 3a, 6,954 89,166 & Reservoir MODERATE STREAMS Bear Creek (SFSJR Reach) Bear Creek Diversion Dam & 7,350 N/A Forebay Mono Creek (SFSJR Reach) Vermilion Valley Dam & Lake 7,651 125,035 Thomas A. Edison Mono Creek (SFSJR Reach) Mono Creek Diversion Dam & 7,350 47 Forebay Stevenson Creek (Stevenson Shaver Lake Dam & Reservoir 5,371 135,568 Reach) Big Creek (Big Creek Reach) Big Creek Dam 4 & Forebay 4,805 60 Big Creek (Big Creek Reach) Big Creek Dam 5 & Forebay 2,950 49 SMALL STREAMS Tombstone Creek (SFSJR Reach) Tombstone Creek Diversion 7,673 N/A North Slide Creek (SFSJR Reach) North Slide Creek Diversion 7,520 N/A South Slide Creek (SFSJR Reach) South Slide Creek Diversion 7,560 N/A Hooper Creek (SFSJR Reach) Hooper Creek Diversion 7,505 3 Crater Creek (SFSJR Reach) Crater Creek Diversion 8,765 N/A Chinquapin Creek (SFSJR Reach) Chinquapin Creek Diversion 7,273 N/A Camp 62 Creek (SFSJR Reach) Camp 62 Creek Diversion 7,257 N/A Bolsillo Creek (SFSJR Reach) Bolsillo Creek Diversion 7,535 N/A Camp 61 Creek (SFSJR Reach) Portal Dam & Forebay 7,185 300 Warm Creek (SFSJR Reach) Warm Creek Diversion 8,004 N/A Rock Creek (Mammoth Reach) Rock Creek Diversion 3,336 N/A Ross Creek (Mammoth Reach) Ross Creek Diversion 3,359 N/A Pitman Creek (Big Creek Reach) Pitman Creek Diversion 6,998 N/A Balsam Creek (Big Creek Reach) Balsam Dam & Forebay 6,675 1,547 Balsam Creek (Big Creek Reach) Balsam Creek Diversion 4,881 N/A Ely Creek (Big Creek Reach) Ely Creek Diversion 4,845 N/A OTHER SMALL STREAMS Boggy Meadows Creek (SFSJR N/A Reach) Adit #2 Seepage (SFSJR Reach) N/A Rancheria Creek (Big Creek Reach) N/A Tributary to Big Creek (Big Creek N/A Reach) North Fork Stevenson Creek N/A (Stevenson Reach)

Table CAWG 3-2 Proposed Instream Flow Approach for Project Streams

SOUTH FORK SAN JOAQUIN RIVER PHABSIM WETTED PERIMETER Tombstone Creek X South Slide Creek X North Slide Creek X Hooper Creek X Crater Creek X Bear Creek X Chinquapin Creek X Camp 62 Creek X Bolsillo Creek X Camp 61 Creek X1 Mono Creek (Vermilion to Div. Forebay) X2 Mono Creek (Div. Forebay to San Joaquin River) X Warm Creek X2 SF San Joaquin River X Boggy Meadows Creek X2 Adit #2 Seepage (below Portal Forebay) X2 MAMMOTH REACH Rock Creek X Ross Creek X San Joaquin River (Mammoth Pool Dam to PH) E3 BIG CREEK REACH Rancheria Creek X Trib. to Big Creek X Big Creek (Dam 1 to PH 1) X Big Creek (Dam 4 to PH 2) E4 Big Creek (Dam 5 to PH 8) E4 Pitman Creek X Balsam Creek (Dam to Low.Div.Forebay) X Balsam Creek (Low. Div. Forebay to Big Creek) X Ely Creek X STEVENSON CREEK/STEVENSON REACH NF Stevenson Creek X Stevenson Creek (Shaver Lake to San Joaquin River) X SJR Stevenson Reach (Dam 6 to PH 3) E4 SJR Horseshoe Bend (Dam 7 to PH 4) E4 1 Study will be performed under the Portal relicensing. 3 Study performed in 1984. 2 Study will be performed under the Vermilion relicensing. 4 Study performed in 1986. E - Existing model

COORDINATION NEEDS:

These studies will need to be coordinated with various other studies to maximize the utility of all of these studies. These studies include: · CAWG-1 Characterize Stream and Reservoir Habitats, habitat for location of sampling sites and weighting of results will be dependent upon use of the results of stream habitat characterization. · CAWG-8 Amphibians and Reptiles, for the placement of wetted perimeter transects. · CAWG-10 Macroinvertebrates, for the placement of wetted perimeter transects. · REC-3 Whitewater Recreation · CAWG-2 Geomorphology SCHEDULE:

The schedule for these studies will be dependent to a large degree on runoff patterns from the areas surrounding and including the Project area. The selection and placement of transects will commence in the summer of 2001, probably in August or September. At this time, SCE proposes to have a meeting of the stakeholders to review the placement of transects in the various Project reaches. Given the number of transects needed, we propose to have a field review of a subset of all the transects available. Data collection will be conducted in 2002 depending on flow level and hydrologic conditions and Project activities. Analysis of data will commence after all of the necessary data is collected. An instream flow report will be prepared summarizing this information and the results of these analyses and should be completed by the end of 2002, depending on the weather and runoff patterns.

REFERENCES:

Chow, V. T. 1959. Open-channel hydraulics. McGraw-Hill Press. New York, NY.

Collings, M. R. 1974. Generalization of spawning and rearing discharges for several Pacific salmon species in Western Washington. U.S. geological survey open file report, Tacoma, Washington.

Groshens, T. P. and D. J. Orth. 1994. Transferability of habitat suitability criteria for smallmouth bass, Micropterous dolomieu. Rivers 4(3):194-212.

Hankin, D. and G. Reeves. 1988. Estimating total fish abundance and total habitat area in small streams based on visual estimation methods. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:834-844.

Hynes, H. B. N. 1970. The UC Ecology of Running the Waters. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada.

Jowett, I. G. 1992. Models of the abundance of large brown trout in New Zealand Rivers. North American Journal of Fish Management 12:417-432.

Leathe, S. A. and F. A. Nelson. 1986. A literature evaluation of Montana's wetted perimeter inflection point method for deriving instream flow recommendations. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Helena, Montana.

Lifton, W. S. and G. L. Lumsden. 1994. Modeling the abundance of coho salmon and steelhead redds. Paper presented at Western Division AFS Meeting 1994. Sacramento, California.

Lifton, W., L. Wise, and K. Voos. 1998. Testing the transferability of habitat suitability criteria for IFIM modeling. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Co., San Ramon, California.

Lohr, S. C. 1993. Wetted stream channel, fish-food organisms and trout relative to the wetted perimeter inflection point instream flow method. Doctoral Thesis. Montana State University. Bozeman, Montana.

Mathur, D., W. H. Bason, and E. J. Purdy. 1985. A critique of the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42(4)825-831.

McCain, M., D. Fuller, L. Decker, and K. Overton. 1990. Stream habitat classification and inventory procedures for northern California. FHR Currents: R-5’s fish habitat relationships technical bulletin. No. 1. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Arcata, CA.

Milhous, R. T., D. L. Wegner, and T. Waddle. 1989. User's Guide to the Physical Habitat Simulation System (PHABSIM). Information Paper 11. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Nehring R. B. and R. M. Anderson. 1993. Determination of population limiting critical habitats in Colorado streams using the Physical Habitat Simulation system. Rivers 4(1):1-19.

Nelson, S. A. 1989. Guidelines for using the wetted perimeter (WETP) computer program of the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, Montana.

Newcomb, T. J., S. A. Perry, and W. B. Perry. 1995. Comparison of habitat suitability criteria for smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui) from three West Virginia rivers. Rivers 5(3): 170-183.

Orth D. J. 1986. In defense of the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43:1092.

Orth D. J. and O. E. Maughan. 1982. Evaluation of the Incremental Methodology for Recommending Instream Flows for Fishes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 111(4):413-445.

Randolph, C. L. 1984. Validity of the wetted-perimeter method for recommending instream flows for rainbow trout in a small stream. MS thesis. Montana State University. Bozeman, Montana.

Reiser, D.W., T.A. Wesche, and C. Estes. 1989. Status of Instream Flow Legislation and Practices in North America. Fisheries 14(2):22-29.

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, Colorado.

Shuler, S. W. and R. B. Nehring. 1994. Using the Physical Habitat Simulation Model to evaluate a stream habitat enhancement Project. Rivers 4(3): 175- 193.

Thomas, J. A. and K. D. Bovee. 1993. Application and testing of a procedure to evaluate transferability of habitat suitability criteria. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 8:285-294.

Thompson, K. 1972. Determining Stream Flows for Fish Life. Presented at Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission Instream Flow Requirement Workshop. March 15-16, 1972.

Trihey, E. W. 1980. Field Data Reduction and Coding Procedures for Use of the IFG-2 and IFG-4 Hydraulic Simulation Models; (Draft Report). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cooperative Instream Flow Service Group, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Trihey, E. W., and Wegner. 1981. Field Data Collection Procedures for Use with the Physical Habitat Simulation System of the Instream Flow Group. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cooperative Instream Flow Service Group, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Voos, K.A., W.S. Lifton, R. Kreuger, and J.E. Caldwell. 1987. Development of habitat suitability criteria for salmonids of the MacKenzie River. Prepared for Eugene Water and Electric Board, Woodward-Clyde Consultants.

Wise, L. A., W. S. Lifton, and K. A. Voos. 1997. Trout habitat suitability criteria developed for the Response of Fish Populations to Altered Flows Project. ENTRIX. Walnut Creek, California.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Chemical Water Quality, Trout/Native Trout, Native Transition Zone Fish Community, Macroinvertebrates, Reservoir Fish, Consumptive Uses [SCE]

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S): 1. Satisfy San Joaquin River Basin Plan (Basin Plan) objectives for Project areas, streams, and reservoirs. 2. Conserve, protect and/or enhance/restore trout populations. 3. Manage sediment to maintain or restore instream aquatic habitats, riparian habitat, storage capacity [SCE], and water quality. 4. Protect and enhance the native transition zone fish community. 5. Maintain macroinvertebrate community integrity and abundance within Project bypass reaches. 6. Protect, maintain, or enhance reservoir fish populations. 7. Maintain and restore water quality to meet goals of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, providing water that is fishable, swimmable, and suitable for drinking after normal treatment. [USFS] 8. Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity for aquatic and riparian species within and between watersheds to provide physically, chemically and biologically unobstructed movement for their survival, migration and reproduction. [USFS] 9. Maintain and restore soils with favorable infiltration characteristics and diverse vegetative cover to absorb and filter precipitation and to sustain favorable conditions of stream flows. [USFS] 10. Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to sustain desired conditions of riparian, aquatic, wetland, and meadow habitats and keep sediment regimes as close as possible to those with which aquatic and riparian biota evolved. [USFS] STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S): 1. Comply with objectives defined for chemical water quality in the Basin Plan. 2. Maintain water quality conditions favorable to trout in Project waters. 3. Maintain favorable water temperatures and water quality for the native transition zone community. 4. Manage Project flow releases, reservoir sediment releases, and erosion from Project facilities to protect and enhance aquatic habitats, riparian habitats, and water quality. 5. Maintain adequate water quantity and quality to support macroinvertebrate populations.

6. Maintain adequate water quality for lake resident fish. 7. Understand potential impacts of project maintenance and operations on chemical water quality. 8. Ensure that identified beneficial uses for the water body are adequately protected. Identify the specific beneficial uses for the project area, water quality goals from the Regional Basin Plan, and the manner in which the standards and guidelines will protect the beneficial uses. [USFS] 9. Identify and implement restoration actions to maintain, restore or enhance water quality and maintain, restore, or enhance habitat for riparian and aquatic species. [USFS]

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Determine Project-related sources and magnitudes of impacts to chemical water quality including the following: 1. Dissolved Oxygen 2. Bacteria 3. Turbidity/suspended sediment 4. Toxics/metals 5. Nutrients/Productivity

Evaluate water quality parameter conditions for aquatic organisms.

PROJECT NEXUS:

The following Project-related structures and operations can adversely impact chemical water quality, either directly by storage or discharge, or indirectly by reducing the volume of water available for dilution: diversions, reservoirs, tailraces, roads, diversion construction, point source discharges (i.e., wastewater treatment plants, fish hatchery, hazardous material storage), sluicing/sediment removal, rock drops, surge chamber discharge, tunnel spoils, and spillways/forebay overflow.

GENERAL APPROACH: 1. Review applicable scientific literature to determine appropriate water quality criteria for evaluating potential Project impacts. 2. Review existing data to determine potential areas of non-compliance with Basin Plan and California Toxics Rule standards. 3. Collect water quality samples upstream, within, and downstream of Project- related infrastructure that could adversely impact chemical water quality (see Project Nexus). Analyze samples for parameters that may affect aquatic biota or may have a Basin Plan or California Toxics Rule standard. These parameters would include organic compounds, metals, nutrients, dissolved oxygen, coliform bacteria, and turbidity. For sources of turbidity or point-

source discharges, evaluate the erosion or contamination potential of Project- related sources and their proximity to streams and reservoirs. 4. Identify areas of non-compliance with the Basin Plan and Inland Surface objectives, including the anti-degradation policy. Identify the potential for adverse effects to aquatic biota. Determine whether the impact is Project- related, directly or indirectly.

DETAILED STUDY METHODOLOGY:

The Water Quality Study will consist of a review of existing data, collection and analysis of water quality samples, and observations on potential contamination / sedimentation sources in the Project area. These data will be used to identify areas of non-compliance with Basin Plan and California Toxics Rule standards and determine which impacts are Project related.

REVIEW EXISTING INFORMATION

In preparation for the field study, existing information will be reviewed to develop a conceptual framework for the study. SCE will also collect and review data available from the previous SCE studies, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) STORET, the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) WATSTORE database, Sierra National Forest (SNF), CDFG, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and NAWDEX.

EXISTING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

Water quality in the Project area must meet the objectives presented in the Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin Water Quality Control Plan for San Joaquin River waters that are sources to Millerton Lake (California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region 1998, Basin Plan) to protect beneficial uses designated in the Basin Plan. Water quality objectives are also published in the California Toxics Rule (Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State of California. Federal Register, 65 FR 31682, EPA 2000) and the National Toxics Rule (Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants. Federal Register, 57 FR 60848, EPA 1992). The objectives of the Basin Plan, the California Toxics Rule, and the National Toxics Rule consider background levels and are based on criteria that protect both human health and aquatic life.

Chemical water quality standards for waterbodies classified in the Basin Plan as beneficial for municipal use are the state and federal secondary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). The MCLs are adopted by the California Department of Health Services (DHS) in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCRs), Division 4, Chapter 15, “Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring,” and by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The most stringent standard is used to determine the relative protection of beneficial uses. The most stringent standard will be identified to the CAWG for concurrence.

FIELD PROGRAM

Existing information will be supplemented with data from three study components: 1) chemical and physical water quality parameter sampling and analysis upstream and downstream of Project components; 2) depth profiling of chemical and physical water quality parameters in reservoirs; and 3) identification of sediment and potential contaminant sources and assessment of their potential to release to Project waters. Methods for application of these study components to different Project components, including site selection and sample analysis protocol, are described in the remainder of this section.

UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM SAMPLING

Chemical and physical water quality data, to be collected upstream and downstream of Project components, will be used to identify whether the Project components are impacting Project waters and, if so, to what extent. All appropriate Project components will be subject to this sampling.

Water samples will be taken to evaluate effects on water quality associated with the following components: large dams with storage, moderate diversion dams with small impoundment, small diversions, power generation facilities, and tailraces (in the forebays). Small impoundment sampling described in the next section will serve as upstream water quality samples.

Samples will be taken as follows: 1. For small diversions, samples will be collected upstream of the diversion pool. 2. For moderate diversions, samples will be collected in the diversion pool and upstream of its influence. 3. For reservoirs, samples will be collected in the reservoir and tributary streams on the upstream river segment. 4. Power generation facilities will be sampled as well as bypass reaches.

If a non-SCE facility appears to be adversely impacting water quality, then further sampling may be conducted to evaluate the contribution of these sources to water quality in Project reaches.

Within the reach, additional impacts to water quality may exist from non-Project sources including campgrounds, grazing, road crossings, and tributaries that have these types of land uses occurring on them. When one or more of these impact mechanisms is identified to be present, additional samples may be collected upstream and downstream of them.

The field investigation will include two primary sampling events at sites listed in Table CAWG 4-2, one during early spring and one in late summer/early fall, to represent conditions during the snowmelt runoff season and the baseflow season. Monthly water quality and depth profile sampling will be conducted from June through September in large and moderate storage reservoirs. During each

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 2-54 Combined Aquatics CAWG – 4 Chemical Water Quality sampling event, in situ water quality parameters will be measured (temperature, DO, specific conductance pH and turbidity) with a portable water quality monitoring meter, following standard analytical methods (Standard Methods 2000, Stednick 1991). In addition to the in situ measurements, water depths will be measured at the station and grab samples will be collected for water quality analyses at a state certified laboratory for constituents of concern identified in the Basin Plan, the California Toxics Rule, and the National Toxics Rule (Table CAWG 4-1). Grab samples will be taken at mid-depth when the reservoirs are not stratified. When stratification is present, one sample will be taken in the epilimnion and a second in the hypolimnion. MTBE and Hydrocarbon analyses will be conducted for samples taken in waters used by motorized watercraft or watercraft storage, or storage of oils (i.e., reservoirs, oil storage areas). All sample locations will be identified using GPS.

Prior to sampling, a quality assurance plan will be provided to the field team to assure consistency of blanks and duplicates, holding times, collection methods including the thermal handling considerations, and documentation. Each grab sample collected will be labeled and logged on a chain-of-custody, and the sample container will be inserted into a ziplock bag, and placed in a container for delivery to a California-certified laboratory. A chain-of-custody is designed to create an accurate record that can be used to trace the possession and handling of samples from the moment of collection through analysis. Meteorological conditions will be noted at the time of sampling and all sampling equipment will be calibrated prior to and following use. For quality control, the calibration will be checked at each site throughout the sampling process and the water measurements and calibration information will be documented in a waterproof field logbook.

Gas supersaturation is a condition observed at some hydroelectric facilities in the Pacific Northwest, and can lead to gas bubble trauma in fish. The effect can be observed in plunge pools beneath dams with long drop spillways or downstream Powerhouses. Evidence of this condition has not been observed in this Project area. Accordingly, a worst-case area will be evaluated in the Project area. Mammoth Pool Dam has a drop of approximately 330 feet. In situ gas saturation levels will be measured with a Weiss saturometer at a safe distance downstream from the dam. Measurements will be collected during spill. In addition, in situ samples will be analyzed downstream of the Mammoth Pool Powerhouse tailrace. Levels below 110 percent will be considered acceptable.

The water quality parameters to be analyzed in the laboratory and the analytical methods to be used are listed in Table CAWG 4-1. These parameters encompass Basin Plan, the California Toxics Rule, the National Toxics Rule, and Title 22 water quality standards.

Fecal coliform, an indicator of excretion generally from warm-blooded animals, will be evaluated at a screening level in bypassed reach areas designated for contact recreation in the Basin Plan. One sample per sampling location listed in Table 4-2 will be taken and analyzed for fecal coliform. Areas from this screening sampling

Table CAWG 4-1 Laboratory Water Quality Measurements

PARAMETER METHOD TECHNIQUE Arsenic – Total SM – 3114B Gaseous Hydride AA Bicarbonate EPA – 310.1 Biochemical Oxygen Demand SM17 – 5210B 5-day Boron – Total EPA – 6010 Calcium EPA – 7140 ICP Carbonate EPA – 310.1 Chlorophyll-a and other pigments SM1020OH Photometric Chloride EPA – 300.0 Ion Chromatography Copper – Total EPA – 6010 ICAP Fecal Coliform Multiple Tube Fermentation Fluoride EPA – 340.2 Colorimetric Hardness Calculated Hydroxide EPA – 310.1 Iron – Total EPA – 6010 ICAP Lead – Total EPA – 7421 Graphite Furnace Magnesium EPA – 7450 ICP Manganese – Total EPA – 6010 ICAP Mercury – Total EPA – 1631 Cold Vapor AA Methyl-tertiary butyl ether (MtBE) EPA –8260 GC-MS Molybdenum – Total EPA – 6010 ICAP

Nitrate/Nitrite as NO3/NO2 EPA – 353.2 Colorimetric

Ammonia as NH3 EPA – 350.1 Colorimetric Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen EPA – 351.2 Colorimetric Ortho-phosphate EPA – 365.1 Colorimetric Potassium EPA – 7160 Flame AA Silver EPA – 6010 ICAP Sodium EPA – 7770 Flame Atomic Absorption (AA) Sulfate EPA – 300.0 Ion Chromatography Total Coliform Multiple Tube Fermentation Total Dissolved Solids EPA – 160.1 Gravimetric Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons EPA—8020 Gas chromatography Total Suspended Solids EPA – 160.2 Gravimetric Turbidity EPA – 180.1 Nephelometric Zinc – Total EPA – 6010 ICAP pH Note: analyses of total metals will be converted to dissolved metals using the default parameters provided in The Metals Translator (EPA 1996).

Table CAWG 4-2 Number of Samples

NUMBER OF SAMPLE PROJECT COMPONENT LOCATIONS UPSTREAM LARGE DAMS WITH STORAGE Florence Lake Dam & Reservoir 3 Vermilion Valley Dam & Reservoir1 2 1* Huntington Lake Dams 1, 2, 3, 3a, & Reservoir 3* 2* Shaver Lake Dam & Reservoir 3* Mammoth Pool Dam & Reservoir 3 1* Dam 7& Redinger Reservoir1 4 MODERATE DAMS – SMALL IMPOUNDMENT Portal Forebay1 1 Bear Diversion 1 Mono Diversion 1* Balsam Meadow Forebay 2 Dam 6 1 Dam 4 1 Dam 5 1 BYPASSED REACHES ASSOCIATED WITH: WITHIN BYPASS LARGE DAMS REACH UPSTREAM Mono Creek below Vermilion Valley Dam1 2 1 SF San Joaquin River, Florence to Mammoth Pool 4* 1 San Joaquin River, Mammoth Pool Dam to Dam 6 4 1 Big Creek, Huntington Lake to Dam 4 2 Stevenson Creek, Shaver Lake Dam to San Joaquin River 1 SF San Joaquin River, Dam 7 to BC-4 Tailrace1 2 MODERATELY-SIZED DIVERSIONS San Joaquin River, Dam 6 to Redinger 2 Bear Creek, Diversion to SF San Joaquin River 2 1 Mono Creek, Diversion to SF San Joaquin River 2 Big Creek, Dam 4 to Dam 5 3* Big Creek, Dam 5 to San Joaquin River 2 SMALL DIVERSIONS Warm Creek, Diversion to SF San Joaquin River1 2 1 Tombstone Creek, Diversion to SF San Joaquin River 2 1 North Slide Creek, Diversion to SF San Joaquin River 2 1 S. Slide Creek, Diversion to Confluence with N. Slide 2 1 Creek

Table CAWG 4-2 Number of Samples (cont.)

NUMBER OF SAMPLE PROJECT COMPONENT LOCATIONS UPSTREAM Hooper Creek, Diversion to SF San Joaquin River 2 1 Crater Creek, Diversion to SF San Joaquin River 2 1 Chinquapin Creek, Diversion to SF San Joaquin River 1 1 Camp 62 Creek, Diversion to SF San Joaquin River 3 1 Bolsillo Creek, Diversion to SF San Joaquin River 2 1 Balsam Creek, Diversion to Big Creek 1 1 Camp 61 Creek, Diversion to SF San Joaquin River1 3 2 Rock Creek, Diversion to San Joaquin River2 2 1 Ross Creek, Diversion to San Joaquin River 2 1 Pitman Creek, Diversion to Big Creek 2 1 Ely Creek, Diversion to Big Creek 2 1 Adit 8 Creek2 0 Adit 2, (at Portal Forebay)1 1 Rancheria Creek upstream of Portal Powerhouse 1 FLOW AUGMENTED STREAM Boggy Meadow, above Vermilion1 2 1 NF Stevenson Creek, Tunnel Outlet to Shaver Lake 2 1 Portal Tailrace 1 1 Balsam Creek, Forebay to Balsam Creek Diversion 2* NATURAL DIVERSION CHANNELS Tombstone Creek, Diversion Channel to Florence Lake 1 Crater Creek, Diversion Channel to Florence Lake 1 TRIBUTARY STREAM TO RESERVOIRS Cold Creek 1 OTHER Powerhouse 3 tailrace 1 Powerhouse 4 tailrace1 1 Footnote 1 These impoundments or stream reaches are associated with Projects that are undergoing the Traditional Licensing Process (Big Creek No. 4, Vermilion and Portal). 2 Ephemeral streams are not sampled. * Stations included in 5-sample 30-day fecal coliform samplings (see Table CAWG 4.3)

that contain greater than 200/100 ml fecal coliform, and samples from all reservoirs and from streams with significant amounts of contact recreation will be sampled according to a more rigorous analysis to determine if they meet the Basin Plan requirements described below:

In waters designated for contact recreation (REC-1), the fecal coliform concentration based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30-day period, shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200/100 ml, nor shall more than ten percent of the total samples during any 30-day period exceed 400/100 ml.

For sampling stations listed in Table 4-3, fecal coliform sampling will be conducted as described in the Basin Plan and shall be collected near shore areas. This sampling shall be conducted in the 30-day period including either the 4th of July or Labor Day weekends.

Table CAWG 4-3 Stations included In 5-Sample 30-Day Fecal Coliform Samplings*

NUMBER OF SAMPLE STATION LOCATIONS Shaver Lake (near shore) 3 Balsam Meadow Creek downstream of Camp Sierra 1 Huntington Lake (near shore) 3 Billy Creek (near Huntington Lake) 1 Bear Creek (near Huntington Lake) 1 Line Creek (near Huntington Lake) 1 Chiquito Creek downstream of Campground 1 Big Creek downstream of Edison Fish Hatchery 1 SF San Joaquin River downstream of Jackass Meadow 1 Campground Mono Diversion Forebay (near shore by campground) 1 Boggy Meadow Creek near Vermilion Valley Resort 1

*The 30-day sampling period will include either the Fourth of July or Labor Day weekend.

WATER QUALITY DEPTH PROFILES

Reservoirs or moderately sized impoundments can substantially modify the chemistry of water entering from a river. The effects on water quality depend on numerous factors, including the residence time of the water in the reservoir or impoundment, inflow temperature and volume, biological activity in the waterbody, temperature stratification, the depth of the discharge intakes in the dam, and frequency of discharge (Wetzel 1983). Accordingly, surveys will be conducted in Project reservoirs and moderately sized impoundments to characterize seasonal variations in temperature gradient or stratification and water quality by monthly sampling from June through September, and to evaluate natural and Project- related factors affecting these variations. During these studies, we also will

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 2-59 Combined Aquatics CAWG – 4 Chemical Water Quality characterize the water quality in the major inflow stream to the reservoir. These studies will be conducted in conjunction with or in parallel to temperature profiling described in CAWG-5, and rely upon those results to indicate stratification. During CAWG-5, water temperature, and dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration, will be measured with a YSIâ meter at 1-meter (m) depth intervals from the surface to a depth of 10 m to determine if thermal stratification is present. If it is, then this interval will be used until measurements have captured both the epilimnion and thermocline water quality conditions. Otherwise, below 10 m, or below the thermocline, the water quality parameters will be measured at 3-m intervals. Based upon the results of these measurements, chemical grab samples will be taken in both the epilimnion and hypolimnion and analyzed for the constituents listed in Table CAWG 4-1 Samples will be collected in a 4.2 liter alpha bottle to ensure the integrity of the sample from depth. When the reservoir is not thermally stratified a grab sample will be taken at mid-depth. This approach will apply to large and moderate reservoir stations identified in Table CAWG 4-2. For large reservoirs or moderately sized diversion structures, numerous depth profiles may be taken to generate a longitudinal stratification profile between inflow locations and the discharge points (refer to CAWG-5). Sampling fish tissue for mercury and silver will be conducted in Mammoth Pool using non-hatchery harvest species after consulting with Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). If a human health risk is indicated, additional sampling may be done after consulting with CAWG.

CHARACTERIZATION OF SEDIMENT AND CONTAMINANT SOURCES

Other Project components, including Project roads, rock drops, surge chamber discharges, tunnel spoils/muck, chemical storage areas, sluicing activities, NPDES discharge locations, and land use practices (grazing, timber, controlled burns, mining) can introduce fine sediments and/or contaminants into Project waters. For these Project components, a qualitative examination of proximity to Project waters and potential to contribute additional sediment or contaminants will be conducted. SCE’s hazardous material spill record will be presented in order to characterize risk from chemical storage areas. Substantial sediment sources will be mapped and described as part of CAWG-2. For areas identified as having high potential to release sediments or contaminants to Project waters, the frequency and magnitude of impact will be described. If a potential for contamination exists, an appropriate subset of analyses in Table CAWG 4-1 will be chosen to characterize the source.

STUDY AREA:

The study area will include all areas indicated in the Objectives and Project effects matrix. Table CAWG 4-2 summarizes the sample areas. Site-specific WQ sampling locations and numbers will be identified and approved by the CAWG. Table 4-3 indicates locations for five-sample 30-day fecal coliform sampling.

ANALYSIS:

Results of the surveys will be tabulated and presented graphically by depth, where appropriate. Results for dissolved oxygen will be presented as absolute values, and relative to the saturation value for the temperature and pressure conditions during measurement. Results will be compared to results of similar studies to assess yearly variations in chemical water quality conditions as described below.

PROJECT EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY

The data collected in the previous tasks will be used to: 1) assess WQ and sediment in the project area; 2) identify effects of Project operation and maintenance on water quality; and 3) identify Project facilities and operation that may influence rates of bioaccumulation. The focus of the analysis will be to compare results of the Water Quality Study to Basin Plan, California Toxics Rule, and National Toxics Rule standards. The analysis will identify adverse impacts to water quality and aquatic biota that are directly related to Project operations. The specific Project effect will be determined. If adverse effects are noted in the sampling, the level of significance will be determined, and additional study may be conducted to determine the source of the impact.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

The Water Quality Study will be coordinated with: · CAWG-2 Geomorphology · CAWG-3 Determine Flow-Related Physical Habitat In Bypass Reaches · CAWG-5 Water Temperature · CAWG-7 Characterize Fish Populations · Any sluicing plan will consider the WQ sampling approach of this plan.

SCHEDULE:

The Water Quality Study will be initiated during the spring run-off period and fall of 2002. If more detailed study is triggered by the findings, then these will occur 2003.

In order to monitor stratified conditions, sampling will need to occur after run-off but before fall. In the fall the lakes are drawn down and stratification tends to break down rapidly. Sampling will need to take place during August in order to capture the desired conditions.

REFERENCES:

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region. 1998. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Fourth Edition. Sacramento, CA.

Environmental Protection Agency. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, SW- 846.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State of California. Federal Register, 65 FR 31682.

Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants. Federal Register, 57 FR 60848.

Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State of California. 40 CFR Part 131.

Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion.

Greenberg, A.E., A. D. Eaton, L. S. Clesceri. 1999. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th Ed. American Public Health Association, Washington D.C.

Stednick, J. D. 1991. Wildland Water Quality Sampling and Analysis. Academic Press. San Diego, CA.

Wetzel, R.G. 1983. Limnology. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Water Temperature, Fisheries, Trout/Native Trout, Native Transition Zone Fish Community, Angling

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S): 1. Maintain Central Valley RWQCB Basin Plan objectives for temperature. 2. Manage both cold water and warm water fisheries, including transitional zones and harvest versus non-harvest species, where appropriate. 3. Protect special-status fish. 4. Conserve, protect and/or enhance/restore trout populations. 5. Protect and enhance the native transition zone fish community. 6. Protect anadromous fish populations in the lower San Joaquin River (downstream of Friant Dam). 7. Maintain or enhance cold water recreational angling opportunities. 8. Maintain or enhance warm water recreational angling opportunities. 9. Maintain and restore water quality to meet goals of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, providing water that is fishable, swimmable, and suitable for drinking after normal treatment. [USFS] 10. Maintain and restore habitat to support viable populations of native and desired non-native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. Prevent new introductions of invasive species. Where invasive species are adversely affecting the viability of native species, work cooperatively with appropriate State and Federal wildlife agencies to reduce impacts to native populations. [USFS] 11. Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity for aquatic and riparian species within and between watersheds to provide physically, chemically and biologically unobstructed movement for their survival, migration and reproduction. [USFS] 12. Maintain and restore the connections of floodplains, channels, and water tables to distribute flood flows and sustain diverse habitats. [USFS] 13. Maintain and restore soils with favorable infiltration characteristics and diverse vegetative cover to absorb and filter precipitation and to sustain favorable conditions of stream flows. [USFS] 14. Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to sustain desired conditions of riparian, aquatic, wetland, and meadow habitats and keep sediment regimes as close as possible to those with which aquatic and riparian biota evolved. [USFS]

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S): 1. Maintain water temperatures necessary to protect applicable beneficial uses designated in the Central Valley RWQCB Basin Plan. 2. Manage Project waters for either cold water or warm water fish, or as seasonal transition zones. 3. Maintain or enhance water temperatures for trout. A specific suggested objective is to maintain a mean daily average water temperature at or below 19°C in the Project bypass reaches managed for trout. 4. Enhance water temperatures for trout in Project bypass reaches by releasing stored cold water from Project reservoirs, if feasible. 5. Maintain favorable water temperatures and water quality for the native transition zone community. 6. Manage generation, flow releases, and reservoir operations so that they do not contribute adverse impacts to anadromous fish. 7. Provide suitable habitat conditions in Project waters to support sustainable cold water fish populations. 8. Provide suitable habitat conditions for warm water fish in Shaver Lake to support sustainable warm water fish populations while protecting habitat for cold water fish. 9. Ensure that identified beneficial uses for the water body are adequately protected. Identify the specific beneficial uses for the project area, water quality goals from the Regional Basin Plan, and the manner in which the standards and guidelines will protect the beneficial uses. [USFS] 10. Maintain or restore: (1) the geomorphic and biological characteristics of special aquatic features, including lakes, meadows, bogs, fens, wetlands, vernal pools, springs; (2) streams, including in-stream flows; and (3) hydrologic connectivity both within and between watersheds to provide for the habitat needs of aquatic-dependent species. [USFS] 11. Ensure that management activities, including fuels reduction actions, within RCAs and Critical Aquatic Refuges (CAR) enhance or maintain physical and biological characteristics associated with aquatic- and riparian-dependent species. [USFS]

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

WATER TEMPERATURE

Determine project-related sources and magnitudes of impacts to water temperature. 1. Evaluate water temperature during the warmer months. 2. Characterize water temperatures along bypass reaches for aquatic organisms.

3. Characterize the ability of the Project to affect water temperatures in bypass reaches and reaches downstream of Project reservoirs. 4. Characterize water temperatures in Project reservoirs. 5. Characterize reservoir thermal structure spring through fall. 6. Characterize reservoir volumes of cold and warm water. 7. Characterize and describe the location(s) of water temperature transition zones within project affected stream reaches. PROJECT NEXUS:

The following Project-related structures and operations can potentially impact water temperature: flow diversions, large or moderate sized reservoirs, tailraces, tunnels, point and non-point source discharges, and timing of operations.

Water impoundment in moderate and large reservoirs can lead to either increases or decreases in temperature based upon several variables, including stratification. Small diversions do not stratify. In stratified reservoirs, the depth from which water is released downstream can alter temperature in the bypassed reach. Diversions reduce the volume of water flowing in the downstream bypassed reach, resulting in more rapid change in temperature downstream. Changes in water temperature in bypass reaches affect habitat suitability for biota.

GENERAL APPROACH: 1. Evaluate existing data to determine areas where water temperatures appear to exceed those needed to protect the beneficial uses designated in the Central Valley RWQCB Basin Plan. Consider water year type and meteorological conditions. 2. Record water temperature upstream, within, and downstream of Project- related structures that could adversely impact temperature (see Project Nexus), including bypassed reaches. Augment these data with meteorologic measurements, hydrologic data, stream topography and geometry, and vegetative shading. 3. Determine thermal structure of reservoirs, and factors that affect the thermal structure during May through October. 4. Review scientific literature to determine the suitability of water temperatures for target biological resources. 5. Determine the temperature suitability of Project bypass reaches for appropriate target biological resources. 6. Collect sufficient data to evaluate the potential for using stored water in reservoirs to modify water temperatures downstream in various water year types. 7. Collect sufficient data to evaluate the effect of alternative flow releases and reservoir release temperatures to modify water temperatures in bypass reaches.

8. Identify areas of non-compliance with Central Valley RWQCB Basin Plan objectives and determine if the impact is Project-related. Conduct a reasonably controllable factor assessment. If the impact is Project related (project nexus exists), conduct additional study and analysis to determine timing and magnitude of non-compliance, as well as potential mitigation measures. 9. Review existing stream temperature model applications prepared for use in the Big Creek system for applicability and potential use. Determine accuracy and range of conditions represented. 10. Review stream and reservoir temperature analytical models for assessing in the analysis of factors affecting water temperatures, the effects of different water year types, and different meteorological conditions than observed, as well as evaluation of potential PM&E measures. 11. The results of water temperature monitoring will be reported to the CAWG along with the identification of reaches and/or reservoirs that are candidates for modeling. Recommendations for the use of stream and reservoir temperature models will be made. Alternative models will be identified. The capabilities, appropriateness, prior applications, and other relevant information regarding alternative models will be presented to the CAWG. This will include recommendations regarding the water year and meteorological year conditions to be modeled. 12. Modeling of appropriate reaches and reservoirs will take place with the concurrence of the CAWG for agreed upon conditions. DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

The principal task of this study plan is to collect sufficient data of the necessary quality to meet the objectives of the study. This will involve collecting sufficient data to characterize water temperatures in Project bypass reaches and reservoirs. As part of this water temperature monitoring program, data will be collected that will be sufficient for calibrating and verifying stream and/or reservoir water temperature models, if modeling is needed to assess impacts or design mitigation measures. Sufficient data for modeling streams and reservoirs will be collected, whether modeling is ultimately performed or not. This will include information sufficient for models to be used to represent alternative water year and meteorological year types.

At key decision points in the study, information will be presented to the CAWG. Decisions will be made with the CAWG’s concurrence prior to proceeding with the selection of reaches and reservoirs to be modeled, the selection of models, and selection of simulation conditions.

GENERAL APPROACH TO DATA COLLECTION

In order to meet the first objective of this study plan, determining whether water temperatures meet RWQCB Water Quality Objectives, we will need to monitor stream temperatures in the Project bypass reaches. In general, the sampling

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 2-66 Combined Aquatics CAWG – 5 Water Temperature approach to meet this objective will involve operating a water temperature recorder in the upstream and downstream end of each Project bypass reach. Longer stream segments that have tributary inflows or have other significant thermal influences will have one or more additional stream temperature recorders installed. These additional recorders will be sited to provide an enhanced picture of the spatial change in temperature as the streams cool or warm under the influence of meteorology, structure (stream orientation, topography, and vegetation shading), and hydrology. In order to understand the influence of meteorology and flow (including Project operations) on water temperatures, meteorology and hydrology data will be needed. Meteorological data will be collected in selected locations within the Big Creek Project basin. Hydrological data collected by SCE will be used to characterize flows. In addition, discharge measurements will be taken in selected tributaries to characterize ungaged stream reaches where temperature data are collected on a monthly basis during May through October, where feasible.

Water temperatures also will be recorded over winter in pools in Bear, Mono, and Camp 61 creeks to ascertain whether these habitats, which may be used by overwintering fish, freeze to the substrate. Other selected locations will be monitored, if necessary, to characterize amphibian habitat water temperatures.

WATER TEMPERATURE DATA COLLECTION

The Onset Optic Stowaway temperature recorder will be used for recording water temperatures. This unit is sealed and transmits its data via infrared signal. The unit is mounted in the field in an armored housing. The parts of the armored housing screw together with a chain passing through mounting rings to lock the unit and prevent it from being opened. When installed, each temperature recorder will be secured and in remote locations will be well-hidden. Each recorder will be checked for proper function prior to being placed in operation or upon having been reset. Each unit will be checked monthly. A calibration hack will be made during this operations check. A calibration hack consists of measuring the water temperature at the location of the instrument transducer with a calibrated thermometer whose calibration is traceable to a recognized standard; the date, time, and temperature is recorded and compared to the corresponding temperature measured by the electronic recorder.

Water temperatures will be monitored during May through October 2001 (except for the locations requiring over-wintering temperatures). Lower elevation reservoirs may be monitored as late as November, if thermal stratification is observed to persist that late into the fall. Temperature values are recorded no less than hourly throughout the day. Data will be downloaded monthly from the field electronic data loggers; standard field procedures that will be followed should minimize data losses (for example, during trips to download data, each instrument is examined for tampering and a calibration hack is made). Redundant recorders will be installed in locations where loss or tampering have occurred previously and in location where such sources of data loss are deemed to be more likely due to higher levels of human use. Standard electronic file handling procedures will be

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 2-67 Combined Aquatics CAWG – 5 Water Temperature used to minimize data translation errors and to maintain data quality (for example, file naming conventions have been established that specify the location and timing of data collection; templates have been established for storing data yet to be transcribed).

The data collected from these units will be downloaded from the electronic storage into a database. The data stored in the database include water temperatures, stream flows, and meteorological data (air temperature, wind speed, humidity, solar radiation) and reservoir profile data. The collected data will be plotted verses time to help indicate any data losses from equipment malfunction or environmental conditions. Suspect data will be treated as missing values. The location of each recorder will be determined using a GPS unit at the time of installation.

DETERMINING THERMAL STRUCTURE OF RESERVOIRS

Another major objective of the water temperature monitoring program is to characterize the thermal behavior of Project reservoirs. An element of this is to characterize the water temperature of major inflows to Project reservoirs. Temperature recorders will be installed to characterize water temperatures of major inflows to Project reservoirs. These recorded temperatures will provide the starting point for defining the relationships between the variables influencing water temperatures (e.g., meteorology and Project operations) and the resultant water temperature profiles within the Project reservoirs. One temperature recorder will be installed at each major inflow.

An element of characterizing the thermal behavior of lakes and reservoirs is to characterize water temperatures representative of their outflows. This is accomplished by recording water temperatures near Project intakes within reservoirs. Temperature recorders will be installed at each Project intake. These recorded temperatures will provide information on reservoir temperatures and how those temperatures change with meteorological conditions and Project operations. These recorded temperatures will also provide an estimate of the temperatures of the diverted water, prior to entering Project conduits, penstocks and Project powerhouses and subsequently returning to the stream. Water temperatures also will be measured in powerhouse tailraces.

In addition to intake temperature monitoring, water temperature profiles with depth will be measured on a monthly basis within each of the larger reservoirs. These data will be collected from May to October, depending upon access and ice cover. Since the purpose of this data collection is to characterize thermal stratification and warming in the Project reservoirs, data collection may be continued into November at lower elevation reservoirs. Profiles will not be collected after October, if the lower elevation reservoirs are mixing. These profiles are used to estimate the amount of cold water that may be available for release as a potential mitigation measure to modify downstream fisheries habitat. These profiles will be necessary, if we are to simulate reservoir temperatures. Reservoir temperature profiles are necessary to calibrate reservoir temperature models. Some of the larger reservoirs will have more than one profile measurement location. Large,

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 2-68 Combined Aquatics CAWG – 5 Water Temperature geometrically complex reservoirs may have complex stratification patterns. Temperature may vary both with the longitude of the reservoir, as well as depth. Multiple temperature profile locations are, therefore, necessary to accurately evaluate how thermal conditions vary along the reservoir and with depth. Evaluation of this information is needed to accurately estimate the amount of cooler water available for potential release.

Reservoir profile data will be collected monthly throughout the warmer months; values for water temperature, specific conductance, and dissolved oxygen will be collected concurrently. During the first field trip the reservoir will be sounded to identify the deepest location. All profile locations will be identified/located with GPS coordinates so that it is possible to take additional profiles at the same locations during subsequent surveys. Measurements will be made just under the surface and at 1-meter intervals until reaching the bottom of the thermocline or to a depth of 10 meters, if no thermocline is in evidence. After reaching this point in the depth profile, readings will be taken every three-meters to the bottom. All results are written in a waterproof field book and later transferred to a computer data file. The profiling probe is calibrated before and after each use. The cable is marked at 1 and 5 meter intervals to enhance data reproducibility.

Water temperature simulation modeling may be needed to meet our objective of characterizing the ability of the Project to affect water temperatures in the bypass reaches. Stream and reservoir temperatures will be monitored to define a water temperature baseline and to provide sufficient data for the potential application of stream temperature modeling. These recorded temperatures, in addition to the concurrent meteorological data collection and flow data collection, are necessary to calibrate an appropriate stream temperature model for accurately representing a variety of conditions and for predicting Project effects.

Concurrent meteorological data will be collected at eleven locations within the Big Creek area (these locations are listed in a later section). Five of these locations will collect wind speed and solar radiation. All of the locations will collect air temperature and relative humidity data. These data are necessary, if stream temperatures are to be simulated. Relating local air temperatures to those of stations with long periods of record is necessary to define the historical exceedances that allow us to rank the observed water temperatures as resulting from cold, normal, or hot conditions. This ranking is required to help interpret the temperature data collected, even if stream temperatures are not to be simulated.

Information about stream structure, which influences stream temperatures also will be collected during the temperature monitoring field effort. Variables such as stream slope, stream bearing, topographic and vegetative shading have a significant influence on stream temperatures. Field measurements will be obtained for use in potential stream simulations.

STUDY ASSUMPTIONS

This section presents a short list of assumptions that we have made in proposing this temperature analysis.

· We will be able to retrieve temperature and meteorological equipment in time to complete the proposed analyses. · There will be no catastrophic data losses (occasional data gaps and a missing/vandalized recorder or two is not catastrophic). · Decisions to move on to (or not to move on to) the next analysis phase will be made quickly. · If modeling is pursued, we will have sufficient and representative data for accurately representing the stream/reach (i.e., be able to calibrate and validate the model with reasonable statistics). Critical to this stage are representative flow estimates.

STUDY AREA:

Each Project bypass reach and reservoir will be monitored during 2001. These data will supplement data collected during 2000 and data collected during earlier years. The reaches and locations proposed to be monitored are listed in Tables CAWG 5-1 through 5-4. The final locations will be approved by the CAWG. The objective of monitoring is to adequately describe temperatures in bypass (or enhanced flow) reaches and reservoirs. There is some redundancy in the identification of locations between tables. For example, a bypass reach that is a tributary to a river would be listed both in the bypass reach table and as a tributary to the reservoir downstream.

The bypass reaches that will be monitored during 2001 are listed in Table CAWG 5-1. The reservoirs and larger diversions that will be monitored during 2001 are listed in Table CAWG 5-2.

Powerhouse tailraces that will be monitored during 2001 are listed in Table CAWG 5-3. The meteorological data locations that will be monitored during 2001 are listed in Table CAWG 5-4.

Locations to be monitored for over-winter freezing will include pools in Bear, Mono, and Camp 61 creeks. Amphibian breeding and nursery areas that will be monitored for water temperatures will be selected after initial identification of amphibian habitats.

ANALYSIS:

As stated above, water temperature field data will be inputted into a database for review and quality checked. The checked data will then be summarized. Daily mean, minimum, and maximum stream temperature values will be calculated from

Table CAWG 5-1 Big Creek Bypass Reaches to be Monitored during 2001- Number of Units to be Installed by Location

TRIBUTARIES LOCATION AND NUMBER OF TEMPERATURE ABOVE BELOW ENTERING RECORDERS DIVERSION DIVERSION BYPASS REACH South Fork San Joaquin River Tombstone Creek 11 1 0 South Slide Creek 11 1 0 North Slide Creek 11 1 0 Hooper Creek 2 2 0 Crater Creek 1 22 0 Bear Creek 2 2 0 Chinquapin Creek 1 0 0 Camp 62 Creek 1 1 0 Bolsillo Creek 1 1 0 Camp 61 Creek 2 2 1 Mono Creek (Vermilion to Div. Forebay) 0 2 0 Mono Creek (Div. Forebay to San Joaquin River) 1 2 0 Warm Creek 1 2 0 SF San Joaquin River 0 12 5 Adit #2 Seepage (below Portal Forebay) 0 2 0 Mammoth Reach Rock Creek 1 1 0 Ross Creek 1 1 0 San Joaquin River (Mammoth Pool Dam to PH) 1 4 2 Big Creek Reach Rancheria Creek 03 1 0 Tributary To Big Creek 0 1 0 Big Creek (Dam 1 to PH No. 1) 1 3 0 Big Creek (Dam 4 to PH No. 2) 2 3 4 Big Creek (Dam 5 to PH No. 8) 3 2 0 Pitman Creek 1 1 0 Balsam Creek (Dam to Low. Div. Forebay) 3 1 0 Balsam Creek (Low. Div. Forebay to Big Creek) 1 1 0 Ely Creek 1 1 0 1 Not active in 2000. 2 4 In diversion channel near Florence Lake. 5 Rancheria Creek is a Tributary to Huntington Lake.

Table CAWG 5-1 Big Creek Bypass Reaches to be Monitored during 2001- Number of Units to be Installed by Location (cont.)

TRIBUTARIES LOCATION AND NUMBER OF TEMPERATURE ABOVE BELOW ENTERING RECORDERS DIVERSION DIVERSION BYPASS REACH Stevenson Creek/Stevenson Reach NF Stevenson Creek 04 2 0 Stevenson Creek (Shaver Lake to San Joaquin 1 3 0 River)* SJR Stevenson Reach (Dam 6 to PH No. 3)* 1 2 0 SJR Horseshoe Bend (Dam 7 to PH No. 4) ** 1 0 0 4 Enhanced flow reach. * Model may be available and will be evaluated. ** Horseshoe Bend Reach from Dam No. 7 to PH 4 has been modeled using SNTMP, and the model is available.

Table CAWG 5-2 Reservoirs and Impoundments with Number of Locations to be Monitored During 2001

PROFILE TRIBUTARIES LOCATIONS Large Dams with Storage Florence Lake Dam & Reservoir 2 2 Vermilion Valley Dam & Reservoir (Lake T.A. Edison) 2 3 Huntington Lake Dams 1, 2, 3, 3a, & Reservoir 3 6 Shaver Lake Dam & Reservoir 2 1 Mammoth Pool Dam & Reservoir 3 6 Dam 7 & Redinger Lake Reservoir 0 2 Moderate Diversion Dams – Small Impoundment Portal Dam & Forebay 1 1 Balsam Dam & Forebay 1 3 San Joaquin River Dam 6 & Forebay 1 2

Table CAWG 5-3 Powerhouse Tailraces to be Monitored for Water Temperature During 2001

POWERHOUSE TAILRACES TO BE MONITORED Portal Powerhouse Big Creek Powerhouse No. 1 Big Creek Powerhouse No. 2 Big Creek Powerhouse No. 2A Big Creek Powerhouse No. 8 Eastwood Powerhouse Mammoth Pool Powerhouse Big Creek Powerhouse No. 3

Table CAWG 5-4 Meteorological Data Sites to be Monitored During 2001

AIR RELATIVE WIND LOCATION TEMPERATURE HUMIDITY SPEED SOLAR RADIATION Lake Edison Ö Ö Ö Ö Florence Lake Ö Ö Ö Ö Mammoth Pool Ö Ö Ö Ö Huntington Lake Ö Ö Ö Ö PH No. 3 Ö Ö Ö Ö SF SJR upst. Rattlesnake Creek Ö Ö Eastwood Tailrace Ö Ö Stevenson Creek at RR Grade Ö Ö Upst. PH No. 2 Ö Ö Upst. Mammoth Pool Ö Ö Mammoth Pool PH Ö Ö the data collected at each water temperature monitoring location. These data will be tabulated and plotted to display the results of temperature monitoring.

The managed data will be used in a stepwise analysis to determine which bypass reaches have temperatures that impact the reach’s ability to serve as habitat for fish. This stepwise analysis is described below.

First, we will categorize the bypass reaches according to the results of water temperature monitoring into: 1) those reaches where upstream-to-downstream temperature increases appeared to be to in compliance with the temperature objectives in the Basin Plan; and 2) those reaches where upstream-to- downstream temperature increases are sometimes observed to be not in compliance with the temperature objectives in the Basin Plan. For those bypass reaches where temperatures do not exceed warming criteria, potential Project water temperature effects will be assessed to be minimal.

For those reaches where observed heating is observed to be potentially out of compliance with the temperature objectives of the Basin Plan, further analysis will take place. During this phase, we will analyze historical meteorological and flow data so that we can evaluate what kind of hydrological and meteorological years were monitored (e.g., hot, hot and dry, normal, cold and wet). Typically, we produce exceedance plots of air temperature and flow to depict where the monitored years rank.

In the second phase of our analysis, we will compare temperatures observed in the bypass reaches to temperature criteria for target species. If the observed reach temperatures remain below appropriate temperature tolerance criteria for target species and lifestages, the reach can provide habitat at usable temperatures.

Those stream reaches with temperature increases above the criteria will need to be studied in subsequent phases, which are outlined below. Note that if the years monitored are cooler or wetter than “normal”, it may be necessary to estimate temperature increases during “normal” conditions by using our historical data analysis, described above, and stream temperature modeling to verify lack of Project impact.

The third phase of this analysis involves stream temperature simulation modeling of those bypass reaches that the CAWG determine fail the tests represented by the first phase. Models will be used to investigate potential causes of warm temperatures in those bypass reaches, as detailed by CAWG.

In order to carry out this analysis, we will need to use calibrated and verified stream temperature models for the bypass reaches to be studied in the third phase of this analysis. We will review existing water temperature model studies from the Big Creek system to determine if earlier modeling efforts are applicable and adaptable to our needs. We will take advantage of previous work whenever possible. New stream temperature model applications will be developed, if previously applied models are inappropriate to the conditions to be simulated. An existing model application can be considered appropriate if: 1) it has been calibrated and validated; 2) it has a relatively good degree of fit (for example, a standard error less than 1.5 °C) to the original application and to data collected during this study; 3) the input files and code for running the model are available and documented; and 4) the model application can be readily adapted to simulate the alternate conditions required for this study (alternate water years, alternate flows, etc.). We will analyze the appropriateness of existing model applications and present this analysis to CAWG for a decision on the further use of that model.

If CAWG determines that new model applications are required, we will review appropriate stream temperature models and evaluate their applicability to the conditions and areas to be simulated. We will summarize our analysis of these models so that CAWG may make an informed decision of which model (or models) to use. For example, we will include the USGS stream temperature model,

SNTEMP, (Theurer, Voos, and Miller 1984; the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality model, Heat Source (Oregon DEQ 2000); and the US Army Corps of Engineers models, CE-QUAL-W2 (Cole and Buchak 1995) and CE- QUAL-RIV1 (U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 1995), in our summary. Our summary will be limited to physical process models (rather than regression, black-box models) and will consider the processes simulated, scale of simulation (i.e., reach or stream network), data requirements, and other factors that will indicate a model’s applicability to this current study.

For any model used in these analyses, basic information on the configuration of the model, its calibration, and its verification will be provided as part of the product of this study. The information that will be provided about model performance will include calibration and verification statistics, predictions from model simulations, and measures of statistical uncertainty associated with those predictions. The basic output of the temperature model will include predicted water temperatures at regular intervals along the bypass reach for specific dates, meteorology, and flow conditions.

For those reaches for which Project water temperature impacts are identified, we will evaluate potential mitigation measures. The first question to be addressed at this phase is as follows: “Can flow releases above current values be combined with existing release temperatures to alter bypass reach water temperatures to attain suitable water temperatures for the target species and lifestages?” We recognize, that depending upon the target species, suitable water temperatures may need to be cooler or warmer than those that currently occur in the bypass reach during the summer months. For bypass reach water temperatures that are too warm, we will evaluate the release of additional flow to the reach. To perform this analysis, we will simulate downstream temperatures resulting from incremental flow increases above current Project minimum flows at current release water temperatures. If a release flow is identified that reduces temperature impacts to suitable levels and is a reasonably attainable flow release; we have identified a potential method (mitigation measure) for attaining suitable temperatures in the bypass reach analyzed. As part of this analysis, we will need to evaluate whether the release water temperature used in the analysis can be sustained at the identified flow for sufficiently long to provide the necessary benefit.

To address this question, we will need to identify whether the volume of water within the correct temperature range is available in the upstream reservoir. In most cases, we will be concerned with the availability of cool reservoir water that would be necessary to be released to reduce bypass reach temperatures to suitable levels and what effects resulting changes in reservoir temperatures would have on biota in the reservoir. This will be of particular interest where salmonids are the target species within the bypass reach. Where feasible, a simple analytical approach to evaluating the volume of available cool water in the reservoir will be used. This will consist of a screening heat and mass budget analysis of the

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 2-75 Combined Aquatics CAWG – 5 Water Temperature reservoir. Where reservoir conditions are too complex for an analytical solution, an appropriate reservoir temperature model will be applied.

In order to analyze the potential for water temperature control in Project reservoirs for downstream releases, the CAWG may determine that reservoir temperature modeling may be needed. Factors that may influence the potential need for reservoir modeling are related to the physical complexity of thermal and mixing conditions, as well as the nature of Project operations. These factors may include the volume and geometry of the reservoir, relative volume of water compared to storage, the presence of thermal stratification, whether thermal stratification varies along the longitude of the reservoir, density of inflows relative to thermal stratification, the configuration and depth of the diversion intake, and the configuration and depth of the fish water release intake. If CAWG determines that new model applications are required, we will review appropriate reservoir temperature models and evaluate their applicability to the lakes and reservoirs to be simulated. The selection of the model would be dependent on the geometry/complexity of each reservoir to be simulated. We will summarize our analysis of these models so that CAWG may make an informed decision of which model (or models) to use. For example, we will include the Army Corps of Engineers model CE-QUAL-R1 (USACOE 1995) and the University of Western Australia’s model DYRESM-1D (Centre for Water Research, 1992), used to model a reservoir that was well-mixed longitudinally; and the Army Corps of Engineers model CE-QUAL-W2 (Cole and Buchak 1995) and the University of Western Australia’s model DYRESM-2D (Centre for Water Research, 1992b), used to simulate a reservoir where stratification varied along the longitude of the reservoir, in our summary.

In some reservoirs, cool water may be available in sufficient volume, but may not be available for release downstream due to the configuration and location of the fish water release intake. CAWG will select reservoir models that will allow for analysis of the capabilities of such intakes. In addition, the reservoir model should allow us to assess whether intake modifications may be made to selectively release cool water. In cases where the release of warmer water is preferred to benefit the target species and lifestages in the bypass reach, these conditions also may be analyzed using the same approach and tools discussed above. In the case of providing warmer water temperatures, altered release flows to the bypass reach and the availability and feasibility of selective release of warmer temperature water from the Project reservoir upstream can be evaluated.

The results of this study including the tabulated results of model simulations will be presented in a report. The results of water temperature analyses performed in this study will be integrated with habitat availability analysis (described in CAWG-3) to produce a stream temperature conditioned habitat analysis for target species and lifestages.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

Coordination will occur between this task and · CAWG-4 Chemical Water Quality · CAWG-6 Hydrology · CAWG-8 Amphibians and Reptiles · CAWG-3 Determine Flow-Related Physical Habitat in Bypass Reaches · CAWG-10 Macroinvertebrates · CAWG-7 Characterize Fish Populations

SCHEDULE:

Data necessary for water temperature analyses will be collected starting during May and continuing through October 2001. Winter data would be collected during 2001-2002 in selected locations. Amphibian water temperature data would be collected during 2001-2002 at sites selected with the CAWG. Analysis of the data collected and analysis of potential impacts and potential mitigation will be initiated after October 2001. Data collected through the winter will not be analyzed until 2002.

REFERENCES:

Centre for Water Research. 1992. "DYRESM 1D user's manual, Ver. 6.75.2 DW", University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Australia.

Centre for Water Research. 1992b. "2D DYRESM supplement to the 1D DYRESM user's manual (6.75.2 DW)", University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Australia.

Cole, T. and Buchak, E. (1995). “CE-QUAL-W2: A two-dimensional, laterally averaged, hydrodynamic and water quality model, Version 2.0,” Instruction Report EL-95-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality. Oct. 2000. Umatilla Basin TMDL & WQMP, Public Comment Draft, Appendix A-4: Temperature Technical Analysis.

Theurer, F. D., K. A. Voos, and W. J. Miller. 1984. Instream Water Temperature Model. Instream Flow Information Paper 16 Cooperative Instream Flow and Aquatic System Group, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fort Collins, CO.

US Army Corps of Engineers. 1995. CE-QUAL-R1: A Numerical one-dimensional Model of Reservoir Water Quality; User’s Manual. Instruction Report E-82- 1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. 1995. “CE-QUAL-RIV1: A Dynamic, One-Dimensional (Longitudinal) Water Quality Model for Streams,” Instruction Report EL-95-2, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Hydrology

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S): 1. Achieve a hydrologic regime that better mimics the natural hydrograph. 2. Provide a balanced hydrologic regime that achieves the important functions of the natural hydrograph while simultaneously preserving the beneficial additional uses made possible by water storage, including: hydroelectric generation, reservoir-based recreation, downstream consumptive uses, and moderation of floods. [SCE] 3. Maintain the current hydrologic regime unless it is shown that an alternate regime provides measurable ecological benefit. [SCE] 4. Maintain and restore the connections of floodplains, channels, and water tables to distribute flood flows and sustain diverse habitats. [USFS] 5. Maintain and restore soils with favorable infiltration characteristics and diverse vegetative cover to absorb and filter precipitation and to sustain favorable conditions of stream flows. [USFS] 6. Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to sustain desired conditions of riparian, aquatic, wetland, and meadow habitats and keep sediment regimes as close as possible to those with which aquatic and riparian biota evolved. [USFS] 7. Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity for aquatic and riparian species within and between watersheds to provide physically, chemically and biologically unobstructed movement for their survival, migration and reproduction. [USFS] 8. Maintain and restore the physical structure and condition of stream banks and shorelines to minimize erosion and sustain desired habitat diversity. [USFS] STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S): 1. Manage flow magnitude, timing, duration, and rate of change to mimic the natural hydrograph. 2. Maintain or restore: (1) the geomorphic and biological characteristics of special aquatic features, including lakes, meadows, bogs, fens, wetlands, vernal pools, springs; (2) streams, including in-stream flows; and (3) hydrologic connectivity both within and between watersheds to provide for the habitat needs of aquatic-dependent species. [USFS]

3. Maintain to the extent possible the existing beneficial uses of the available water supply made possible by storage of water runoff from the upper South Fork San Joaquin River basin, including: (1) hydroelectric generation; (2) downstream consumptive uses, such as municipal supply and agriculture, throughout the year; (3) moderation of the destructive effects of floods; and (4) increased recreation made possible by the existence of large reservoirs. [SCE] 4. Perform changes to current flow regime only when measurable benefits show the change to be cost effective. [SCE]

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S): 1. Describe the unimpaired and impaired (“without Project”) and current (“Project”) Project area hydrology. Provide information whose significance will be assessed in other studies. 2. Determine if additional gages are needed. 3. Describe water balance between hydroelectric diversions and other flows, including minimum flow requirements, throughout the Project area. 4. Determine how to classify water year type. 5. Determine the effects of PM&Es on the hydrologic regime. PROJECT NEXUS:

The following Project-related structures and operations can impact the relicensing basin hydrology: diversions, flow augmentation, reservoirs, and timing of operations.

GENERAL APPROACH: 1. The existing network of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and SCE gaging stations will be used to describe the surface water hydrology of the relicensing basin. Magnitude, timing, duration, rate of change and frequency of flows will be described with hydrographs and exceedance tables. Time- scales will be those allowed by the existing data. This will generally be daily, monthly, hourly, or in 15-minute increments. 2. The Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) analysis will be conducted for the available daily streamflow data for gages with reasonably long periods of record (at least 10-20 years). The daily streamflow data also will be used to reconstruct the unregulated hydrology at sites agreed upon by CAWG. 3. Identify data gaps in the existing gaging network. For areas with limited data or no data, hydrologic analysis may be augmented using comparison to similar-sized, nearby subwatersheds, precipitation estimates, or other hydrologic techniques. If necessary, additional gages will be installed. 4. Using the above analyses, Project-related alterations to the surface water hydrology, including magnitude, timing, duration, frequency, and rate of change will be identified.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

The first task of the Hydrology Study is to assemble and present the existing hydrologic database (both USGS and SCE) for the relicensing basin. Much of these tabular data were presented in the Initial Information Package (SCE 2000). These data will either be carried over to the Hydrology report, or augmented with a longer period of record if available.

The magnitude, timing, duration, rate of change and frequency of flows will be described with hydrographs and exceedance tables. The time-scales will be those allowed by the existing data, daily, monthly, hourly, or in 15-minute increments. A series of tables will also be generated from the streamflow gaging data including: monthly flow statistics tables summarizing mean monthly flow and monthly exceedance flows; tables summarizing average monthly flow; tables summarizing mean daily flow for each year of the period of record; duration curves depicting the median flow for each station. The timing of construction of various Project components will be highlighted in the data presentation.

In addition, hydrographs illustrating mean daily stream flow at the point of diversion and in the bypassed reaches for each month of representative water year types will be presented. This depiction will assist in understanding the recurrence interval of peak flows by water year type. For example, in the bypassed reaches, peak flows are rare during dry years. Accordingly, periods of record primarily containing drought years will not provide an adequate statistical representation of long-term stream hydrology. For areas with no or limited data, we will augment the available data (and note as such) using comparison to similar- sized, nearby subwatersheds, precipitation estimates, or other hydrologic techniques (Linsley and Franzini 1979; Linsley et al., 1982; USGS 2001). The proposed approach should be discussed with the CAWG prior to proceeding. In addition, for areas with limited or no data, a recommendation will be made to the CAWG whether additional gages are needed.

The data will be used to describe the balance of flows in the Project area, comparing the volume of water diverted for hydroelectric generation and the volume remaining instream, including minimum flow requirements. The analysis will evaluate this balance based upon water year type.

The data also will be used to describe the unregulated hydrology to the extent feasible, and allow comparison to Project-related hydrology. For streams at high elevation with a single diversion, the unregulated hydrology will represent flow above the point of the diversion. Where accretion flow downstream of the diversion has been estimated, it will be included. For streams subject to more complex hydrologic change, the unregulated hydrology will be reconstructed to the extent feasible. This will generally result in a more limited number of locations than are currently gaged.

The Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) program will be used with the available daily streamflow data for gages with as available and usable periods of

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 2-77 Combined Aquatics CAWG – 6 Hydrology record, using the methods in Richter et al. (1996). The IHA method allows calculation of up to 32 hydrologic parameters to compare the degree of hydrologic alteration on the magnitude, timing, frequency, duration, and rate of change in a system using biologically relevant variables.

Both regulated and unregulated hydrology will be statistically compared using calculations of selected indicators of hydrologic alteration. The results will illustrate general Project changes to the magnitude, timing, frequency, duration, and rate of change of flow conditions. The IHA indices will supplement hydrographs and exceedance tables, and provide basic hydrologic information to be interpreted in other studies (see Coordination Needs). IHA will also be run for PM&E measures.

STUDY AREA:

The Hydrology Study will include all Project effected streams and impoundments in the relicensing basin.

ANALYSIS/OUTPUT:

The study will be primarily descriptive in nature. Areas used for modeling will be determined on the adequacy of the gaging network, and availability of data. IHA indices will then be calculated for specific locations determined by the CAWG. If changes to flows are specified as mitigation for aquatic biology, sediment transport/channel maintenance, recreation, or other studies, then the results of the Hydrology Study will be used to identify the best timing, magnitude, duration, frequency, and rate of change to better mimic the natural hydrograph.

Fifteen-minute data will be provided and analyzed to determine ramping effects for specific locations as determined by the CAWG.

ASSUMPTIONS :

Elucidation of hydrologic alterations alone does not describe or predict biological resources or channel maintenance responses (Richter et al. 1996). The significance of the hydrologic alteration will be determined in other studies, such as Geomorphology, CAWG-3 Determine Flow-Related Physical Habitat in Bypass Reaches, and CAWG-11 Riparian.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

The Hydrology Study will be coordinated with the following studies: · CAWG-1 Characterize Stream and Reservoir Habitats · CAWG-2 Geomorphology · CAWG-3 Determine Flow-Related Physical Habitat In Bypass Reaches · CAWG-5 Water Temperature · CAWG-8 Amphibians and Reptiles

· CAWG-11 Riparian · CAWG-13 Anadromous Salmonids · CAWG-14 Fish Passage · CUL - 1 Prehistoric Cultural Resources · LAND - 5 Storage Capacity and Generation Assessment · REC - 2 Manage Spill-Event Feasibility Study · REC – 3 Whitewater Recreation Assessment Study · REC – 4 Whitewater Play-Site Feasibility Study · REC – 5 Reconnaissance Stream Corridor Recreation Assessment · REC – 8 Angling Opportunities and Experience Assessment

SCHEDULE:

Development of the hydrologic database and preparation of hydrographs will occur during 2001. The need to augment records will be determined in 2001, and will occur in 2002. IHA will be conducted beginning in late 2001, early 2002 and in 2003-2004 as results of the CAWG-12 routing model will become available.

REFERENCES:

Linsley, R. K. and J. B. Franzini. 1979. Water-Resources Engineering, Third Edition. McGraw-Hill Series in Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.

Linsley, Kohler, and Paulhus. 1982. Hydrology for Engineers, Third Edition. McGraw-Hill Series in Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.

Richter, B. D., J. V. Baumgartner, J. Powell, and D. P. Braun. 1996. A Method for Assessing Hydrologic Alteration Within Ecosystems. Conservation Biology 10: 1163-1174.

Southern California Edison Company. May, 2000. Initial Information Package for the Big Creek Hydroelectric System Alternative Licensing Process.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2001. Streamstats. Internet: http://ma.water.usgs.gov/streamstats.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Fisheries, Trout/Native Trout, Native Transition Zone Fish Community, Reservoir Fish, Angling

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S): 1. Manage both cold water and warm water fisheries, including transitional zones and harvest vs. non-harvest species, where appropriate. 2. Balance fisheries management with other aquatic resources. 3. Protect special-status fish. 4. Conserve, protect and/or enhance/restore trout populations. 5. Establish and maintain wild trout stocks in suitable waters. 6. Protect and enhance the native transition zone fish community. 7. Protect, maintain, or enhance reservoir fish populations. 8. Manage Project waters for either wild trout or hatchery trout. 9. Maintain and restore habitat to support viable populations of native and desired non-native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. Prevent new introductions of invasive species. Where invasive species are adversely affecting the viability of native species, work cooperatively with appropriate State and Federal wildlife agencies to reduce impacts to native populations. [USFS] 10. Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity for aquatic and riparian species within and between watersheds to provide physically, chemically and biologically unobstructed movement for their survival, migration and reproduction. [USFS] 11. Maintain and restore the connections of floodplains, channels, and water tables to distribute flood flows and sustain diverse habitats. [USFS] 12. Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to sustain desired conditions of riparian, aquatic, wetland, and meadow habitats and keep sediment regimes as close as possible to those with which aquatic and riparian biota evolved. [USFS] STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S): 1. Manage Project waters for either cold water or warm water fish, or as seasonal transition zones. 2. Manage Project activities to protect both fisheries resources and other aquatic species (i.e., amphibians and reptiles). 3. Maintain or enhance viable populations of special-status fish species in Project waters.

4. Preferentially manage habitat for Forest Service sensitive fish in Project waters. 5. Consider the effect of stocking on native trout. Restrict the stocking of hatchery trout in wild trout waters. 6. Limit angler take of wild trout to a sustainable level. 7. Prevent introduction of exotic species that may adversely affect the native transition zone community. 8. Prevent introduction of exotic species that may adversely affect the native fish or amphibian communities. 9. Maintain adequate populations of lake rearing sport fish (i.e., kokanee). 10. Maintain or restore: (1) the geomorphic and biological characteristics of special aquatic features, including lakes, meadows, bogs, fens, wetlands, vernal pools, springs; (2) streams, including in-stream flows; and (3) hydrologic connectivity both within and between watersheds to provide for the habitat needs of aquatic-dependent species. [USFS] 11. Preserve, restore, or enhance special aquatic features, such as meadows, lakes, ponds, bogs, fens, and wetlands, to provide the ecological conditions and processes needed to recover or enhance the viability of species that rely on these areas. [USFS] 12. Identify and implement restoration actions to maintain, restore, or enhance water quality and maintain, restore, or enhance habitat for riparian and aquatic species. [USFS] 13. Ensure that management activities, including fuels reduction actions, within RCAs and Critical Aquatic Refuges (CAR) enhance or maintain physical and biological characteristics associated with aquatic- and riparian-dependent species. [USFS] 14. Preserve, restore, or enhance special aquatic features, such as meadows, lakes, ponds, bogs, fens, and wetlands, to provide the ecological conditions and processes needed to recover or enhance the viability of species that rely on these areas. [USFS] STUDY OBJECTIVE(S): 1. Characterize the abundance, distribution and structure of target resource fish populations and communities in Project-affected waters. 2. Characterize the growth of target fish species. 3. Determine whether rainbow trout in previous anadromous fish areas are of steelhead origin. 4. Characterize fish stocking and potential impacts to native fish populations.

PROJECT NEXUS:

The presence and operation of reservoirs and diversions may alter conditions and change the abundance and distribution of aquatic vertebrates. Altered habitats

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 2-82 Combined Aquatics CAWG – 7 Characterize Fish Populations and flows may affect the growth of various fish, amphibians and reptiles, or may result in population isolation.

GENERAL APPROACH: 1. Review existing CDFG, USFS, and SCE fish survey data, fish stocking records, and other relevant information prior to performing any instream or lake/reservoir sampling. Available data from these documents will assist in the design of related habitat and fisheries studies. 2. Sample representative habitat areas in Project bypass reaches by various methods, including: · Direct observation of fish by snorkel surveys in habitats that are too deep for effective sampling by electrofishing. · Electrofishing surveys in shallow water habitats and use of mark recapture or multiple removal population estimates. 3. Sample Project reservoirs by various methods, including: · Netting (minnow, gill and trap nets) to determine fish species composition and relative abundance. Where studies are currently being conducted by the CDFG or USFS, existing data will be used. · Hydroacoustic fish density surveys in all large reservoirs.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

REVIEW EXISTING DATA

Prior to initiating field data collection, existing data from SCE, CDFG and the Sierra National Forest will be reviewed to determine where adequate information to address the study objectives already exists, or if this information is out of date, to allow new sample sites to be located, and to allow comparison with previous sampling efforts. We will collect and summarize this information by stream and channel-type. This summary will include a table with the year the sampling was conducted, the sampling locations, site characteristics, the method used, the species present and their estimated abundance. Any available information on growth or population structure will be included. Information on fish stocking will be reviewed and records of historic introductions will be compared to existing populations.

STREAM SAMPLING

Site Selection

Sampling sites will be selected based on the results of the habitat inventory mapping (CAWG-1). Each stream will be divided into different segments based on geomorphic channel-type. A fish population sampling location will be placed within one representative reach of each channel-type within each Project bypass reach. Sampling sites will be selected to include all of the major types of habitat present within a given reach. Habitat composition and proximity, site-specific

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 2-83 Combined Aquatics CAWG – 7 Characterize Fish Populations characteristics and access will be considered in selecting appropriate sampling sites. Approximately 100 m of stream will be sampled in each channel-type within a stream. Sampling sites will be placed in each bypass reach and at one site in a comparable channel-type upstream of the Project diversion in the case of small and medium-sized diversions. For larger reservoirs, habitat mapping information will be used to assess whether tributary streams to the reservoir may serve as a reference reach for the bypass reach downstream of the diversion dam. Sampling in main and reference stream sites will be conducted using electrofishing and/or direct observation techniques, depending on the habitat types to be sampled. Each site selected will be sampled once during this program. Unless otherwise noted, all sites for this study will be sampled during normal Project operations. A meeting will be held to review candidate site locations with the CAWG prior to sampling.

Electrofishing Sampling Protocols

Electrofishing will be used in habitats sufficiently shallow (under normal Project operating conditions) to allow adequate sampling. Prior to initial sampling activity, specific habitats units will be evaluated to determine if the site can be adequately sampled. If the site can be adequately sampled, the upstream and downstream ends of the site will be blocked using 0.25 inch mesh block nets. The block nets will prevent fish passage in or out of the site during sampling. Where conditions permit, sampling will be conducted using three-pass depletion, in which fish are stunned and removed from the site, in three sequential passes. In this case, population estimates will be based on the maximum likelihood technique of Zippin (1958). Population estimates will be based on size-class for all species.

At most sites, electrofishing will be conducted using one or more backpack electrofishing units (depending on the width of the stream sampled). Sampling will be performed in an upstream direction beginning at the downstream block net and finishing at the upstream block net. Settings on the unit will be adjusted to provide adequate strength for polarization and anesthesia of fish based on site-specific conditions. The typical electrofishing team will consist of one backpack electrofisher, one net person, and one net/livecar person for streams smaller than 20 feet wide. Additional backpack electrofishers and net persons would be required for streams greater than 20 feet wide. Electrofishing will generally be conducted as described by Reynolds (1996). For streams that are very wide and relatively deep, a portable barge electrofishing unit may be used.

When a multiple-pass-depletion method is used to determine the population estimate, fish captured from each pass will be transferred to separate holding pens outside of the sample site. Between passes, the fish captured during that pass will be processed as described in the Fish Processing section below.

A mark and recapture technique will be used to estimate fish populations where site specific conditions indicate that the probability of capture is likely to be low, such as larger streams with very low conductivity. If the mark-and-recapture method is used to determine the population estimate, captured fish will be

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 2-84 Combined Aquatics CAWG – 7 Characterize Fish Populations processed, marked (fin-clipped) and returned to the site. The site will be rested for two hours to allow the fish time to mix, redistribute and resume normal behavior. The site will then be re-sampled using the same technique and level of effort. The number of marked versus unmarked fish will be recorded, and unmarked fish will be processed in the same manner as described above, except that no fin-clips will be made. This data will be used in the mark-and-recapture estimations to determine population estimates by size class for all species.

Snorkel Survey Sample Protocols

Snorkel surveys will be conducted in habitat units that are too deep to be effectively sampled using electrofishing techniques. Sample sites will be divided into one or more swimming lanes parallel to the direction of stream flow. If needed, weighted ropes will be used as lane markers. Prior to installing the lane markers, underwater visibility will be measured to determine lane width (Hillman et al. 1992). If stream velocity or depth impede upon the diver's ability to move upstream, pull ropes will be used to assist the diver. A main rope will be positioned at the uppermost boundary of the sample site, perpendicular to the flow. Pull ropes (one for each diver) will be evenly spaced and attached to the main rope. The pull ropes will extend to the lower most boundary of the sample site and allowed to float at the water surface parallel with the stream flow. Divers will use the pull ropes to aid their movement upstream. Lane markers and pull ropes, if used, will be positioned in the site at least two hours prior to each direct underwater observation survey. This delay should minimize the influence of disturbance on the fish community (Hankin and Reeves 1988). Methods will generally be similar to those presented in Griffith (1972), Platts et al. (1983), Hicks and Watson (1985), Hankin and Reeves (1988), and Hillman et al. (1992). Surveys will be performed between 0900 to 1600 hours (Hankin and Reeves 1988) to maximize the likelihood that light intensity will be suitable for observing fish. Direct observation surveys will not be conducted on overcast days (Platts et al. 1983).

Divers will enter the water slightly below the downstream end of the sample unit (Hankin and Reeves 1988). They will move directly across and slightly below the lowermost boundary of the sample unit into their designated swimming lane. When in position, the divers will move upstream to the lowermost boundary of the sample unit. From a fixed position and prior to moving upstream, the divers will look upstream to locate fish on the fringe of vision (Platts et al. 1983). Divers will identify and count fish species in their lane while moving slowly upstream at a uniform, even, pace with no abrupt movements. Fish will be counted as they pass below or to the side of an observer. Cover for fish such as interstitial spaces between substrate particles, woody debris, bubble screens, crannies in bedrock and along stream margins will be inspected closely for concealed fish (Fausch and White 1981; Hicks and Watson 1985). The methods presented in Hicks and Watson (1985) will be followed when identifying and counting fish in habitats where the bottom cannot be seen from the surface. One diver will dive while the others remain at the surface. Once the diver has returned to the surface, the diver to the near right will dive while the others remain at the surface. After each diver

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 2-85 Combined Aquatics CAWG – 7 Characterize Fish Populations has surveyed the pool bottom in their lane, they will move upstream. The procedure will be repeated until the pool becomes shallow so the bottom could be seen from the surface. A bank-side observer will monitor and orally maintain diver distribution and sampling rate.

Fish lengths will be estimated by comparison with a fish length calibration cord. The calibration cord is a piece of small diameter rope with size length categories marked on it. In addition to the fish length calibration cord, all divers will be trained in estimating fish lengths, so estimates of fish length will be accurate.

Snorkel Count Calibration

Hankin and Reeves (1988) recommend that visual fish counts should be calibrated using electrofishing techniques. Three run habitats in each of the following stream categories will be sampled for calibration: · Small stream bypass reach · Large stream bypass reach in the upper basin (upstream of Mammoth Pool) · Large stream bypass reach in the lower basin (downstream of Mammoth Pool)

Each of the run habitats will be electrofished in order to calibrate the snorkel survey fish counts. The run habitats used for calibration will be determined from among the sampling sites used in the study for each of the three categories. Run habitats used for calibration will be representative of the range of stream conditions (e.g., stream order, flow) encountered during the study. Due to the habitat uniformity of these habitats, block nets will be placed at the upstream and downstream end of each habitat. The block nets prevent fish from leaving the site during the snorkeling surveys. The snorkel survey will be conducted using the methods described above. After the snorkel survey, the site will be electrofished two hours later. This time allowed fish to resume normal behavior before beginning to electrofish. Electrofishing will be conducted using the backpack electrofishing unit(s) and employ the same techniques described in the Electrofishing Sampling Protocol (three-pass depletion method). The fish collected by electrofishing will be processed as described in the Fish Processing section. The size class categories assigned to the fish captured by electrofishing will be the same as those used during the snorkeling survey. This will provide information regarding the relative comparability of the two approaches and the effectiveness of the direct observation method.

Fish Processing

All fish captured through electrofishing or any other sampling technique will be identified to species, measured for length to the nearest millimeter total length or fork length depending on the configuration of the caudal fish, and weighed to the nearest 0.1 g for fish up to 2 kg or to the nearest 1 g for fish over 2 kg. If very large numbers (>100) of a species are captured, these measurements will be

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 2-86 Combined Aquatics CAWG – 7 Characterize Fish Populations collected from a sub-sample of fish. These sub-samples will be stratified by size class, with 10 measurements collected within each 25-mm size range.

Scale samples will be collected from native trout and hardhead for age determinations. Scales will be collected from the back of the fish above the lateral line and below and slightly behind the dorsal fin. Scales will be stored in scale envelopes and the date, stream, site, species, length, weight and a data sheet reference code will be recorded on the envelope. This information will be useful in assessing the age structure of these populations and in attempting to relate unusually small year class sizes to events that may have resulted in those small year class sizes. Growth determinations will be conducted for rainbow trout, where there is an expansive literature on growth under a variety of circumstances. This information will be related to food production and other factors to determine whether growth is affected by project operations.

Downstream of Mammoth Pool and in tributaries that may have been accessible to anadromous fish prior to the construction of Kerckhoff and Friant dams, tissue samples will be collected from representative non-hatchery rainbow trout for CDFG genetic analysis to determine if the trout are of native steelhead origin. Tissue samples will be stored in an envelope as described for scales and allowed to air dry. These tissues will be provided to CDFG for analysis.

Physical Conditions

Routine observations will be made of habitat and physical conditions in the specific areas sampled. These observations will include physical measurements of water temperature, specific conductance, and dissolved oxygen. Water transparency will be characterized, habitats sampled will be measured for length and width, photographs will be taken, and other data collected (Platts et al. 1983). In addition, observations will be made to include characterization of each habitat unit sampled. These observations will include characterization of substrate and depth, riparian conditions, and the presence of woody debris or other cover.

Reservoir Sampling

Reservoirs (large and mid-sized diversions) will be sampled through a variety of techniques including electrofishing and minnow traps and trap nets in shallow areas and gill and trap nets in deeper areas, and hydroacoustic surveys in all areas. Hydroacoustic density surveys will be used to characterize overall fish density and evaluate abundance near Project intakes at a higher level of resolution in large reservoirs (e.g., Lake Edison, Florence Lake, Shaver Lake, and Mammoth Pool Reservoir).

Electrofishing will be conducted using a boat or barge shocker. During this sampling, representative coves and shallow margin habitats will be sampled. Fish will be stunned and netted from the boat. All fish captured will be processed as described above.

Minnow traps and trap nets will be set in shallow water and baited with sardines. These traps will be set for 48 hours and checked at approximately 12-hour intervals. All fish captured will be processed as described above.

Variable mesh (¼ to 2 inches mesh) gill nets will be set overnight for 2 nights and checked in the morning. All fish captured will be processed as described above.

Hydroacoustic surveys will be conducted to characterize reservoir fish populations in large reservoirs. The surveys will be conducted using boat mounted hydroacoustic equipment. A BioSonics Model DT4000 digital echosounder or equivalent will be used with the transducer mounted on a sled designed to be towed behind the boat. Data will be collected including GPS coordinates of sampling transects to allow spatial integration of fish counts to determine fish densities. The transducer will be towed through the lake in a series of about 10 transects to provide sufficient coverage of the lake to obtain a reasonable estimate the number of fish present. Due to the configuration of the hydroacoustic equipment, this method will be employed primarily in areas where water depth exceeds 10 feet. At depths less than 10 ft, the volume of the cone ensonified by the hydroacoustic transducer is too small to provide adequate sampling.

Whitewater Flow Assessment

Fish sampling will be conducted on fry of native trout, cyprinids and catostomids to assess the potential negative or positive effects of high flow releases that may be used to provide whitewater recreation. It is postulated that high flow releases that occur after the normal high flow period could disrupt the survival of the young of these species by decreasing water temperature and increasing water depth and velocity in nursery areas to unsuitable levels. Increased depth and velocities may both sweep fry out of these areas and wash them downstream. This may allow larger predacious fish to access these nursery areas and prey on the fry.

To conduct this assessment, quantitative fish population sampling will be conducted before and after a controlled whitewater release. Three sites with substantial nursery habitat will be selected for sampling in a reach that will be subject to controlled whitewater study flow releases. These sites will be placed throughout the reach to allow us to determine if fish lost from upstream sites are simply reoccupying nursery habitat in more downstream areas. At each site, a clearly identified area will be isolated using block nets and sampled using multiple depletion sampling to determine fish populations before the controlled release. The site would then be taken down, and the release flow would be made for a period of two to three days. Upon the conclusion of the release flow, sampling would be repeated in the same sites, using the same methodology. The population estimates from the two sampling events would be compared to determine if the fry population of any species had substantially diminished from the first sampling event, to the second.

Prior to the initiation of the whitewater flow release, in areas where stranding is likely to be a problem (determined from the results of the Characterize Stream and

Reservoir Habitats study, CAWG-1), a stranding study will be conducted in conjunction with the Fish Passage study (CAWG-14). The study will be coordinated with CAWG-3 (instream flow). Three specific sites will be identified for each bypass reach and coordinates identified using GPS. A cross-section will be measured at each site, which will be photographed prior to and immediately after the flow release. Isolated pools of water at these sites will be electrofished or snorkeled to identify if stranding has occurred following the cessation of the release flow.

To capture the period when fry are anticipated to be most abundant, this study would need to be conducted between 30 and 60 days after the cessation of spill from project facilities. The study would not be conducted in a high-runoff year, as fry populations would likely be low, following periods of substantial runoff. Water temperatures would be monitored during the study to evaluate potential temperature changes at the sampling sites. The data collected would be used in conjunction with information that may be available from similar studies occurring at other hydroelectric projects to assess potential effects of high flow releases.

STUDY AREA:

Fish population survey sites will be focused on the project bypass reaches and reference stations above project diversions, where suitable reference areas can be located. Locations for fisheries studies in Project streams are shown in Table CAWG 7-1. Locations for fisheries studies in Project reservoirs are shown in Table CAWG 7-2. To account for temperature differences that may occur over long stretches of the San Joaquin River, the San Joaquin River segments have been subdivided. Three sub-segments have been identified on the SF San Joaquin between Florence Lake and Mammoth Pool, two sub-segments in the Mammoth Pool reach, and two sub-segments in the Stevenson reach. Fish and macroinvertebrate sampling sites will be placed in each of these sub-segments, as described previously.

ANALYSIS:

The information collected during fish population surveys will be used to determine the distribution and abundance of target species including native and non-native fish within Project streams. All data collected will be entered into a database for tabulation and summary. Abundance estimates will be calculated using appropriate statistical techniques for determining fish density in terms of fish population per 100 m of stream in riverine areas, or fish abundance per hectare of habitat in lacustrine areas. Biomass (where data is available) will be estimated from weights collected from a representative sample of the catch and reported as pounds per 100 m of stream in riverine areas, and pounds per hectare of habitat in lacustrine areas. Age or size structure will be reported as the proportion of the total catch falling within a specific category.

Table CAWG 7-1 Proposed Fish Sampling Techniques for Project Streams

DIRECT SOUTH FORK SAN JOAQUIN RIVER ELECTROFISHING OBSERVATION Tombstone Creek X South Slide Creek X North Slide Creek X Hooper Creek X Crater Creek X Bear Creek X X Chinquapin Creek X Camp 62 Creek X Bolsillo Creek X Camp 61 Creek (Incld: E. & W. Forks) X Mono Creek (Vermilion to Div. Forebay) C, 2000 Mono Creek (Div. Forebay to San Joaquin River) X Warm Creek C, 2000 SF San Joaquin River (Florence to Mono Crossing) X X SF San Joaquin River (Mono Crossing to Rattlesnake X X Crossing) SF San Joaquin River (Rattlesnake Crossing to Mammoth X X Pool) Boggy Creek C, 2000 Adit #2 Seepage (below Portal Forebay) X MAMMOTH REACH Rock Creek X Ross Creek X San Joaquin River - Upper Reach X X San Joaquin River - Lower Reach X X BIG CREEK REACH Rancheria Creek X Trib. to Big Creek X Big Creek (Dam 1 to PH 1) X X Big Creek (Dam 4 to PH 2) X X Big Creek (Dam 5 to PH 8) X X Pitman Creek X Balsam Creek (Dam to Low. Div. Forebay) X Balsam Creek (Low. Div. Forebay to Big Creek) X Ely Creek X STEVENSON CREEK/STEVENSON REACH NF Stevenson Creek X X Stevenson Creek (Shaver Lake to San Joaquin River) X X

Table CAWG 7-1 Proposed Fish Sampling Techniques for Project Streams (cont.)

DIRECT SOUTH FORK SAN JOAQUIN RIVER ELECTROFISHING OBSERVATION SJR Stevenson Reach – Upper Reach X X SJR Stevenson Reach – Lower Reach X X SJR Horseshoe Bend (Dam 7 to PH 4) C, 1995 C, 1995 C - Completed X - To be sampled in 2002

Table CAWG 7-2 Sampling Techniques for Project Impoundments

ELECTRO HYDROACOUSTIC LARGE DAMS WITH STORAGE FISHING PASSIVE CAPTURE SURVEY Florence Lake Dam & Reservoir X/U* X X Vermilion Valley Dam & Reservoir C, 2000 C, 2000 C, 2000 Huntington Lake Dams 1, 2, 3, 3a, & X/U X X Reservoir Shaver Lake Dam & Reservoir X/U X X Mammoth Pool Dam & Reservoir X/U X X Dam 7 & Redinger Lake Reservoir C, 1995 C, 1995 C, 1995 MODERATE DIVERSION DAMS - SMALL IMPOUNDMENT Bear Creek Diversion Dam & Forebay X/U X Mono Creek Diversion Dam & Forebay X/C X Portal Dam & Forebay X+ X Balsam Dam & Forebay X+ X Big Creek Dam 4 & Forebay X+ X Big Creek Dam 5 & Forebay X+ X San Joaquin River Dam 6 & Forebay X+ X SMALL DIVERSIONS - MINIMAL OR NO IMPOUNDMENT Tombstone Creek Diversion U North Slide Creek Diversion U South Slide Creek Diversion U Hooper Creek Diversion U Crater Creek Diversion U Chinquapin Creek Diversion U Camp 62 Creek Diversion U Bolsillo Creek Diversion U

Table CAWG 7-2 Sampling Techniques for Project Impoundments (cont.)

PASSIVE HYDROACOUSTIC ELECTROFISHING CAPTURE SURVEY SMALL DIVERSIONS - MINIMAL OR NO IMPOUNDMENT Warm Creek Diversion U Rock Creek Diversion U Ross Creek Diversion U Pitman Creek Diversion U Balsam Creek Diversion U Ely Creek Diversion U C – Sampling Completed X – To be sampled in 2002 U – Stream upstream of diversion to be sampled in 2002 * – Tributaries upstream of diversion to be sampled in 2002 + – Stream upstream included on Table CAWG 7-1

Results of hydroacoustic surveys will be compared with fish net results for each of the reservoirs sampled. Fish densities will be described for depth intervals corresponding to those evaluated for reservoir habitat (CAWG-1). Netting will be used to characterize differences in habitat use for different species and lifestages. The spatial distribution of reservoir fish will be evaluated, especially with respect to Project intake structures (CAWG-9).

Growth rates for rainbow and brown trout will be assessed based on back- calculation from the scale radius to body length relationship as summarized by Ricker (1971). These growth rates will be compared to that of fish from other areas within the Project boundaries and from other streams where growth information is available to determine if differences can be observed. These growth comparisons will be stratified by stream size, because different growth rates would be expected in large streams than in small streams.

This information will be used in conjunction with data from other studies to evaluate what the potential limiting factors for fish populations in a given reach might be and whether these limiting factors are related to project operations. Fish populations and size or age structure will be compared to stream habitat structure (CAWG-1), flow-related habitat (CAWG-3), water quality (CAWG-4), temperature (CAWG-5), hydrology (CAWG-6), and entrainment (CAWG-9) to determine if any of these factors might be affecting population size or age/size structure. Growth rates will be compared to temperature (CAWG-5), macroinvertebrate abundance (CAWG-10), the results of instream habitat analyses (CAWG-3), as well as other factors to determine if they might be affected by any of these factors.

Together the studies outlined in the study plans will form the basis for an evaluation relating community structure, population size, and age/size composition to a wide variety of physical and biological factors that may affect fish populations. After the likely limiting factors in a given stream have been identified, these can be

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 2-92 Combined Aquatics CAWG – 7 Characterize Fish Populations compared to Project operations to determine if, how, and to what degree, these operations contribute to these limitations. Where limiting factors are related to project operations, appropriate avoidance or mitigation measures will be designed to minimize and offset the impacts of that practice.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

The proposed studies will be coordinated with other study programs, both those currently planned and historically conducted to avoid duplication of effort, assure consistency between study methods, and to maximize the utility of the information collected. Studies will be coordinated with: · Characterize Stream and Reservoir Habitats (CAWG-1) · Macroinvertebrates (CAWG-10) · Entrainment (CAWG-9) · Determine Flow-Related Physical Habitat in Bypass Reaches (CAWG-3) · Water Temperature (CAWG-5) · Chemical Water Quality (CAWG-4) · Angling Opportunities and Experience Assessment (REC-8) · Fish Passage (CAWG-14) The whitewater assessment program will be coordinated with: · Whitewater Recreation Assessment (REC-3) · Determine Flow-Related Physical Habitat in Bypass Reaches (CAWG-3) · Water Temperature (CAWG-5)

SCHEDULE:

The fisheries studies described here are scheduled to be initiated in 2002. The CAWG will be notified when the fisheries studies begin. A schedule of the fisheries activities identifying study areas and their projected date of survey will be made available to the CAWG. CAWG members interested in assisting with the survey work will coordinate with the field survey team prior to the effort.

Collection and review of existing information from CDFG and USFS files will commence shortly after the approval of the study plan. Field studies in streams will be conducted in the summer and fall period after streamflows have dropped to manageable levels. Data reduction and reporting will commence once field studies have been completed.

REFERENCES:

Fausch, K. D., and R. J. White. 1981. Competition between brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) for positions in a Michigan stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38:1220-1227.

Griffith, J. S., JR. 1972. Comparative behavior and habitat utilization of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki) in small streams in northern Idaho. Journal Fishery Research Board of Canada 29:265-273.

Hankin, D. G., and G. H. Reeves. 1988. Estimating total fish abundance and total habitat area in small streams based on visual estimation methods. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:834-844.

Hicks, B. J., and N. R. N. Watson. 1985. Seasonal changes in abundance of brown trout (Salmo trutta) and rainbow trout (S. gairdnerii) assessed by drift diving in the Rangitikei River, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 19:1-10.

Hillman, T. W., J. W. Mullan, and J. S. Griffith. 1992. Accuracy of underwater counts of juvenile chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12:598-603.

Moyle, P. B. 1976. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA 405 pp.

Platts, W. S., W. F. Megahan, and G. W. Minshall. 1983 Methods for evaluating stream, riparian, and biotic conditions. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-138.

Reynolds, J. B., Chapter 8, Electrofishing. B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis (editors). 1996. Fishery Techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, Md.

Ricker, W. E. 1971. Methods for Assessment of Fish Production in Fresh Waters. Blackwell Scientific Publications. Oxford and Edinburgh.

Zippin, C. 1958. The removal method of population estimation. J. Wildl. Manage. 22(1):82-90.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Special-status Amphibians and Reptiles, Native Amphibians and Reptiles

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOALS: 1. Protect special-status amphibians and reptiles and/or their habitats. 2. Identify and document the presence of native amphibians and reptiles and/or their habitats. 3. Protect beneficial uses of water presented in the Basin Plan. 4. Maintain and restore water quality to meet goals of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, providing water that is fishable, swimmable, and suitable for drinking after normal treatment. [USFS] 5. Maintain and restore habitat to support viable populations of native and desired non-native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. Prevent new introductions of invasive species. Where invasive species are adversely affecting the viability of native species, work cooperatively with appropriate State and Federal wildlife agencies to reduce impacts to native populations. [USFS] 6. Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant and animal communities in riparian areas, wetlands, and meadows to provide desired habitats and ecological functions. [USFS] 7. Maintain and restore the distribution and health of biotic communities in special aquatic habitats (such as springs, seeps, vernal pools, fens, bogs, and marshes) to perpetuate their unique functions and biological diversity. [USFS] 8. Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity for aquatic and riparian species within and between watersheds to provide physically, chemically and biologically unobstructed movement for their survival, migration and reproduction. [USFS] 9. Maintain and restore the connections of floodplains, channels, and water tables to distribute flood flows and sustain diverse habitats. [USFS] 10. Maintain and restore soils with favorable infiltration characteristics and diverse vegetative cover to absorb and filter precipitation and to sustain favorable conditions of stream flows. [USFS] 11. Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to sustain desired conditions of riparian, aquatic, wetland, and meadow habitats and keep sediment regimes as close as possible to those with which aquatic and riparian biota evolved. [USFS] 12. Maintain and restore the physical structure and condition of stream banks and shorelines to minimize erosion and sustain desired habitat diversity. [USFS] 13. Undertake a predator management program. [USFWS]

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES: 1. Maintain appropriate flow regimes in streams affected by Project operations and/or maintenance. 2. Manage water levels and fluctuation patterns in reservoirs, forebays, and other impounded waters to protect special-status amphibians and reptiles, where reasonably expected to be present [SCE]. 3. Maintain or enhance meadows, rock outcrops, and riparian habitat in areas of potential Project impacts. 4. Avoid introduction of non-native species into Project waters. 5. Avoid disturbance of special-status amphibians and reptiles at Project- induced recreational areas (i.e., increased human activity). 6. Avoid disturbance to special-status amphibians and reptiles during Project operations and maintenance. 7. Maintain or restore: (1) the geomorphic and biological characteristics of special aquatic features, including lakes, meadows, bogs, fens, wetlands, vernal pools, and springs; (2) streams, including in-stream flows; and (3) hydrologic connectivity both within and between watersheds to provide for the habitat needs of aquatic-dependent species. [USFS] 8. Preserve, restore, or enhance special aquatic features, such as meadows, lakes, ponds, bogs, fens, and wetlands, to provide the ecological conditions and processes needed to recover or enhance the viability of species that rely on these areas. [USFS] 9. Identify and implement restoration actions to maintain, restore, or enhance water quality and habitat for riparian and aquatic species [USFS], where Big Creek Projects have ongoing adverse effects on these species or their habitat. [SCE] 10. Ensure that management activities, including fuels reduction actions, within RCAs and Critical Aquatic Refuges (CAR) enhance or maintain physical and biological characteristics associated with aquatic- and riparian-dependent species. [USFS]

BACKGROUND:

Four special-status amphibians and one special-status reptile are known to occur within the project vicinity. This includes foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii), mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa), Mount Lyell salamander (Hydromantes platycephalus), Yosemite toad (Bufo canorus), and western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata). An additional amphibian, California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), is believed to be extirpated from the region; however, the Project area is part of the species historic range. There are several species of common native amphibians and reptiles in the Project area. This includes, but is not limited to, California newt (Taricha torosa), slender salamanders (Batrachoseps spp.), and ensatina (Ensatina eschscholtzi). Non-native bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) and various trout species planted in high elevation lakes and

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 2-96 Combined Aquatics CAWG – 8 Amphibians and Reptiles streams are potential predators of native amphibians and pond sliders (Chrysemys scripta) could introduce disease to native amphibians and reptiles.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: 1. Document the occurrence of native and non-native amphibian and reptile populations, their predators, and their habitats. 2. Determine the year-round temperature regime for selected locations known to support foothill yellow-legged frog populations. Determine the timing of foothill yellow-legged frog egg deposition to the extent possible. 3. Evaluate the effects of project operations and proposed protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures on the habitat and different life stages of special- status amphibians and reptiles and their predators. 4. Review literature on cloud seeding chemicals to determine potential effects on special-status amphibians and reptiles. 5. Evaluate information collected from other studies to assess the effects on amphibians and reptiles (i.e., CAWG–1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 11; TERR–1; REC– 3).

PROJECT NEXUS:

Potential disturbance/harassment, take/harm, and habitat modification resulting from project operations and/or maintenance activities (as indicated in Terrestrial Working Group Project Nexus Matrix).

GENERAL APPROACH: 1. Information on special-status amphibians and reptiles will be compiled in conjunction with the literature review for common and special-status wildlife species. Known occurrences of native, non-native, and special-status amphibians and reptiles near Project facilities, bypass and flow augmented streams, and Project-related recreational facilities will be mapped and incorporated into a GIS database. 2. Potential habitat for amphibians and reptiles will initially be defined from aerial photography and mapped within ¼ mile of Project facilities and bypass and flow augmented streams, including Project-related recreational facilities from aerial photography and known information. 3. Potential habitat for special-status amphibians and reptiles within ¼ mile of Project facilities and bypass and flow augmented streams, including Project- related recreational facilities will be mapped in more detail during a helicopter survey. Where necessary, additional ground surveys will be conducted to augment the helicopter-based habitat survey. 4. Instream habitat information will be collected during stream typing and mesohabitat typing in Characterization of Stream and Reservoir Habitats study plan (CAWG – 1). 5. Data from the Geomorphology study (CAWG – 2), Chemical Water Quality study (CAWG – 4), water temperature study (CAWG – 5), and Riparian study

(CAWG – 11) will be used to evaluate and assess the effects on habitat and life stages of special-status amphibians and reptiles and their predators. 6. After initial data on habitat is collected, SCE will meet with CAWG to identify amphibian and reptile sampling areas and sampling protocols to be used. Amphibian surveys will be conducted in sampling areas identified by the CAWG. 7. Conduct a site assessment for California red-legged frogs in accordance with Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for California Red-legged Frogs. 8. Use IFIM/PHABSIM or some other method to assess Project-related flow changes on life stages of amphibians and reptiles and their habitats. 9. If appropriate, scheduled flow releases for the whitewater boating study will be monitored to determine potential effects on known amphibian and reptile populations. USFWS will be consulted with respect to special-status amphibians and reptiles that may be impacted by this flow release.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY: 1. A literature review will be conducted and will include a review of (1) CDFG’s Natural Diversity Database (CDFG 2000a); (2) CDFG’s Wildlife Habitat Relationship System (CDFG 2000b); (3) USFS Special-status Species Occurrence Database (USFS 2001); and (4) other relevant documents relating to the Project area (e.g., timber harvest plans, Southern California Edison (SCE) facility environmental documents, including vegetation control programs and cloud seeding, and USGS hydrological information). Species occurrences will be mapped on a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map and incorporated into a GIS database. 2. Potential habitat for amphibians and reptiles will be mapped by aerial photography and ground-truthing. See Vegetation Communities study plan (TERR – 1) detailed methodology 1 and 2 for further description of the mapping methodology. Amphibian and reptile habitat will be characterized by A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988) and CDFG’s Wildlife Habitat Relationship System (CDFG 2000b). See detailed methodology in Common and Special-status Wildlife Species study plan (TERR – 5). This information will be incorporated into a GIS database. 3. The helicopter reconnaissance survey would consist of one or two biologists mapping potential amphibian and reptile habitats during an overflight of the project area. This would include identifying, photographing, and obtaining GPS information (where feasible) on potential amphibian habitats (e.g., perennial drainage, wet meadow, seasonal wetland, etc.). This information will be incorporated into a GIS database. 4. Streams will be typed according to Rosgen Level I methodology and mesohabitat mapping (Rosgen 1996; Hawkins et. al. 1993). See Characterize Stream and Reservoir Habitats study plan (CAWG – 1) for a detailed description of Rosgen and mesohabitat stream typing methodology.

5. During stream characterization, data on valley slope, stream slope, substrate, valley width, and sinuosity will be determined. The results of this study, in addition to surveys conducted under number 2 and 3 above will be used to identify potential habitat for amphibians and reptiles. 6. Rosgen Level II channel typing would be completed at selected sampling sites as part of this study. The result of this study will identify channel reaches that may be adversely affected by Project operation. This study will also provide information on encroachment of in-stream vegetation. The results of this study will be evaluated to determine the effects of Project operation on habitat and life stages of special-status amphibians and reptiles and their predators. 7. A site assessment for California red-legged frogs will be conducted in areas where no previous assessments have been completed in accordance with Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for California Red-legged Frogs. This will include: (1) determining known locations of California red- legged frogs within 5 miles of the project boundary, (2) identifying habitats within 1 mile of project boundaries, and (3) preparation of a site assessment report. Because the Big Creek Hydroelectric Project is large and encompasses several acres, existing USFS aerial photographs and other available high resolution aerial photographs, a helicopter reconnaissance survey, and ground-truthing, as necessary, will be used to identify habitats within 1 mile of project boundaries. 8. All data compiled and collected in the above tasks will be distributed to the CAWG. One month following distribution of the data SCE will schedule a meeting to discuss areas to be included in the survey. Following this meeting selected sampling sites will be identified in Project affected reaches and approved by the CAWG. Amphibian and reptile sampling sites will be selected based on geographic location, habitat variables (e.g., elevation and vegetation community), and/or different aquatic habitats (e.g., stream, lake, and meadow) in areas of potential Project effects, including channel reaches that were determined during CAWG – 2 as adversely affected by Project operation. 9. Water temperature data will be collected as part of the Water Temperature study plan (CAWG – 5). Refer to this study plan for information on the study methodology to determine the water temperature regime in Project-affected streams. Year-round water temperature data will be collected in selected known foothill yellow-legged frog populations at lower elevations in the Basin. 10. Water quality data will be collected as part of the Chemical Water Quality study plan (CAWG – 4). Refer to this study plan for information on water quality conditions for aquatic organisms (including amphibians). Additional water quality data will be collected at selected known populations of amphibians and reptiles in the Basin. This will include collection of limited water quality measurements (i.e., water temperature, DO, and specific conductance). 11. IFIM/PHABSIM, wetted perimeter studies, or some other method will be completed as part of the study titled Determine Flow-Related Physical Habitat

in Bypass Reaches (CAWG – 3). Refer to this study plan for the detailed methodology. These studies will provide information to determine how a particular habitat type or area would change with incremental changes in flow. 12. If appropriate, scheduled flow releases for the whitewater boating study will be monitored to determine potential effects on known amphibian and reptile populations. USFWS will be consulted with respect to special-status amphibians and reptiles that may be affected by the flow release. The details of this monitoring effort will be developed in consultation with USFWS and the CAWG.

STUDY AREA:

Amphibian and reptile habitats will be mapped within ¼ mile of Project facilities, including Project-related recreational facilities. Focussed amphibian and reptile surveys will be conducted in accordance with protocols approved by the CAWG at sampling and reference sites identified by the CAWG.

ANALYSIS:

Analysis of Project effects on amphibians and reptiles will include the evaluation of the location of appropriate habitat in relation to Project facilities, bypass and flow augmented reaches, and Project-related recreational facilities. This will include an evaluation of SCE’s maintenance activities (i.e., vegetation removal, road maintenance, sluicing, etc) and how they may affect amphibian and reptile life stages and habitat. Because some amphibians and reptiles use riparian communities, analysis of the potential Project effect on riparian communities (Riparian CAWG – 11) also will be applied to amphibians and reptiles. Following identification of selected sampling sites, collection of water temperature data, and collection of IFIM/PHABSIM and wetted perimeter data, data will be analyzed to determine if and to what extent Project flows change water temperatures and habitat during critical life stages (i.e., egg deposition, tadpole development). Analysis completed for the water quality study will be reviewed and applied, as appropriate, to amphibians and reptiles.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

· Habitat mapping from Vegetation Communities study plan (TERR – 1). · Rosgen Level 1 channel typing from Characterize Stream and Reservoir Habitats study plan (CAWG – 1). · Geomorphic and hydrologic data from Geomorphology study plan (CAWG – 2). · IFIM/PHABSIM and wetted perimeter data from Determine Flow-Related Physical Habitat in Bypass Reaches study plan (CAWG –3). · Riparian community locations from Riparian study plan (CAWG – 11). · Water temperature information from Water Temperature study plan (CAWG – 5). · Water quality information from Chemical Water Quality study plan (CAWG – 4).

· Whitewater Recreation Assessment study plan (REC – 3). · Characterize Fish Populations (CAWG – 7).

SCHEDULE:

· 2001: Literature review. · Spring/summer 2002: Amphibian and reptile surveys. · 2002: In-stream flow study, water quality study, and sediment study.

REFERENCES:

California Department of Fish and Game. 2000a. Rarefind 2, California Natural Diversity Database. Electronic database. Sacramento, California.

_____. 2000b. Wildlife Habitat Relationship System. Electronic database. Sacramento, California.

Fellers, G.M., and K.L. Freel. 1995. A Standardized Protocol for Surveying Aquatic Amphibians. National Biological Service, Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of California, Davis, California.

Hawkins, C.P., J.L. Kershner, P.A. Bisson, M.D. Bryant, L.M. Decker, S.V. Gregory, D.A. McCullough, C.K. Overton, G.H. Reeves, R.J. Steedman, and M.K. Young. 1993. A hierarchical approach to classifying habitats in small streams. Fisheries. 18(6): 3-12.

Mayer, K.E., and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., editors. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Printed Media Companies, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

U.S. Forest Service. 2001. Threatened, Endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species Database for the Terrestrial Species of the Sierra National Forest. Electronic database.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Fish Entrainment, Reservoir Fish, Fisheries

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S): 1. Protect fish populations from entrainment. 2. Manage both cold water and warm water fisheries, including transitional zones and harvest vs. non-harvest species, where appropriate. 3. Protect, maintain, or enhance fish populations. 4. Maintain and restore habitat to support viable populations of native and desired non-native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. Prevent new introductions of invasive species. Where invasive species are adversely affecting the viability of native species, work cooperatively with appropriate State and Federal wildlife agencies to reduce impacts to native populations. [USFS] 5. Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity for aquatic and riparian species within and between watersheds to provide physically, chemically and biologically unobstructed movement for their survival, migration and reproduction. [USFS] 6. Maintain and restore the connections of floodplains, channels, and water tables to distribute flood flows and sustain diverse habitats. [USFS] 7. Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to sustain desired conditions of riparian, aquatic, wetland, and meadow habitats and keep sediment regimes as close as possible to those with which aquatic and riparian biota evolved. [USFS] STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S): 1. Reduce and/or compensate for entrainment losses at Project intakes, where necessary. 2. Maintain adequate populations of lake rearing sport fish (i.e., kokanee). 3. Manage Project activities to protect both fisheries resources and other aquatic species (i.e., amphibians and reptiles). 4. Protect beneficial uses. 5. Maintain or restore: (1) the geomorphic and biological characteristics of special aquatic features, including lakes, meadows, bogs, fens, wetlands, vernal pools, springs; (2) streams, including in-stream flows; and (3) hydrologic connectivity both within and between watersheds to provide for the habitat needs of aquatic-dependent species. [USFS]

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Characterize entrainment mortality at power diversions.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Power generation can result in the entrainment and subsequent entrainment mortality of fish due to turbine passage. Project diversions can result in the movement of fish through Project facilities.

GENERAL APPROACH: 1. Review appropriate scientific literature addressing potential turbine mortality associated with turbine-types used at Big Creek power generation facilities. 2. Evaluate the potential for entrainment mortality based on power intake design, location, depth, velocities, and presence of potentially vulnerable fish. 3. Evaluate entrainment rates at power intakes identified as likely to result in significant fish mortality using hydroacoustics at intakes, fish netting at powerhouse tailraces, or other appropriate techniques.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

All of the major Big Creek Project intakes will be initially evaluated during 2002 to characterize the potential vulnerability of fish to entrainment by the Project intakes. A subset of the smaller diversions will be evaluated, as well.

RESERVOIRS

The study will prioritize the vulnerability of fish to entrainment by waterbody. The study will focus on those intakes in large reservoirs that may entrain fish and result in turbine passage, the primary source of entrainment mortality. In the upper Big Creek basin (upstream of Huntington Lake), no powerhouse exists upstream of Portal Powerhouse. Therefore, no source of turbine mortality exists upstream of that location. Therefore, potential entrainment mortality for the upper Big Creek basin can be evaluated, if needed, at the Portal Powerhouse, tailrace.

In the case of the “Big Creek chain” of powerhouses, potential entrainment will be assessed for Huntington and Shaver Lakes. Other intakes in that “chain” that re- entrain water discharged from the powerhouses that originally received water from the reservoirs will not be sampled, unless information suggests that there are significant additional sources of fish that may be vulnerable to those intakes.

SMALL DIVERSIONS

The small diversions will be reviewed and classified by elevation, stream, type of diversion, fish present and volume diverted. A representative subset of small diversion will be selected for more detailed evaluation.

EVALUATION OF VULNERABILITY TO ENTRAINMENT

Vulnerability to entrainment will be assessed based on two sets of information. These sets are as follows: 1) data on the design of the intake (including small diversions) and physical conditions in the intake vicinity; and 2) data on fish vulnerability and their use of the area near the intake face. Information about the intake design will be obtained from the review of design drawings of the intake, intake capacity, location of the intake, and records of operations and flows drawn through the intake. Approach velocities to the intake will be calculated from operation records and drawings for typical maximum and minimum flow conditions. Where necessary, flow velocities near the intake face will be verified by in situ measurements. For small diversions, velocity measurements will be made at a representative subset of the diversions twice during the runoff period to verify velocities at different flows.

The intake and diversion designs will be reviewed for the exclusion capability of screens and the presence of potential escape routes for fish.

Information about fish vulnerability to intakes will be drawn from the review of pertinent scientific literature and field measurements. The scientific literature will be reviewed to identify swimming speed for fish lifestages potentially vulnerable to Project intakes. The life stages of target fish species identified from fish sampling programs and found to occur near Project intakes will be used for the literature search. The literature search also will include results of existing studies of turbine mortality conducted for hydroelectric units employing turbine types similar to those in use in the Big Creek system at similar levels of head. For each powerhouse, we will tabulate the turbine type and head and summarize available turbine mortality information from the scientific literature.

Field data will be collected to evaluate the presence of fish near the Project intake structures and other release structures such as HB valves. Quarterly hydroacoustic surveys will be used to characterize the presence of fish near major intakes in the larger Project reservoirs. The ability to sample Lake Edison and Florence Lake will be limited during winter months. Gill nets set near the intakes will be used to characterize the species and lifestages of fish present. Where feasible, fish density and distribution near the intakes will be evaluated using hydroacoustic techniques to assess the potential vulnerability to entrainment. Gill nets and minnow traps set at various locations in the waterbody will be used to characterize the fish species and life stages present. This will be performed in coordination with the fish population sampling program (CAWG-7).

EVALUATION OF ENTRAINMENT RATES

Upon completion of the initial evaluation of fish vulnerability to entrainment at project intakes at reservoirs, intakes likely to entrain significant numbers of fish will be selected for monitoring. In order to consider the significance of potential entrainment, the following factors will be considered.

· Location of the intake in relations to habitats used by lifestages of aquatic species. · The magnitude of intake velocities present due to seasonal operations compared to the swimming capabilities of lifestages likely to be in the vicinity of the intake. · The relative abundance of fish (of differing lifestages) in the vicinity of the intake. · The ability of the intake to exclude or deter the entrance of fish into the intake.

The relative degree of significance will depend upon the relative numbers of fish of vulnerable lifestages that are present in the area of influence of the intake. This will be discussed in an initial summary report. The report will be presented for the CAWG and the selection of intakes to be monitored will be made with the CAWG’s concurrence. As part of this report, we also will present the results of our review and classification of the small diversions. We will propose a representative subset of small diversion intakes for monitoring. The actual selection of diversions to be sampled will be made with the CAWG’s concurrence.

Two types of monitoring may be used to estimate entrainment, hydroacoustics and net sampling, depending upon intake configuration and suitability for sampling. Hydroacoustic monitoring may be used to enumerate fish entering the intake. However, the feasibility of using hydroacoustic monitoring will depend on the configuration of the intake and its suitability for use of this technique.

Hydroacoustic Sampling

Entrainment enumeration using hydroacoustics will be conducted on a bimonthly basis at intakes amenable to this technique. At each intake selected, entrainment will be monitored continuously for a 48-hour period. Where this technique is used, the sampling configuration will depend upon the intake. For submerged intakes located at the lakebed, the transducer will be deployed looking “downward” toward the intake opening. This may be operated from a fixed structure or boat, depending upon the structural configuration of the intake area. Where the orientation of the intake is parallel to the lakebed or water surface, the transducer will be mounted either horizontally or in a skewed configuration to ensonify the intake face. The ability to adequately sample a horizontal intake will depend upon the availability of adequate structures for mounting and operation of the transducer.

A BioSonics DT4000 digital echosounder or equivalent will be used for collecting hydroacoustic data. Data will be recorded to computer storage media during each of the sampling periods for later analysis. At the beginning and conclusion of each monitoring period, a “target” which will return a signal of known acoustic strength will be deployed to check the functionality of the hydroacoustic unit. This approach has been successfully applied within the Big Creek system in an intensive monitoring of the effects of the Balsam Meadow pumpback system (ENTRIX 1993).

Analysis of data collected will consist of evaluation of fish “tracked” by the hydroacoustic gear near the intake face. Fish apparently moving into the intake minus fish apparently moving out of the intake will be enumerated as entrained. The number of fish classified as entrained within the area of the intake face ensonified by hydroacoustic beam will be used as an estimate of the density (fish/intake face area) of fish entrained. This number will be expanded to estimate fish entrained by the entire open face of the intake, and the resulting number representing the 48-hour sampling period will be divided by two to give an estimate of entrainment at that location and season in a 24-hour period.

Physical data including intake flow, plant operations, reservoir elevation, water temperature and dissolved oxygen profiles near the intake, transparency, lake surface conditions, and meteorological conditions will be measured during the monitoring period. Collection of these data in the upper Basin will be limited during winter months. Entrainment can be influenced by operational and physical conditions so it is important to have information available to aid in interpretation of results.

Tailrace and Small Diversion Sampling 1. Tailrace Sampling For reservoirs, if the powerhouse intake is not amenable to hydroacoustic surveys, fish sampling will be conducted at the subsequent powerhouse tailrace. Sampling will be conducted using a stationary net positioned in the outflow from the powerhouse. The net will generally resemble a trawl, both custom-designed nets and standard Kodiak trawls have been successfully used for this purpose. A livecar for holding fish will be attached to the cod end of the net. The purpose of the livecar is to allow fish to be collected from the net and held without inducing injury or mortality due to holding. Prior to the initial deployment of the net and livecar for collection of turbine passage samples, the operation of the livecar will be verified. Hatchery trout will be held in the livecar for the equivalent of a sampling period to verify that the livecar can successfully hold the fish while avoiding or minimizing induced injuries. 2. Small Diversion Sampling The sampling approach used in small diversions will be dependent upon the design and capacity of the individual small diversion. In most cases, sampling will be accomplished by means of a trap net placed immediately upstream of a diversion to a pipe; or a trap net or stationary trawl net immediately downstream of a diversion to an open channel. 3. Net Operations The net will be fished bimonthly (or as appropriate) for a 48-hour period and generally will be checked on a 12 to 24 hours basis (depending upon powerhouse operations). Material collected from the sampling events will be sorted to identify all fish collected in the net. Flow meters will be used in conjunction with the nets so that an estimate of the volume of water and density of fish can be calculated.

This can be used with operations data on powerhouse flows to estimate total entrainment through the powerhouse.

The specific methodology for processing sampled materials is as follows. All captured materials retrieved from the net and livecar will be placed in a five-gallon bucket(s) filled with water. Once all materials are removed from the net, it will be redeployed. In general, the net can only be serviced when the powerhouse is taken offline so that the field crew can access the tailrace. Material captured in the net will be thoroughly sorted in an attempt to locate all fish otherwise hidden in the debris. Once all specimens are found, fish will be identified to the species level to the extent feasible, based on size and condition. Fish lengths will be measured and recorded as Standard Length (SL). The general condition and physical appearance of the fish also will be recorded. Notes will be made of indications of trauma including abrasion, loss of scales, hemorrhaging, “pop-eye” and fin damage. All fish will be immediately returned to the river after they are identified, measured and inspected for general condition.

Physical data including plant operations, reservoir elevation, water temperature and dissolved oxygen near the intake, transparency, lake surface conditions, and meteorological conditions will be measured during the monitoring period. Water temperature and dissolved oxygen in the tailrace also will be measured. The amount of debris collected in the net will be characterized.

Numbers of fish collected by species and lifestage will be tabulated and catch per unit effort (CPUE) in terms of fish per hour and fish per 1000 cubic feet will be calculated. Total numbers of fish passing through the powerhouse will be estimated based on CPUE and total volume discharged through the powerhouse during the sampling period. If nets can be checked on a twice-daily basis, diel estimates of fish passing through the powerhouse will be prepared.

Reservoir intakes in the Project to be included in the entrainment study are listed in the Study Area section below.

STUDY AREA:

The intakes of the following reservoirs will be studied to evaluate the potential for fish entrainment:

· Florence Lake (not in winter due to drawdown to minimum pool) · Lake Thomas A. Edison · Shaver Lake (includes evaluation of HB valve entrainment) · Huntington Lake · Mammoth Lake In addition, the Portal Powerhouse tailrace will be sampled. Potential loss or injury of fish through entrainment in the upper basin will be examined by sampling within the Portal Powerhouse tailrace. The flow from the Ward Tunnel is discharged through the Portal Powerhouse and the adjacent HB valve. Sampling in this

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 2-108 Combined Aquatics CAWG – 9 Entrainment location will focus on fish that experience turbine passage to provide an estimate of fish entrainment losses from all intakes in the Project’s upper basin. This sampling also should enable us to identify losses of hatchery fish from wild fish.

The need to sample other powerhouse tailraces will be ascertained based on evaluations of the reservoir intakes and the potential vulnerability of fish to entrainment. If an intake is selected for monitoring, the intake and tailrace will be evaluated for the appropriateness of application of the two monitoring approaches available. If the intake is monitored with hydroacoustics, the tailrace will not be sampled. Where the intake cannot be monitored efficiently using hydroacoustic gear, the appropriate powerhouse tailrace will be sampled instead.

In the case of small diversions, all operating small diversions will be initially reviewed for further study. A representative subset of these diversions will be evaluated with the CAWG’s concurrence.

ANALYSIS:

The results of the literature search, evaluation of intake design, location, and capacity, as well as fish sampling will result in an evaluation of the potential vulnerability of fish to entrainment at Project intakes. Based on that evaluation, Project intakes that have potential to result in significant fish entrainment will be identified for further study.

Further study will consist of enumeration of entrainment using hydroacoustics at the intake or tailrace sampling at the powerhouse associated with the intake of concern. The results of those samplings will result in seasonal estimates of fish entrainment rates. Based on fish entrainment rates and the results of fish population sampling in the Project reservoirs (this task and CAWG-7), entrainment can be evaluated with regards to its effect as a source of mortality to fish populations. In performing this analysis, we will use information on turbine mortalities derived from the scientific literature for similar turbine types and head. Entrainment also will be evaluated with regards to the species and lifestages collected and the likely importance to fish populations. This will be done by evaluating losses as equivalent adults (Horst 1975, Goodyear 1978) and comparing those losses with reservoir populations. This approach to evaluating entrainment as a significant limiting factor on reservoir fish populations has been applied in to hydroelectric diversions in the Sierra Nevada (Piotrowski, Lifton, and Bozeman 1989).

In addition, physical factors that may contribute to entrainment will be analyzed based on the results of fish sampling and collection of physical and operations data. Such data may be useful in assessing alternative operations and mitigation measures.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

· Sampling of Project reservoirs will take place in coordination with fish population studies to be undertaken as part of CAWG-7. · Collection of water temperature data and lake profiles will be coordinated with the water temperature studies undertaken as part of CAWG-5. · Tailrace sampling will need to be carefully coordinated with SCE, since powerhouse outages are necessary to safely install and retrieve nets.

SCHEDULE:

Work on assessing fish vulnerability to Project intakes will be initiated in Spring 2001. Entrainment monitoring, if necessary will be initiated in 2002 and continue through 2003.

REFERENCES:

ENTRIX. 1993. Final Report Balsam Meadow Pumped Storage Project FERC Project No. 67-03 Fish Entrainment Study. SCE, Rosemead, CA.

Horst, T. J. 1975. The Assessment of Impact Due to Entrainment of Ichthyoplankton in Saila, S. B. (ed.). Fisheries and Energy Production. D. C. Heath and Company. Lexington, MA.

Goodyear, C. P. 1978. Entrainment Impact Estimates Using Equivalent Adults Approach. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-78/65, July 1978.

Piotrowski, M. R., Lifton, W. S., and M. A. Bozeman. 1989. Effects of Diversion Entrainment on Trout Populations in Tributaries of the North Fork Mokelumne River. PG&E Department of Research and Development. San Ramon, CA.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Macroinvertebrates

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S): 1. Maintain macroinvertebrate community integrity and abundance within Project bypass reaches. 2. Maintain and restore habitat to support viable populations of native and desired non-native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. Prevent new introductions of invasive species. Where invasive species are adversely affecting the viability of native species, work cooperatively with appropriate State and Federal wildlife agencies to reduce impacts to native populations. [USFS] 3. Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to sustain desired conditions of riparian, aquatic, wetland, and meadow habitats and keep sediment regimes as close as possible to those with which aquatic and riparian biota evolved. [USFS]

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S): 1. Maintain adequate water quantity and quality to support macroinvertebrate populations. 2. Maintain an adequate macroinvertebrate community to provide good fish growth in Project reaches. 3. Maintain adequate water quality to support mollusk populations. 4. Maintain or restore: (1) the geomorphic and biological characteristics of special aquatic features, including lakes, meadows, bogs, fens, wetlands, vernal pools, springs; (2) streams, including in-stream flows; and (3) hydrologic connectivity both within and between watersheds to provide for the habitat needs of aquatic-dependent species. [USFS] 5. Ensure that management activities, including fuels reduction actions, within RCAs and Critical Aquatic Refuges (CAR) enhance or maintain physical and biological characteristics associated with aquatic- and riparian-dependent species. [USFS] 6. Develop/understand flow/habitat relationships for macroinvertebrates in the Project-affected reaches. [USFWS]

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S): 1. Characterize macroinvertebrate communities (including mollusks, bivalves specifically). 2. Evaluate results of whitewater studies on macroinvertebrate communities.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Macroinvertebrates can be affected by changes in water quality, flow, and stream characteristics affected by Project operations and maintenance.

GENERAL APPROACH: 1. Available information on macroinvertebrates will be reviewed for Project bypass reaches. 2. Macroinvertebrates will be sampled in and along Project bypass reaches and reference sites (generally upstream of the diversion). 3. The California Stream Bioassessment Procedure will be used. 4. Mollusks will be sampled separately in fish sampling locations. Taxonomic composition will be identified and relative abundance (catch-per-effort) will be recorded. Habitat conditions will be characterized for the time of sampling. 5. Crayfish trapping will take place in Mammoth Pool Reservoir and Shaver Lake to determine relative abundance and species present. 6. Water quality will be evaluated using the results of the rapid bioassessment procedures. 7. Sampling locations and results will be added to GIS maps and tabulated.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

Available macroinvertebrate information for the Project bypass and flow-enhanced reaches will be reviewed. This will include information available from previous SCE studies, including ethnographic surveys, and resource agency files. Where this information is adequate to address the study objectives, no additional information will be collected. If this information is inadequate to address the study objectives, additional samples will be collected as necessary. These samples and samples collected from sites where no information is available will be collected using the following protocols.

FIELD DATA COLLECTION

Site Selection

The study objective is to use Benthic Macroinvertebrates (BMIs) to help assess Project effects on the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the affected streams. To accomplish this objective, comparative macroinvertebrate sampling will be conducted. This comparison also will examine changes in the macroinvertebrate community upstream of and within each bypass reach. To facilitate this comparison, macroinvertebrate sampling locations in the Project bypass reaches (and flow-enhanced reaches) will be collected from the same habitat and channel type, as those collected above the diversion.

In the bypass reach, one sampling site will be established in the upstream and downstream ends of the reach. In the case of a long bypass reach (more than two

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 2-112 Combined Aquatics CAWG – 10 Macroinvertebrates miles), intermediate sampling sites at intervals of about two miles (depending upon access) will be sampled for BMIs to better describe longitudinal changes along the reach.

The specific habitat types to be sampled and potential site locations will be identified based on habitat mapping data collected under CAWG-1. This information will be summarized and presented to the CAWG for its concurrence, prior to sampling.

Each site location will be recorded by a GPS unit so that it may be mapped with other study site information.

Macroinvertebrate Sample Collection

Sampling will follow guidelines from the most current version of the California Stream Bioassessment Procedure (CSPB) (CDFG 1999) (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/cabw/professionals.PDF) for this study. The CSBP is a common protocol used for sampling benthic macroinvertebrates. Samples will be collected from each of three habitat units at each sampling site using a D-frame or other appropriate net with 0.5 mm mesh as approved by the CAWG .

Mollusk Sample Collection

Mollusks will be sampled separately in pool and run habitats near the fish (CAWG- 7) sampling sites, as agreed to by the CAWG. The focus of the mollusk sampling effort is to determine the occurrence and distribution of mollusk species (specifically bivalves) in the Big Creek Project Area. Sampling will be conducted using methods described by Metcalf-Smith et al. (2000). Mollusks will be collected by two-person crews using 4.5 person-hours of effort at each site. Each person will survey the streambed of the sample site by snorkeling or using polarized sunglasses and an underwater viewer in shallow sites for a total of 2.25 hours. The collection site will be thoroughly searched for mollusks including on the underside of rocks and woody debris. Collected mollusks will be placed in a pail filled with stream water during the collection effort. When the collection effort is complete, identified mollusks will be photographed and returned to the sample site. If the identity of the mollusk is uncertain, voucher specimens may be taken. Voucher specimens will be preserved in alcohol and labeled with specific site information for later laboratory identification. Each site sampled will be located with GPS coordinates. If an extensive mussel bed is found, the size of the bed will be estimated and the upstream and downstream extent determined using a GPS.

Reservoir Crayfish Sample Collection

Mammoth Pool Reservoir and Shaver Lake will be sampled with baited minnow traps to collect crayfish. Ten traps will be deployed for two 24-hours sets at three depth strata. Each of the locations will be trapped for 24-hours, then the traps will be moved and redeployed. At least two traps will be deployed near the mouth of each major tributary stream entering the reservoir.

The collected crayfish will be identified to the species level, counted, and released. If the crayfish species is unknown voucher specimens may be collected for later laboratory identification. Voucher specimens will be preserved in alcohol and labeled with specific site information for later laboratory identification. Abundance will be represented as catch per unit effort.

Whitewater Studies

Additional macroinvertebrate sampling may take place in conjunction with controlled flow whitewater studies. For this study, the bypass reach to which the controlled flow release is to be made will be sampled prior to and after the controlled flow release. In each case, macroinvertebrate sampling will be conducted at the same sites as those selected for the primary macroinvertebrate study. The number of habitat units sampled will be the same in each case. To facilitate comparisons, samples taken before and after the flow release will be made in the same habitat units, but not in the same specific location. Mollusks also will be sampled as part of this study. Mollusk sampling effort will be the same as that for the principal study.

Physical Parameters

Streams

Each habitat unit that is to be sampled will have been habitat mapped previously. Therefore, a variety of physical data will have been collected prior to sampling (See CAWG-1). At the time of sampling, these data will be field verified and re- measured if needed. In addition, water temperature, specific conductance, pH and dissolved oxygen will be measured at the adjacent fish sampling site using field instruments. A Marsh McBirney or equivalent flow meter will be used to measure velocity at three locations along the transect where the macroinvertebrate sample was collected. The percent of the riffle surface that is covered by shade from streamside vegetation (canopy cover) will be estimated using a spherical densiometer at three places along the riffle and estimates will be averaged. The substrate composition will be visually estimated based on the categories used for habitat mapping (CAWG-1). Substrate consolidation will be characterized by kicking the substrate with the heel of a boot to note whether it is loosely, moderately or tightly cemented, as suggested in the CSBP. The slope of the riffle will be estimated using a stadia rod and hand level or a clinometer, and the riffle will be characterized as either high or low gradient. The GPS coordinates of the sampled habitat unit will be verified and recorded. At each reach where BMI samples are taken the physical habitat characteristics in the California Bioassessment Worksheet; and a description and scoring of the physical/habitat quality from the Physical Habitat Quality form will be recorded to a standard data sheet for each site.

Reservoirs

At crayfish trapping each location, the depth of the set will be noted and the location determined using a GPS. The water temperature and dissolved oxygen will be measured at the depth of the trap, the substrate will be characterized visually, as feasible. The presence of vegetation, woody debris, or man-made structures will be noted, as feasible. Reservoir elevation will be noted at the start and end of each 24-hour trapping period.

Laboratory Procedure

Laboratory procedures for macroinvertebrates will follow the CSBP Level 3 Laboratory Procedures. Crayfish and mussels will be identified in the field, if possible. Taxonomic composition will be identified using appropriate invertebrate identification keys. The insects collected will be identified to the appropriate level of identification in the CSBP taxonomic effort. The selected laboratory will be identified prior to data collection.

Quality assurance checks will be conducted on all macroinvertebrate samples by CDFG approved laboratories (provided in the CSBP), 20 percent bioassessment validation (QA/QC) of the samples will be conducted. Taxonomic voucher specimens of crayfish and mussels will be sent to appropriate experts for confirmation of identifications.

STUDY AREA

As described above, macroinvertebrate sampling, generally, will take place in riffles in Project bypass and flow-enhanced reaches and in comparable channel types and habitats upstream of Project diversions. Samples will be collected in bypass reaches in their upstream and downstream areas to characterize change. Ephemeral streams will not be sampled.

Freshwater mussels will be sampled in the vicinity of each fish sampling site. In general, pool and run habitats will be sampled for this group.

Shaver Lake and Mammoth Pool reservoirs will be sampled for the relative abundance of crayfish.

ANALYSIS:

Data resulting from collection during macroinvertebrate sampling and laboratory analysis will be subject to quality assurance checking and entered into a database. Spatial information including GPS coordinates also will be entered into the database. Sampling locations and results will be added to GIS maps. The density of macroinvertebrates collected will be calculated by site and stream. Standard community indices will be calculated and summarized by site and stream. Mussels species and mussel beds will be identified on the GIS maps prepared.

Comparisons will be made between reference (upstream of diversion) and bypass reach sites, as well as, sites within bypass reaches using macroinvertebrate densities and the BMI metrics in the current CSBP. Indicator species will be used, as appropriate. The coefficient of variation value for each of the metrics will be calculated. A standardized taxonomic list (supplied by CDFG) of identified invertebrates will be completed. Analysis will be based on these comparisons and differences in the physical characteristics of the sampling locations (channel conditions, flow, vegetation, shading, water quality, etc.). Multivariate statistical methods will be applied to assist with the interpretation of numerical data in consultation with the CAWG.

A general assessment of water quality may be inferred from the description of the macroinvertebrate communities for each stream reach sampled. Water quality may be evaluated by the presence or absence of certain groups of pollution- sensitive macroinvertebrates.

In reaches where the area upstream of the diversion is within another bypass reach, the data gathered for upstream/downstream comparisons may only yield information on incremental differences. In these instances, the primary analysis will focus on differences between the most upstream bypass reach and the reference site. Data collected at other sites will used to describe trends in the invertebrate community with distance downstream. However, due to changes in elevation and temperature along streams such as Big Creek, physical differences in the environment may confound such upstream/downstream comparisons.

The results of the whitewater studies will be used to evaluate the potential effects (positive and negative) on macroinvertebrate communities due to whitewater flow releases. The timing and magnitude of the flows resulting from controlled releases will be assessed with the results of the data collection to evaluate effects and potential mechanisms that may affect the community.

Based on the overall results of the sampling conducted, CAWG will determine if a second year of study is necessary to further characterize the macroinvertebrate communities in the Big Creek Project Area.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

· This study will use information developed during habitat mapping in Characterize Stream and Reservoir Habitats (CAWG-1). · Coordination with Whitewater Recreation Assessment (REC-3) will be needed. · Coordination will be needed with Determine Flow-Related Physical Habitat in Bypass Reaches (CAWG-3), Characterize Fish Populations (CAWG-7), Chemical Water Quality (CAWG-4), and Riparian (CAWG-11).

SCHEDULE:

Sampling is scheduled to take place in 2002-2003. Sampling will need to take place in late summer and fall after the conclusion of the high runoff period. Both access and sampling efficiency would be highly limited during the runoff period.

REFERENCES:

CDFG. 1999. California Stream Bioassessment Procedure (Protocol Brief for Biological and Physical/Habitat Assessment in Wadable Streams). CDFG, Water Pollution Control Laboratory. Rancho Cordova, CA.

Klemm, D. J., P. A. Lewis, F. Fulk, and J. M. Lazorchak. 1990. Macroinvertebrate Field and Laboratory Methods for Evaluating the Biological Integrity of Surface Water. EPA 600-4-90-030. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory; Cincinnati. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Cincinnati, OH.

Metcalf-Smith, J. L., J. Di Maio, S. K. Stanton and G. L. Mackie. 2000. Effect of sampling effort on the efficiency of the timed search method for sampling freshwater mussel communities. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 19(4): 725-732.

Plafkin, J. L., M. T. Barbour, K. D. Porter, S .K. Gross, and R. M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Stream and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. EPA 440-4-89-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Assessment and Watershed Protection Division; Washington, D.C.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Riparian

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S): 1. Protect riparian communities. 2. Maintain and operate the Big Creek hydroelectric system efficiently and safely, while adequately protecting riparian habitats. [SCE] 3. Maintain and restore water quality to meet goals of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, providing water that is fishable, swimmable, and suitable for drinking after normal treatment. [USFS] 4. Maintain and restore habitat to support viable populations of native and desired non-native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. Prevent new introductions of invasive species. Where invasive species are adversely affecting the viability of native species, work cooperatively with appropriate State and Federal wildlife agencies to reduce impacts to native populations. [USFS] 5. Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant and animal communities in riparian areas, wetlands, and meadows to provide desired habitats and ecological functions. [USFS] 6. Maintain and restore the distribution and health of biotic communities in special aquatic habitats (such as springs, seeps, vernal pools, fens, bogs, and marshes) to perpetuate their unique functions and biological diversity. [USFS] 7. Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity for aquatic and riparian species within and between watersheds to provide physically, chemically and biologically unobstructed movement for their survival, migration and reproduction. [USFS] 8. Maintain and restore the connections of floodplains, channels, and water tables to distribute flood flows and sustain diverse habitats. [USFS] 9. Maintain and restore soils with favorable infiltration characteristics and diverse vegetative cover to absorb and filter precipitation and to sustain favorable conditions of stream flows. [USFS] 10. Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to sustain desired conditions of riparian, aquatic, wetland, and meadow habitats and keep sediment regimes as close as possible to those with which aquatic and riparian biota evolved. [USFS] 11. Maintain and restore the physical structure and condition of stream banks and shorelines to minimize erosion and sustain desired habitat diversity. [USFS]

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S): 1. Mimic the shape of the natural hydrograph and restore in-stream flows (e.g., timing and quantity) sufficient to sustain riparian vegetation in areas of potential Project impact. 2. Preserve, restore, or enhance special aquatic features, such as meadows, lakes, ponds, bogs, fens, and wetlands, to provide the ecological conditions and processes needed to recover or enhance the viability of species that rely on these areas. [USFS] 3. Identify and implement restoration actions to maintain, restore, or enhance water quality and maintain, restore, or enhance habitat for riparian and aquatic species. [USFS] 4. Ensure that management activities, including fuels reduction actions, within RCAs and Critical Aquatic Refuges (CAR) enhance or maintain physical and biological characteristics associated with aquatic- and riparian-dependent species. [USFS] 5. Ensure that Big Creek system instream flow requirements, operations and maintenance procedures adequately protect riparian habitats and species. [SCE]

STUDY OBJECTIVE:

Determine Project impacts on riparian communities.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Potential modification of riparian habitat from Project operations and/or maintenance activities (as indicated in the Terrestrial Working Group Project Nexus Matrix).

GENERAL APPROACH: 1. Existing riparian communities will be mapped based on aerial photography. 2. Potential riparian habitat within ¼ mile of bypass and flow augmented streams will be identified in more detail and mapped during a helicopter survey. Where necessary, additional ground surveys will be conducted to augment the helicopter-based habitat survey. 3. Rosgen Level 1 stream typing will be conducted as part of the stream and reservoir habitat characterization (CAWG – 1). 4. Channel maintenance and sediment transport studies will identify geomorphic and hydrologic conditions in Project-affected reaches. 5. Sampling sites will be selected in Project-affected reaches according to channel type, riparian vegetation type, and geomorphic and hydrologic condition.

6. A stratified set of reference sites that encompass the range of riparian plant community types and Rosgen channel types present in Project-affected reaches will be selected. 7. Detailed field data for the riparian analysis will be collected at all selected sampling and reference sites. 8. Determine Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) of riparian at representative sampling and reference sites.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY: 1. Riparian communities will be initially mapped from aerial photography. Potential riparian habitat will be mapped within ¼ mile of bypass and flow augmented streams. This information will be incorporated into a GIS database. 2. The helicopter reconnaissance survey would consist of one or two biologists mapping riparian habitat during an overflight of the project area. This would include identifying, photographing, and obtaining GPS information (where feasible). This information will be incorporated into a GIS database. 3. Streams will be typed according to Rosgen Level 1 methodology (Rosgen 1996). See Characterize Stream and Reservoir Habitats study plan (CAWG - 1) for detailed description of Rosgen stream typing methodology. During characterization of stream type, data on valley slope, stream slope, substrate, and valley width information will be determined. 4. Geomorphic and hydrologic data will be collected as part of the Geomorphology (CAWG - 2) and Hydrology (CAWG – 6) study plans. Refer to CAWG – 2 and CAWG – 6 for the detailed methodology for geomorphic and hydrologic data collection geomorphology study will include the assessment of overbank flows and identification of any distinct geomorphic surfaces. Specifically, this study will provide the following information that will be applied to identify riparian areas that may be affected by Project operations. · Areas subject to Project-related bank erosion or undercutting. · Areas subject to excessive Project-related scour due to flow augmentation or sediment trapping by reservoirs. · Streams with Project-related reductions in the occurrence of geomorphologically significant flows, falling below thresholds identified in CAWG – 2. · Streams that are diverted throughout the year (i.e., mainstem and South Fork of the San Joaquin River). · Areas subject to Project-related channel instability. 5. Sampling sites will be selected based on the range of riparian community types (e.g., white alder riparian, valley and foothill riparian) and Rosgen channel types (identified during the Characterize Stream and Reservoir Habitats study) present in these Project-affected reaches. Riparian community classification will be based on Preliminary Descriptions of

Terrestrial Natural Communities in California (Holland 1986) and cross- referenced to the series in A Manual for California Vegetation (Sawyer & Keeler-Wolf 1995). The final sampling site selection will be coordinated with fish, macroinvertebrate, geomorphology, and sedimentation sampling sites (Refer to Characterize Fish Populations study plan (CAWG - 7), Macroinvertebrates study plan (CAWG - 10), and Geomorphology study (CAWG - 2). 6. Reference sites (i.e., reference conditions) will be selected for all potentially adversely affected riparian types using a three-tiered approach. The tier used will be documented for each riparian reference site. · The first tier will include a search of historical and other aerial photographs to determine reaches where pre-project photographs of riparian vegetation are available. For these reaches, photographs will be reviewed to determine the historic location and extent of riparian vegetation in areas of potential Project effect. The second component of this tier would be to identify reference sites in the same sub-basin, upstream of diversions, if similar valley gradient and geological controls were present. · The second tier approach would be used when the first tier analysis finds that the upstream area has fundamentally different controlling characteristics (e.g., geomorphology, valley gradient, etc.). The second tier analysis would identify reference sites, if available, in the watershed that have similar valley gradient, geomorphology, elevation range, and sub-basin orientation. · The third tier approach is used if none of the first three approaches can provide an adequate reference condition. Instead, literature-based professional knowledge and expertise from similar sites will be used to generate a reference condition for the sampling site. 7. Riparian data will be collected at all selected sampling and reference sites. Data collected will include plant species composition, percent cover, height and canopy structure, relative density, size classes present, evidence of unusual mortality, structural diversity, and the width of riparian zone. Wildlife observation, presence of diagnostic sign (e.g., tracks, scat, feathers, etc), and habitat suitability will also be collected. Evidence of external land uses that could potentially affect the riparian community will also be collected as appropriate (e.g., grazing, logging, etc.). At selected sampling and reference sites, geomorphic data will also be collected. If signs of riparian encroachment are observed at sampling sites, information on channel maintenance will be collected for that tributary Geomorphology study (CAWG - 2). 8. The condition of riparian areas will be assessed at representative sampling and reference sites/reaches using Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) protocols (Prichard 1998 and 1999). These sampling and reference reaches will be selected using the methods described above, but will generally be located in low gradient (>2%) alluvial river and stream reaches. The PFC method requires inter-disciplinary expertise in fields of hydrology, soils, and vegetation. Data collected as part of CAWG-1, CAWG-2, CAWG – 6, and

TERR-1), will include relevant items from the PFC checklist so that data can easily be used to complete a checklist for each PFC reach. Data collected as part of these studies will be complied and presented to the selected team of experts. Following review of this data, the technical team will select sampling sites. The technical team will conduct PFC protocols at these selected sites. Technical experts will evaluate the PFC data for each reach. Data analysis will be coordinated with the CAWG.

STUDY AREA:

Riparian communities will be mapped for ¼ mile around Project facilities and bypass and flow-augmented reaches, including Project-related recreational facilities (Vegetation Communities (TERR – 1)). Focussed riparian studies will be conducted at the appropriate sampling and reference sites determined in the detailed methodology (as described above). The study area for focussed surveys will encompass the width of the riparian area on both sides of the stream.

ANALYSIS:

Identify the differences between Project-affected reaches and selected reference sites. Evaluate mechanisms that may be responsible for these differences, including Project and non-Project causes.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

· Vegetation community mapping from Vegetation Communities (TERR - 1). · Rosgen Level 1 information from Characterize Stream and Reservoir Habitats (CAWG - 1). · Geomorphic and hydrologic data from Geomorphology (CAWG - 2). · Hydrology information from Hydrology (CAWG 6). · Sampling site locations from Characterize Fish Populations (CAWG - 7). · Sampling site locations from Macroinvertebrates (CAWG - 10).

SCHEDULE:

· 2001: Literature review (aerial photo interpretation). · 2002: Detailed study of potentially affected Project reaches.

REFERENCES:

Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

Prichard, D. 1999. Riparian Area Management: A User Guide for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lentic Areas. U.S. Department of the interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.

Prichard, D. 1998. Riparian Area Management: A User Guide for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lotic Areas. U.S. Department of the interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Printed Media Companies, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Sawyer, J.O., and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Water Use, Anadromous Fish (salmon and steelhead)

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S): 1. Optimize Project operations to benefit downstream water users. 2. Maintain important quantity and quality aspects of the Project for power generation. 3. Protect anadromous fish populations in the lower San Joaquin River (downstream of Friant Dam). 4. Maintain and restore water quality to meet goals of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, providing water that is fishable, swimmable, and suitable for drinking after normal treatment. [USFS] 5. Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity for aquatic and riparian species within and between watersheds to provide physically, chemically and biologically unobstructed movement for their survival, migration and reproduction. [USFS] STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S): 1. Allow continued operational flexibility to maximize the benefits of seasonal water planning, balancing water supply and flood protection. 2. Facilitate balanced use of surface waters for power and non-power beneficial uses. 3. Maintain or enhance water supply for local communities and downstream users. 4. Amend Mammoth Pool Agreement, if appropriate, in a way that is acceptable to all interests. 5. Maintain or increase water storage in Project reservoirs to maximize generation, downstream water supply, local community water supply, and improve availability of water for instream use. 6. Increase runoff through cloud seeding program. 7. Allow operational flexibility for maximization of asset value and continued availability of electrical power during peak demand periods. 8. Allow continued low cost operations that also contribute to lower electricity prices. 9. Maximize hydroelectric generation to minimize adverse air quality impacts from replacement generation sources. 10. Continue efficient use and reuse of Project waters.

11. Manage generation, flow releases, and reservoir operations so that they do not contribute adverse impacts to anadromous or inland fish, amphibians, reptiles, and other wildlife species. 12. If feasible, modify reservoir operations or add water storage in the Big Creek System to yield additional flow for anadromous or inland fish restoration. 13. Ensure that identified beneficial uses for the water body are adequately protected. Identify the specific beneficial uses for the project area, water quality goals from the Regional Basin Plan, and the manner in which the standards and guidelines will protect the beneficial uses. [USFS] 14. Ensure that management activities, including fuels reduction actions, within RCAs and Critical Aquatic Refuges (CAR) enhance or maintain physical and biological characteristics associated with aquatic- and riparian-dependent species. [USFS]

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S): 1. Describe use of Project waters. 2. Describe indirect effects of Project water use. 3. Describe effects of Project water use on downstream users. 4. Describe effects on San Joaquin River cold water anadromous and inland fisheries, amphibians, reptiles and other wildlife species. 5. Determine if reservoir operations or additional water storage could yield additional flow for cold water anadromous and inland fisheries restoration. 6. Determine if reservoirs could be utilized for storage of local community water supplies. 7. Describe SCE water rights. 8. Develop or identify an operations model. 9. Describe current cloud seeding program, evaluate enhancements, and the impacts of current and enhanced programs.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Project reservoirs impound water and make it available for use at a different time than allowed by the natural hydrology. The Mammoth Pool Operating Agreement establishes storage conditions in SCE reservoirs based on time of year and hydrologic conditions. Conforming to these conditions may require release of water from SCE reservoirs or allow continued storage. Other factors that affect the release of water from SCE reservoirs include hydropower operations, instream flow requirements, flood control operations, and meteorological conditions (e.g., droughts and rain-on-snow events).

GENERAL APPROACH: 1. Describe existing conditions of water use, both directly by the Project (non- consumptive) and indirectly by water users who depend upon Project operations for the magnitude and timing of water availability.

2. Review studies conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) regarding optimizing Project operations (USAN model), and other relevant existing studies, to examine the balance between the needs of power generation, flood protection, and future water use by local communities in the relicensing basin, and water users downstream of the relicensing basin. 3. Use existing information including Reclamation model studies to evaluate the effects of Project-related flows on San Joaquin River downstream of Friant Dam including those that have the potential to affect anadromous fish. SCE also will review the results of ongoing work associated with the consent decree between Reclamation and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) that seeks to identify available water supplies. 4. Describe the operational protocols and range of flexibility allowed by the Mammoth Pool Agreement. 5. If flow-related or storage-related mitigation measures are recommended, evaluate the effect of changes on other water uses.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

The Water Use Study will describe current Project area water uses and operational constraints, including the Mammoth Pool Agreement, consumptive and non-consumptive water uses, FERC minimum flow requirements, and general hydrology. The data will be collected from existing data and documents. The study will describe how Project operations balance the needs of entities in the basin, downstream entities, and the San Joaquin River. If flow-related or storage- related mitigation is contemplated by studies in other resource categories, the effects on water uses will be evaluated.

CURRENT WATER USES AND OPERATIONAL CONSTRAINTS DESCRIPTION

The report will describe consumptive and non-consumptive water uses from Millerton Lake upstream. The description of non-consumptive water uses in the Project area and downstream will focus on which minimum instream flows are required from the Big Creek Projects in the current FERC licenses for hydropower generation. The description also will describe operational constraints and the range of flexibility allowed by the Mammoth Pool Agreement. The Mammoth Pool Operating Agreement will be described in a basin-wide context to indicate the impacts on Project operations. The data will be collected from existing agreements and documents, and the data for consumptive and non-consumptive data use will be augmented with interviews.

Requirements of water rights licenses for the following users downstream of Project facilities will be briefly described: 1) Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) hydropower generation; 2) Reclamation, which administers contracts with water users in the San Joaquin Valley through the operations of Friant Dam and Millerton Reservoir; and 3) riparian water users along the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to Mendota Pool.

Beneficial uses of Project waters, as designated in the San Joaquin River Basin Plan (Basin Plan) are another piece of background data necessary to evaluate Project water use. These beneficial use designations serve as a basis for establishing the water quality standards in the Basin Plan. Potential beneficial uses include municipal and domestic water supply, agricultural uses (irrigation and stock watering), hydroelectric power generation, contact recreation, canoeing and other non-contact recreation, cold and warm freshwater fish habitat, and wildlife habitat. Project operations cannot result in violations of water quality objectives for downstream beneficial uses. These beneficial use designations are used to interpret the results of the Chemical Water Quality study (CAWG-4).

For reference, a brief description of Project area hydrology will be summarized from the Hydrology study (CAWG-6).

RECLAMATION’S USAN MODEL

Recently, Reclamation evaluated potential improvements to the available water supply at Millerton Lake that could be attained from reservoir operations in the upper San Joaquin River basin. The two primary components of the study were: 1) a Technical Advisory Committee comprised of agency personnel, and 2) development of a water supply model of the upper San Joaquin River basin called USAN. USAN simulated the operation of Millerton Lake, Friant-Kern Canal, Madera Canal, Florence, Edison, Huntington, Shaver, and Bass lakes, and the power facilities at the lakes. The model simulates existing and new operations. New operation scenarios include reoperation of reservoirs, increased Mammoth Pool storage, and additional releases to the San Joaquin River. Results of various scenarios of modified project operation will be presented in the Water Use report.

There also are ongoing studies related to the consent decree between Friant Water Users Association (FWUA) and the NRDC regarding increased water supply for anadromous fish in the San Joaquin River. These results will also be evaluated and presented in this study and the Anadromous Salmonid study (CAWG-13).

ROUTING MODEL

The CAWG will review the needs of a routing model to describe distribution of water through the Project area, and determine whether existing models are sufficient to meet these needs. If necessary, these models will be augmented to meet the task needs. Existing models include SCE’s WATMAN operations model, and USAN’s treatment of the upper San Joaquin River. The selected model will be used to assist in evaluating the effects of flow or storage alterations that are proposed as part of the ALP.

STUDY AREA:

As identified in the Objectives and Project effects matrix, the study area will include all large and moderate dams, and the San Joaquin River.

ANALYSIS:

The results of Reclamation’s USAN model simulations, or other models as available and/or appropriate, will be summarized to examine effectiveness of Project water use in balancing downstream users needs and requirements. When the results of studies conducted for the NRDC consent decree are available, they will be evaluated as they pertain to the Project’s potential ability to benefit anadromous fish in the San Joaquin River basin and discussed further in CAWG- 13.

Proposed Project-related mitigation measures for other resources, such as fish, wildlife, recreation, and land management also will be evaluated for consistency with each other, with maintaining as much SCE Hydroelectric generation as possible, and with the Mammoth Pool Operating Agreement.

ASSUMPTIONS :

The results of this study will rely in part upon models that depict certain aspects of Project operations and their effects on water uses. All models involve simplifying assumptions, which would then influence the findings of this study. The assumptions underlying the models chosen for this analysis will be fully described in the report of findings.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

Analyses presented in the Water Use Study will be used in the following studies: · CAWG-6 Hydrology · CAWG-4 Water Quality, to assess potential for change in water quality for consumptive uses downstream due to increased instream flows for biological and recreational resources. · CAWG-13 Anadromous Salmonids · REC-2 and REC-3, to analyze the effects on other water uses from potentially increasing instream recreation flows for whitewater recreation. · LAND-5 Storage Capacity and Generation Assessment, to analyze the socioeconomic effects and losses of SCE Hydro generation due to potential changes in operations, or storage capacities. · LAND-3 Cumulative Effects Analysis · CUL-1 and CUL-2, to assess the effects on cultural resources of current and planned water use plans. · The NRDC/FWUA Consent Decree studies.

SCHEDULE:

2001: Assemble available information and model objectives (review results of USAN, WATMAN, and other models as they become available). Determine the

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 2-129 Combined Aquatic CAWG – 12 Water Use need for a new or augmented model to describe water routing through the system. During 2002 to 2003 the following activities would take place: evaluate opportunities for enhancing water supply through existing SCE cloud seeding programs; evaluation of cost sharing; and implementation of the model.

References:

California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Central Valley Region. 1998. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Third Edition.

United States Bureau of Reclamation. October, 2000. Friant Inflow Project draft Report.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Anadromous Salmonids, Anadromous Salmonid Habitat

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S): 1. Protect, conserve, and enhance anadromous salmonids and their habitats in the San Joaquin River. 2. Identify and implement measures to mitigate and minimize direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with operations and maintenance of the SCE’s Big Creek hydroelectric Projects. 3. Maintain and restore habitat to support viable populations of native and desired non-native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. Prevent new introductions of invasive species. Where invasive species are adversely affecting the viability of native species, work cooperatively with appropriate State and Federal wildlife agencies to reduce impacts to native populations. [USFS] STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S): 1. Augment flows in the San Joaquin River to benefit anadromous salmonids. 2. Mitigate for Project-related impacts through the implementation of flow and/or non-flow measures. 3. Benefit anadromous salmonids by coordinating operation of SCE’s Big Creek Projects with other projects, programs or initiatives, and/or using water transfers, water exchanges, water purchases or other forms of agreements, where practical and appropriate. 4. Include anadromous salmonids as an issue in the cumulative impacts analysis to include operations of all seven projects (Big Creek System). 5. Develop and evaluate Project alternatives for modifying operations of the Big Creek System to benefit anadromous salmonids and their habitats. 6. Maintain or restore: (1) geomorphic and biological characteristics of special aquatic features, including lakes, meadows, bogs, fens, wetlands, vernal pools, springs; (2) streams, including in-stream flows; and (3) hydrologic connectivity both within and between watersheds to provide for the habitat needs ofa quatic-dependent species. [USFS]

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S): 1. Review available information on the history, status and habitat of anadromous salmonids in the San Joaquin River downstream of Friant Dam. 2. Review available information on existing and proposed projects or programs pertaining to the San Joaquin River that may affect anadromous salmonids.

3. Evaluate the effects of operations and maintenance of the Big Creek Projects on anadromous salmonids in the San Joaquin River downstream of Friant Dam. 4. Evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the existing Big Creek Projects and any SCE proposed Project alternatives on anadromous salmonids and their habitat. 5. Evaluate opportunities to benefit anadromous salmonids or their habitat during development and evaluation of any SCE proposed Project alternatives.

PROJECT NEXUS:

The operations of the Big Creek Projects affect the timing and volume of water downstream of Big Creek Hydroelectric Project No. 4, and, ultimately water entering Millerton Lake. The US Bureau of Reclamation’s Friant Dam and PG&E’s Kerckhoff Dam downstream of the Big Creek Project Area represent impassable barriers to anadromous salmonid access to the Project Area. The operation of Friant Dam at Millerton Lake affects the availability and quality of water available to the San Joaquin River. Federal agencies and their partners are currently studying the feasibility of restoring fall-run chinook, spring-run chinook (currently extirpated) and winter steelhead. Currently there are no active plans being implemented to reintroduce anadromous salmonids above Friant Dam and SCE's facilities.

GENERAL APPROACH: 1. Review available information to describe status of anadromous salmonids and their habitat in the San Joaquin River downstream of Friant Dam. 2. One of the goals of the study is to identify limiting factors of anadromous salmonids downstream of Friant Dam that may be affected by operations or maintenance of the Big Creek Projects. 3. Review available information that describes other projects, programs, and initiatives in the watershed that may positively or negatively affect anadromous salmonids and their habitats downstream of Friant Dam. This review should consider past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects. 4. Use information obtained from reviews of existing information and developed from CAWG-12 Water Use and CAWG-6 Hydrology to describe likely direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the existing SCE Projects and Project alternatives on anadromous salmonids and their habitats. 5. Use existing studies and existing models to evaluate any SCE proposed Project alternatives with other projects, programs, and initiatives in the watershed to minimize Project effects on anadromous salmonids and their habitats. Identify opportunities to benefit anadromous salmonids and their habitats.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

LITERATURE REVIEW

Available information including scientific literature, agency reports, and other available literature addressing the current status of anadromous salmonids in the San Joaquin River will be reviewed. To the extent available, this will include information currently being developed by CALFED, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the ongoing work associated with the consent decree between Reclamation and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The focus of this review will be the status of anadromous salmonid populations in the San Joaquin River and their habitats downstream of Friant Dam. To the extent that the reviewed information discusses factors limiting anadromous salmonid populations in the San Joaquin River, these factors will be identified and discussed.

As part of this task, existing habitat data will be evaluated to assess potential spawning, rearing and holding habitat for spring-run chinook, fall-run chinook and winter-run steelhead. This assessment will include use of existing habitat mapping information; identification of any habitat factors or natural migration barriers from these data, which might act to limit anadromous habitat viability; and include an assessment of historic habitat (including habitat above Friant Dam), based on available information. Existing habitat information for the mainstem San Joaquin River will be evaluated from downstream of Friant Dam upstream to Mammoth Pool Dam. To the extent that water temperature information is currently available, it will be considered.

PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS

In addition, we will identify and describe existing and proposed, initiatives, and programs that are likely to significantly affect anadromous salmonids and/or their habitat in the San Joaquin River. This review will include a discussion of reasonably foreseeable projects in the Basin. This information will be obtained through review of existing reports, contact with appropriate resource agencies, planning agencies, resource users, and other stakeholder organizations. Emphasis will be placed on major enhancement and mitigation activities, major development projects, and major proposed alterations in water use. We will identify the name of the project, the agency or proponent, the purpose of the project, identified effects (beneficial or detrimental) to anadromous salmonids or their habitat, the area affected, and the proposed costs, financing and timing of the project, to the extent that such information is publicly available. This information will be summarized in tabular form.

PROJECT IMPACTS

Information obtained from reviews of existing information related to anadromous salmonid history, status, habitat, and limiting factors will be used along with information on the effect of Big Creek Project operations to describe direct and indirect effects of existing Big Creek Projects on anadromous salmonids and their

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 2-133 Combined Aquatics CAWG – 13 Anadromous Salmonids habitat in the San Joaquin River. Information related to Big Creek Project operations will be developed from the results of CAWG-12 Water Use and CAWG- 6 Hydrology. Information on existing effects of the Big Creek Projects and proposed Project alternatives (see Land 3 - Cumulative Effects Analysis) will be used with information obtained from other projects in the Basin to assess cumulative effects on anadromous salmonids and their habitats.

COORDINATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS

SCE-proposed modifications to Big Creek Projects (proposed PM&E measures associated with Project alternatives) will be evaluated in conjunction with other projects, programs, and initiatives in the watershed. The objective of this analysis would be to identify the potential Project effects of the proposed modifications and the opportunity to mitigate and minimize their effect on anadromous salmonids and/or their habitats. An emphasis of this analysis will be the identification of opportunities to benefit anadromous salmonids and/or their habitats. This work would make use of existing studies and existing models to evaluate the existing SCE Projects as well as proposed Project alternatives in context with other projects in the Basin. Considerations in this analysis would include coordination of non-SCE projects, initiatives, and enhancement measures with proposed SCE Project modifications to benefit anadromous salmonids and/or their habitat.

A goal of this assessment and its coordination with efforts by other parties is to ensure that this relicensing does not preclude or limit the effectiveness of efforts by USBR, NMFS, and others to restore salmon and steelhead and their habitats in the San Joaquin Watershed. This analysis will consider the various restoration activities in the watershed to facilitate and complement these other efforts, where appropriate.

STUDY AREA:

As identified in the Objectives and Project effects matrix, the study area will span from the upper San Joaquin Watershed (SCE Big Creek Project Area) to the San Joaquin River downstream of Friant Dam.

ANALYSIS:

A summary report on existing information related to the status of anadromous salmonids and their habitat in the San Joaquin River, and potential limiting factors will be developed and provided to the CAWG. This summary report also will include the tabular summary of existing and proposed projects that may affect anadromous salmonids and their habitats in the San Joaquin River. The extent to which the information requested by the CAWG is readily available and adequate for its purpose will be determined.

Information related to the effects of the existing Big Creek Projects and proposed Project alternatives will be incorporated in the analysis, when results are available from CAWG-6 and CAWG-12 studies. The analysis of proposed Project

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 2-134 Combined Aquatics CAWG – 13 Anadromous Salmonids alternatives would be incorporated after evaluation of the effects under CAWG-12. When the results of studies, such as those conducted for the NRDC consent decree are available, they will be included and evaluated as they pertain to the Project’s ability to benefit anadromous fish in the San Joaquin River. It is anticipated that evaluation of the proposed Project alternatives will be initiated during the settlement negotiation phase of the ALP.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

This study will be to be closely coordinated with:

· Water Temperature (CAWG-5) · Hydrology (CAWG-6) · Water Use (CAWG-12) · Cumulative Effects Analysis (LAND-3)

In addition, the availability of information for the analyses described above will be dependent on the completion of evaluations being conducted under other non- SCE processes (e.g., NRDC consent decree).

SCHEDULE:

Literature review will begin in 2001. Initial evaluation of Project direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will be initiated in 2002 as results become available from CAWG-6 and CAWG-12.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Fish Passage/Migration, Reservoir Fish, Fisheries

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S): 1. Protect, maintain, or enhance fish populations. 2. Manage both cold water and warm water fisheries, including transitional zones and harvest vs. non-harvest species, where appropriate. 3. Maintain and restore habitat to support viable populations of native and desired non-native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. Prevent new introductions of invasive species. Where invasive species are adversely affecting the viability of native species, work cooperatively with appropriate State and Federal wildlife agencies to reduce impacts to native populations. [USFS] 4. Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity for aquatic and riparian species within and between watersheds to provide physically, chemically and biologically unobstructed movement for their survival, migration and reproduction. [USFS] 5. Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to sustain desired conditions of riparian, aquatic, wetland, and meadow habitats and keep sediment regimes as close as possible to those with which aquatic and riparian biota evolved. [USFS] 6. Restore connectivity between and within watersheds only when required by measurable conditions affecting the health of native species. [SCE]

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S): 1. Maintain adequate populations of lake rearing sport fish (i.e., kokanee). 2. Manage Project activities to protect both fisheries resources and other aquatic species (i.e., amphibians and reptiles). 3. Protect beneficial uses. 4. Ensure that identified beneficial uses for the water body are adequately protected. Identify the specific beneficial uses for the project area, water quality goals from the Regional Basin Plan, and the manner in which the standards and guidelines will protect the beneficial uses. [USFS]: (1) the geomorphic and biological characteristics of special aquatic features, including lakes, meadows, bogs, fens, wetlands, vernal pools, springs; (2) streams, including in-stream flows; and (3) hydrologic connectivity both within and between watersheds to provide for the habitat needs of aquatic-dependent species. [USFS] 5. Ensure that management activities, including fuels reduction actions, within RCAs and Critical Aquatic Refuges (CAR) enhance or maintain physical and

biological characteristics associated with aquatic- and riparian-dependent species. [USFS] 6. Address identified ongoing adverse impacts to populations of native aquatic species while maintaining important structural components of the Big Creek hydroelectric system. [SCE]

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S): 1. Identify fish passage migration barriers in Project stream reaches and reservoir tributaries. 2. Evaluate the effects of Project facilities and operations on fish passage in areas where passage may be impeded by conditions in the stream channel. Anadromous fish do not occur in the Project area. 3. Determine if habitat fragmentation for native fish species has occurred and, if so, the extent of any adverse biological impacts to those species. 4. Determine the actual biological need for fish passage (within context of FPA, Section 18, 10j).

PROJECT NEXUS:

Fish passage barriers are the result of structures or conditions in the stream channel, which impede the migration of fish. Diversions, natural stream structures, and the effect of stream flows (high or low) may be responsible for creating barrier conditions. In the Big Creek Project Area, barriers related to Project operations and facilities may occur in streams downstream of Project diversions, and streams tributary to Project reservoirs and diversion pools.

GENERAL APPROACH: 1. Scientific literature addressing fish passage will be reviewed to determine fish passage criteria for fish species and lifestages found in the Project Area. The passage criteria will be presented will be summarized in a brief report and presented to the CAWG. 2. Information developed in studies deriving from CAWG study plans 1 and 3 (Characterize Stream and Reservoir Habitats and Determine Flow-Related Physical Habitat in Bypass Reaches, respectively) will be used to identify potential fish passage barriers in the Project bypass reaches and in tributaries to Project impoundments. These locations will be evaluated based on current Project operations to evaluate potential impediments to fish movement in the stream reaches and from Project impoundments. 3. Technical drawings and plans for Project diversions will be reviewed to determine if they impede fish passage. Other non-Project structures occurring in Project reaches will be evaluated if they are shown to impede fish passage due to Project operations. Mechanisms currently providing fish passage will be evaluated.

4. Information resulting from CAWG Study Plans 1 and 7 (Characterize Stream and Reservoir Habitats and Characterize Fish Populations, respectively) will be used to evaluate if under the current levels of passage, habitat fragmentation for target fish species has occurred. The viability of the target fish populations in Project waters will be evaluated, as well as the extent of adverse biological impacts to those species.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

LITERATURE REVIEW

Scientific literature addressing fish passage will be reviewed to develop a set of passage criteria for the Project. The literature will include fish passage criteria as it applies to the lifestages of target fish species found in Project waters. Target salmonid species will include rainbow trout, brown trout, and kokanee. Native non-salmonid species to be evaluated will include hardhead, Sacramento pikeminnow and Sacramento sucker. Passage criteria will be developed for each species and appropriate lifestages based on available information. Information collected by CDFG, SCE and USFS on fish distribution in the Big Creek Project area will determine which species criteria will be applied to each stream. Passage criteria will evaluate potential movement upstream and downstream of passage barriers. Criteria will include information on width, velocity and depth. Species specific information will be used preferentially. However, where such information is not available, information from similar or closely related species of similar size will be used. Once the literature review is completed, the candidate criteria will be summarized in a report and presented to the CAWG for review.

FISH PASSAGE MECHANISMS AT PROJECT DIVERSIONS

Technical drawings and plans for large (i.e., reservoirs) and small (i.e., stream) Project diversions will be evaluated for fish passage. Based on the details of the drawings and plans for each structure, fish passage will be assessed using criteria developed from the literature review. If other non-Project structures (e.g., culverts) in Project reaches impede fish passage as a result of Project operations, the conditions creating the barrier will be characterized from ground surveys. Data from USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps and habitat mapping surveys (CAWG-1) could indicate areas where potential non-Project structures exist.

Fish passage conditions at Project diversions will be determined based on the description of the Project diversion from drawings and plans, as well as site visits, as needed. Upstream and downstream passage will be evaluated at each Project diversion. The passage of fish at each of the diversions will be characterized for each of the Project areas including, Big Creek, San Joaquin River, Mammoth Reach and Stevenson Reach. Table CAWG 14-1 presents a list of the Project reservoirs and forebays associated with Project diversions and dams. Facilities at large diversions (i.e., reservoirs), such as spillways and diversion intakes, will be characterized in order to describe the methods of fish passage.

Diversions at reservoir intakes may entrain and pass fish to areas below the reservoir (see CAWG-9, Entrainment). Fish entrained by the diversion intake may be diverted to powerhouses or other streams in the Project area. Diversions at Huntington Lake, for example, may divert fish to either North Fork Stevenson Creek or Big Creek Powerhouse No. 1.

Small stream diversion structures will be evaluated for fish passage based on details from the technical drawings and plans and from information collected during the habitat mapping surveys (CAWG-1). Fish passage criteria will be used to determine if the diversion structure is an impediment to fish movement.

FISH PASSAGE IN STREAMS

In order to evaluate how changes in stream flow resulting from Project operations may affect habitat for fish in the Big Creek Project area, analyses are proposed in CAWG-3, Determine Flow-Related Physical Habitat in Bypass Reaches. Velocities and depths of flow-responsive habitats may be altered by changes in flows in bypass reaches due to natural flow conditions or Project operations. This may result in habitat types, such as riffles, becoming sufficiently shallow to create a barrier to fish passage. Therefore, access to spawning, rearing, or cover habitat could be lost. To evaluate these potential effects, transects from wetted perimeter and PHABSIM studies will be evaluated for passage Project bypass reaches. Based on Project operations and natural base flow hydrology, the potential for barriers to fish passage will be assessed. Yearly hydrographs and exceedance curves will be used to evaluate the likely occurrence and duration of flow-related passage barriers. The method of Thompson (1972) or other appropriate approach (possibly that of Bovee) will be used to determine fish passage conditions, with the concurrence of the CAWG.

FISH PASSAGE IN DIVERSION RESERVOIRS AND FOREBAYS

Upstream passage to tributaries from Project reservoirs and impoundments will be evaluated from visual surveys at different reservoir elevations or using bathymetry at a known elevation. The range of elevations evaluated will be based on the operating elevation range of the reservoir for spring and fall spawning migrations. The evaluations will be made using the fish passage criteria, discussed above, to determine whether passage conditions are acceptable.

POPULATION VIABILITY OF TARGET AND NATIVE SPECIES

Big Creek Project bypass reaches were habitat mapped (CAWG-1) to identify available habitat and characterize potential barriers to fish migration. An evaluation of the identified barriers will be conducted using data collected from the CAWG-7 fish sampling and CAWG-1 habitat mapping surveys and from existing data available from other sources such as CDFG, SCE and USFS. Habitat

Table CAWG 14-1 Big Creek Project Reservoirs and Forebays Associated with Project Diversions

DIVERSION* ELEVATION (FT) Lake Thomas A. Edison 7651 Florence Lake 7329 Huntington Lake 6954 Shaver Lake 5371 Mammoth Pool Reservoir 3361 Redinger Lake 1414 Balsam Meadows Forebay 6675 Big Creek PH 3 Forebay 2250 Portal Forebay (Camp 61 Creek) 7185 Adit # 2 Seepage 7175 Big Creek PH 2 Forebay 4805 Big Creek PH 8 Forebay 2950 Mono Creek Diversion Forebay 7350 Hooper Creek Diversion Forebay 7350 Tombstone Creek Diversion Forebay 7673 South Slide Creek Diversion Forebay 7560 North Slide Creek Diversion Forebay 7520 Crater Creek Diversion Forebay 8762 Bear Creek Diversion Forebay 7350 Chinquapin Creek Diversion Forebay 7273 Camp 62 Creek Diversion Forebay 7257 Bolsillo Creek Diversion Forebay 7535 Warm Creek Diversion Forebay 8004 Rock Creek Diversion Forebay 3336 Ross Creek Diversion Forebay 3359 Pitman Creek Diversion Forebay 6998 Balsam Creek Diversion Forebay 4881 Ely Creek Diversion Forebay 4845 * The Adit # 8 diversion is not included because it is not an ephemeral stream.

fragmentation will be analyzed based on the availability of habitat upstream and downstream of Project structures. Information collected during CAWG-3 will be used to evaluate an index of the amount of habitat in Project bypass reaches. Location of specific habitat uses including spawning, nursery, and rearing will be considered.

In order to determine the potential effect of passage barriers on the fish populations in the Project area, data collected during the fish population and habitat mapping surveys (CAWG-7 and 1, respectively) will be compared to stream reaches upstream and downstream of the potential passage barrier. Comparisons of the fish populations and available aquatic habitat could determine if fish passage barrier is likely affecting the viability of the fish populations. An assessment of the fish population structure and available habitat in the river reaches above and below the diversion will be used to assess if the available habitat meets the requirements of the life history stages of the target and native species. Population structure will be evaluated to determine if recruitment is likely being affected.

Effects will be assessed based on the identified impacts in terms of the amount and types of habitat available and the extent to which passage barriers affect their use. Population-level impacts will be assessed based on growth and population structure.

STUDY AREA:

Project waters that are included in this study plan are presented in Table CAWG 14-1. Fish passage will be studied in Project streams with diversions or other non- Project structures affected by Project operations.

ANALYSIS:

The results of the literature search, evaluation of Project diversions, habitat inventory, instream flow, as well as fish sampling will result in an evaluation of the potential effects of Project operations on fish passage. Based on that evaluation, Project diversions and operations that have potential to affect local fish populations will be identified for further study. Locations of potential fish barriers and the factors affecting passage will be summarized. Locations of identified barriers will be presented using GIS. The range of conditions and timing of conditions posing a barrier to fish passage will be identified. The species and lifestages most likely to be affected also will be identified.

The report to be prepared for the CAWG’s review will identify locations and fish passage issues that warrant further study. Recommendations as to further study will be incorporated in that report. Based on the concurrence of the CAWG, supplemental investigations may be undertaken.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

This study will need to coordinate with the following studies: · Characterize Stream and Reservoir Habitats (CAWG-1) · Determine Flow-Related Physical Habitat in Bypass Reaches (CAWG-3) · Characterize Fish Populations (CAWG-7) · Entrainment (CAWG-9)

SCHEDULE:

Literature review will begin during 2001. Work on evaluating fish passage issues in Project streams also will be initiated in Spring 2001. Fish passage surveys, if necessary will be initiated in 2002.

REFERENCES:

Rosgen, D. L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO.

Thompson, K. 1972. Determining Stream Flows for Fish Life. Presented at Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission Instream Flow Requirement Workshop. March 15-16, 1972.

CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY PLANS CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY PLANS TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

CUL – 1 PREHISTORIC CULTURAL RESOURCES...... 3-1 CUL – 2 HISTORIC ERA (PRE -1954) CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 3-7 CUL – 3 NATIVE AMERICAN PLACES OF CULTURAL CONCERN ...... 3-13 CUL – 4 CURATION OF ARCHEOLOGICAL COLLECTIONS AND HISTORIC RECORDS ...... 3-21 CUL – 5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION ...... 3-25

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Prehistoric Cultural Resources

BIG CREEK BASIN MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Preserve the physical and cultural integrity of prehistoric sites, features, structures, objects, districts, or artifacts within the project Area of Potential Effects (APE).

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

1. Preserve the physical and cultural integrity of prehistoric sites, features, structures, objects, districts, or artifacts within project APE. 2. Develop means for public education and interpretation of project area prehistory. 3. Develop means to demonstrate continuity between prehistoric cultural resources and contemporary Native American lifeways, traditions, and cultural values.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Adverse project effects on significant prehistoric cultural resources (historic properties) resulting from on-going operation and maintenance of Big Creek facilities.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

The objectives of the Prehistoric Cultural Resources study are to: 1. Identify and inventory prehistoric cultural resources within the project Area of Potential Effects. 2. Evaluate and determine National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility of prehistoric cultural resources. 3. Identify past and potential adverse project effects on significant prehistoric cultural resources. 4. Explore mitigation/preservation options for identified adverse project effects including public interpretation/education. 5. Develop a prehistoric cultural resources management element for inclusion in a Historic Preservation Plan (HPP) for the Big Creek Hydroelectric System. 6. Assess past impacts of the Big Creek Project (e.g. the entire Vermilion Valley as a cultural resource prior to the building of the dam).

STUDY AREA:

The study area will comprise the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for each FERC license, defined by FERC in consultation with SCE, the Forest Service and State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) as the area in which the project has the potential to affect historic properties and other cultural resources. The APE may include: project reservoirs and forebays, project access roads maintained by SCE, regulated stream stretches, and project facility structures and features. Areas within the FERC project boundary above tunnels may not be included in the APE/study area as no ground disturbing activities occur there, except where adits or diversions (e.g., Camp 61 Creek and Chinquapin diversions) are part of maintenance facilities. Areas outside the FERC project boundary (e.g., recreation areas, biological mitigation areas, etc.) where project-related effects may indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties may also be included in the APE/study area. The APE/study area may be amended during this process.

METHODS:

1. Review past cultural resource projects in and near the project area to assist in determining survey, identification and recordation needs. 2. Review historic and ethnographic data including GLO survey maps and other pertinent historical data to identify historic land uses and specific resources in the project area(s), including historical documents concerning reservoir areas prior to inundation. 3. Prepare a research design for (Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA)-permitted) National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) investigations, and a Plan of Action (POA) per Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). 4. Apply for ARPA permit as appropriate; the Forest Service as Federal Land Manager will consult with Native Americans regarding issuing a project permit per ARPA and NAGPRA.

5. Consult with Native Americans with cultural ties to the project area regarding cultural values associated with, and management of, archaeological sites. 6. Compile a record of NRHP eligibility consultation for prehistoric cultural resources within the project APE. 7. Revisit and assess previously documented prehistoric sites within the project APE and, as appropriate, re-record sites to contemporary standards. 8. Inventory prehistoric cultural resources in previously unsurveyed or inadequately surveyed areas within the project APE. 9. Evaluate the NRHP eligibility of previously unevaluated prehistoric cultural resources within the project APE and up date previous eligibility determinations as necessary. Evaluation methodology will be flexibly tailored to property type (e.g., buildings, structures, sites, and districts). If archaeological excavation is required to determine the scientific importance of some archaeological sites, Native Americans with cultural ties to the project area will be consulted. 10. Where appropriate, investigate reservoir-related effects (e.g., erosion, wave action) on inundated archaeological sites within the project APE. 11. In collaboration with Native Americans, consult with the Forest Service regarding future plans for Sierra National Forest resource use that may affect prehistoric cultural resources within the project APE. 12. In collaboration with Native Americans, consult with SCE regarding current Big Creek O&M activities and future plans for Big Creek operations that may affect prehistoric cultural resources within the project APE. 13. Consult with the interested public regarding interpretation and education opportunities associated with prehistoric cultural resources within the project APE.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS:

Analysis will include the following: 1. Identify past, present and potential project-related impacts to prehistoric cultural resources within the project APE. These include, for example, impacts as a result of reservoir filling/draining; current and proposed levels of project-related recreational use; site vandalism; road use/maintenance for project-related purposes, and erosion. 2. Evaluate prehistoric cultural resources within the project APE and present criteria used to determine eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. 3. Analyze identified adverse project effects to significant prehistoric cultural properties to determine how such effects can be avoided or mitigated. 4. Based on the information above, develop a Historic Preservation Plan for the Big Creek Hydroelectric System. The plan will stipulate how cultural resources will be managed for historic preservation.

5. Based on the information above, develop public education/participation opportunities in historic properties preservation.

The study will result in written report(s) providing an inventory of historic properties within the project APE and determination of effects on historic properties for each FERC project area APE. These will form the basis for a prehistoric cultural resources element of an ALP-wide HPP that will include comprehensive mitigation and preservation measures.

Note: Due to the confidential nature of cultural resource data, including archaeological site location and related ethnographic information, some information will be deemed confidential and availability will be limited to federal and state agencies, with the possible addition of tribal governments.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

Fieldwork phases of the study will need to be coordinated with SCE's operations to provide optimal access and fieldwork conditions. Coordination with other studies may be required at some phases of the study to assess potential impacts to prehistoric cultural resources.

Input needed from other studies: CUL-3 Native American Places of Cultural Concern.

SCHEDULE:

STUDY PHASE SCHEDULE:

Consultation (SCE, FS, Native Americans) Ongoing; estimated complete 12/2003

Permit applications (ARPA) As appropriate prior to fieldwork

Cultural resources inventory In progress; estimated complete 11/2001

Assessment of NRHP eligibility Estimated 11/2001 to 6/2002

Assessment of project effects Estimated 11/2001 to 12/2002

Development of Historic Preservation Plan Estimated complete 12/2003

REFERENCES:

Archaeological Consulting and Research Services, Inc. Final Report of Archaeological Test Excavations, Mammoth Pool Hydroelectric Project, Mammoth Pool Reservoir, Madera and Fresno Counties, California. Report to Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, California.

Archaeological Consulting and Research Services, Inc. Report of the Cultural Resources Studies Conducted for the Proposed Granite-Big Creek No. 3 220 kV Transmission Line Project. Report to Ecological Analysts, Inc.

Goldberg, Susan K. and Michael J. Moratto Archeological Investigations at Balsam Meadow, Fresno County, California, Data Recovery from Sites 04- FRE-811, 04-FRE-812, and O4-FRE-818. Report to Environmental and Regulatory Affairs Division, Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, California.

Holson, John, M.A. Archaeological Investigations at CA-FRE-814 and CA-FRE- 815 for the 4-Lane Land Exchange, Pineridge Ranger District, Sierra National Forest, California. Report to UDS Forest Service, Clovis, California.

Jackson, Thomas L. Report of Archaeological Test Excavations for FERC Project 67 (CA-FRE-422, FRE-809, FRE-940, FRE-1208, FRE-1209, AND FRE- 1211). Report to Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, California.

Jackson, Thomas L. and Helen McCarthy. Prehistoric and Ethnoarchaeological Investigations at CA-FRE-341, Big Creek Expansion Project, Powerhouse 3, Fresno County, California, California. Report to Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, California.

Jackson, Thomas L. and Stephen A. Dietz. Archaeological Data Recovery Excavations at CA-FRE-798 and CA-FRE-805, Siphon Substation 33kV Distribution Line and Balsam Meadow Hydroelectric Project. Report to Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, California.

Moratto, Michael J. and Lynn M. Riley. Balsam Meadow: Archaeological Testing at Six Sites in Eastern Fresno County, California.

O'Brien, Steven and Michael J. Moratto (ed.). Balsam Meadow II: Archaeological Testing at Three Sites in Fresno County, California. Report to Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, California.

Southern California Edison Company. Records and files pertaining to prehistoric cultural resources in the project area.

Taylor, Thomas T. Archeological Survey Report, Vermilion Powerhouse Project Facilities, Western Sierra Nevada Mountains, Fresno County, California.

Theodoratus Cultural Research, Inc. An Ethnographic Survey of the Proposed Dinkey Creek Hydroelectric Project. Report to Kings River Conservation District, Fresno, California.

Theodoratus Cultural Research, Inc. and Archaeological Consulting and Research Services, Inc. Cultural Resources Overview of the Southern Sierra Nevada. An Ethnographic, Linguistic, Archaeological and Historical Study of the Sierra National Forest, Sequoia National Forest, and Bakersfield District of the Bureau of Land Management. Report to the USDA Forest Service, South Central Contracting Office, Bishop.

Theodoratus Cultural Research, Inc. and Archaeological Consulting and Research Services, Inc. 1981 An Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Big Creek No. 3 and No. 4 Springville-Magunden 220kV Transmission lines in Fresno, Tulare, an Kern Counties, California. Report to Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, California.

Theodoratus, Dorothea, C. Blount, A. Hurtado, P.N. Hawkes and M. Ashman. Balsam Meadow Cultural Resource Study, Ethnology and History. Report to Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, California.

United States Forest Service. Records and files pertaining to prehistoric cultural resources in the project area.

Varner, Dudley M. and William C. Beatty, Jr. 1980. An Archaeological Investigation of Cultural Resources for the Balsam Meadow Project, Fresno County, California. Report to Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, California.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Historic Era (pre-1954) Cultural Resources

BIG CREEK BASIN MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Preserve the physical and cultural integrity of historic era buildings, structures, districts, objects, artifacts, or sites within the project APE.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

1. Preserve the physical and cultural integrity of historic era buildings, structures, districts, and objects, artifacts, or sites within the project APE. 2. Assess preservation options for NRHP-eligible properties. 3. Manage properties within the project APE to promote public awareness of historic sites and provide information on local history. 4. Create a management plan for the Big Creek Historic District and other historic era properties as appropriate.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Adverse project effects on significant historic era cultural resources (historic properties) resulting from on-going operation and maintenance of Big Creek project facilities.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

The objectives of the Historic Era (pre-1954) Cultural Resources study are to: 1. Inventory historic era cultural resources within the project APE. 2. Evaluate and determine NRHP eligibility of historic era cultural resources. 3. Identify past and potential adverse project effects on significant historic era cultural resources. 4. Explore mitigation/preservation options for identified adverse project effects including public interpretation/education. 5. Develop a historic era cultural resources management element for inclusion in a Historic Preservation Plan (HPP) for the Big Creek Hydroelectric System.

STUDY AREA:

The study area will comprise the area of potential effects (APE) for each FERC license, defined by FERC in consultation with SCE, the Forest Service and SHPO as the area in which the project has the potential to affect historic properties and other cultural resources. The APE may include: project reservoirs and forebays,

project access roads maintained by SCE, regulated stream stretches, and project facility structures and features. Areas within the FERC project boundary above tunnels may not be included in the APE/study area as no ground disturbing activities occur there, except where adits or diversions are part of maintenance facilities. Areas outside the FERC project boundary (e.g., recreation areas, biological mitigation areas, etc.) where project-related effects may indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties may also be included in the APE/study area. The APE/study area may be amended during this process.

METHODS:

Study methods will comply with regulations at 36 CFR 800; 36 CFR 60; Secretary of Interior's guidance publications Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology or history, as appropriate (48 FR 44739), Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716-44740) and Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties; the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Treatment of Archaeological Properties: A Handbook; and standards and guidelines for historic preservation activities established by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Field study methods will accommodate weather conditions, Big Creek System reservoir conditions and Sierra National Forest visitor conditions in a flexible schedule for each FERC project, to be determined in collaboration between Pacific Legacy, the Forest Service and SCE. Study methods carried out by Pacific Legacy on behalf of SCE will include the following: 1. Review past cultural resource projects in and near the project area in order to determine survey, identification and recordation needs. 2. Review historic and ethnographic data including GLO survey maps and other pertinent historical data to identify historic land uses and specific resources in the project area(s), including historical documents concerning reservoir areas prior to inundation. 3. Prepare a research design for (ARPA-permitted) NHPA investigations. 4. Consult with the interested public regarding values associated with, and management of, historic era cultural resources. 5. Compile a record of NRHP eligibility consultation for historic era cultural resources within the project APE. 6. Revisit and assess previously documented historic era sites within the project APE and, as appropriate, re-record sites to contemporary standards. 7. Inventory historic era cultural resources in previously unsurveyed areas or inadequately surveyed areas within the project APE. 8. Evaluate the National Register of Historic Places eligibility of previously unevaluated historic era cultural resources within the project APE and up-date previous eligibility determinations as necessary. This may include archaeological excavation to determine scientific importance of some historic

archaeological sites. Evaluation methodology will be flexibly tailored to property type (e.g., buildings, structures, sites, districts). 9. Consult with SCE regarding current Big Creek O&M activities and future plans for Big Creek operations that may affect historic era cultural resources within the project APE. 10. Consult with the Forest Service regarding future plans for Sierra National Forest resource use that may affect historic era cultural resources within the project APE. 11. Consult with the interested public regarding interpretation and education opportunities associated with prehistoric cultural resources within the project APE.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS:

Analysis will include the following: 1. Identify past, present and potential project-related impacts to historic era cultural resources. These include, for example, impacts as a result of reservoir filling/draining, current and proposed levels of project-related recreational use; site vandalism; road use/maintenance for project-related purposes; maintenance of historic buildings, structures and features and curation of records associated with the Big Creek Historic District. 2. Evaluate historic era cultural resources within the project APE and present criteria used to determine eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. 3. Analyze identified adverse project effects to significant historic cultural properties to determine how such effects can be avoided or mitigated. 4. Based on the information above, develop a Historic Preservation Plan for the Big Creek Hydroelectric System. The plan will stipulate how cultural resources will be managed for historic preservation. 5. Based on the information above, develop public education/participation opportunities in historic properties preservation.

The study will result in written report(s) providing an inventory of historic properties within the project APE and determination of effects on historic properties for each FERC project area APE. These will form the basis for a historic era cultural resources element of an ALP-wide HPP that will include comprehensive mitigation and preservation measures.

COORDINATION NEEDS

SCHEDULE:

STUDY PHASE SCHEDULE: Consultation (SCE, FS, Native Americans) Ongoing; estimated complete 12/2003 Permit applications (ARPA) As appropriate prior to fieldwork Cultural resources inventory In progress; estimated complete 11/2001 Assessment of NRHP eligibility Estimated 11/2001 to 6/2002 Assessment of project effects Estimated 11/2001 to 12/2002 Development of Historic Preservation Plan Estimated complete 12/2003

REFERENCES:

Baker, Suzanne and Laurence H. Shoup. Preliminary Archaeological Survey: San Joaquin and Eastern Railroad Grade, Sierra National Forest, California. Report to Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, California.

Hill, Ward. 1993. Historic Architecture Assessment of Worker Housing at Powerhouses 2/2A and 8, Big Creek Hydroelectric Project, Big Creek, California. Report to Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, California.

Redinger, David H. The Story of Big Creek. Angelus Press, Los Angeles, California.

Shoup, Laurence H. , Ph.D. "The Hardest Working Water in the World": A History and Significance Evaluation of the Big Creek Hydroelectric System. Report to Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, California.

Southern California Edison Company. Records and files pertaining to historic era cultural resources in the project area.

Theodoratus Cultural Research, Inc. An Ethnographic Survey of the Proposed Dinkey Creek Hydroelectric Project. Report to Kings River Conservation District, Fresno, California.

Theodoratus, Dorothea, C. Blount, A. Hurtado, P.N. Hawkes, and M. Ashman. Balsam Meadow Cultural Resource Study, Ethnology and History. Report for Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, California.

United States Forest Service. Records and files pertaining to historic era cultural resources in the project area.

For purposes of this study the Cultural Resources Work Group defines “Native American Places of Concern" as places that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places as “Traditional Cultural Properties” or which are otherwise significant because of their association with cultural practices and traditions or beliefs of a living Native American community. It is recognized that the value of such places is related to preserving and maintaining the traditional cultural identity of that community, and that the existence and location of such places is often ascertained only through interviews with knowledgeable Native American users of an area or traditional cultural practitioners, or through other forms of ethnographic research.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Native American Places of Cultural Concern

BIG CREEK BASIN MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

1. Preserve the physical and cultural integrity of traditionally used plants, animals, and places of cultural concern as defined by Native Americans. 2. Enhance species of concern to Native Americans where they are found in accessible locations. 3. Provide access where needed for continuing Native American cultural practices.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S): 1. Provide “user-friendly, open-arms” policy and procedures for Native Americans to tend and harvest traditional plants. 2. Develop ways to ensure that mandated fire suppression and routine SCE O&M activities do not damage traditional plants, animals and places of cultural concern. 3. Educate SCE staff and public about local tribes’ uses of species of cultural concern and Native American philosophy regarding the environment. 4. Avoid chemical spraying (use of herbicides) on project lands containing traditional plants of concern; if chemicals are used as a last resort, provide extraordinary notification to Native Americans to avoid poisoning collectors. 5. In the case of highly sensitive cultural places, specific objectives will be determined if locations are within the project APE. 6. Protect confidentiality regarding places of cultural concern (for example, plant gathering locations and identity of desirable species and their beneficial uses to avoid non-traditional gathering that might exhaust the resource). Examples of objectives for specific locations might be tending and collecting elderberries near XX powerhouse to enhance the plants.

7. Use appropriate Native American cultural places for public educational purposes. 8. Maintain or enhance wildlife habitat for animal species of concern to Native Americans (e.g., habitat of specific fish species).

PROJECT NEXUS:

Ongoing project-related operation and maintenance (O&M) of the Big Creek facilities may directly or indirectly obstruct or affect Native American access to, or use of, traditional Native American plant and animal species and places of cultural concern.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

The objectives of the Native American Places of Cultural Concern study are to: 1. Identify plant and animal species of concern, as defined by Native Americans. 2. In consultation with Western Mono groups, identify places of cultural concern and maintain confidentiality of the locations of places of cultural concern as appropriate. 3. Identify traditional plant resource areas with optimal access for gathering/tending. 4. Identify areas where access to desirable traditional plant and animal resources or other places of cultural concern is restricted by SCE fencing, gates on roads, or other O&M activities. 5. Ascertain how mandated SCE fire protection/management practices on project lands affect traditional plants and how these might be changed to enhance and protect plants. 6. Ascertain if areas containing plant species of concern are subject to chemical spraying or trimming by SCE and determine if alternative maintenance is possible. 7. Ascertain routine SCE O&M activities that could affect places of cultural concern and determine means to avoid effects while respecting confidentiality issues as in Item 2 above. 8. Develop a management element for Native American places of cultural concern for inclusion in a Historic Preservation Plan (HPP) for the Big Creek Hydroelectric System.

STUDY AREA:

The study area will comprise the area of potential effects (APE) for each FERC license, defined by FERC in consultation with SCE, USFS, and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as the area in which the project has the potential to affect Native American places of cultural concern and other types of cultural resources such as traditional gathering places (Note: Cultural resources in this instance may be defined as “Traditional Cultural Properties” [National Register

Bulletin No. 38]). The APE may include project reservoirs and forebays, project access roads maintained by SCE, regulated stream stretches, and project facility structures and features. Some areas in the APE/study area, such as permanently inundated lands within the reservoirs and extremely steep lands may not be examined. In addition, areas outside the FERC boundary (e.g., recreation areas, biological mitigation areas, etc.) where project-related effects may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties or places of cultural concern may also be considered. The APE/study area may be amended during this process.

METHODS:

Methods will include review of historic and ethnographic literature and archives to identify previously documented places of Native American concern within the project APE; interviews with knowledgeable Native Americans, wildlife biologists and botanists; field studies to locate, inventory and describe places of Native American cultural concern within the project APE; and other data collection methods as appropriate. Field study methods will accommodate seasonally affected plant and wildlife conditions, coordination with other ALP-related biological surveys, Native American participation, SCE O&M safety measures, SCE and Forest Service access conditions, and weather conditions in a flexible schedule for each FERC project, to be determined in collaboration between Pacific Legacy, Native Americans, the Forest Service, and SCE. The study will be conducted on behalf of SCE by Pacific Legacy and IT Corporation with compensated participation by knowledgeable Native Americans. Study methods will include the following activities: 1. Consult with knowledgeable Native American individuals to develop relevant questions regarding the types of places of cultural concern and the location of such places in the project APE. 2. Review existing ethnographic studies, historical archives, oral histories, photographs, and other records to identify the following (maintaining confidentiality of species/locations as appropriate): · individual species traditionally harvested; · qualities that make a particular location suitable as a harvest location; · what tending activities are desirable; and · types of places of cultural concern and specific locations within or apparently near the project APE. 3. In consultation with Western Mono groups, identify data still lacking after collection of above information, including: · other culturally important species; · what species are no longer actively harvested; · individuals who can provide information about what makes a particular location suitable as a harvest location and what tending activities are desirable;

· other types of places of cultural concern; · what types of places of cultural concern and which specific places are no longer actively used; and · individuals who can provide information about highly sensitive cultural places, including appropriate behavior in their vicinity. 4. Conduct interviews with knowledgeable Native American individuals to obtain any missing information not identified by the above efforts. 5. Involve knowledgeable Native American individuals in cultural resource surveys to verify that areas of cultural concern are correctly located and appropriate information about current conditions is collected (e.g., modifications to natural habitat, proximity to project features, apparent likelihood of intrusions as a result of recreation or SCE O&M activities. 6. Consult with knowledgeable Native American individuals regarding means to educate the public about places of cultural concern, if appropriate. 7. Coordinate surveys of traditional plant resource locations with botanical & wildlife species surveys (Terrestrial Working Group) during appropriate seasons to identify species of concern as defined by Native Americans and to identify traditional plant resource areas with optimal gathering/tending access. Specific species include but are not limited to: · sourberry · elderberry · acorns (various species of oak, e.g., black, blue, bull, huckleberry, canyon, golden) · mushrooms (several different species) · bracken fern · redbud · flannelbush · sedge · gooseberry · bay · willow · thimbleberry · raspberry · red fir · wild onion · pearly everlasting · pinemat manzanita · wormwood · lady fern · chinquapin

· deer brush · mountain mahogany · mountain misery · hazelnut · bleeding heart · horsetail rush · wild strawberry · western juniper · lupine · sugar pine · lodgepole pine · incense cedar · yellow pine · quaking aspen · bitter cherry · choke cherry · Douglas fir · Buckeye · wild grape · wild cucumber · yerba santa · poison oak · milkweed · soap root · deer · rainbow trout · salmon · piage · salt · other culturally important resources to be identified. 8. In collaboration with Native Americans, consult with SCE to identify and document specific information regarding the following (retaining confidentiality as appropriate): · Identify areas where access to desirable traditional plant and animal resources is restricted by SCE fencing, gates on roads, or other O&M activities.

· Ascertain how mandated fire management/protection practices on project lands affect traditional plants and how these might be changed to enhance and protect plants. · Ascertain if vegetation areas containing species of concern are subject to chemical spraying or trimming and determine if alternative maintenance is possible. · Ascertain routine SCE O&M activities that could affect places of cultural concern and determine mutually acceptable means to avoid adverse effects 9. Present collected information to Western Mono groups and solicit information regarding past and present beliefs about and uses of specific sensitive cultural areas to assist in determining whether such places are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places as Traditional Cultural Properties (National Register Bulletin No. 38). 10. All parties involved in the study will maintain confidentiality of Native American cultural resources information but still convey necessary information to enable SCE to carry out O&M activities without damaging sensitive cultural resources. 11. In collaboration with Native Americans, consult with SCE regarding current Big Creek O&M activities and future plans for Big Creek operations that may affect places of Native American cultural concern within the project APE. 12. In collaboration with Native Americans, consult with the Forest Service regarding future plans for Sierra National Forest resource use that may affect Native American places of cultural concern within the project APE.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS:

Analysis will include the following: 1. Identify present and potential project-related impacts to Native American culturally important resources within the project APE. These include, for example, impacts as a result of vegetation management, mandated fire suppression practices, current and proposed levels of project-related recreational use, and land/road access issues. 2. Develop means that are mutually acceptable to SCE and Native Americans for resolving adverse project-related impacts to culturally important resources within the project APE. 3. If appropriate, evaluate specific places of cultural concern for NRHP eligibility as Traditional Cultural Properties. 4. Based on the information above, develop a management plan for Native American culturally important resources to be included in a Historic Preservation Plan for the Big Creek Hydroelectric System. The study will result in written report(s) providing discussion of Native American culturally important resources within the project APE, evaluation of the NRHP eligibility of those resources, and determination of project effects on those resources for each FERC project area APE. These will form the basis for an ALP-

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 3-18 Cultural Resources CUL – 3 Native American Places of Cultural Concern wide HPP that will include comprehensive mitigation and preservation measures pertaining to Native American places of cultural concern.

Note: Due to the confidential nature of cultural resource data, including site location and ethnographic information, some information will be deemed confidential and availability will be limited to federal and state agencies and affected tribal governments.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

Fieldwork phases of the study will need to be coordinated with SCE's operations to provide optimal access and fieldwork conditions. Coordination with Terrestrial Working Group studies such as botanical and wildlife surveys may be required.

SCHEDULE:

STUDY PHASE SCHEDULE:

Consultation (Native Americans, SCE, FS ) Ongoing; estimated complete 12/2003

Survey and mapping (as appropriate) of culturally In progress; estimated complete 06/2002 important resources

Assessment of NRHP eligibility Estimated 06/2002 to 12/2003

Assessment of project effects Estimated 06/2002 to 12/2003

Development of Historic Preservation Plan In progress; estimated complete 12/2003

REFERENCES:

Gayton, Anna H. 1948 Yokuts and Western Mono Ethnography. Vol. I: Tulare Lake, Southern Valley, and Central Foothill Yokuts. Vol. II: North Foothill Yokuts and Western Mono. University of California Anthropological Records 10(1-2): 1-302. Berkeley.

Gifford, Edward W. The Northfork Mono. University of California publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 31:2. Berkeley.

Hindes, Margaret G. 1959. A Report on Indian Sites and Trails, Huntington Lake Region, California. University of California Archaeological Survey Records 48:1-15.

Southern California Edison Company. Records and files pertaining to places of cultural concern and ethnographic sites in the project area.

Spier, Robert F. G. Monache. In Handbook of North American Indians: Volume 8, California, pp. 426-36. Robert F. Heizer (Ed.) Washington, D.C. Smithsonian Institution.

Theodoratus Cultural Research, Inc. and Archaeological Consulting and Research Services, Inc. 1984 Cultural Resources Overview of the Southern Sierra Nevada. An Ethnographic, Linguistic, Archaeological and Historical Study of the Sierra National Forest, Sequoia National Forest, and Bakersfield District of the Bureau of Land Management. Report to the USDA Forest Service, South Central Contracting Office, Bishop.

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division. ca. 1985. National Register Bulletin No. 38: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties.

United States Forest Service. Records and files pertaining to places of cultural concern and ethnographic sites in the project area.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES:

Photo archives on file at the Auberry Library.

Records and files held by tribal governments and organizations pertaining to places of cultural concern in the project area.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Curation of Archaeological Collections and Historic Records

BIG CREEK BASIN MANAGEMENT GOAL(S): 1. Fulfill obligations under 36 CFR 79 regarding archaeological collections produced during management activities for Big Creek Project. 2. Inventory and evaluate written records of the historic Big Creek Hydroelectric System (including photographs, drawings, documented oral history, etc.). STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S): 1. Curate archaeological collections and historic records to federal standards. 2. Address Native American concerns regarding disposition of archaeological and cultural items.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Compliance with NHPA and federal regulations (e.g., 36 CFR 79) regarding preservation and curation of archaeological collections and historic records.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

The objectives of the Curation of Archaeological Collections and Historic Records study are to: 1. Fulfill obligations under 36 CFR 79 regarding archaeological collections produced during the Section 106 review process for the Big Creek ALP, and historic preservation activities for the Big Creek Hydroelectric System. 2. Inventory and evaluate written records of the historic Big Creek Hydroelectric System (including photographs, drawings, documented oral history, etc.). 3. Identify Native American concerns regarding disposition of archaeological and cultural items in existing collections and those that may be collected in the future. 4. Develop a curation management element for inclusion in a Historic Preservation Plan (HPP) for the Big Creek Hydroelectric System. STUDY AREA:

The study area will include current curation facilities and records repositories (e.g., SCE and Sierra National Forest (SNF)) within a reasonable distance from the project area that meet federal requirements at 36 CFR 79 for the curation of

archaeological and historical collections and evaluation of potential facilities that could meet federal requirements, if built.

METHODS:

Studies will be conducted by Pacific Legacy on behalf of SCE. Study methods will include the following: 1. Consult with Native Americans with cultural ties to the project area and with other members of the interested public regarding cultural values associated with, and concerns regarding the disposition of, archaeological and historical collections. 2. Determine what archaeological collections are associated with the Big Creek Hydroelectric System, where they currently are kept and the nature and volume of material in the collections. 3. Conduct a review of potential curation facilities, including an evaluation of catalog systems in use at each proposed facility and potential costs of curation, to determine which, if any, alternatives are candidates for long-term curation. 4. Determine which Big Creek-related written records and historical artifacts are of potential historical value, evaluate their historical significance, identify their current location and condition, and ascertain whether they can be acquired and relocated to a central repository or determine alternative curation approaches. Evaluate current SCE archival practice. 5. In collaboration with Native Americans, archaeologists, USFS, SCE, SHPO and/or ACHP, consider a no curation alternative (i.e., reburial) for new archaeological collections produced by future Big Creek management activities. 6. Consider a “limited curation” alternative (i.e., some but not all items in a collection are retained in a museum while other items are not). 7. Explore digital alternatives to curation of historical paper archives, including hardware, software, location, access, management and budgetary considerations.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS:

Analysis will include an evaluation of each potential curation facility in terms of how each meets regulatory requirements at 36 CFR 79, public access issues, cultural sensitivities and potential costs of long-term curation.

The study will result in a written report that documents curation issues addressed, study methods employed, evaluation of curation facilities, analysis of potential of each alternative curation solution to address the current and long-term curation needs of SCE, and recommended curation approach. A curation element will be developed for an ALP-wide HPP for the Big Creek project.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

Input from CUL-5, Public Involvement in Historic Preservation, study.

SCHEDULE:

STUDY PHASE SCHEDULE: Consultation (SCE, FS, Native Americans) Ongoing; estimated complete 12/2003 Evaluation of alternate curation facilities Estimated complete 12/2003 Development of Historic Preservation Plan In progress; estimated complete 12/2003

REFERENCES:

Regulations at 36 CFR 79.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Public Involvement in Historic Preservation

BIG CREEK BASIN MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Maintain and enhance public involvement in historic preservation in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

1. Educate the public (including SCE and Forest Service employees) regarding stewardship of cultural resources, Native American cultures and historic preservation. 2. Provide opportunities for ongoing public involvement in historic preservation.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Compliance with NHPA and federal regulations regarding public involvement in the resolution of adverse project effects (36 CFR 800.6[a][4]), as well as ongoing public involvement in historic preservation issues related to the Big Creek Hydroelectric System.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

The objectives of the Public Involvement in Historic Preservation study are to: 1. Assess current opportunities for public involvement in historic preservation related to the Big Creek project. 2. Create a plan for ongoing public involvement in historic preservation and stewardship of cultural resources associated with the Big Creek project. 3. Determine how SCE’s program for ongoing public involvement in historic preservation can be integrated with similar programs sponsored by SNF and other agencies or institutions (e.g., California State University Fresno, Central Sierra Historical Society, Sierra Mono Museum, Huntington Lake/Big Creek Historical Conservancy, Eastern Fresno Historical Society, California Office of Historic Preservation, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Archaeological Conservancy, etc.). 4. Evaluate SCE employee education program regarding historic preservation and Native American cultural values and traditions. 5. Develop a public involvement management element for inclusion in a Historic Preservation Plan (HPP) for the Big Creek Hydroelectric System.

STUDY AREA:

There is no geographically-defined area for this topic of study although the cultural resources of concern include those directly associated with the Big Creek Hydroelectric System and the individual FERC project areas.

METHODS:

The study, undertaken by Pacific Legacy on behalf of SCE, will include the following: 1. Review the nature and quality of information and public access to various forums and programs. 2. Inventory programs for public involvement in historic preservation related to the Big Creek Hydroelectric project currently in place for SCE, SNF and other agencies and institutions and ascertain the feasibility and benefits of integrating the programs. 3. Evaluate how the programs identified in Item 2 might be developed or enhanced to promote ongoing public participation in historic preservation. 4. Assess SCE’s current employee education programs regarding historic preservation and suggest means to enhance and update as necessary. 5. Evaluate the feasibility and benefits of various means by which public participation in historic preservation might be facilitated. 6. Review previous SCE studies (ethnographic, archaeological, historical) for projects such as Balsam Meadow, BiCEP, and Project 67 Recreation, etc., and consider how these studies, or appropriate portions of information in them, might be made available to the public.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS:

Analysis will include the following: 1. Evaluate the level of public interest and participation in as well as access to information regarding Big Creek history and archaeology. 2. Suggest ways to integrate efforts currently underway by SCE, SNF and other agencies and institutions regarding public involvement in historic preservation. 3. Suggest means to enhance and update SCE's current employee education programs. 4. Discuss alternative means and media for involving the public in historic preservation issues related to the Big Creek Hydroelectric System. 5. Based on the above information, recommend means to provide public education/participation opportunities in historic preservation related to the Big Creek Hydroelectric System.

The study will result in a written report that will form the basis of public involvement elements in an ALP-wide HPP for the Big Creek Hydroelectric System that will include comprehensive mitigation and preservation measures.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

Input from CUL-4, Curation of Archaeological Collections and Historic Records, and CUL-3, Native American Places of Cultural Concern; possible input needed from REC-19, Information and Interpretive Opportunities and Needs Assessment.

SCHEDULE:

STUDY PHASE SCHEDULE: Consultation with SCE and alternate public Estimated 11/2001 to 12/2003 participation programs Development of Historic Preservation Plan In progress; estimated complete 12/2003

REFERENCES:

Regulations pertaining to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended and at 36 CFR 800.

LAND MANAGEMENT STUDY PLANS LAND MANAGEMENT STUDY PLANS TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

LAND – 1 SCE LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN ASSESSMENT...... 4-1 LAND – 2 MULTIPLE USE OPPORTUNITY ASSESSMENT...... 4-5 LAND – 3 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS EVALUATION ANALYSIS...... 4-9 LAND – 4 FIRE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION ADEQUACY EVALUATION...... 4-13 LAND – 5 S TORAGE CAPACITY AND GENERATION ASSESSMENT...... 4-17 LAND – 6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY ...... 4-21 LAND – 7 SPECIAL USE AUTHORIZATION ASSESSMENT...... 4-27 LAND – 8 FACILITY USE ASSESSMENT...... 4-33 LAND – 9 VISUAL QUALITY ASSESSMENT...... 4-37 LAND – 10 AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT...... 4-41 LAND – 11 VOLCANIC AND SEISMIC ASSESSMENT...... 4-47

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Land Management

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

1. Manage and protect lands in SCE Big Creek (FERC Project) ownership (including right-of-way). 2. Coordinate land and resource planning efforts with other federal, state, county, and local governments and private landowners to ensure consistency with existing land use plans (U.S. Forest Service, Fresno and Madera county land use plans).

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES(S):

1. Ensure consistency of SCE land management practices with existing MOUs, county and Forest Service management plans. 2. Facilitate participation in long-range planning activities and improve communication and coordination with government planning agencies and private landowners.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Determine consistency of existing and proposed SCE land management within FERC Project boundaries associated with operations and maintenance activities or existing or proposed license conditions with existing MOUs, Fresno and Madera County land use plans and Forest Service management plans. Assess existing and proposed SCE land management practices and determine if there is a need to modify them to be consistent with current management plans.

Facilitate and improve open communication and coordination through the ALP with government planning agencies and private landowners potentially affected by Project-related activities.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Existing and proposed SCE land management practices within FERC Project boundaries associated with the operations and maintenance of project-related facilities, or subject to existing or proposed license conditions, may affect the implementation of regional, area and land management agency plans for lands in and around SCE project-related facilities.

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Review Fresno County Land Use Plan, Forest Service management plans, existing MOUs and special use permits to identify potential areas of

inconsistency with existing SCE land management practices on SCE’s lands within FERC Project boundaries. 2. Review SCE’s existing land management practices for project-related facilities to identify areas of inconsistency with existing land management plans. 3. Identify proposed changes to SCE’s existing land management practices associated with their operations and maintenance on SCE’s lands within FERC Project boundaries and determine consistency with existing land management plans. 4. As project-related changes are proposed, meet with affected public (county officials, U.S. Forest Service representatives) and private stakeholders to discuss proposed changes. 5. If inconsistencies exist, assess potential changes to SCE’s land management practices for operation and maintenance activities for project- related facilities to make them consistent with land management plans.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

USFS and the counties of Fresno and Madera have land management jurisdictions over Basin lands. Planned land uses within the Basin must comply with the USFS’s Sierra National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, the Fresno County General Plan, and the Madera County General Plan.

Private uses on federal lands are permitted under various agreements, permits, and licenses. Special use permits, leases, grants of easement, memoranda of understanding, licenses, and operating plans provide for private occupancy and use of resources, including: hydroelectric power development, timber production, private residential developments and summer homes, roads, water measurement and supply, utility corridors, mineral extraction, and recreation developments.

CURRENT PLANS REVIEW

The first step in the review of current plans is an inventory of existing land uses and practices on SCE private lands within FERC Project boundaries and on lands immediately adjacent to these SCE private lands. Existing public policies and ordinances related to these lands will also be identified. The second step involves the review of land management practices. SCE land management practices for their privately owned lands within FERC Project boundaries will be reviewed. Land use sections of the updated Fresno County General Plan and Madera County General Plan, applicable current residential development policies, Forest Service management plans, existing MOUs, and current special use permits will be reviewed. Information on existing recreational uses within the study area will be obtained from studies planned by the Recreation Working Group. Any potential inconsistency between public land use planning policies with existing SCE land management practices for project facilities on SCE private lands will be identified.

Existing land uses will be mapped, as well as presented in narrative and possibly tabular format.

STUDY AREA:

The study area includes SCE’s private lands within FERC Project boundaries.

ANALYSIS:

Current inconsistencies between land uses of SCE Project-related private lands with polices for adjacent land will be identified. If inconsistencies with existing uses are found, they will need to be modified in coordination with SCE and the appropriate land management agency. Proposed Project changes and protection mitigation end enhancement measures (PM&E’s) will be evaluated for their consistency with SCE’s existing land management practices associated with the operation and maintenance of Project-related facilities and with above mentioned public land management plans. As land use inconsistencies are identified, appropriate PM&Es will be developed.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

Coordinate with other ALP working groups to track proposed Project changes and PM&Es. After completion of LAND-7, Special Use Authorization Assessment, the results will be incorporated into LAND-1, SCE Land Management Plan Assessment.

SCHEDULE:

Review of land management practices will begin in 2001. Review of proposed Project-related changes and PM&Es will take place in 2003/04.

REFERENCES:

U.S. Forest Service. 1991. Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Sierra National Forest.

U.S. Forest Service. 2001. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Multiple Use

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Maintain or enhance a range of multiple use opportunities in the Basin.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES(S):

Manage resources and maintain a regulatory framework to support current and future recreational and power generation opportunities, wildlife and wilderness resources, cultural and selected other forest resources to maximize multiple use opportunities.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Evaluate potential changes in Project-related operations and maintenance that could affect recreation, power generation, wildlife and wilderness resources, cultural resources, and other forest resources and determine if these changes affect multiple use opportunities. Identify, if necessary, alternatives to increase multiple use opportunities.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Potential Project-related changes that are identified during the ALP could affect multiple use opportunities in and around Project facilities.

GENERAL APPROACH: 1. Evaluate proposed Project-related changes that have the potential to affect current and future recreational and power generation opportunities, wildlife and wilderness resources, cultural resources and other forest resources. 2. Determine if these proposed Project-related changes adversely impact multiple use opportunities. 3. Identify measures/alternatives to proposed Project-related changes to increase multiple use opportunities.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

The inventory of existing land uses in the study area through the SCE Land Management Plan Assessment (LAND-1) will provide a baseline for this multiple use assessment. Where available, multiple use data will be quantified (e.g., the number of recreationists, number of residences, quantity of timber harvested, etc). User data will be collected from the U.S. Forest Service, and from studies

proposed by the Recreation Working Group and the Cultural Resources Working Group. Information regarding wildlife and aquatic resources within the study area will be obtained from the studies performed by the Terrestrial Working Group and the Combined Aquatics Working Group. Together this information will describe the existing multiple uses occurring within the study area.

Based on baseline information from the LAND-1 assessment, discussions will be held with the Land Management Working Group, representatives from the U.S. Forest Service, and officials from Fresno and Madera counties. The purpose of these discussions will be to identify the types and quantities (if applicable) of multiple uses desired for the study area, to determine if the existing multiple uses fit the desired multiple use scenario and to determine if project operations affect these multiple uses. If the existing multiple uses are not the same, the description of the desired multiple uses and the desired ratios will be developed.

STUDY AREA:

The overall study area to identify multiple use opportunities is the upper San Joaquin Basin. The study area for the evaluation of Project operation and maintenance alterations to increase multiple use opportunities is Project facilities, lands within Project boundaries, Project-related recreational facilities, bypass reaches, reservoirs, and forebays. The study area boundary will be closely reviewed and refined by the working group.

ANALYSIS:

As PM&Es are developed, Project-related changes will be evaluated to determine their effect on the desired multiple use scenario. If PM&E measures are not consistent with the desired multiple use scenario, then alternatives will be proposed and discussed to increase multiple use opportunities.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

Coordination with all working groups is necessary to identify proposed Project- related changes that could affect multiple uses involving wildlife, recreation, wilderness, cultural, and other forest resources.

SCHEDULE:

Once baseline conditions from the SCE Land Management Plan Assessment study (LAND-1) are complete in 2001, the Multiple Use Opportunity Assessment can initiate. Analysis of proposed PM&Es from all working groups for multiple use opportunities will take place in 2003/04.

REFERENCES:

U.S. Forest Service. 1991. Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Sierra National Forest.

U.S. Forest Service. 2001. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Multiple Use / Cumulative Effects

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Manage projects and activities within the Big Creek Basin to minimize adverse cumulative effects.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES(S):

Ensure that SCE operations and maintenance activities are conducted and coordinated with other activities in the Basin to minimize adverse cumulative effects.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Identify and assess the incremental effect of actions proposed for the Big Creek projects in relationship to the effects of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions. Investigate opportunities to reduce cumulative effects.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Actions proposed for the Big Creek projects may, in combination with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Basin, result in cumulative effects.

GENERAL APPROACH: 1. Summarize the Project effects (i.e., physical, biological, cultural, recreational, social and economic) resulting from implementation of new license conditions (PM&E) proposed for Big Creek Projects. Determine the incremental effect of changes due to the proposed Project. 2. Identify other existing projects and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the Basin whose project effects overlap those of Big Creek Projects. 3. Identify the specific resources within the Basin that may be affected cumulatively by the incremental actions of the Big Creek Projects in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. These resources will be considered the target resources that will be carried forward in the cumulative effects analysis. 4. For each target resource determine: 1) the geographic scope of the cumulative effects analysis, and 2) the specific elements of existing projects and reasonably foreseeable projects that may affect the resource.

5. For each target resource, determine the incremental effect of the actions proposed for the Big Creek projects in relationship to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 6. Investigate opportunities to modify the proposed license conditions to reduce adverse Project–related effects, if appropriate. 7. As new Project PM&E packages are proposed, coordinate with working Groups to analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of each package.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

The Council on Environmental Quality defines cumulative effects as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.” For the Big Creek Collaborative, the action under consideration is the implementation of proposed license conditions (PM&Es) for the Big Creek projects. During development of the Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment, a number of Project alternatives (license conditions including PM&Es measures) will be identified and analyzed to assess cumulative effects including, but not limited to, the no-action alternative (existing Project conditions) and the preferred alternative (collaboratively developed license conditions). As such, the cumulative effects analysis is initiated later in the process, after the resource studies are completed and Project effects have been identified for the existing project (no-action alternative). After preliminary PM&Es are identified, the cumulative effects of the project alternatives can be analyzed and compared to those of the existing project. The following outlines the proposed process for conducting the cumulative effects analysis for the Big Creek projects.

Before the cumulative effects analysis begins, the working groups will use an iterative approach to identify potential Project effects as technical studies are completed. Effects will then be identified and preliminary PM&Es will be proposed. The next step will be for each of the working groups to summarize the potential Project effects (i.e., physical, biological, cultural, recreational, social and economic) resulting from the implementation of proposed (PM&Es) for the Big Creek Projects. This task will include consideration of the potential Project effects from implementing the existing license conditions (no-action alternative), as well as specific new alternatives.

The Land Management Working Group, in coordination with the other working groups, will contact appropriate resource agencies; local, state, and federal agencies; non-government organizations; and other stakeholders to identify existing projects and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the Basin. A detailed description of each project will be obtained and presented to each of the working groups. Each working group will identify any existing or reasonably

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 4-10 Land Management LAND – 3 Cumulative Effects Evaluation Analysis foreseeable future projects in the Basin whose project effects overlap those of Big Creek projects.

Each working group should then identify the specific resources (target resources) within the Basin that may be affected cumulatively by actions of the Big Creek projects in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. For each target resource, the appropriate working group will determine the geographic scope of the cumulative effects analysis and the existing projects or reasonably foreseeable projects that may affect the resource.

For each target resource, the appropriate working group will determine the incremental effect of the actions proposed for the Big Creek projects in relationship to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The groups will investigate opportunities to modify the existing license conditions to reduce Project-related effects by identifying appropriate PM&Es. The working groups will present any recommendations for PM&E measures to the Plenary Group. As new Project PM&Es packages are proposed by the Plenary, the Land Management Working Group will coordinate with the other working groups to analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of each proposal.

STUDY AREA:

The geographic scope of the cumulative effects analysis is defined as the physical limits or boundaries of the proposed action’s effects on target resources. In the relicensing of SCE’s Big Creek projects, the proposed action is the implementation of proposed Project PM&Es. Since the proposed PM&Es may affect resources differently, the geographic scope for each resource, under consideration in the cumulative effects analysis, may vary. The working groups will determine the geographic scope for each of the target resources.

ANALYSIS:

The analysis will determine whether a significant cumulative effect is occurring for each target resource. Where significant cumulative effects are occurring, the analysis will identify the incremental effect of the actions proposed for the Big Creek projects in relationship to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. If new Project PM&E packages are proposed, a further analysis will be conducted to determine the associated cumulative effects, if any, of each proposal.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

Although the cumulative effects analysis is a study plan formally contained within the Land Management working group, analyses of target resources will be conducted within the appropriate Working Groups. The Land Management

Working Group will coordinate the dissemination of information between the working groups. This information will include the identification of preliminary Project effects and relevant existing and reasonably foreseeable projects in the Basin. The overall schedule and specific products will be coordinated through the Land Management Working Group. This study will be conducted in coordination with:

· CAWG-12 Water Use SCHEDULE:

The identification of preliminary Project effects and relevant existing and reasonably foreseeable projects in the Basin will be initiated in 2002/2003. The cumulative effects analysis for the existing project (no action alternative) will be conducted in 2002-2003. The analysis of proposed PM&E measures and license conditions (project alternatives) will be conducted in 2003-2004.

REFERENCES:

Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act. U.S.G.P.O., Washington, D.C.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Fire Prevention and Protection

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Maintain or enhance fire prevention and protection programs.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES(S): 1. Review and revise, if necessary, SCE’s fire prevention and protection measures within project boundaries. 2. Minimize build up of fuels on SCE lands within project boundaries.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Determine adequacy of existing SCE fire prevention and protection measures within project boundaries and enhancement opportunities. Identify build up of fuels immediately adjacent to Project facilities and at Project-related recreation facilities and develop fire prevention and protection measures to reduce or eliminate fuel build up, if required.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Project operations and maintenance activities may require fire prevention and protection measures. A lack of adequate measures can contribute to brush and fuel fires.

GENERAL APPROACH: 1. Review existing SCE fire prevention and protection measures. 2. Visit SCE project facilities and Project-related recreation facilities to identify areas of fuel build up, and potential areas of high fire risk. 3. Determine if existing measures are adequate and identify opportunities for enhancement. 4. Discuss proposed changes with the Land Management Working Group. 5. Propose revisions to SCE to determine if revisions are feasible. 6. If appropriate revise SCE’s fire prevention and protection measures.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

The study approach will include the review and summary of existing SCE fire prevention and protection measures for each facility. The review will address

various issues such as the placement of fire protection equipment and fire safety procedures per local codes; regular maintenance measures or programs for vegetation cut-back at facility perimeters; and emergency employee fire response and evacuation plans.

The areas immediately adjacent to project facilities and Project-related recreation facilities will be visually evaluated and photo-documented during a site visit to identify and assess areas of fuel build up.

STUDY AREA:

The study area includes Project powerhouses, transmission lines, and Project- related recreation facilities in the Big Creek basin.

ANALYSIS:

Fire protection, prevention and suppression plans, policies, and requirements for the project area will be obtained from the California Department of Forestry, U.S. Forest Service, and Fresno and Madera County Fire Districts to aid in analysis and determination of fire safety thresholds and site specific policies. A summary of applicable fire protection policies and requirements will be provided.

Following the site visit and evaluation of existing fire safety measures, the adequacy of existing SCE fire protection and prevention measures will be determined. Opportunities to enhance existing SCE measures, as needed, will be identified.

Potential revisions to fire safety and prevention measures will be analyzed for feasibility. If needed, action plans for implementation will be developed.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

This study will coordinate with:

· LAND-6 Traffic/Circulation Study · TERR-2 Invasive/Exotic Plant Species · TERR-3 Special-status Plant Populations · TERR-4 Native American Plants · CUL-3 Native American Places of Cultural Concern

SCHEDULE:

This study will be initiated in 2002.

REFERENCES:

None

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Power Generation/Water Use

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Maximize power generation and consumptive water supply.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S): 1. Maintain or add storage and/or generation [SCE] capacity and continue to use or increase small water diversions for additional generation and storage to maximize air quality benefits. 2. Perform economic evaluations of changes to electric generation from proposed flow regimes. [RCD]

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Evaluate potential economic effects associated with storage capacity and power generation.

PROJECT NEXUS:

PM&Es proposed during the ALP may affect the timing and volume of water diverted or stored for power generation.

GENERAL APPROACH: 1. Determine the value for generation of an acre-foot of water in units of MWh at each diversion point in the Big Creek system. 2. Determine the current value for consumptive purposes of an acre-foot of water in dollars. 3. Determine the power generation and economic effects of proposed PM&Es due to increased or decreased available storage. 4. Identify, review, and summarize existing literature on land management practices that maximize water yield. 5. Evaluate proposed PM&Es to determine their effect on generation and available consumptive storage during wet, average, and dry hydrologic year conditions. 6. Identify storage and generation facilities previously proposed for the Big Creek System but not constructed.

7. Determine the benefit/cost ratio for these proposed facilities, assuming current and expected future operating and economic conditions. 8. Evaluate potential system enhancements that could offset economic impacts identified in the analysis of proposed PM&Es.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY: 1. Compile a table of each point of diversion in the Big Creek system, along with the expected generation per acre-foot of water, for water passed completely through Big Creek generation chains. This number will utilize the average efficiency of the generating units in each powerhouse and will assume flow through the “Shaver Chain” of powerhouses. 2. Based on historical records, determine the monthly probability that stored water would spill from a reservoir before it is used for generation. 3. Based on historical records, determine the probability that changes in storage in the Big Creek system would result in changes in consumptive water use availability at Friant. Using information from the Friant Water Users Authority, determine the value of changes in Big Creek system storage relative to consumptive uses in the Friant Unit. 4. Identify existing literature on land management practices which maximize water yield such as vegetation management. Review and summarize information. 5. Develop a table of proposed PM&Es and their expected effect on generation and water storage. As proposed PM&Es are identified, assure each is properly analyzed and added to the table such that the aggregate effect on hydropower generation and consumptive use availability is easily identifiable. 6. Research storage and generation facilities that have been previously proposed in the upper San Joaquin River basin. Using available information, estimate to preliminary engineering accuracy the present value (PV) of the water storage and generation benefits these facilities would provide. Estimate at a preliminary engineering accuracy the PV of the cost of constructing the facilities, including estimated environmental mitigation. Determine the benefit/cost ratio of these facilities. Tabulate the results showing the individual facilities, estimated benefit, estimated cost, and benefit/cost ratio.

STUDY AREA:

All points of diversion and/or storage (both actual and previously proposed) in the upper San Joaquin River basin (upstream of Redinger Lake).

ANALYSIS:

Analysis will occur on an ongoing basis as PM&Es are identified and as benefit/cost analyses for previous proposed additions to the project are completed.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

All proposed PM&Es affecting water will need to be identified by each workgroup for inclusion in this study. This study will be coordinated with:

· CAWG-12 Water Use (to ensure no duplicate effort takes place) · REC-3 Whitewater Recreation Assessment

SCHEDULE:

This study will be initiated in 2002 and continue through 2004.

REFERENCES:

None

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Traffic/Circulation

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Maintain or enhance safe access to facilitate multiple uses of basin resources.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S): 1. Improve the arterial and collector road system to emphasize economic efficiency and user safety, reduce user conflicts, and protection of adjacent resources. 2. Provide a transportation system with a stable running surface consistent with user needs. 3. Maintain SCE’s access to Project facilities via SNF roads. 4. Determine location, condition, and design adequacy of roads needed to access Project facilities. 5. Determine commensurate share of maintenance responsibilities consistent with existing agreements and understandings between SCE and SNF. [SCE] STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Proposed PM&Es could affect the existing road system. Evaluate PM&Es that could affect traffic/circulation.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Proposed PM&Es could affect the vehicular transportation system used by SCE and the public.

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Determine existing condition of vehicular transportation system within the Big Creek Project area. 2. Collect spatial location; traffic use of roads within the Basin that access Project facilities or recreation sites related to the Big Creek Project. 3. Evaluate proposed PM&Es to determine the potential for impacts to the vehicular transportation system within the Big Creek Project area. 4. Develop, if needed, PM&Es that achieve the stakeholder objectives. 5. Assess current and future needs for vehicular access.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

EXISTING CONDITIONS OF PROJECT-RELATED ROADS

Collecting data on the existing conditions of Project-related roads and unclassified recreation use roads adjacent to Project facilities (Table 6-1) in the Big Creek basin will provide the baseline for potential PM&E impact analysis. Available road data will be collected from SCE and SNF. Existing road condition data will include whether roads are open or restricted to the public, road geographic layers for use in GIS mapping, physical descriptions, traffic service level, maintenance level, number of vehicle trips per day, and the types and configurations of vehicles (trucks, passenger autos, trailers, etc.). Available information on SNF roads connecting to the SCE Project-related roads will also be identified and collected from SNF. Traffic counts for the upper San Joaquin basin collected during the summer of 2000, for the Vermilion Valley Reservoir Project, will be obtained. A GIS map of these roads, their descriptive information, immediate connection to surrounding SNF roads, and traffic study data will be generated. As needed, existing traffic data will be supplemented by a visual inspection and evaluation of SCE Project-related road conditions in 2002.

Table 6 -1 SCE Project-related Roads

ROADS WITHIN FERC BOUNDARY, RESTRICTED ACCESS Unclassified Road, from 6S25 (Mammoth Pool Road) to Base of Mammoth Pool Dam 9S36, portion of road across Redinger Dam Access road from County road 235 to Powerhouse 4, Penstock, and Switchyard 8S05, Canyon Road from lower gate to Powerhouse 8 8S05, Canyon Road from Powerhouse 8 to upper gate at Huntington Lake road. There are miscellaneous spurs that will require mapping Powerhouse 3 roads from controlled access gate to powerhouse and miscellaneous branches 9S42, MPPH Transmission Line access road from San Joaquin river near Powerhouse 3 to Forest Road 8S44 8S44 & 8S44Y, MPPH Transmission Line access road from Forest Road 9S42 to Forest Road 8S03 (MPPH access road from Minarets Loop) 8S03, MPPH access road from MPPH to Powerhouse 8 Unmapped road from near top of 8S03 to telephone control line Unmapped road from lower Camp Sierra access road to telephone control line 8S13 from the locked gate to the canyon road Portal Penstock bypass energy dissipater access road Florence Workcamp access road Road to Jackass Meadow campground water storage tank Tombstone diversion channel access road

Table 6 -1 SCE Project-related Roads (cont.)

ROADS WITHIN FERC BOUNDARY, OPEN ACCESS 5S80, Kaiser Pass Road, Mono Creek Campground to past Vermilion Dam 6S25, Mammoth Pool Access Road, 7S20 (Shake Flat Creek access) to end of road Redinger boat launch parking area 9S49 & 9S49A, Telephone/control line access road from County Road 235 Miscellaneous Powerhouse 3 roads i.e. water tank access road, shop access road, housing road, road to switchyard, and a road shown going down to the San Joaquin River 8S13 from the railroad grade to the locked gate Big Creek community and associated roads Portal Powerhouse access road 5S80-H, Bolsillo diversion access road Jackass Meadow campground loops Hooper Diversion access road Mono Diversion access road Mono Campground loop Leakage gages access roads below Vermilion Mono Creek gage access roads below Vermilion ROADS OUTSIDE FERC BOUNDARY, RESTRICTED ACCESS 9S42, MPPH Transmission Line access road from County Road 225 to San Joaquin River near Powerhouse 3 Pitman Diversion access road Access road from 5S80 (Kaiser Pass Road) to Portal distribution line ROADS OUTSIDE FERC BOUNDARY, SOME USE BY SCE, OPEN ACCESS 5S80, Kaiser Pass Road, Portal Powerhouse to Mono Creek Campground and past Vermilion Dam to High Sierra Pack Station 6S301, Onion Meadow Road, High Sierra Pack Station to near Warm Creek Diversion 6S25, Mammoth Pool Access Road, 4S81 (Minarets Loop) to 7S20 (Shake Flat Creek access) 4S81, Minarets Loop, 8S03 (Mammoth Pool Powerhouse access) to 6S25 (Mammoth Pool Dam access) 8S03, MPPH access road from 4S81 (Minarets Loop) to the Powerhouse 8S08, Railroad grade from Huntington Lake road to 8S13 (project road going down toward penstocks) 8S02, Adit Road, from 168 to Tunnel 5 adit 8S08, Railroad grade from Huntington Lake road to Dam 4 Portal Powerhouse / Ward Tunnel surge chamber access road 5S80, Kaiser Pass road from Hwy 168 to Mono Creek campground Road from 5S80 to Kaiser Pass cabin Road from 5S80 to Portal Forebay adit 7S01, Florence Lake Road 6S83, Bear Diversion access road SF San Joaquin River gaging station access road near Hooper Diversion

VEHICLE TRAFFIC IN UPPER SAN JOAQUIN BASIN

Vehicle use data in the upper San Joaquin basin is being gathered through a traffic study conducted for the Vermilion Valley Reservoir Project. The study collected vehicle use data over a four-month (June through October 2000) period using four vehicle counting stations. The four stations were located: east of Portal Powerhouse, east of Sample Meadow on Forest Service Route 5; east of Mono Creek campground, and east of Ward Lake. Traffic was monitored on east and west bound lanes. This information provides baseline traffic data for the upper San Joaquin basin; specifically, distribution of vehicles accessing Project- related facilities.

Traffic count locations used in the 2000 study will be used again in 2002. Five new station locations will be added; they will be located on 1) Huntington Lake Road near Dam 3, 2) SJ&E Railroad grade near Huntington Lake Road, 3) Forest Route 8S03 (MPPH access road) near Mammoth Pool Powerhouse, 4) Forest Route 6S25 (Mammoth Pool Reservoir access road) near Minarets Loop, and Forest Route 4S81 (Minarets Loop) south of 6S25.

These automatic counters will distinguish single vehicles vs. vehicles with trailers, and generate total, average daily, and weekly traffic on Kaiser Pass Road and the roads into Lake Edison and Florence Lake. The additional count locations will identify traffic use to Mammoth Pool Reservoir recreation area, San Joaquin River near Mammoth Pool Powerhouse, SJ&E railroad grade, and traffic near Dam 3.

The traffic counts will be supplemented by one of the following:

Option 1: An additional 18 days of vehicle type characterization at the Camp 62 fork. These 18 days will consist of three 4-day weekends (Fri – Mon): one early in the season, one near 4th of July weekend, and one after Labor Day weekend; and 6 random weekdays (Tues – Thurs).

Option 2: Traffic counters with cameras located at the location east of Ward Lake and at the location east of Mono Creek Campground.

Edison usage of roads will be identified using travel logs, which will be kept by all persons driving Edison vehicles.

STUDY AREA:

SCE Project-related roads (may be subject to additions if other roads are identified).

ANALYSIS:

The condition evaluation on SCE Project-related roads will provide information on the adequacy of current maintenance levels. Traffic study data on the upper San

Joaquin basin will generate baseline information on Project-related traffic and current level of service on SNF roads.

Potential changes in traffic associated with proposed PM&Es will be determined in coordination with the other working groups. Traffic study information will be used to evaluate proposed PM&Es to determine the potential for impacts to the vehicular transportation system. Analysis of proposed PM&Es and proposed projects will include, as applicable, short- and/or long- impacts on SCE’s access to SNF roads, connections, and projected traffic increases or decreases based on the PM&Es. Projections of traffic use could be based on: 1) construction activities; 2) increase/decrease of employee use; and 3) changes in recreation use. This analysis will also be used to develop, if needed, PM&Es that achieve stakeholder objectives listed above. Sampling protocol will be confirmed with the SNF prior to data collection.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

During this assessment, coordination with other working groups will be necessary to track proposed PM&Es, that may potentially affect roads and traffic. Coordinate with:

· CUL-1 Historic Era (PRE-1954) Cultural Resources · CUL-2 Prehistoric Cultural Resources · REC-10 Recreation Opportunities and Needs Assessment

SCHEDULE:

Existing conditions of SCE Project-related roads will be carried out in 2002 and the traffic study will be carried out in 2002 in coordination with recreational use study. PM&Es will be evaluated and developed in 2003/04, as needed.

REFERENCES:

U.S. Forest Service, Washington Office. 1999. Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions About Managing the National Forest Transportation System.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Special Use Authorizations

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Incorporate all appropriate Forest Service Special Use Authorizations (including road use permits) into the FERC license.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S): 1. Minimize the number and types of Special Use Authorizations (including road use permits) held by SCE. 2. Remove SCE owned non-hydro related components, including excess Project lands, from the FERC license boundary. [SCE]

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Evaluate the current listing of Special Use Authorizations and determine which ones are necessary for hydroelectric generation. Determine the feasibility of inclusion of these uses within the FERC license rather than under separate Special Use Permits from the Forest Service.

PROJECT NEXUS:

SCE currently holds 29 Special Use Authorizations with the Sierra National Forest. These authorizations are outside the current FERC authorization but may be related to SCE’s operations in the area.

GENERAL APPROACH: 1. Inventory all Special Use Authorizations within the Big Creek ALP Basin. 2. Evaluate the value and need of each Authorization in relation to SCE’s hydro-generation and hydro related operations. 3. Identify methods to eliminate unnecessary project facilities and associated authorizations. 4. Evaluate the feasibility of incorporating appropriate activities into SCE’s license application.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY: The attached list of SCE Special Use Authorizations and road use permits has been provided by the U.S. Forest Service. SCE will review the list to determine which activities are primarily associated with hydro generation and are necessary components of the Big Creek Project, versus activities primarily associated with

transmission and distribution and necessary for SCE but not components of the hydro projects. SCE will also determine which uses, if any, are no longer necessary for project operations and maintenance. Methods to eliminate unnecessary uses and their associated Special Use Authorizations will be identified.

SCE will consult with FERC and SNF to discuss the feasibility of including project-related uses, currently permitted by Special Use Authorizations and road use permits, in the Big Creek license.

Review SCE activities and components that are currently included in the FERC license. Determine those that can be removed from the license process.

STUDY AREA:

Activities and structures that have Special Use Authorizations from the U.S. Forest Service, Sierra National Forest, and non-hydro SCE owned components included in the FERC license.

ANALYSIS:

SCE will need to determine the function and necessity of each structure listed in the attached list. Those determined to be project-related will be discussed with FERC as to their suitability for inclusion in a new license. SCE will consider the option of removal of those structures no longer considered necessary for project operations and maintenance.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

Any potential structure removal will be coordinated with CUL-1 Prehistoric Cultural Resources, CUL-2, Historic Era (pre-1954) Cultural Resources and LAND-6, Traffic/Circulation Study. SCHEDULE:

The Special Use Authorization Assessment will be initiated in 2002.

REFERENCES:

See attached table of Special Use Authorizations provided by SNF.

Table LAND 7-1 List of SCE Special Use Authorizations in the Big Creek Basin

LIST OF SCE SPECIAL USE AUTHORIZATIONS IN THE BIG CREEK BASIN

411 FEASIBILITY PIN64 Cultural resource survey permit, minimum fee, new permit pending signature by SCE. 421 EXPERIMENTAL PIN4078-01 Snow survey and helicopter landing sites, no fee, no term, John Muir and Minarets Wildernesses, have cooperative agreement (1965), Minarets (now Ansel Adams) locations are Detachment Meadow and Mammoth Pass, John Muir locations are Volcanic Knob, Mono Pass, Pioneer Basin, Rosemarie Meadow, Heart Lake and Piute Pass, need for permit questioned in 1971 by the High Sierra District Ranger Winkel because of cooperative agreement and that helicopter landings in the wilderness are granted by letters of permission upon requests. PIN4079-01 Gauging station, south fork of the San Joaquin below Hooper diversion, no fee, no term, discussion in file about adding this to the FERC #67 license, letter sent 12/13/00 to SCE inquiring of status. PIN4083-01 Snow survey cabin at Heart Lake (Sally Keyes Lake), no fee, no term, we do not have a signed copy of this permit. PIN4084-01 Snow survey cabins at Volcanic Knob, Rosemarie Meadow and Coyote Lake, no fee, no term, discussion in 1975 about tearing down the Coyote cabin as SCE had no use for it anymore and FS may be interested in taking it over, SCE eventually wanted to get rid of the Volcanic Knob cabin also in 1975, file mentions a John Muir cabin which may already be gone.

511 CONSTRUCTION CAMP AND RESIDENCE PIN4005-03 Kaiser Pass cabin and telephone line, no fee, no term, amendment #1 (1965) authorized building a chimney, fire precautions, clean-up, amendment #2 (1966) required chimney spark arrestor and painting specifications, cabin built in late fall of 1949, Cindy and Annette discussed cabin removal in 1999 with Steve Rowan. 562 MINERAL MATERIAL SALE PIN4330-01 9 tunnel muck sites, fees based on yearly report, term 12/31/07, no bond or reclaim plan.

611 HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, FERC LICENSED PIN4245-01 Balsam Meadows power plant project (FERC #67), fees paid to FERC, term 2/28/2009, project completed. PIN4333-01 Vermilion transmission line and power plant (FERC #2086), fees paid to FERC, term 9/1/2003, project never started.

643 POWERLINE PIN4159-01 Ely/Lunar substation to Sierra Summit, linear right-of-way fee schedule, term 12/31/89, combined with 4196 and 4243 in PIN3 (new permit pending signature by SCE). PIN4196-01 Shaver Lake-Big Creek-Huntington Lake Distribution Area, linear right-of-way fee schedule, term 12/31/89, combined with 4159 and 4243 in PIN3 (new permit pending signature by SCE).

Table LAND 7-1 List of SCE Special Use Authorizations in the Big Creek Basin (cont.)

PIN4243-01 Balsam-Siphon distribution line (now called Kokanee), linear right-of-way fee schedule, term 12/31/93, combined with 4159 and 4196 in PIN3 (new permit pending signature by SCE). KGR4005-07 Dinkey Creek Distribution Area, linear right-of-way fee schedule, term 12/31/01, project is now in the NEPA phase for permit renewal.

751 FOREST ROADS AND TRAILS ACT EASEMENT KGR4129-01 3 short sections of access road to SCE private lands in the Dinkey area, no fee, no term.

753 ROAD UNDER FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT PERMIT PIN2 Permit for 2 temporary roads for the Camp 62/Chinquapin diversion project, $70 total fee (paid), term 12/31/00 (OK to close, no renewal), check road closure for any erosion problems when accessible in 2001 (required under erosion control plan for Camp 62/Chinquapin Diversions Project). PIN4005-04 Small portion of Perimeter Road that crosses a 40 acre parcel of Forest Service land NE corner of Shaver Lake, no fee, no term, road still in use, permit is to be terminated upon a consummated land exchange that has not happened. PIN4005-05 Powerhouse 3 transmission line service road and a small portion of Forest Road 9S06 (also known as the patrol road in Jose Basin), no fee, no term, 9S06 does not need to be under permit as it is a public use road and use should be included in FERC license (#120?), portions of the Powerhouse 3 road may be in FERC license #120, roads still in use (D. Johnston, SCE, 9/00). PIN4005-06 Tractor roads for line access north side of Big Creek NE of Powerhouses 2 and 2A, no fee, no term, roads still in use (D. Johnston, SCE, 9/00). PIN4141-01 A 450’ section of road that is part of a service road for a powerline within FERC license #2175, $10 fee, no term, note in files says to add this to license #2175, road still in use. PIN4141-02 Siphon access road (off of Grouse Creek Road), $11 fee, term 12/31/89, new permit combined with 4141-03 under PIN26 (new permit pending signature by SCE), to be added to FERC license #67 upon license renewal, term of license is 2/28/2009. PIN4141-03 Big Creek 2A forebay access road, $10 fee, term 12/31/89, new permit combined with 4141-02 under PIN26 (new permit pending signature by SCE), to be added to FERC license #67 upon license renewal, term of license is 2/28/2009. 802 PERSONAL/PRIVATE RECEIVE PIN4339-01 Reflector is located on the Minarets Ranger District, original permit was on the Pineridge side near Powerhouse 3, note in file indicates that this was to be added to FERC license #67 (probably meant #120), letter sent 12/13/00 to SCE inquiring of status.

804 MICROWAVE/INDUSTRIAL PIN4005-08 Communication site at Sunset point, communications site permittee fee calculations, term 12/31/01, Dave Taylor working with SCE on renewal. PIN4005-10 Communication site at White Bark Vista, communications site permittee fee calculations, term 12/31/02, renewal in NEPA stage.

Table LAND 7-1 List of SCE Special Use Authorizations in the Big Creek Basin (cont.)

PIN4005-11 Communication site at Musick Mountain, communications site permittee fee calculations, term 12/31/02, renewal in NEPA stage.

807 PASSIVE REFLECTOR PIN4329-01 Passive microwave reflector for transmission of radio signals to operate water control gates at Florence Lake located approximately ¾ mile SW of Hooper diversion dam, communications site permittee fee calculations, term 2/28/2009 (coincides with FERC license #67 term), note in files about adding to #67, letter sent 12/13/00 to SCE inquiring of status.

810 CELLULAR 4005-08 Same permit as 4005-08 under 804 Microwave/Industrial. At one time, AT&T was a tenant but moved sometime between 7/97 – 10/98 to their own building. SUDS prints out all uses under the same permit which is why this permit is listed twice on the printout.

915 WATER TRANSMISSION PIPELINE, LESS THAN 12” DIAMETER PIN18 Waterline for Shaver forestry cabin, $10 fee, no term, someone confused this permit with PIN4005-02 as it was not in the FLUR database, needs back-billing. PIN4005-02 Waterline to the Sheriff cabin at Huntington Lake Dam 2, $10 fee, no term.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Facilities Owned and Operated by SCE

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S): 1. Eliminate unnecessary SCE Project facilities. 2. Assure that SCE facilities within wilderness areas are managed to protect wilderness resources.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

1. Minimize the number of SCE facilities on public lands. 2. SCE facilities within the Wilderness areas, that are not historically significant or necessary for SCE operations should be removed. [SCE] 3. Reduce the amount of lands currently within the FERC Project boundaries consistent with 18 CFR §4.51(h)(2). [SCE]

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

1. Identify SCE facilities on public lands. 2. Evaluate the feasibility of removing unnecessary SCE facilities on public lands. 3. Evaluate the consistency of facilities in relationship to the Wilderness Act.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Some SCE facilities used for project operations are situated on public lands, and within or near Wilderness Area boundaries.

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Inventory all SCE facilities on public lands within the Big Creek ALP Basin. 2. Evaluate the use of the facilities in relation to SCE’s hydro-generation and hydro related operations. 3. Identify the feasibility of removing unnecessary SCE facilities that are not historically significant. 4. Evaluate the consistency of project facilities within Wilderness Areas with the Wilderness Act.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

This study will inventory all SCE facilities on public lands within the Big Creek basin. A list of SCE facilities on public lands will be obtained from SCE and SNF.

This list will also identify facilities that are within or immediately adjacent to Wilderness Areas.

For each facility identified, a description of its history, use and importance for Project operations will be obtained from SCE. For those SCE facilities located within Wilderness Areas, SCE will describe their specific need. Those facilities that are not deemed necessary for Project operations will be identified.

Those facilities deemed not necessary for Project operations will be evaluated to determine their historic significance. Existing historic resource data and evaluations of these facilities, where available, will be obtained from SCE. Further evaluations, where warranted, will be coordinated with SCE and the Cultural Resources Working Group. Those facilities deemed eligible for listing within the National Register of Historic Places will be identified.

The Wilderness Act, Wilderness DEIS, and its associated Cultural Resources Programmatic Agreement will be reviewed to determine whether facilities located within or adjacent to Wilderness Areas are consistent with current policies and objectives. For those facilities deemed not necessary and not compatible with current policies, the feasibility of removing them will be evaluated. This would not include those facilities of historic significance. For facilities deemed necessary for project operations, the feasibility of replacing them with alternative facilities outside of the Wilderness Areas or modifying the facility to better comply with the Wilderness Act will be evaluated.

STUDY AREA:

Project-related SCE facilities within the Big Creek basin located on public lands.

ANALYSIS:

All SCE facilities on public lands will be identified and their Project-related need evaluated. Facilities deemed not necessary will be identified and the feasibility of removing them from public lands will be analyzed. Feasibility will likely be based on cost and the potential for environmental damage to occur.

For facilities located within a Wilderness Area, their compatibility with policies and objectives outlined in the Wilderness Act, Wilderness DEIS, and the Programmatic Agreement will be determined. If the facility is deemed incompatible, the feasibility of modifying the facility so it better complies with the Wilderness Act will be evaluated. For facilities that cannot be modified, the feasibility of removing the facility and replacing it with a facility at a different site will be evaluated. Alternative locations for siting the facility on SCE lands will be evaluated. For facilities deemed not necessary for project operations, the feasibility of removing them will be determined, based on cost and potential environmental damage.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

Historic evaluations of facilities will be coordinated with the Cultural Resources Working Group.

SCHEDULE:

The Facility Use Assessment will be initiated in 2002.

REFERENCES:

16 U.S.C. 470. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.

Public Law 88-577. The Wilderness Act of 1964, as amended.

U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 2000. Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Management Direction for the Ansel Adams, John Muir, and Dinkey Lakes Wildernesses.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Visual Quality

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Maintain or enhance the quality of visual resources.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

1. Meet the SNF’s Visual Quality Objectives at project facilities and project waters (reservoirs, forebays). 2. Minimize visual intrusion by facilities by utilizing visual screens and select color schemes at Project facilities to improve visual quality and provide vegetative cover to visually buffer structures, if required.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Where appropriate, identify measures to improve the visual appearance of existing and proposed SCE Project facilities.

PROJECT NEXUS:

SCE Project facilities may be viewed as unnatural structures within a natural setting. Where possible, facilities should blend in, and not contrast with, the surrounding landscape.

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Review SNF Visual Resource Management (VRM) classifications. 2. Visit and photograph Project facilities. Determine sensitive view sheds (areas where the public can view the facilities). 3. Determine Project facilities visual classifications and if they contrast with the VRM classification for the surrounding landscape. 4. Identify measures to improve visual quality of Project facilities. 5. Ensure that any proposed modifications to Project facilities are designed to be visually compatible with existing VRM classifications for immediately surrounding landscapes.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

The visual quality assessment study will analyze the visual compatibility of the existing and proposed project facilities with the surrounding landscapes. The

analysis will be based on the USFS Scenic Management System (SMS). The SMS replaced the VRM in 1995. This change in evaluation technique took place after the current USFS Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) visual analysis was completed in 1991 that was based on the VRM. This Visual Quality Assessment will utilize the SMS for analysis and incorporate existing Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) and conditions from the current LRMP.

FACILITY AND VISUAL QUALITY OBJECTIVE INVENTORY

An inventory of project facilities will be developed for the visual assessment. The current VQOs of public lands surrounding the identified project facilities will be identified from the LRMP. Details of any proposed facilities will be obtained from SCE, including plan drawings, descriptions, locations, dimensions, and planned paint color schemes. VQOs of public lands surrounding proposed facilities will be identified and mapped.

SENSITIVE VIEW SHEDS

Areas where facilities can be viewed by the public will be defined geographically as the view shed. These areas will extend outside the FERC project boundaries. Sensitive viewing locations within the view shed include primary and secondary roads, recreation areas, vista points, hiking trails, and residential and recreation homes. Site visits to existing Project facilities and any proposed Project facility location(s) will be made to take photographs from sensitive viewing locations or sensitive view sheds. SNF staff will be consulted to establish Key Observation Points (KOPs) to assess the visual compatibility of existing facilities and proposed facilities. For proposed project facilities, artist renderings of KOPs photos will be used to provide a basis of assessing visual compatibility.

STUDY AREA:

The study area for visual quality assessment will be SCE Project facilities and their view sheds, which may extend beyond the FERC Project boundaries.

ANALYSIS:

Visual assessment will be conducted using two baselines, the VQO as the visual quality goal and the existing visual condition as the current visual quality baseline. The existing visual condition for lands at and surrounding Project facilities will be obtained from SNF. Using the SMS, a visual quality assessment of the existing Project facilities will be conducted using identified KOPs. Using KOPs, visual assessments are based on the degree to which the Project facilities are compatible with the established VQO for the surrounding area with considerations for Scenic Attractiveness and Visual Sensitivity Levels. Scenic Attractiveness gauges a landscape’s attributes such as the uniqueness of a landscape’s landform, vegetation patterns, and water characteristics. Visual

Sensitivity Levels captures the viewer’s concern for scenic quality, the type of activity viewers participate in, and the distance from which objects are viewed.

Enhancement measures will be discussed and may be developed to improve the visual quality of existing project facilities determined as incompatible with surrounding VQOs. Measures will also be developed for any proposed Project facilities to ensure their visual compatibility with SMS classifications for the immediate surrounding landscape.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

Coordination with the Recreation Working Group will be necessary to track any proposed changes to Project-related recreation facilities and public access near Project facilities, which may affect sensitive view sheds. Any proposed modifications to Project facilities will have to be coordinated with the Cultural Resources Working Group to assess effects proposed modifications might have on the historic values of the Project.

SCHEDULE:

In 2001, activities will involve inventory and identification of project facilities, Key Observation Points of these facilities, and the Visual Quality Objectives of the public lands surrounding them (including mapping of this information). Sensitive view sheds will be developed for each project facility in 2002.

REFERENCES:

U.S. Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics. A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agricultural Handbook No. 701.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Air Quality

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S): 1. Ensure air quality is not adversely affected by project operation and maintenance. meets Federal, state and local standards. [USFS] 2. Preserve existing or increase hydroelectric generation to offset replacement generation with potential air pollution or other negative environmental consequences. [SCE] STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S): 1. Manage Project operations to minimize fugitive dust emissions. 2. Maximize hydropower generation to offset the need for additional fossil fuel generation. 3. Coordinate land and resource planning efforts with local air quality districts.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Identify impacts associated with existing and proposed project operations and maintenance activities on fugitive dust and develop measures, if needed, to decrease dust emissions. Identify PM10 production resulting from project operations and maintenance activities.

Provide a comparison of air emissions from a natural gas fired combined cycle generating station with a hydroelecctric generating unit (of the same size).

PROJECT NEXUS:

Unpaved SCE Project roads contribute to fugitive dust generation in the air basin. Hydropower generation offsets the need for additional fossil fuel generation.

GENERAL APPROACH: 1. Determine applicable rules/regulations/requirements. 2. Evaluate the existing road surface of each identified Project-related road. 3. Evaluate use of Project-related roads. 4. This study will quantify dust emissions associated with project-related roads. And use existing studies, if available to evaluate the contribution of the project to regional air quality degradation. 5. Propose, if needed, environmentally sound and economic measures to reduce dust generation.

6. Coordinate with other land management agencies and the local air district to determine acceptable methods of dust reduction. 7. Evaluate air emission offsets associated with Big Creek hydroelectric generation. 8. Quantify air emissions (in tons per year) associated with the increase in fossil- fuel generation required to offset the decrease in hydroelectric generation. 9. Summarize existing air quality permits held by the Big Creek hydroelectric system.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

The primary factor for evaluating Particulate Matter (PM) from dust emissions associated with SCE Project-related roads is assessing the existing road surface of each Project-related road. This information will be obtained from SCE in coordination with the Traffic and Circulation study (LAND-6). The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District will be contacted to determine applicable rules/regulations/requirements to use in the assessment.

The second step in determining fugitive dust levels is to ascertain the types and number of vehicles that use each road. Traffic use on Project-related roads (vehicle types and frequency) will also be collected based on interviews with SCE’s personnel and maintenance records. Traffic vehicle types, road surface, and frequency on a monthly basis will be incorporated into formulas to determine emission ratios.

A table characterizing each (road surface, length, use) SCE Project-related road will be prepared. PM will be calculated for each road. PM emissions for all Project-related roads will be compared to CEQA and air district significance criteria.

Identify potential changes in air emissions based on potential project generation changes, on an annual basis. This assumes an increase in fossil fuel generation will offset any decrease in hydroelecctric generation.

Air emission offsets associated with the current Big Creek hydroelecctric generation will be obtained from SCE in terms of megawatt hours (MWh) of power. Air emissions produced by traditional fossil-fuel generators generating a comparable number of MWhs will be estimated.

STUDY AREA:

The study area for fugitive dust emissions include SCE Project-related roads, as listed in Table 10-1.

Table 10 -1 SCE Project-related Roads

ROADS WITHIN FERC BOUNDARY, RESTRICTED ACCESS Unclassified Road, from 6S25 (Mammoth Pool Road) to Base of Mammoth Pool Dam 9S36, portion of road across Redinger Dam Access road from County road 235 to Powerhouse 4, Penstock, and Switchyard 8S05, Canyon Road from lower gate to Powerhouse 8 8S05, Canyon Road from Powerhouse 8 to upper gate at Huntington Lake road. There are miscellaneous spurs which will require mapping Powerhouse 3 roads from controlled access gate to powerhouse and miscellaneous branches 9S42, MPPH Transmission Line access road from San Joaquin river near Powerhouse 3 to Forest Road 8S44 8S44 & 8S44Y, MPPH Transmission Line access road from Forest Road 9S42 to Forest Road 8S03 (MPPH access road from Minarets Loop) 8S03, MPPH access road from MPPH to Powerhouse 8 Unmapped road from near top of 8S03 to telephone control line Unmapped road from lower Camp Sierra access road to telephone control line 8S13 from the locked gate to the canyon road Portal Penstock bypass energy dissipater access road Florence Workcamp access road Road to Jackass Meadow campground water storage tank Tombstone diversion channel access road

Table 10 -1 SCE Project-related Roads. (cont.)

ROADS OUTSIDE FERC BOUNDARY, RESTRICTED ACCESS 9S42, MPPH Transmission Line access road from County Road 225 to San Joaquin River near Powerhouse 3 Pitman Diversion access road Access road from 5S80 (Kaiser Pass Road) to Portal distribution line

ROADS OUTSIDE FERC BOUNDARY, SOME USE BY SCE, OPEN ACCESS 5S80, Kaiser Pass Road, Portal Powerhouse to Mono Creek Campground and past Vermilion Dam to High Sierra Pack Station 6S301, Onion Meadow Road, High Sierra Pack Station to near Warm Creek Diversion 6S25, Mammoth Pool Access Road, 4S81 (Minarets Loop) to 7S20 (Shake Flat Creek access) 4S81, Minarets Loop, 8S03 (Mammoth Pool Powerhouse access) to 6S25 (Mammoth Pool Dam access) 8S03, MPPH access road from 4S81 (Minarets Loop) to the Powerhouse 8S08, Railroad grade from Huntington Lake road to 8S13 (project road going down toward penstocks) 8S02, Adit Road, from 168 to Tunnel 5 adit. 8S08, Railroad grade from Huntington Lake road to Dam 4 8S08, Railroad grade, beginning and ending at Huntington Lake road and crossing Balsam Creek Portal Powerhouse / Ward Tunnel surge chamber access road 5S80, Kaiser Pass road from Hwy 168 to Mono Creek campground Road from 5S80 to Kaiser Pass cabin Road from 5S80 to Portal Forebay adit 7S01, Florence Lake Road 6S83, Bear Diversion access road SF San Joaquin River gaging station access road near Hooper Diversion

The study area for generation air emission offsets will include all power generation facilities in the Big Creek System.

ANALYSIS:

Emissions from fugitive dust will be calculated using screening tables described in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993:A9-89). In order to estimate emissions from fugitive dust, four separate steps must be taken: 1. Estimate daily emissions for each source category (e.g., on-road, off-road, and PM10). 2. For each source category, determine the total area for each activity. 3. Multiply those totals by the emissions estimates provided in the screening tables.

4. Add the emissions from each category to determine total impacts.

With the above information, calculations using specific formulas are applied to estimate emission level for each vehicle type (e.g., passenger auto, truck) on specific road surfaces (e.g., paved and unpaved). Fugitive dust emissions of SCE Project-related roads will be quantified by totaling the PM emission generated by vehicle traffic annually.

According to the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 15 tons of Particulate Matter (PM) total per project per year is considered the standard threshold. Less than 15 tons is considered less than significant, whereas an amount greater than 15 tons per year is considered significant and requires mitigation measures. If the Project- related total emissions exceed the 15 ton PM threshold, individual Project-related roads with the greatest contribution to emissions will be identified. This also holds true for any individual Project-related road that generates more than 15 tons of PM. An analysis of these high-PM contributing Project-related roads will be conducted to identify the most acceptable measures to reduce their dust emissions (such as compaction, chemical coatings, gravel surfacing, and paving with asphalt).

Proposed project changes due to relicensing can alter the level of hydroelecctric generation from the Big Creek System. Any decreases in project generation could potentially result in increased air emissions, if the need for decreased hydroelecctric power is met by increasing fossil fuel generation. The air quality analysis of these proposed changes will involve: 1) identifying the MWh generation difference between the proposed project and the current system; 2) quantifying the air emissions produced by traditional fossil-fuel generating facilities to make up the MWh difference.

An SCE project files search will summarize existing air permits held by the Big Creek hydroelecctric system. The permits will be presented in a tabular form.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

Data collection on SCE Project-related road surface descriptions and use will be coordinated with the Traffic/Circulation Study (LAND-6). Any potential changes to road surfaces will have to be coordinated with the Cultural Resources Working Group and the Terrestrial Working Group to address possible construction impacts.

SCHEDULE:

This study will be initiated in 2002.

REFERENCES:

South Coast Air Quality Management District. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Geology and Soils

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

1. Ensure that the Project has appropriate protection from volcanic hazards. 2. Ensure that the Project has appropriate protection from seismic hazards.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

1. Evaluate power transmission lines and high-voltage equipment within the ash fall zone from an eruption to ensure that adequate protective measures are in place. 2. Evaluate information from the Division of Dam Safety to determine compliance with seismic design standards.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Review the volcanic and seismic hazard ratings for the Project area. Determine management practices or building codes recommended by the USGS, the Division of Dam Safety, and local ordinances. Use this information to determine whether the Project facilities have the required level of protection for the hazard rating.

PROJECT NEXUS:

The Project area is within the hazard zone for eruptions from the vicinity of Long Valley Caldera, located east of the Sierra Crest north of Bishop, California (Miller et al., 1982). The area is in the zone mapped to potentially receive up to 20 cm of ash fall in the event of a moderate-volume eruption. More than 80 percent of the time, winds in the vicinity of Long Valley blow to the east (Miller et al., 1982). Accordingly, there is a low probability of any ash fall affecting the Project area. The Project area is also located in the hazard zone for very large eruptions (Miller et al. 1982). Most of the Central Valley of California, and all of southern California, are also within this zone. An eruption comparable to the paroxysmal Long Valley eruption 700,000 years ago has not occurred anywhere in the world in historic times. Pyroclastic flows would completely devastate areas within 120 miles of the vent, especially in valleys (Miller et al. 1982). Much of the biological resources of the Project area would be vaporized within this zone, and then covered by ash flow tuffs.

The central Sierra Nevada, and the Project area, are sub-regions of relatively low seismicity. The closest known active faults are those of the Hilton Creek-Round

Valley fault (about 35 miles northeast), the Owens Valley fault (about 80 miles east located at the base of the eastern flank of the Sierra Nevada Mountains), the Garlock fault (at the southern end of the Sierra Nevada), and the San Andreas fault (about 125 miles west). Historically, there has been “shaking” in the Project area with an estimated Modified Mercalli Intensity of VIII, generated by an estimated Magnitude 8+ earthquake. This shock occurred on the Owens Valley fault zone near Lone Pine in 1872. More recently, four magnitude 6.0+ earthquakes centered on the Hilton Creek-Round Valley fault.

If the Project does not contain the required levels of protection against these events, or if infrastructure could fail in a position that threatens the integrity of the structure or impounded water, then fires or floods could occur that would require additional response measures to those that are currently provided by the U. S. Forest Service or other responders.

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Determine hazard zone for volcanic events. 2. Determine seismic hazard zone. 3. Determine recommended design and construction measures for volcanic hazards. 4. Determine required seismic design standards.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

The volcanic hazard zone of the area will be determined based upon available USGS publications (Miller et al. 1982), and discussions with the local volcanic observatory at Long Valley Caldera. Data will include expected effects of various types of eruptions on the project area. We will also evaluate the Sierra National Forest Long Valley Contingency Plan (1985). Data will also be collected from the Pacific Northwest regarding design recommendations and lessons learned from the Mt. St. Helens eruption of 1981. Project infrastructure, including release valves, structures, and transmission lines, will be evaluated for compliance with these measures.

The seismic hazard zone will be determined from data available from the Division of Dam Safety and the Fresno County General Plan. Project infrastructure will be evaluated for conformance with these standards.

STUDY AREA:

Project transmission lines, reservoirs, and infrastructure.

ANALYSIS:

Evaluate Project infrastructure for compliance with current seismic requirements and volcanic recommendations.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

· CUL-1 Prehistoric Cultural Resources

SCHEDULE:

Data will be collected and analysis performed in 2002.

REFERENCES:

Miller, D. M., D. Mullineaux, D. Crandell, R. Bailey. 1982. Potential Hazards from Future Volcanic Eruptions in the Long Valley-Mono Lake Area, East-Central California and Southwest Nevada--A Preliminary Assessment. U. S. Geological Service Circular 877.

RECREATIONAL RESOURCES STUDY PLANS RECREATIONAL RESOURCES STUDY PLANS TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

REC – 1 FLOW INFORMATION FEASIBILITY STUDY ...... 5-1 REC – 2 MANAGE SPILL-EVENT FEASIBILITY STUDY ...... 5-5 REC – 3 WHITEWATER RECREATION ASSESSMENT STUDY...... 5-9 REC – 4 WHITEWATER PLAY-SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY...... 5-15 REC – 5 RECONNAISSANCE STREAM CORRIDOR RECREATION ASSESSMENT...... 5-19 REC – 6 FISHERIES HABITAT EVALUATION...... 5-23 REC – 7 FISH HATCHERY AND FISH STOCKING EVALUATION...... 5-25 REC – 8 ANGLING OPPORTUNITIES AND EXPERIENCE ASSESSMENT...... 5-27 REC – 9 RECREATION RESOURCES AND FACILITY INVENTORY ASSESSMENT...... 5-35 REC – 10 RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT ...... 5-39 REC – 11 COMPLIANCE WITH ADA ASSESSMENT...... 5-45 REC – 12 HUNTING ...... 5-49 REC – 13 RESERVOIR ACCESS/FACILITY ASSESSMENT...... 5-53 REC – 14 CONCESSIONAIRE CONTRACTS EVALUATION...... 5-57 REC – 15 RESERVOIR RECREATION WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION STUDY ...... 5-59 REC – 16 EMERGENCY SERVICES EVALUATION ...... 5-63 REC – 17 DISPERSED RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT...... 5-67 REC – 18 USE BY DISADVANTAGED, HANDICAPPED, AND MINORITY PERSONS ASSESSMENT ...... 5-69 REC – 19 INFORMATION AND INTERPRETIVE OPPORTUNITIES AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT 5-73 REC – 20 TRAILS (SPRING, SUMMER AND FALL, NON-SNOW SEASON) ...... 5-77 REC – 21 WINTER RECREATION ...... 5-81 REC – 22 WILDERNESS AREAS...... 5-85

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Whitewater Recreation

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Maintain or enhance whitewater recreational opportunities.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S): 1. Provide flow information or reasonably accurate daily flow information during the spring and summer in appropriate Project reaches (i.e., South Fork San Joaquin below Florence Reservoir, San Joaquin River below Mammoth Pool, San Joaquin River below Redinger Reservoir, and suitable bypass tributary streams). 2. Provide real-time flow information or reasonably accurate daily flow information during the spring and summer in appropriate unimpaired natural river reaches that drain into the Big Creek Project [San Joaquin Paddlers] (i.e., South Fork San Joaquin into Florence Lake, Devil’s Post Pile to Mammoth Pool, North Fork San Joaquin, Granite Creek, or other appropriate tributary streams). 3. Provide advanced notification, when possible, of anticipated spill events and scheduled high flow releases from Project facilities (Florence, Mammoth Pool, Redinger, and other reservoirs and forebays).

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Determine the feasibility of providing real time flow data on appropriate reaches for whitewater boating.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Potential loss of whitewater boating opportunities from project operations (water management) and inundation under project reservoirs.

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Identify specific stream reaches on which real-time flow is beneficial. 2. Identify existing stream-flow gaging stations. 3. Gather historical streamflow data. 4. Identify project reaches where additional stream-flow gaging station would provide beneficial flow data for whitewater boating. 5. Identify stream-flow data collection and transmission equipment that are available and currently used to relay real time flow data.

6. Identify data dissemination mechanism(s).

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

The Real-time Flow Information Feasibility Study will evaluate and determine the feasibility of providing real-time flow information for selected whitewater boating reaches to recreational users.

The study will be accomplished by: (1) consulting with recreational specialists to identify streams reaches with potential whitewater boating opportunities; (2) identifying stream gaging locations and target stream reaches for real-time flow information dissemination; (3) determine improvements needed to the stream gaging infrastructure to provide information for stream target reaches, if any; and (4) identify and evaluate methods available to record and disseminate real-time flow information.

Whitewater recreation specialists will be consulted including representatives from the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, San Joaquin Paddlers, American Whitewater Affiliation, Friends of the River, and other interested persons with whitewater boating or other stream recreation experience in the Study Area. The consultation will identify target stream reaches on which flow information might be beneficial to whitewater recreationalists and other stream recreationalists.

The stream gaging infrastructure in the Big Creek study area will be identified and mapped. The USGS, USFS and SCE staff will be consulted to identify and characterize (location, operational status, and equipment) stream gages that have been placed on the target stream reaches. Target stream reaches on which there are no existing functioning gages will be identified.

The existing stream gaging infrastructure will be evaluated in consultation with SCE hydrographers to determine if the current stream gaging locations can provide real-time flow for the target stream reaches and any upgrades needed to provide the information. The need and location for any additional gaging stations will be identified. The cost and feasibility of installing new gages will be assessed based on consultation with SCE, USGS, FERC, and SNF.

Consultation will be performed with SCE hydrographers, USGS staff, Department of Water Resources (DWR) staff, and equipment vendors to determine stream flow data collection, transmission and dissemination options. Consultation activities will also identify the types of media available for dissemination of flow data (i.e., California Data Exchange Center web-site, etc.).

The data collected on target stream reaches and stream gaging locations through literature review, and consultation will be compiled into a GIS database to characterize the current stream gaging system, and the system’s relationship

to real-time flow information needs. The data will be summarized in a tabular format and presented graphically on GIS generated maps. Maps will be designed to depict the stream gaging location and target stream reaches.

STUDY AREA:

The study area consists of the bypassed project reaches and flow augmented reaches in the Big Creek Project area. These are: Bear Creek Diversion to South Fork San Joaquin; Mono Creek Diversion to South Fork San Joaquin River; Big Creek – Huntington Lake to Dam 4; Big Creek – Dam 4 to Dam 5; Big Creek – Dam 5 to San Joaquin River; Stevenson Creek- Shaver Lake to San Joaquin River; Stevenson Creek-tunnel outlet to Shaver Lake; South Fork San Joaquin River below Florence Reservoir; San Joaquin River below Mammoth Pool and Redinger Reservoir; San Joaquin River – Dam 7 to Big Creek No. 4 Tailrace; Mono Creek from Vermilion Dam to Mono Diversion; and Portal Tailrace. Unimpaired stream reaches where gauging information exists will be evaluated for the appropriateness and feasibility of providing real time flow information.

ANALYSIS:

The feasibility, benefit and cost for providing data collection, transmission and dissemination mechanisms will be determined for stream reach locations that are identified for real-time flow information dissemination.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

This study will be coordinated with:

• REC-3 Whitewater Recreation Assessment Study • CAWG-6 Hydrology

Target stream reaches for whitewater recreation will be developed in the REC-3 study.

SCHEDULE:

Target stream reaches will be identified in the spring/summer of 2001. Stream gages will be identified and mapped in the summer of 2001. Facility needs and costs will be developed in 2002.

REFERENCES:

None

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Whitewater Recreation

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Maintain or enhance whitewater recreational opportunities.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

Manage, to the extent possible, anticipated spill events to increase duration of boatable flows.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Determine the feasibility of managing spill events to provide boatable flows in target reaches.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Potential loss of whitewater boating opportunities from project operations (water management).

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Identify target stream reaches on which to evaluate the feasibility of managing spill events. 2. Analyze historical hydrological data to determine the rate of change, frequency, duration and magnitude of stream-flows during spill-events on target stream reaches using hourly data, when available. 3. Develop a preliminary boatable flow range for each whitewater run from existing information in the literature and surveys of whitewater boaters. 4. Using hydrological data and existing project infrastructure, determine the ability to manage spill-events to provide target flows in specific stream reaches. 5. Identify additional hydrological data and/or project improvements needed to increase whitewater boating opportunities through the management of spill-events.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

The Manage Spill Events Study will evaluate and determine the feasibility of managing the timing of spill events from project reservoirs to increase whitewater boating opportunities. The study will be accomplished by: (1) identifying target stream reaches and associated boatable flow ranges; (2) reviewing the hourly

hydrologic stream flow record and associated project operations and runoff predictive capabilities to identify spill events to provide potential boating opportunities; and (3) evaluate if project operations can be changed to more effectively manage spill events. Consultation with recreation specialists, including representatives from the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, San Joaquin Paddlers, American Whitewater Affiliation, Friends of the River, and other interested persons with whitewater boating or other stream recreation experience in the Study Area will be initiated. The consultation will identify target stream reaches for whitewater boating and associated boatable flow ranges. A review of historical project operations will be completed on project reservoir and appropriate bypass reaches to identify opportunities for managing spill events. The Mammoth Pool Operating Agreement will also be reviewed to identify operational constraints on SCE reservoirs in terms of storage, release and timing of releases to down stream users. Historic hydrologic stream flow data for the target stream reaches will be collected, reviewed and analyzed to document the frequency, magnitude, and duration of spill events at the target stream reaches for the boatable flow ranges. Stream flow and reservoir elevation data will be obtained from USGS and SCE records. An evaluation will be completed to determine if project reservoir operations can be modified to manage spill events by altering the timing and duration of spills. Estimates of potential boating opportunities resulting from “managed spills” will then be developed for different reservoir operation scenarios.

STUDY AREA:

The study area is the South Fork San Joaquin River (SJR) from Florence Lake to Mono Hot Springs; SJR from Mammoth Pool Reservoir to Dam 6; SJR from Dam 6 to Redinger Lake; and SJR from Dam 7 to Big Creek No. 4 Tailrace; and Mono Creek from Vermilion Valley Dam to Mono Diversion.

ANALYSIS:

Existing hydrological data will be analyzed to determine the typical amount and timing of “spill-water” in different water-year types that could be available to provide boatable flows in the target reaches. Current reservoir operations will be evaluated to determine if the timing, magnitude and duration of spill events can be altered through either reservoir re-operations or controlled releases prior to anticipated spill events. Data collection needs and outlet facility improvements will also be identified and evaluated. A report will be developed which will identify the potential occurrences of managed spill-event boating opportunities, list facility improvement needs, and costs to manage spill events.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

Identification of target whitewater boating reaches, and associated boatable flow ranges will be coordinated with: • REC-1 Flow Information Feasibility Study • REC-3 Whitewater Recreation Assessment Study • REC-4 Whitewater Play-Site Feasibility Study • CAWG-12 Water Use

There will be a need to coordinate with the Combined Aquatic Working Group and the Terrestrial Working Group to assess any potential environmental consequences associated with modified water management. There will be a need to coordinate with the Land Management Working Group to assess the potential adverse effects of increased water use for whitewater recreation on other consumptive and non-consumptive current uses of water.

SCHEDULE:

Target stream reaches will be identified in the spring/summer of 2001. Hydrologic data will be identified and reviewed in summer of 2001. Analysis will be completed by fall of 2002.

REFERENCES:

None

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Whitewater Recreation

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Maintain or enhance whitewater recreational opportunities.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

1. Provide, if appropriate, scheduled recreational flow releases from Project facilities (i.e., South Fork San Joaquin below Florence Lake, San Joaquin River below Mammoth Pool-HB valve, San Joaquin River below Redinger, or other appropriate tributary streams). 2. Maintain or enhance river access while minimizing potential conflicts with other resources (i.e., below Mammoth Pool Dam - migrating deer, Willow Creek - erosion and sensitive amphibians and reptiles). 3. Provide, if appropriate, scheduled recreational flow releases and supplementary service for special events (e.g., Chawanakee Gorge). [San Joaquin Paddlers] 4. Maintain or enhance the Contact Recreation beneficial use of project waters with environmental sensitivity to potential effects of out-of-season flow releases on the aquatic biota. [SWRCB]

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Identify and characterize the whitewater recreational resources and opportunities on project waters, as well as access problems limiting use.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Potential loss of whitewater boating opportunities from project operations (water management).

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Map and characterize known whitewater runs (features, difficulty, user groups, use and access). 2. For each whitewater run, identify any access problems limiting or preventing use. 3. Develop a preliminary boatable flow range for each whitewater run from existing information in the literature and surveys of whitewater boaters.

4. Using existing hydrological data and the preliminary flow-range estimates, determine existing boating opportunities on target reaches. 5. Develop and implement survey questions for single-flow study of target whitewater runs needing additional investigation. 6. Put together a team of boaters to participate in the single-flow study on target runs. 7. Document resources with still photos, video and participant survey response. 8. Identify river reaches warranting a controlled flow study. 9. Develop a list of comparable regional whitewater resources. 10. Estimate demand level for the identified whitewater runs.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

The purpose of this study is to identify and characterize whitewater recreational resources in the project area. The study will be accomplished by: (1) consulting with whitewater boating recreation specialists; (2) identifying target stream reaches and associated boatable flow ranges; (3) reviewing the hydrologic stream flow record to identify existing boating opportunities; (4) conduct single flow studies to characterize the selected whitewater boating runs; and (5) evaluate the results of the single flow studies to determine if additional studies will be needed.

Information that will be used to access the whitewater recreation resources of the study area will come from three sources; published maps and literature, and consultation with the recreation working group and regional whitewater enthusiasts, and a site reconnaissance. Consultation with representatives from the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, San Joaquin Paddlers, American Whitewater Affiliation, Friends of the River, and other interested persons with whitewater boating or other stream recreation experience in the study area will be performed to: (1) identify, and expand upon, existing published data; (2) identify gaps in existing information; (3) develop anecdotal data; (4) provide input on the qualitative aspects of the assessment; (5) collaboratively develop and execute the plans; and (6) review and comment on study findings. Information identified during the consultation with whitewater specialists will include: 1. Identification of existing and potential whitewater runs (Study Reaches) in the Study Area. 2. Identification of access (put-in and take-out) points for the Study Reaches. 3. Identification of access problems or limitations. 4. Identification of access roadways and parking facilities for the Study Reaches.

5. Initial Class Rating for each Study Reach based on the International Scale of River Difficulty Classification System. 6. Identification of local and regional resource use patterns of the Study Reaches. 7. Descriptions of the various whitewater boating activity-types that either currently use the Study Reaches, or could potentially use the Study Reaches. 8. Descriptions of resource characteristics (trip length, run difficulty, etc.) and experiential objectives (length of time on river, crowding, etc.) required for a successful recreation day for each activity-type. 9. Identification of activity-types that could be supported in each Study Reach. 10. Identification of channel and flow-dependent factors that could influence low, high, and optimum flow limits for each activity-type. 11. Estimates of boatable flow ranges for the Study Reaches for each activity- type. 12. Identification of comparable resources to each Study Reach.

Data obtained by literature review and consultation activities will be complied into a GIS database to characterize the whitewater boating resources in the Big Creek project area. The information that will be mapped will include: known whitewater boating runs, access locations, shuttle routes, portages, and user difficulty levels.

Based on these initial study findings, target stream reaches requiring further investigation will be identified and a single-flow evaluation will be conducted to characterize the targeted project reaches. Single flow evaluation will not be conducted in stream reaches where a controlled flow study is planned and sufficient information is available from other sources to adequately design the controlled flow study. The single flow study will be conducted by a team of boaters with the requisite skill-levels needed to boat the target reaches. Video cameras and still photos will be used to record and document the river conditions and the boating runs during the single-flow studies.

Preliminary single flow study reaches may include, but not be limited to: 1. Mono Creek below the Mono Creek diversion 2. Bear Creek 3. Mono Creek below Vermilion 4. Pitman Creek 5. Big Creek (some stretches) 6. Stevenson Creek 7. Patterson Bend pass through water

In preparation of a single flow study, survey questions will be developed in consultation with whitewater specialists. The survey questions will focus on obtaining information regarding the physical logistics and the experiential values of the whitewater boating run. This information will be used to further characterize the whitewater boating runs and refine boatable flow ranges. The boaters will complete the study questionnaires immediately after the boating runs.

Information obtained from the single flow studies will be reviewed and evaluated by the Recreation Working Group. Based on the single-flow evaluations, study reaches warranting a “controlled-flow” study will be identified for further study.

Hydrologic stream flow data will be obtained from the USGS and SCE records and analyzed to determine the occurrences of boatable flows within target stream reaches. The period of record that will be reviewed will be determined collaboratively by the recreation specialists. Unimpaired flow data in the project reaches will be developed. This data will be used to identify the influence of the project on boating opportunity days along the target stream reaches.

STUDY AREA:

In general, the study area consists of the bypassed project reaches and flow augmented reaches in the Big Creek Project area. These are: South Fork San Joaquin River (SJR) from Florence Lake to Mono Hot Springs; SJR from Mammoth Pool to Dam 6; SJR from Dam 6 to Redinger Lake; SJR from Dam 7 to Kerckhoff Reservoir; and Mono Creek below Vermilion Valley Dam to the Mono Diversion.

ANALYSIS:

A single “whitewater recreation resource” map will be created and will include: 1. All potential whitewater runs in the Study Area. 2. Access points and roadways for the Study Reaches and any areas with access problems or limitations. 3. Initial classification of each study reach (color code).

The single-flow evaluations will be incorporated into the overall resource characterization to develop boatable flow-ranges for each targeted study reach. These flow-ranges will be used to target the controlled flow evaluations.

The two sets hydrological data (existing data from the regulated system and synthesized data representing an unregulated system) will be compared to determine Project-influence on the whitewater boating opportunities in the Study Reaches.

A “Whitewater Recreation Resources Report” will be developed. The report will provide a narrative description of the Study Area’s whitewater recreational resources. Also presented in the report will be the Project’s influence on whitewater boating opportunities in the Study Area.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

This study should be coordinated with: • LAND-5 Storage Capacity and Generation Assessment • LAND-6 Traffic/Circulation Study • REC-1 Flow Information Feasibility Study • REC-15 Reservoir Recreation Water-Surface Elevation Study • CAWG-6 Hydrology • CAWG-12 Water Use

Hydrological data developed in REC-1 will be used to evaluate boating opportunities and project influence in whitewater resources. If future controlled- flow studies are needed, they will have to be coordinated with the Aquatics and Terrestrial Working Groups to determine if the study could result in adverse impacts on the study reach’s biota. Any proposed modifications to the landscape for access, parking, portages, etc., will have to be coordinated with the Cultural Resources Working Group to avoid disturbance of cultural sites.

Any future controlled flow studies, including those outside of a natural spill, should be coordinated with CAWG to take advantage of the opportunity to study potential positive and negative impacts of said flows on the study reaches biota and abiota.

SCHEDULE:

Resource characterization and hydrologic analysis will be conducted in 2001. Single-flow evaluations will be conducted in the spring/summer of 2001 2002 in coordination with reservoir spill. On April 1st of each year, SCE evaluates the snowpack for water content to determine if the spring runoff will result in potential spill events. The evaluation results will in turn determine, if a single flow study can be performed in association with the spring runoff. The single flow study is targeted for completion during spring/summer 2001, if the spill potential is determined high. Controlled flow studies, if required, will be conducted in either the spring or summer of 2003.

REFERENCES:

International Scale of River Difficulty (American Whitewater Affiliation).

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Whitewater Recreation

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Maintain or enhance whitewater recreational opportunities.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

Evaluate development of whitewater play-sites (i.e., Portal Tailrace and Big Creek No. 4 Tailrace).

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Evaluate the potential to develop whitewater play-sites at specific project locations.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Water discharged through power plants at Portal Powerhouse and Big Creek No. 4 may provide boatable flows within the tailraces.

At Portal tailrace, water discharged at the power plant was diverted from the South Fork San Joaquin River and may have affected boatable flows in that system. The tailrace at Portal Powerhouse is a man made stream channel constructed by Edison. Furthermore, construction of Florence Reservoir, Huntington reservoir and Portal forebay inundated potential whitewater opportunities.

GENERAL APPROACH:

The evaluation of a whitewater play-site will be assessed in Portal and Big Creek No. 4 tailraces to determine feasibility, cost, and benefit. 1. Establish the criteria required to support whitewater play-sites. 2. Using the established criteria, identify Project sites that have the potential for development of whitewater play-sites. 3. At each site, determine structural improvements needed to develop site. 4. Identify party(s) responsible for funding and/or assuming liability for operations of the play-site. 5. Determine feasibility and cost of constructing identified improvements. 6. Identify recreational activities that potentially could use the site and identify existing activities and/or resources that may be affected from the development of a whitewater play-site, including angling.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

This study will determine the feasibility, cost, and appropriateness of developing a whitewater play-site at specific locations within the project area.

Potential whitewater play-site locations will be selected based on consultation with whitewater specialists including representatives from the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, San Joaquin Paddlers, American Whitewater Affiliation, Friends of the River, and other interested persons with whitewater boating experience. Once a potential site is located, the site’s physical and hydrological characteristics will be identified, reviewed, and evaluated. These parameters would include determining the length and width of the stream segment, and a review of historic hydrographic data. A hydrograph for the site showing hourly flows through the stream reach for target time periods will be developed.

A literature review will be completed of publications and case studies on the development of whitewater play-sites at other locations, across the nation. The whitewater specialists will be consulted to identify any other projects and other locations that have been developed specifically as a whitewater “play-site”, and to identify experts with experience in the development of whitewater play-sites. Published data and case studies from other projects will be utilized as much as possible to determine the feasibility of developing a whitewater play-site. An expert with experience in whitewater play-site development and construction will be utilized to assist in the feasibility analysis.

Information to be developed as part of the study include: 1. Criteria used for initial evaluation of feasibility for the development of whitewater such as length of channel, width of channel, and flow requirements. 2. Specific “design elements” for the proposed site. 3. Construction considerations for each “design element.” 4. Cost to develop the site. 5. Annual cost estimates for the operation of the site. 6. Anticipated annual use for the site. 7. Support facility requirements for the site (parking, restrooms, etc.). 8. Staffing requirements and responsibilities (time and expertise) for operation of the site. 9. Liability considerations for the operation of the site.

A report will be prepared documenting the findings from the consultation activities and literature review.

STUDY AREA:

The study area includes two flow augmented streams, Portal tailrace into Huntington Lake, and Big Creek No. 4 tailrace into Kerckhoff Reservoir.

ANALYSIS:

The site’s potential for development will be evaluated from two perspectives: flow-related criteria and physical considerations. Based on seasonal and time of day criteria, the hydrographs will be analyzed to determine the number of potential boating-days that would occur at each site. The sites’ physical characteristics will be evaluated relative to the physical criteria established for the development of a play-site. Needed changes to the hydrology of the sites, or physical characteristics of the sites will be documented.

A conceptual plan including preliminary concept designs, needed changes to site hydrology and/or physical characteristics, and preliminary cost estimates for design, construction, and operation of the whitewater play-sites will be developed.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

If development of a play-site is being considered after the initial feasibility screening then the potential affect of this development needs to be considered across resource areas including aquatic resources in the tailrace area and adjacent recreational resources. Landscape or streambed altering activities would have to be coordinated with the Cultural Resources Working Group.

SCHEDULE:

This study would be initiated in 2002.

REFERENCES:

The following references were provided as whitewater boating playsite design and development specialists.

Gary Lacy. Recreation Engineering. Boulder, Colorado (303)-545-5883

Experience includes the design of numerous whitewater playsites in Boulder, Denver, and Steamboat Springs, Colorado.

Dave Rosgen. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, Colorado. Stream restoration combined with the development of whitewater playsite (Pagosa Springs). Designing stream alterations that behave and look like natural features.

McLaughlin Water Engineers. Denver, Colorado.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Stream Recreation

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Maintain or enhance stream recreational opportunities.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S): 1. Provide suitable flow conditions for instream recreation. 2. Provide access for stream recreational activities.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Identify and characterize potential recreational opportunities in stream corridors and factors (i.e., instream flow and access) influencing these opportunities.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Potential effect on stream recreation from project operations related to modified instream flows and modified access related to road closures.

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Identify existing and potential recreational activities associated with the Project’s stream corridors. 2. Identify and characterize access to Project waters (i.e., modified access from road closures). 3. Determine physical and flow-related conditions required to support identified recreational activities. 4. Identify factors limiting stream corridor recreation opportunities related to Project operation and maintenance activities.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

The stream corridor assessment will characterize the types of recreational activities and opportunities present along stream corridors that are potentially affected by project operations and maintenance activities. This characterization will be performed by completing the following: (1) reviewing existing literature and databases of recreation activities which are compiled by the USFS and local user groups; (2) consultation with the USFS and CDFG personnel and local user groups regarding the types of activities observed along the stream corridors; (3)

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 5-19 Recreational Resources REC – 5 Reconnaissance Stream Corridor Recreation Assessment obtaining additional information through a self-census users survey of recreationalists; (4) conducting an active roving survey of recreational activities at selected stream corridors to document the type of recreational opportunities; (5) compiling recreational user data into a Graphical Information System (GIS) database of the occurrence, location and types of recreational activities; and (6) analyzing the data to identify trends and patterns for the various recreational uses and the identification of effects to these resources from project operation and maintenance activities, if any.

The existing recreational activities presumed to occur along stream corridors includes, but is not limited to, hiking, horseback riding, swimming and wading, dredging, gold panning, angling and whitewater boating. Whitewater boating and angling are evaluated separately in recreational study plans REC-3, Whitewater Recreation Assessment Study and REC-8, Angling Opportunities and Experience Assessment.

Existing recreational activities (types and locations) occurring along Project- related stream corridors will be identified through a review of existing literature and consultation with resource agencies and private user groups. Existing literature that will be reviewed will include USFS recreational use documentation records, recreational guide books on hiking, horseback riding, swimming, and gold panning, and local publications from user groups identifying recreational resources in the area. Consultation with the resource agencies and private user groups will also be conducted to identify additional recreational activities along stream corridors.

A self-census survey and an active (roving) census user survey will be performed to obtain additional information on dispersed recreation activities within stream corridors. The surveys will collect data on the experiential value associated with the stream corridor recreation, including safety concerns, as well as physical data on the access points to stream corridors, types of uses, timing (seasonality) of use, and destination locations within stream corridors. This survey will be performed in coordination with recreation study plans, REC-17, Dispersed Recreation Opportunities and Needs Assessment, and REC-8, Angling Opportunities and Experience Assessment.

The active survey will consist of conducting recreational user surveys at four recreational stream corridors located at major access points as follows: (1) South Fork San Joaquin River below Florence Lake; (2) South Fork San Joaquin River near Mono Hot Springs; (3) Mono Creek between Vermilion Valley Dam and Mono Creek Diversion; (4) the Portal Power Plant tailrace; (5) Stevenson Creek below Shaver Lake Dam; and (6) San Joaquin River below Mammoth Pool Powerhouse. The surveys will be conducted on the three major holiday weekends (Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Labor Day) during the summer months, and on four additional weekend days per month and four weekdays per month during June, July, and August. The surveys will be performed to document the types of recreation activities observed and number of

group and individual users observed. The survey will also include interviews with recreational users to obtain experiential data regarding the use of the recreational resources along stream corridors.

A self census survey will also be conducted in selected locations to document the dispersed recreation activities along more remote stream corridors which are not located near major access points. These would include small tributary bypass reaches, moderate tributary bypass reaches, and bypass reaches of the San Joaquin River. This survey will be coordinated with the creel self-census in that both surveys will share weatherproof locked drop box locations. The responsibility for the maintenance of the boxes, stocking of forms and collection of completed forms will be coordinated among the two surveys.

The data gathered by literature review, consultation, and user surveys will be input into a graphical information system (GIS) database. The GIS database will be used to develop maps that depict the types and distribution of recreational opportunities located along project related stream corridors.

A narrative report will be prepared that describes the types, distribution and density of the stream corridor recreation types identified by the study. The narrative will include tabular and graphical presentations that summarize the data obtained during the study. Stream corridor recreational use patterns, if any, will be identified.

STUDY AREA:

The REC-5 Reconnaissance Stream Corridor Recreation Assessment study area includes all bypass reaches of the San Joaquin River, all bypass reaches of moderate tributaries, all bypass reaches of small tributaries (except Adit No. 8 Creek), all flow augmented streams (except Patterson Bend). These locations are identified in the Big Creek Recreation-Potential Project Nexus Matrix as having a potential project nexus.

ANALYSIS:

Changes in project operations and maintenance activities will be evaluated in conjunction with the results of the stream corridor recreation assessment. The analysis will focus on the potential effects to recreational resources in stream corridors due to current or proposed changes in project operation or maintenance activities.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

This survey will require close coordination with the following studies: • REC-8 Angling Opportunities and Experience Assessment • REC-10 Recreation Opportunities and Needs Assessment

• REC-17 Dispersed Recreation Opportunities and Needs Assessment • CUL-1 Prehistoric Cultural Resources • CUL-2 Historic Era (pre-1954) Cultural Resources • CUL-3 Native American Places of Cultural Concern • CUL-5 Public Involvement In Historic Preservation

These study plans share common methodologies for the collection of user data from both active (roving) user surveys, and passive self-census surveys. The coordination needs must be focused on the implementation and maintenance of the respective studies. Both user census surveys can be implemented concurrently in terms of timing of active surveys, and the placement, stocking and maintenance of the locked census boxes. Additionally, the active roving survey for stream corridor recreation and stream angling creel census will be performed concurrently along the same stream corridors.

SCHEDULE:

This survey will be initiated in 2001.

REFERENCES:

None

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Angling (also see Fisheries)

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Maintain or enhance cold water and warm water recreational angling opportunities.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

1. Provide suitable habitat conditions in project waters to support sustainable cold water fish populations. 2. Provide suitable habitat conditions for warm water fish in Shaver Lake to support sustainable warm water fish populations while protecting habitat for cold water fish.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

See study plans CAWG-1 Characterize Stream and Reservoir Habitats and CAWG-5 Water Temperature.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Project operations may altar habitat or water temperatures in project waters.

GENERAL APPROACH:

Habitat conditions in bypassed project reaches and project reservoirs will be characterized in study plans CAWG-1 Characterize Stream and Reservoir Habitats and CAWG-5 Water Temperature.

Detailed Methodology:

Study plans CAWG-1 Characterize Stream and Reservoir Habitats and CAWG-5 Water Temperature provide the detailed methodologies that will used to characterize habitat conditions in bypassed project reaches and project reservoirs.

STUDY AREA:

See study plans CAWG-1 Characterize Stream and Reservoir Habitats and CAWG-5 Water Temperature.

ANALYSIS:

Analyze the results of studies CAWG-1 and CAWG-5 to determine if stakeholder management objectives are being adequately met. If the analysis determines that there is a need for additional mitigation, or potential for practical enhancement measures, appropriate measures will be suggested in the analysis.

COORDINATION NEEDS: • CAWG-1 Characterize Stream and Reservoir Habitats • CAWG-5 Water Temperature • CAWG-3 Determine Flow-Related Physical Habitat in Bypass Reaches • CAWG-7 Characterize Fish Populations • CAWG-9 Entrainment

SCHEDULE:

The analysis will be performed in 2002-2004, after the results of studies CAWG- 1 and CAWG-5 are available.

REFERENCES:

None

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Angling (also see Fisheries)

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Maintain or enhance cold water recreational angling opportunities.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

1. Maintain or enhance operations of SCE’s Big Creek Fish Hatchery to supplement natural fish production, provided that stocking is not in conflict with protection of native fish and amphibian communities. 2. Maintain or enhance state fish stocking programs (e.g., kokanee) in Project reservoirs and streams.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

See study plan CAWG-7 Characterize Fish Populations. An objective of this study is to characterize fish stocking.

PROJECT NEXUS:

SCE operates a fish hatchery to supplement cold-water fishery opportunities in project waters.

GENERAL APPROACH:

Fish stocking will be characterized in study plan CAWG-7 Characterize Fish Populations.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

Study plan CAWG-7 Characterize Fish Populations, contains the detailed methodologies that will used to characterize fish populations.

STUDY AREA:

See study plan CAWG-7 Characterize Fish Populations. An objective of this study is to characterize fish stocking.

ANALYSIS:

The results of other studies will be analyzed to determine if the operations of the SCE fish hatchery should be maintained or enhanced, and if so, how it should be managed.

COORDINATION NEEDS: • CAWG-4 Chemical Water Quality • CAWG-7 Characterize Fish Populations • REC-6 Fisheries Habitat Evaluation • REC-8 Angling Opportunities and Experience Assessment

SCHEDULE:

This analysis will be performed in 2002-2004, after results of CAWG-7 are available.

REFERENCES:

None

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Angling

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Maintain or enhance cold water and warm water recreational angling opportunities.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

1. Provide a diversity of fishing opportunities including stream and reservoir, put-and-take and catch-and-release, hatchery and wild fisheries. 2. Maintain or enhance angling experience along Project waters managed for cold water or warm water fishes. 3. Maintain or enhance fishing access to Project waters. 4. Maintain or enhance operations of SCE’s Big Creek Fish Hatchery to supplement natural fish production, provided that stocking is not in conflict with protection of native fish and amphibian communities. 5. Maintain or enhance state fish stocking programs (e.g. kokanee and catchable rainbow trout) in Project reservoirs and streams, provided that stocking is not in conflict with protection of native fish and amphibian communities. 6. Maintain or enhance angling experience along Project waters, and fishing access to project waters. 7. Maintain or enhance contact recreation and warm and cold water habitat (as appropriate) beneficial uses of project waters. [SWRCB]

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S): 1. Evaluate angling opportunities and the angling experience in project waters. 2. Obtain information on angler effort, success, and satisfaction in Project waters. 3. Characterize angler-induced fish mortality based on agency records and angler surveys. 4. Identify areas with access limitation or other limitations effecting angling opportunities.

PROJECT NEXUS:

1. Project operations may affect fishing opportunities and fishing success in Project waters. 2. Anglers “take” fish in Project waters resulting in fish mortality.

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Review existing literature. 2. Conduct angler survey to document: (1) numbers of anglers, fishing effort, catch, and satisfaction during recreation surveys; (2) access, areas with access limitations; and (3) quality of angling experience. 3. Active surveys will be conducted at selected developed recreation sites including boat launch ramps and campgrounds. 4. Self census drop boxes and forms will be supplied at selected, dispersed recreation sites that provide angler access (including road turnouts, dispersed campsites, and trailheads). 5. Active census will include weekdays, weekends, and holidays during the fishing season. 6. Self-census will be continuous throughout the fishing season. 7. Interpretive information that explains the SCE census program and the agency resource and management objectives will be provided at the self- census sites. 8. Additional experiential and accessibility data will be collected by phone interviews with members of local angler clubs and other stakeholders.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

Conduct both active and self-census angler surveys on Project reservoirs and stream reaches, and consult with local fishing organizations to characterize angling opportunities. The purpose of the angler survey is to document the numbers of anglers per party and/or vehicles at each location, fishing effort, catch, access, areas with access limitations and quality of angling experience. The intent of the study is to evaluate angling opportunities and experience of recreational enthusiasts. It is not intended to conform with CDFG formal creel census protocols used in fisheries evaluations.

ACTIVE ANGLER SURVEY

The active survey will be conducted at all Project reservoirs and the stream reaches that are easily accessible and heavily used by anglers. The active survey methods will vary by location due to accessibility. Either by boat or on foot, a roving surveyor will interview as many shoreline, streambank, walk-and- wade, or boat anglers as possible during the 3-hour morning and evening sampling periods.

The active angler survey will use a stratified sampling approach, both in time and in space. Starting with the opening day of fishing season to Memorial Day, an active survey will be conducted over two weekends (total of four days) and four weekdays at selected Project waters accessible to the public. Beginning

Memorial Day weekend and extending through Labor Day weekend, the active census survey sampling effort will increase to include the three major holiday weekends (Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Labor Day), and four additional weekend days per month and four weekdays per month.

Each weekend and weekday to be sampled by the active creel census will be randomly selected at the beginning of the survey season. If the randomly selected day is a holiday, another day will be selected to maintain a uniform sample size throughout the season. There will be two, 3-hour sample periods within each day to obtain data from both morning and afternoon anglers. On each sample day, the roving surveyor will randomly choose a reservoir or stream segment to begin the survey, and then systematically survey the remaining sites within their jurisdiction. The surveyors will interview all anglers at the site that can be contacted within two three-hour sampling periods of 0900-1200 and 1700-2000 hours. Several active survey teams will be mobilized concurrently to assure that all reservoirs are surveyed in the same time frame. Two roving surveyors will survey each site on holidays, as needed. A single roving surveyor will survey during one weekend day and one weekday per week during the fishing season. Weekends are defined as Friday evening from 1700-2000 hours through Sunday evening 1700-2000 hours.

Catch data will identify species, harvest (i.e., mortality), fish caught and released, size and age class based on measured lengths and scale samples, and "wild" versus hatchery origin, whenever possible. The roving census taker will collect species, weight, and length data from harvested fish. If possible, scale samples and external tags will be collected, and clipped fins noted for age and origin information.

Angler catch-per-unit effort will be measured in hours of effort per harvest per angler for each time stratum (i.e., month, weekend, weekday, holiday, morning, afternoon). The catch-per-unit effort will also be measured in terms of total number of fish caught and kept, or caught and released.

Additional information including angling access, areas identified with access limitations, method (i.e., lakeshore, streambank, boat, or walk-and-wade), gear type, and weather will be collected and used to stratify the analyses by fishery and other factors. A “comments and suggestions” block for anglers will be included on all survey forms. The “comments and suggestions” block should be used to obtain information on opportunities for enhancing the angling experience.

Anglers' point of origin, travel information, local accommodations, and local expenditures will be collected for demographic and economic analyses.

A standardized survey form will be developed for the active angler survey to obtain the information identified above. The purpose of a standardized form is to

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 5-29 Recreational Resources REC – 8 Angling Opportunities and Experience Assessment facilitate consistency of the information obtained by the roving creel census takers. The form will also be coded to identify the data as active survey based.

At Shaver Lake and Huntington Lake, a roving surveyor will interview anglers boat to boat, and boat to shoreline due to the numerous access points, the large amount of area available to anglers, and the kokanee fishery. These are the only lakes with kokanee populations and anglers fish for kokanee almost exclusively from boats.

At Mammoth Pool, Florence Lake, and Lake Thomas A. Edison, a surveyor will interview anglers on the shoreline and at the boat ramps on foot due to the limited number of access points and area available to anglers.

A roving surveyor will interview walk-and-wade and streambank anglers at the South Fork San Joaquin River below Florence Lake, South Fork San Joaquin River near Mono Hot Springs Resort, Mono Creek between Vermilion Dam and the Mono Diversion, Portal Forebay and Portal Power Plant tailrace (Rancheria Creek) upstream of Huntington Lake.

SELF CENSUS ANGLER SURVEY

Self-census drop boxes and forms similar to the "fish boxes" used by the California Department of Fish and Game Wild Trout program will be supplied at campgrounds, parking areas, and the less accessible, dispersed recreation sites that provide angler access to Project waters. Drop boxes will also be supplied at all the actively surveyed reservoir facilities and stream segments to capture self- census data outside of the active census period. Information that explains the SCE census program and the agency resource and management objectives will be provided at all census sites as a courtesy and to increase the rate of voluntary angler participation.

Self-census data will be collected from anglers on a continuous basis throughout the stream fishing season, which is generally the last Saturday in April through November 15, except in the backcountry. The Sierra Nevada lakes are open to year-round fishing, but access to the higher elevation lakes (Lake Edison and Florence Lake) is limited outside of the stream fishing season.

The self-census drop boxes will be located at developed and dispersed recreation sites and major trailheads frequented by anglers fishing Project waters. Self-census drop boxes will also be supplied at active creel census sites to provide additional survey information during non-survey periods. The self- census drop boxes will be supplied with pencils and questionnaires during the entire fishing season. Forms will be printed on waterproof paper to avoid loss of data.

Active survey personnel will be responsible for stocking self-census boxes with forms and pencils, collecting completed forms, and maintaining boxes. Survey

boxes will be emptied of all data forms at the end of the season on November 15th, or immediately prior to the closure of Kaiser Pass Road due to snow for survey boxes located above Kaiser Pass.

A standardized survey form will be developed for the self-census angler survey to obtain information about the fishery along more remote stream corridors. The purpose of a standardized form is to facilitate consistency of the information obtained by the self-census survey. The form will also be coded to identify the data as self-census based.

CONSULTATION WITH FISHING ORGANIZATIONS/AFFILIATIONS

Additional angling opportunity data will be collected by personal interviews, phone interviews, and/or special self-census forms sent to members of local angler clubs, marina owners, resort owners, recreational cabin owners, and other stakeholders. The purpose of the consultation will be to obtain additional information regarding the angling opportunities, limitations to angling opportunities, and quality of the recreational angling experiences in the Project waters. The stakeholder data will be analyzed to determine stakeholder/customer satisfaction and additional angler opportunities.

Personal, phone, and mail-in interviews will be conducted between Labor Day and the end of September. September interviews will give active anglers enough time to fairly assess the current fishing season and record their re-collections in a timely way. Angling use decreases significantly in the high Sierra Nevada after Labor Day weekend.

Fishing club members at the beginning of the season will be provided with survey forms and or a survey log on which to record angling success. These forms and or logs will be collected at the end of the fishing season.

A standardized survey will be developed to obtain experiential information from local user groups and commercial interests. The purpose of a standardized form is to facilitate consistency of the information obtained during personal, phone, or mail-in interviews.

STUDY AREA AND STAKEHOLDERS:

The roving angler survey will sample all major and moderate SCE reservoirs and in the Project area, including Portal Forebay. Roving angler surveys will also be done on the following popular and accessible river segments: the South Fork San Joaquin River below Florence Lake, South Fork San Joaquin River near Mono Hot Springs Resort, Mono Creek below Vermilion Dam, and Rancheria Creek upstream of Huntington Lake at the Portal tailrace. At Huntington and Shaver Lakes, kokanee fisherman will be surveyed by boat or at the boat launches. The recreation working group will determine the appropriate method to survey kokanee fisherman.

Self-census drop boxes will be placed at boat ramps, developed campgrounds, day-use sites, public parking areas (e.g., Eastwood Overlook/Portal tailrace), trailheads, and other sites that are nearby or frequently used by anglers as access points to Project waters. See Big Creek Recreation-Project Nexus Matrix for self-census creel site locations.

The local stakeholders include members of the Shaver Lake Fishing Club, Fresno Flyfishers Club, and the proprietors of Sierra Marina Shaver Lake, Rancheria Garage, Vermilion Valley Resort at Edison Lake, Mono Hot Springs Resort, outfitters and guides permitted to fish Project waters, tackle shop proprietors, and local recreational cabin owners.

ANALYSIS:

The angler survey data will be used to identify angling opportunities and evaluate angler experience during a single fishing season. Angler survey data will also be segregated by collection methods (active or self census survey).

Catch per unit effort data will be summarized by reservoir, stream reach, by species and origin (i.e., "wild" or hatchery), and gear type to determine angler opportunities and experience in Project waters, as well as limitations.

Success and satisfaction of anglers will be related to stocking practices, and gear-type. Information obtained will be extrapolated to estimate angler take by waterbody.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

This survey will require close coordination with the following studies: • REC-5 Reconnaissance Stream Corridor Recreation Assessment • REC-10 Recreation Opportunities and Needs Assessment • REC-17 Dispersed Recreation Opportunities and Needs Assessment • LAND-6 Traffic/Circulation Study • REC-7 Fish Hatchery and Fish Stocking Evaluation

These five study plans share common methodologies for the collection of use data from both active (i.e., roving) user surveys, and passive (i.e., self-census) surveys. The coordination needs must be focused on the implementation and maintenance of the respective studies. Both user census surveys (i.e., active and self-census) will be implemented concurrently in terms of timing of surveys. After Labor Day weekend the self-census, including the stocking and maintenance of the locked census boxes, will continue until the end of the stream fishing season (November 15) and as discussed above.

The active roving survey for stream corridor recreation and stream angling creel census will be performed from the first day of fishing season through Labor Day weekend along the same stream corridors.

Personal, phone, and mail-in surveys to local user groups will be made from Memorial Day through the end of September of the same fishing season.

This study should also be coordinated with angling census activities performed by the California Department of Fish and Game within the Big Creek Basin (i.e., Wild Trout Program creel census), if any, and any scheduled fishing derbies.

SCHEDULE:

Preliminary work and agency consultation for the Angling Opportunities and Experience Assessment will be initiated in 2001. The creel survey studies will be initiated in 2002.

REFERENCES:

None

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Developed Recreation

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Provide a broad spectrum of developed recreational opportunities to meet current and future demands and contribute to local economic stability.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

1. Provide a broad spectrum of developed recreational opportunities to meet current and future demands and contribute to local economic stability. 2. Maintain current access to Project reservoirs and reaches. 3. Maintain SCE operated campgrounds and interpretive sites. 4. Maintain SCE operated campgrounds and interpretive sites.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Characterize and assess developed recreational facilities.

PROJECT NEXUS:

The Code of Federal Regulations, in Title 18, Chapter I, Part 2, Section 2.7, states, in part:

“The Commission will evaluate the recreational resources of all projects under Federal license or applications therefore and seek, within its authority, the ultimate development of these resources, consistent with the needs of the area to the extent that such development is not inconsistent with the primary purpose of the project. The Commission expects the licensee to assume the following responsibilities: (c) To encourage and cooperate with appropriate local, State, and Federal agencies and other interested entities in the determination of public recreation needs and to cooperate in the preparation of plans to meet these needs, including those for sport fishing and hunting.”

There is a need to determine if the current amount and condition of recreation development is adequate for anticipated and potential use levels for the length of the license. The data will be utilized for determining a base level for the monitoring of future project activities and impacts. When reaching a determined

condition, it will trigger implementation of recreation improvement mitigation measures.

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Identify and map Project-related recreational resources for both developed and dispersed recreation. 2. At each Project-related recreation area/site, inventory recreational support facilities for both developed and dispersed recreation. 3. At each Project-related recreation area/site, assess condition of recreational support facilities. 4. At each Project-related recreation area/site, document needed repairs/replacement of recreational support facilities. 5. Develop schedule for the completion of needed repairs/replacement of recreational support facilities.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY: The purpose of this study is to assess and characterize the existing conditions at all developed and dispersed Project facilities. The assessment will include information regarding maintenance, repair, and replacement needs for Project- related facilities. Developed and dispersed recreation resources will be identified and mapped. A list of both developed and dispersed recreational resources has been compiled by the recreation working group for the Big Creek ALP. Additional developed and dispersed recreational resources will be identified through consultation with recreational specialists at the USFS and other agencies, and with public and private recreational user groups. A comprehensive list of project related facilities will be compiled for the facility condition inventory.

The project related developed and dispersed recreational facilities will be assessed to determine if their current condition is adequate for the current and anticipated user demand levels. The facility assessment will include the type, amount and conditions of toilets, campsites, roads, trails, trailheads, campground spurs, parking areas, horse corrals, water systems, boat launches, signs and other structures associated with project related recreation activities.

The facility inventory information will be recorded on a form adapted from the USFS inventory condition assessment form that was developed by the USFS as part of their meaningful measures program. The development of the final “Facility Inventory Form” that will be used will be completed through consultation with the USFS, and other interested user groups. Facility conditions may also be photo documented in conjunction with the information gathered on the facility inventory form.

The information compiled during the facility assessment will be transferred to a GIS database. Data from the GIS database will be summarized in a tabular format and presented graphically on GIS maps that depict the locations and conditions of Project related recreational facilities.

STUDY AREA:

The study area for the facilities inventory assessment includes all developed and dispersed recreation facilities on all Project related waters, lands, roads, and related facilities. These include the following: 1. Project campgrounds listed in the potential project nexus matrix. 2. Other Project-related recreation facilities listed in the potential project nexus recreation facilities matrix including Camp Edison, Eastwood snow park, Balsam snow park, and Eastwood Visitor Center. 3. Project public boat ramps, public boat docks, trailheads, parking areas, picnic sites, toilets, and other developed recreation facilities listed in the recreation potential project nexus matrix. 4. Project related dispersed recreation support facilities such as trailheads and parking areas.

ANALYSIS:

Data from the facility inventory assessment will be analyzed to determine if the current condition of recreation development is adequate for recreational use levels.

Project related facilities that are in needed of repair or upgrade will be identified. The facilities condition data will then be used to prioritize, determine responsible party(s), and schedule improvement activities.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

This assessment will require coordination with the following studies: • REC-8 Angler Opportunities and Experience Assessment • REC-10 Recreation Opportunities and Needs Assessment • REC-17 Dispersed Recreation Opportunities and Needs Assessment • REC-18 Use by Disadvantaged, Handicapped, and Minority Persons Assessment • REC-19 Information and Interpretive Opportunities and Needs Assessment • LAND-6 Traffic/Circulation Study

SCHEDULE:

The recreational facilities assessment program will be initiated in 2002.

REFERENCES:

None

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Developed Recreation

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Provide a broad spectrum of developed recreational opportunities to meet current and future demands and contribute to local economic stability.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

Provide a broad spectrum of developed recreational opportunities to meet current and future demands and contribute to local economic stability.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Evaluate the current uses and future demands at Project-related recreational facilities.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Project operations and maintenance activities may affect developed summer recreation opportunities at Project-related recreational facilities.

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Identify potential range of recreational opportunities at developed Project facilities. 2. Identify and document existing recreational activities at developed Project facilities. 3. Develop active, self, and user group interview survey forms to gather data on existing and potential use, factors influencing use, and perceived future needs for summer recreation at developed Project facilities. 4. Identify target user groups, and the recreation areas and sites that will be surveyed. 5. Conduct Recreation Use Surveys. 6. Use Recreation Use Survey data and data from other appropriate sources to characterize the existing recreation opportunities and future summer recreational needs. 7. Identify and document potential facilities or program improvements that would be needed to meet existing and future recreation use.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

The purpose of this study is to characterize the existing recreation opportunities and needs associated with Project facilities and to obtain information on social user conflict and carrying capacity at Project facilities. The study will be completed by: (1) identifying and mapping the developed recreation activities; (2) identifying and mapping dispersed recreation activities; (3) developing and conducting a survey of recreational users; and (4) evaluating the relationship of developed recreational use data to project facilities.

Recreation opportunities and project facilities will be identified and mapped by conducting a literature review and through consultation activities. A literature review will be performed to identify the types of recreational opportunities that exist at project facilities. Data sources for the literature review will include, but will not be limited to, USFS documents and maps, recreational guidebooks, and other publications regarding developed recreation opportunities in the Big Creek area.

Consultation with the Recreation Working Group, USFS recreational specialists and special-interest user groups will supplement the data from the recreation literature review. The data to be gathered through consultation includes types of developed recreational uses in the area and user needs.

A Recreation Use Survey will be developed to obtain additional information. The Recreation Use Survey questionnaire will be developed in consultation with Recreation Working Group, and USFS recreational specialists. The survey will obtain information regarding the recreation use patterns, recreational opportunity needs, support facility needs, and recreational resource development and management priorities. Realizing that the survey is for obtaining voluntary information during periods of maximum recreational use, the forms will be made as brief and non-intrusive as possible.

In addition, the survey will obtain information about a group or individuals' point of origin, mode of transportation, local accommodations, local expenditures, site access, and duration of activity. This information will provide important information for use in demographic, and economic analyses. A comments and suggestion block will be included on all survey forms.

A standardized “Recreation Survey Interview Form” will be developed for telephone surveys to obtain the information identified above. The purpose of a standardized form is to facilitate consistency of the information obtained by the roving surveyors, self-surveys or mail-in surveys.

The Recreation Use surveys will focus on summer recreational uses during the period of Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day weekend. The use assessment will consist of three surveys and methods: (1) an active, roving

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 5-40 Recreational Resources REC – 10 Recreation Opportunities and Needs Assessment surveyor to interview on-site users at target Project facilities; (2) a passive, self survey form that will be available to all recreationists at targeted Project facilities; and (3) a mail-in or personal telephone interview that target special interest user groups, local merchants, concessionaires, and service providers who support and depend on developed summer recreation. Each of these survey methods is described in the following sections.

Active Survey (Roving Survey)

The surveys will be conducted from Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day weekend. The survey period will include the three major holidays and holiday weekends (Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Labor Day), and one additional week day and weekend day per week between Memorial Day and Labor Day weekends. This sampling design represents: (1) 100 percent of the holidays and associated holiday weekend days (e.g., 7 of 7 days in 2001); (2) approximately 20 percent of the available weekdays (e.g., 14 of 68 days in 2001); and (3) approximately 50 percent of the available non-holiday weekend days (e.g., 13 of 26 days in 2001) during the survey period.

Each weekend and weekday to be sampled by a roving surveyor will be randomly selected at the beginning of the survey period. If the randomly selected day is a holiday, another day will be selected to maintain a uniform sample size throughout the season. There will be two sample periods between 0800-1200 and 1700-2000 to capture groups and individuals as they are beginning or ending daily recreation activities from points of origin (e.g., campgrounds, trailheads; boat launches).

On each sample day, the roving surveyor will randomly choose a developed location to begin the survey, and then systematically survey the remaining sites within their jurisdiction. The roving surveyor will interview all recreationists at a given location that can be contacted within the two three-hour sampling periods.

Two roving census takers will survey high-use sites on holidays and holiday weekends, as needed. A single roving census taker will conduct surveys during regular weekend days and weekdays. Weekends are defined as Friday evening from 1600-1900 hours through Sunday evening 1600-1900 hours.

Passive Survey (Self Survey)

Passive survey information will be collected from the recreating public on a continuous basis throughout the summer season from Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day weekend. The self-census drop boxes will be located at targeted recreation sites, including the active survey sites to

provide additional survey information beyond the active survey periods. Information that explains the SCE census program and the agency resource and management objectives will be provided at all census sites to increase the rate of voluntary participation.

The survey forms will be printed on waterproof paper to avoid loss of data. Active survey personnel will be responsible for stocking self survey forms and pencils, collecting completed forms, and maintaining boxes through out the survey period.

Telephone Interviews and Mail-in Surveys

SCE representatives will consult with the Sierra National Forest (SNF) recreation specialists and the Recreation Working Group to develop a target list of stakeholders to be interviewed/surveyed. The list of stakeholders to be interviewed will include recreational cabin owners, merchants, service providers, permitted outfitters and guides, organized enthusiast groups such as mountain bikers, hikers, equestrians, and RV campers.

The purpose of the targeted consultations and interviews is to obtain additional information regarding recreation opportunities, limitations, and the quality of the recreation at Project facilities. The telephone and mail-in interviews will be conducted between Memorial Day weekend and the end of Labor Day weekend.

The data collected through the literature review, consultation, and the user survey will be compiled into a GIS database to characterize the current developed recreational opportunities. The data will be summarized in a tabular format and presented graphically on GIS generated maps. Maps will be designed to depict the types and location of developed recreational opportunities at or near project facilities.

STUDY AREA:

The study area for the developed recreation opportunities assessment includes: 1. Project-related campgrounds at Project reservoirs 2. Project day-use areas 3. Project resort and recreation facilities including Camp Edison 4. Project-related public boat ramps and boat docks 5. selected trailheads, and parking areas

ANALYSIS:

Developed Recreational use data obtained from the study will be evaluated to identify and characterize: (1) recreational use and activities at and around

Project facilities; (2) existing and future facility and management needs; (3) existing limitations to recreation opportunities; and (4) potential opportunities to meet future recreation needs.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

This assessment will develop the data set for the following Recreation studies: • REC-3 Whitewater Recreation Assessment Study • REC-5 Reconnaissance Stream Corridor Recreation Assessment • REC-8 Angling Opportunities and Experience Assessment • REC-10 Recreation Opportunities and Needs Assessment • REC-12 Hunting • REC-20 Trails (Spring, Summer, and Fall, Non-snow season) • LAND-6 Traffic/Circulation Study

The data needed for these studies will be collected concurrently. The active survey schedule and survey locations will be the same for all studies. Therefore the survey census taker can conduct interviews for all studies during the same outing.

The passive, self census survey form will be a standardized form that is applicable to each study area. Self census survey drop boxes will be equipped with these forms and will be placed at locations that are applicable to each of the surveys, such as the same developed facilities that are portals for dispersed recreation activities, or at the same trailhead locations.

SCHEDULE:

The Developed Recreation Opportunities Assessment will be initiated in 2001.

REFERENCES:

AIS Market Research. 1998. Recreation Use in the Big Creek Project Area. Fresno, California.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Americans with Disabilities Act

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) at recreational facilities.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

Upgrade Project-induced recreational facilities for use by the public to comply with the ADA and Universal Design Principles (UDP).

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Assess ADA compliance at Project-induced recreational facilities. Develop a list of actions and a schedule to meet compliance on all Project-induced recreation facilities.

PROJECT NEXUS:

All federally funded and federally assisted programs and related facilities are required to be accessible under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (as amended in 1978 and 1992) and under 7 CFR 15b and e. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 requires accessibility to programs and related facilities of all public accommodations and commercial establishments.

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Identify Project-induced recreational facilities that must comply with ADA requirements. 2. Review existing information regarding ADA compliance at these facilities from the 1996 Sierra National Forest (SNF) ADA accessibility surveys. 3. Obtain current protocol for conducting accessibility surveys from the SNF and compare with protocols employed in 1996. 4. Ground-truth and update the 1996 accessibility surveys based on new protocols at each of the Project-induced recreational facilities. 5. Identify items at each facility that do not comply with ADA accessibility standards and UDP. 6. Determine the feasibility and desirability of re-designing or upgrading the facilities to meet ADA compliance including identification of responsible parties. 7. Describe upgrade needs and schedule to bring facilities into compliance with accessibility standards and UDP.

8. Develop a GIS database of Project related developed and dispersed recreation facilities, their current compliance status, and proposed upgrades to non-compliant facilities.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

The Compliance with ADA Assessment will identify the Project-induced recreational facilities requiring compliance with the ADA standards and Universal Design Principles, identify the current compliance status, and describe necessary facility modifications to achieve compliance. The study will include the following components: (1) a literature/data review of relevant facilities, 1996 SNF survey results, and current survey protocol; (2) a site reconnaissance to update the 1996 survey and identify non-compliant facilities; (3) compilation of data into a GIS database; and (4) an evaluation and analysis of non-compliant facilities that will identify and describe the necessary facility modifications to achieve compliance.

A review of existing literature/data will be conducted to identify Project-induced recreational facilities subject to the requirements of the ADA. Coordination with the survey results of REC-9, Recreation Resources and Facility Inventory Assessment, and review of SNF recreational facility inventory documentation will result in a comprehensive list of facilities. The literature/data review will collect recent Project-induced recreational facility accessibility data from the 1996 Sierra National Forest ADA Accessibility surveys. Consultation with the SNF will identify the current ADA survey protocols, and any other published data or information regarding accessibility in forest recreational areas.

On-site reconnaissance will be conducted at each Project-induced recreational facility identified as subject to the requirements of the ADA. An evaluation of facility compliance with the ADA will be conducted based on the current SNF ADA survey protocols. The result of this evaluation will be the development of a comprehensive list of Project-induced recreation facilities that do not comply with the ADA requirements. Each non-compliant facility will be described with regard to the specific feature that requires modification to meet ADA standards or UDP.

A GIS database will be developed to compile and organize data collected in this study. The data stored will include a list of Project-induced recreational facilities, location and type of facilities, compliance status, the facility feature that does not comply with ADA standards or UDP, and proposed facility modifications to achieve compliance.

STUDY AREA:

The REC-11, Compliance with ADA Assessment, study area includes all Project- induced recreational facilities as provided in the Recreation Working Group Project Nexus Matrix.

ANALYSIS:

An analysis of the data obtained through the literature/data review and the on- site reconnaissance will be conducted to evaluate the necessary actions for achieving compliance with the ADA standards and Universal Design Principles. The analysis will be conducted for each of the Project-induced recreational facilities identified during this study to be non-compliant with the ADA. Modifications needed to bring non-compliance facilities into compliance with the ADA will be identified, as well as the party/parties responsible for making such modifications. A description of the potential modification’s feasibility and desirability will be provided. A detailed cost analysis will be conducted for any facility modifications that are determined to be the responsibility of SCE.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

This survey will require coordination with the following studies: • REC-9 Recreation Resources and Facility Inventory Assessment • REC-18 Use by Disadvantaged, Handicapped, and Minority Persons Assessment

Coordination with the results of these studies should be completed to identify if potential ADA accessibility problems exist at other developed and dispersed recreation facilities and sites.

SCHEDULE:

The study program will be initiated in 2001.

REFERENCES:

None

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Hunting

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Maintain or enhance hunting opportunities (big game, small game, and upland birds).

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

1. Maintain hunting access near Project facilities and Project-induced recreational facilities. 2. Maintain or enhance support facilities at Project reservoirs.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Characterize access to hunting opportunities near Project facilities.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Project facilities may modify access to hunting areas through road closures and vegetation removal along project transmission lines.

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Develop a list and GIS map of project roads. 2. Refer to Terrestrial plans TERR-14, Mule Deer, and TERR-15, Other Game, for the locations of mule deer holding areas, summer and winter habitat areas, migration corridors, and habitat to support other game species. 3. Determine the effects on hunting opportunities and the value of the hunting experience from controlled access on project road and project transmission lines.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

The study will characterize locations where SCE Project facilities provide access to hunting opportunities (i.e., access to habitat for game species). The study will be completed by: (1) identifying project related facilities that provide hunting access, controlled or uncontrolled; (2) identifying game species holding areas, key winter and summer habitat areas, and major migrations corridors; and (3) determining the effects on hunting opportunities and the value of the hunting experience from access on project roads and/or transmission line corridors.

A list will be developed that identifies SCE Project-related roads and transmission line corridors that may provide access to hunting opportunities. The list will also identify which of these Project-related roads and transmission line corridors have controlled access (i.e., locked gates) thus limiting hunting opportunities. The hunting opportunities access list will be verified through consultation with SCE personnel, resource agency personnel, interested user groups, and hunting guides/outfitters that frequent these areas. The information requested during the consultation will include, descriptions and identification of hunting access locations, parking or staging area locations, information on why agencies have requested controlled access in the past, and information on popular hunting locations. During consultation, interviewees (specifically representatives for special interest groups and guides/outfitters) will also be asked to identify any areas where access to hunting has been limited, or locations where Project-related facilities may have affected their hunting experience.

The locations of game species areas will identified in coordination with terrestrial study plans TERR-14, Mule Deer, and TERR-15, Other Game. These study plans will determine the location of habitat to support game bird, small game and other big game species near Project facilities and Project-related recreation facilities. Mule deer holding areas, key winter and summer habitat areas, and major migration corridors will also be identified.

A GIS database of controlled access locations on Project-related roads and/or transmission line corridors will be developed. The GIS database will be overlaid on the game species habitat areas which were mapped as part of the TERR-14 and TERR-15 study plans. The data will be summarized in a tabular format (i.e., tables) and presented graphically on GIS generated maps. The Project facilities and controlled access roads GIS layers will be overlaid on the game species layer (see TERR-14 and TERR-15) to determine areas where hunting access is limited by Project facilities in areas that are known to contain significant game populations. Maps will be designed to depict the types and distribution of trails and support facilities.

An evaluation of the hunting opportunities and associated experiential value will be conducted by reviewing the GIS database tables and GIS layers to determine if Project-related controlled access locations are co-located in areas known to contain significant populations of game species.

STUDY AREA:

The study area includes Project-related roads and transmission line corridors, which may provide access to hunting opportunities.

ANALYSIS:

Project operations and maintenance activities will be evaluated to determine if they potentially affect hunting opportunities either through access locations or by lowering the hunting experiential value. Project operations and maintenance activities will be further analyzed to determine the types of improvements or enhancement that can be performed to reduce effects on hunting opportunities, if any.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

This study relies heavily upon data that will be acquired from the study plans: • TERR-14 Mule Deer • TERR-15 Other Game

These study plans will determine the locations of habitat to support game bird, small game and other big game species. Population analysis and predation by humans will also be addressed by the Terrestrial group.

SCHEDULE:

This study would be initiated in 2002.

REFERENCES:

None

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Flatwater Recreation

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Maintain or enhance flatwater recreational opportunities.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

1. Improve access to Project reservoirs. 2. Maintain or enhance support facilities on Project reservoirs.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

1. Evaluate condition of boat launches at Project reservoirs, and other access opportunities. 2. Evaluate existing support facilities at Project reservoirs.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Project operations and maintenance activities may affect the access to Project reservoirs limiting flatwater recreation opportunities.

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Identify access points, and type of access (vehicle or non-motorized) to Project reservoirs. 2. Determine need for additional, or improved access to areas on Project reservoirs. 3. Identify potential improvement to increase/improve access to Project reservoirs.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

The reservoir access/facility assessment will identify and characterize access facilities at Project reservoirs that are potentially affected by Project operation and maintenance. The study will include the following four components: (1) a review of existing data and agency consultation to identify the number, type, and location of reservoir access facilities; (2) a review of existing user data obtained by literature review and consultation with agencies and special-interest groups to determine capacity and demand of Project reservoirs; (3) compilation of data into

a GIS database; and (4) an evaluation and analysis of data to determine the need for improvement to reservoir access facilities.

An existing literature and data review, as well as consultation with appropriate agencies and user groups will be conducted to collect data on the number, type, and location of reservoir access facilities. The types of access facilities may include, but are not limited to, roads, boat ramps, docks, marinas, parking areas, and trails. A review of USFS and SCE documents will be conducted to obtain any published inventories of access facilities related to Project reservoirs. Inventory data will include the location, physical description, and standards and guidelines of use for each facility. Protocols and standard forms used for inventory and evaluation of facility conditions will be described. All Project area maps produced by the USFS, SCE, or any other entity will be reviewed for locations of access facilities. Telephone consultation with USFS, SCE personnel, Department of Boating and Waterways, and user groups will be used to identify any data not discovered in the existing literature/data review.

The existing literature/data review will also collect user data for Project reservoirs and associated access facilities. Consultation with the USFS, SCE, and special- interest user groups from the nearest urban center will supplement the existing literature/data review. User data will be collected for recreation types including, but not limited to, boating, angling, camping, swimming, and hiking. The data collected will describe the number of users, facility capacity, and the number of turnaway days for each reservoir and access facility.

The data collected through literature review and consultation will be evaluated and compiled into a GIS database of the existing reservoirs and access facilities. The data collected for reservoir access facilities will be tabulated and presented in a graphical format. Maps will be designed using the database to depict the types and distribution of reservoir access facilities. The database will also be used to identify areas lacking access facilities, resulting in inaccessible shores and waters.

STUDY AREA:

The REC-13, Reservoir Access/Facility Assessment, study area includes the following major reservoirs and forebays of the Big Creek System: Florence Lake, Lake Thomas A. Edison, Huntington Lake, Shaver Lake, Mammoth Pool Reservoir, Portal Forebay, Mono Diversion, Bear Diversion, Redinger Lake, Balsam Forebay, and small reservoirs (i.e., forebays of Dams 4, 5, and 6). The types of access facilities associated with these reservoirs and forebays that are included in the study area are roads, boat ramps, docks, marinas, parking areas, landing areas, campgrounds primarily accessible by boat, and trails.

ANALYSIS:

An analysis will be conducted of all reservoir access facility data collected through field study and agency consultation. The physical condition and accessibility will be evaluated for sufficiency to meet the current and reasonably foreseeable future demand on Project-related reservoirs and forebays. During analysis, necessary improvements to meet the user needs will be identified and classified by responsible parties. A detailed cost analysis will be conducted for any improvements that are determined to be the responsibility of SCE.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

The Reservoir Access/Facility Assessment will be conducted in coordination with: • REC-9 Recreation Resources and Facility Inventory Assessment • LAND-6 Traffic/Circulation Study

SCHEDULE:

This study will be initiated in 2002.

REFERENCES:

None

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Flatwater Recreation

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Maintain or enhance flatwater recreational opportunities.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

Review and revise, as appropriate, contract conditions for concessionaires on Project reservoirs (i.e., Shaver Lake).

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Evaluate existing concessionaire contract conditions at Shaver Lake to determine if they are having an effect on private development of recreation support facilities.

PROJECT NEXUS:

The FERC License for Project No. 67 (Big Creek 2, 8A and Eastwood) contains terms and conditions for concessionaire contract agreements that may affect private development of recreation support facilities.

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Review existing concessionaire contract(s) and FERC license conditions for any provision that may affect development of recreation support services on Project lands or waters. 2. Interview concessionaires to ascertain contract or license term conditions that affect the development of recreational support services on Project lands and waters. 3. Identify potential concessionaire contract or license conditions revisions, which would enhance recreational support facilities, if appropriate, on Project lands and waters.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

This purpose of this study is to review and identify concessionaire contract(s) and license conditions within FERC Project No. 67 that may limit the development of private recreational support facilities on Shaver Lake. Shaver Lake, owned by SCE, is the only location in the Project area where FERC license conditions may directly affect concessionaire contracts; all other project reservoirs are located on USFS lands with concessionaire contracts maintained by the SNF.

The number of concessionaires operating recreational support facilities under contract with SCE will be identified. Consultation and interviews with concessionaire operators will be performed to obtain information regarding the restrictions imposed upon them by FERC license conditions or SCE. Consultation with concessionaires will identify the contractual terms and conditions within the FERC licenses that affect their operations and/or restrict development of their recreational support facilities. Proposed modifications to the contracts and/or license conditions will be identified.

The information obtained by review of the FERC licenses and through consultation with concessionaires will be summarized in a tabular and narrative format. The information will be compiled in a summary report that will include: (1) a list of concessionaires operating facilities at SCE project reservoirs under contract with SCE in accordance with the FERC license; (2) a detailed review of the concessionaire contract terms and FERC license conditions; and (3) a summary of the consultation interviews with concessionaires explaining how the contractual terms and conditions of the concessionaire agreements affect their respective operations and any proposed modifications.

STUDY AREA:

This study is focused upon the concessionaire facilities at Shaver Lake. The Shaver Lake Sierra Marina concessionaire facility is specifically identified within the potential project nexus matrix as a facility that is affected by concessionaire contract conditions related to conditions in FERC Project No. 67.

ANALYSIS:

Analysis will include the development of proposed modifications to the existing concessionaire contract and FERC license conditions for the Project that will improve recreational support facilities, if needed, at Shaver Lake.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

• REC–13 Reservoir Access/Facility Assessment • REC–15 Reservoir Recreation Water-Surface Elevation Study

SCHEDULE:

Implementation of this study will occur in 2002.

REFERENCES:

None

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Flatwater Recreation

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Maintain or enhance flatwater recreational opportunities.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

1. Maintain an optimal range of reservoir operations (i.e., water level fluctuations and lake levels) on Project reservoirs. 2. Provide advanced information to the public on reasonably anticipated Project reservoir levels and level fluctuations. 3. Protect beneficial on and off water recreation uses.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Determine optimal range of reservoir elevation for recreational and aesthetic uses and determine feasibility of providing advanced information on Project reservoir water levels.

PROJECT NEXUS: Project operations affect reservoir levels and associated recreational opportunities.

GENERAL APPROACH: 1. Identify and quantitatively rank relative use of the current recreational activities at each reservoir by season. 2. For each recreational activity, identify all associated support facilities. 3. Identify the designed and functional reservoir elevation range for each support facility. 4. Identify factors influencing recreational activities at each reservoir by season. 5. Develop a quality of recreational use/stage curve (USC) for each recreational activity that depicts the relationship between recreational use and reservoir water surface elevation (WSE). 6. Identify reservoir operational constraints influencing WSE and recreational activities. 7. Identify and document the historical operations data for each reservoir. 8. Determine the potential conflicts between recreational user groups.

9. Determine the potential for increasing recreational opportunities based on modifying reservoir operations or support facilities.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

The Reservoir Recreation Water-Surface Elevation Study will identify the optimal reservoir elevation range for recreational use, and evaluate the potential for increasing recreational opportunities through modification of reservoir operations or support facilities. The study will include the following components: (1) conduct interviews to identify and rank recreational activities; (2) conduct interviews and site reconnaissance at each reservoir to identify recreational support facilities and the designed and functional WSE range for each facility; (3) identification of factors influencing recreational activities including aesthetics considerations at each reservoir; (4) development of a USC graph for each activity at each reservoir; (5) identification of reservoir operational constraints and historical reservoir operations; and (6) an evaluation and analysis of recreational activity and WSE data to determine the potential for increasing recreational opportunities.

Discussions will be held with resource agencies, reservoir recreational concessionaires, user groups, and on-site users at each reservoir to identify the range of recreational activities occurring at each reservoir by season. Participants in the discussions will be asked to rank each activity according to the current predominant use at that reservoir. As a result of these discussions, a relative ranking of all recreational activities occurring by season at each reservoir will be developed.

For each recreational activity identified at each reservoir, all associated support facilities will be identified and documented. Support facility function relative to WSE will be evaluated based on review of final facility design drawings and site- reconnaissance. The Forest Service recreation specialist and reservoir recreational concessionaires will be consulted to further evaluate functionality of support facilities at each of the reservoirs. The site reconnaissance will compare the facility design drawings to the physical conditions during high and low WSE events.

Additional discussions will be held with resource agencies, reservoir recreational concessionaires, user groups, and on-site users to identify the factors influencing recreational activities at each reservoir. Factors other than those related to water-surface elevation will be the focus of these discussions. The result will be a comprehensive list of factors including weather, season, and any other physical, social, or economic factors affecting recreational activity participation at each reservoir. The potential conflicts between different recreational user groups will also be identified. For each activity, discussion respondents will be asked to identify the relative importance of each influencing factor (including WSE) on the decision to participate in the activity.

A USC graph will be developed for each recreational activity at each reservoir. The curve will depict the relationship between reservoir WSE and the quality of recreational use.

Reservoir operational constraints and historical reservoir operations for each reservoir will be identified and summarized. This will include a review of SCE project license conditions and other agreements. Historical data will be reviewed to establish a baseline of historical WSE conditions.

STUDY AREA:

Each reservoir will be evaluated. Assessments will be conducted at the following project reservoirs and forebays: Florence Lake, Lake Thomas A. Edison, Huntington Lake, Shaver Lake, Mammoth Pool Reservoir, Redinger Lake, Bear Diversion, Mono Diversion, Portal Forebay, and Balsam Forebay.

ANALYSIS:

The USCs developed for each recreational activity at each reservoir will be evaluated along with all other influential factors identified for the activity. The feasibility of increasing recreational opportunities by modifying reservoir operations or enhancing support facilities will be determined. As part of this analysis, the feasibility of providing information on Project reservoir water- surface elevations to the public will be determined. Included in this assessment will be the availability of WSE data and identification of necessary equipment to disseminate information to the public.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

Coordination will take place with the following study plans: • REC-9 Recreation Resources and Facility Inventory Assessment • REC-10 Recreation Opportunities and Needs Assessment • REC-13 Reservoir Access/Facility Assessment • REC-1 Flow Information Feasibility Study • CAWG-1 Characterize Stream and Reservoir Habitats

This study will also require coordination with the Mammoth Pool Operating Agreement.

SCHEDULE:

Development of the survey instrument will be completed in 2001. Field surveys will be initiated in 2002.

REFERENCES:

None

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Emergency Services

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Enhance emergency services associated with Project-induced recreation.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

Provide adequate emergency services consistent with Project-induced recreation.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

1. Characterize the existing emergency services (police, fire, search and rescue, and paramedic/ambulance) supporting the project facilities and Project-induced recreational activities. 2. Document, if possible, the recent history of emergency responses at project facilities and associated Project-induced recreational activities. 3. Evaluate the need, if any, for enhanced emergency services as a result of modified project operations and maintenance or recreational enhancements associated with Project protection, mitigation or enhancement measures. 4. Review SCE’s Public Safety Plans for adequacy.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Potential for need for increased emergency services associated with protection, mitigation and enhancement measures (PM&E’s) for Project-induced recreational resources.

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Identify and characterize emergency service facilities (fire station, ambulance stations, etc.) supporting the Project facilities and Project- induced recreational activities. 2. Develop a GIS database of emergency service facilities. 3. Document and summarize, if possible, the recent history of emergency responses at project facilities and adjacent areas. Such activities would include local sheriff/California Highway Patrol/CDFG enforcement, search and rescue teams, local volunteer/SNF/CDF fire department responses, and paramedics. 4. Evaluate the need, if any, for improved emergency services as a result of recreational enhancements from project PM&E measures and identify the parties responsible for funding any emergency services improvement.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

The emergency services evaluation will identify and characterize emergency services facilities associated with Project facilities and Project-induced recreation facilities. The study will include the following six components: (1) the identification of the types and locations of emergency service facilities serving the Project area; (2) a summary of existing emergency service response data at Project facilities and Project-induced recreational facilities obtained by literature review and consultation with service providers; (3) a summary of the total number of emergency responses to various locations by the existing providers; (4) the compilation of data into a GIS database; (5) a review and evaluation of SCE’s public safety plans; (6) an evaluation and analysis of data to determine the need, if any, for improvement of emergency services; and (7) the identification of the parties responsible for funding any improvement to existing emergency services.

The existing emergency services presumed to be serving the Project area include the Fresno and Madera county Sheriff’s Department, fire, search and rescue, and paramedic/ambulance services. The emergency services evaluation will involve consultation with Fresno County, CDF, USFS, and private or public paramedic/ambulance service providers to identify the service facilities located in the Project area. For all facilities, data will be collected regarding service area boundaries, services provided, staff, and equipment resources.

A literature/records review will be conducted for each of the emergency service facilities identified in the Project area. Records of emergency responses at Project facilities and Project-induced recreation areas for the past 5 years will be obtained through consultation with the service providers. The total number of emergency responses in their service area over the past 5 years will also be collected to characterize relative demand at Project facilities and Project-induced recreational facilities. Information to be obtained during this review may include, but is not limited to, number of responses, type of emergency, number of responders, response time, emergency location, and result of incident.

A review and evaluation of SCE’s Public Safety Plans will be conducted. The review will include an assessment of the current status and working condition of the existing facility warning systems, and their adequacy.

The data provided by the emergency service providers will be evaluated and compiled into a GIS database of Project area emergency service facilities and responses. The data will be tabulated and presented in a graphical format. Maps will be designed using the database to depict the types and distribution of emergency service facilities, service boundaries, and emergency responses.

STUDY AREA:

The REC-16 study area includes all Project facilities and adjacent Project- induced recreation areas.

ANALYSIS:

An analysis will be conducted of all emergency service data collected through consultation and literature/records review. The service area boundaries, incident frequency versus staff limitations, and response time will be evaluated to determine the adequacy of the current emergency service providers in meeting the future demand for emergency services in Project-induced recreation areas. During analysis, necessary improvements to the emergency services system, if any, will be identified and classified by responsible party.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

All proposed PM&E measures affecting emergency services or requiring the need for consideration of additional emergency services will need to be identified by each working group for inclusion in this study.

SCHEDULE:

Data collection will be initiated in 2002. This study will be completed in 2003 in association with development of potential recreational enhancements.

REFERENCES:

None

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Dispersed Recreation

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Provide a broad spectrum of dispersed recreational opportunities to meet current and future demands and contribute to local economic stability.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

Provide a broad spectrum of dispersed recreational opportunities to meet current and future demands and contribute to local economic stability.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Evaluate the current uses and future demands in areas associated with Project developments.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Project facilities attract visitors, and operations and maintenance activities may affect dispersed summer recreational opportunities at Project related recreational facilities.

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Identify potential dispersed recreational opportunities near Project facilities. 2. Identify and document existing dispersed recreational activities near Project facilities. 3. Develop recreation survey instrument to be used to gather data on existing and potential use, factors influencing use, and perceived needs for recreation. 4. Identify target areas and sites that will be surveyed. 5. Conduct Recreation Use Survey at target sites. 6. Use Recreation Use Survey data and data from other appropriate sources to characterize the recreation opportunities and future recreational needs associated with Project developments and facilities. 7. Identify and document potential needed improvements to meet existing and future recreation use.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

The Dispersed Recreation Opportunities and Needs Assessment will be

completed in coordination with study plan REC-10, Recreation Opportunities and Needs Assessment. Both surveys will be completed as a single survey. Each survey is identical in the approach and detailed methodology. Both surveys will share a common survey form and common survey protocols which are structured to obtain the information needed to characterize both dispersed and developed project-related recreation opportunities and to obtain information on user conflicts and carrying capacity. All data collection and analysis will be conducted as described in the “Detailed Methodology,” in the REC-10, Recreation Opportunities and Needs Assessment, study plan.

STUDY AREA:

The study area for the dispersed recreation opportunities assessment and user group surveys includes targeted recreation sites and activities that are associated with the developed Project facilities listed in the recreation facilities matrix.

ANALYSIS:

In coordination with REC-10, dispersed recreational use data obtained from the study will be evaluated to identify and characterize: (1) recreational use and activities at and around Project facilities; (2) existing and future facility and management needs; (3) existing limitations to recreation opportunities; and (4) potential opportunities to meet future recreation needs.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

This study will be developed and implemented in conjunction with REC-10, Recreation Opportunities and Needs Assessment. This assessment will also require coordination with the following studies: • REC-19 Information and Interpretive Opportunities and Needs Assessment • REC-8 Angling Opportunities and Experience Assessment • REC-9 Recreation Resources and Facility Inventory Assessment • REC-18 Use by Disadvantaged, Handicapped, and Minority Persons Assessment • CAWG-4 Chemical Water Quality • LAND-6 Traffic/Circulation Study

SCHEDULE:

The Dispersed Recreation Opportunities Assessment will be initiated in 2002.

REFERENCES:

None

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Disadvantaged, Handicapped, and Minority Persons

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Encourage recreational use by disadvantaged, handicapped, and minority (DHM) persons.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

Evaluate project facilities and programs for compliance with applicable civil rights statutes.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Evaluate project facilities and programs for compliance with applicable civil rights statutes.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Southern California Edison, in obtaining a Federal License for the project, is responsible for meeting federal civil rights laws and regulations.

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Identify all civil rights laws applicable to Project-related recreational facilities by conducting a literature review of the federal register and other resources. 2. Consult with the USFS to ensure the accuracy of the listed civil rights laws. 3. Assess Project-related programs and facilities for compliance with applicable civil rights laws.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

The Use by Disadvantaged, Handicapped, and Minority Persons Assessment will identify the federal civil rights requirements applicable to Project-related recreational programs and facilities. These programs and facilities include dissemination of visitor information and access opportunities for DHM persons. The study will include the following components: (1) identification of the applicable civil rights requirements; and (2) determination of the project’s fulfillment of these requirements.

The following civil rights laws covering federally assisted programs may be applicable to the Project-related recreational facilities.

1. Civil Rights Act of 1964 – prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin by recipients of federal financial assistance. 2. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504 - prohibits discrimination based on physical and mental disability in programs receiving federal financial assistance, and also prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs and services conducted by the USDA. 3. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 – prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in public accommodations.

A literature review of the federal register and other resources, and consultation with the USFS, will evaluate the relevance of the laws listed above as well any other civil rights laws that may be applicable to Project-related recreational facilities.

Using the list of applicable civil rights laws, a review of all Project-related recreational facilities will be conducted to identify the programs and facilities that are currently in place to ensure compliance with these regulations. The USFS will be consulted during this process to help identify and evaluate the adequacy of programs and facilities in meeting applicable civil rights statutes.

STUDY AREA:

The study area for the Use by Disadvantaged, Handicapped, and Minority Persons Assessment includes Project-related programs and recreation facilities used by disadvantaged, handicapped and minority persons. The Project-related recreation facilities are identified in the recreation potential project nexus matrix and include: (1) campgrounds; (2) Project resort and recreation facilities managed by permitted concessionaires; and (3) other developed recreation including Project public boat ramps, boat docks, designated trails, parking areas, and picnic sites.

ANALYSIS:

An analysis of the consultation and literature review data will determine the adequacy of Project-related recreational information dissemination mechanisms and access opportunities for DHM persons in meeting federal civil rights requirements.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

This survey will require coordination with the following studies: • REC-11 Compliance with ADA Assessment • REC-19 Information and Interpretive Opportunities and Needs Assessment

Coordination with the results of these studies should be completed to aid in the identification of programs and facilities for DHM persons at Project-related recreational areas.

SCHEDULE:

The study program will be initiated in 2002.

REFERENCES:

None

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Recreation Information and Interpretive Services

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOALS:

1. Provide information on recreational opportunities within the project area. 2. Maintain or enhance interpretive services near Project facilities and Project- induced recreation.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

Provide visitors with information on recreational opportunities at licensed projects.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Evaluate the current opportunities and future demands for visitor information and interpretation within the Project area.

PROJECT NEXUS:

The Commission requires the licensee to inform the public of the opportunities for recreation at licensed projects.

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Identify existing information and interpretive opportunities near Project facilities and within the Basin. 2. In coordination with REC-10, Recreation Opportunities and Needs Assessment, develop an information survey instrument to gather data on existing and potential use, factors influencing use, and perceived needs for information and interpretive services near Project facilities and Project- induced recreation facilities. 3. Identify target areas/sites that will be surveyed. 4. Conduct Information and Interpretive Use Survey at target sites. 5. Use existing information, survey data, and data from other appropriate sources, to characterize the existing information and interpretive opportunities, and future recreational needs for information and interpretive services. 6. Identify and document the need and feasibility and desirability for improvements to meet existing and future need for diverse informational and interpretive programs.

7. Develop a GIS database of interpretive and informational services including location, and type of interpretive or informational service.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

The purpose of this study is to assess and characterize the existing opportunities and limitations in providing recreational information and interpretive services to the public near Project facilities and Project related areas. The assessment will include information regarding: (1) the factors that influence use; (2) groups that are using the existing Project related facilities; (3) how people acquired information regarding existing recreational opportunities; and (4) perceived needs for additional informational and interpretive services at Project facilities.

As part of the evaluation, consultation with USFS recreation specialists and special interest user groups will be conducted to identify the most effective means of reaching the recreational public based on user group demographics. A literature review of USFS and other resource agency documentation will be conducted to identify the existing information and interpretive services used in the Basin. The review will collect data describing the location and type of service and the effectiveness of the service, if available.

A standardized form will be developed for the informational and interpretive survey to obtain information about existing opportunities and limitations. Information obtained by the survey will include a description of the existing and potential recreational uses at each facility in the Project area, factors, which influence use, and the user’s perceived need for improved or additional information and interpretive services. The survey will be conducted in coordination with REC-10, Recreation Opportunities and Needs Assessment. Refer to the REC-10 “Detailed Methodology” for a description of survey protocol.

The consultation, literature review, and survey data will be compiled to create a summary of the existing information and interpretive opportunities near Project facilities and Project related areas. The need, feasibility, and desirability of creating additional informational and interpretive opportunities at existing facilities will be assessed. Additional information and interpretive opportunities that will be considered may include: (1) interpretive sites and programs; (2) environmental education programs; (3) informational signs; (4) internet, television, radio, and printed media; (5) public outreach programs; (6) school and organization group programs; (7) American Indian interpretive and cultural site information; and (8) focused programs for disabled, handicapped and minority persons.

A GIS database will be compiled which summarizes the informational and interpretive services of Project developed and dispersed recreation sites and programs. Data from the GIS database will be summarized in a tabular format

and presented graphically on GIS maps that depict the locations and types of Project facilities and programs. Based on these evaluations, a list will be compiled that will identify SCE Project related facilities that have existing informational and interpretive opportunities, and provide feasible and desirable potential for additional informational and interpretive opportunities.

STUDY AREA:

The study area for the informational and interpretive opportunities and needs assessment includes all Project-related recreation facilities.

ANALYSIS:

Information collected during the study will be used to determine whether or not the public is adequately informed of existing recreational and educational opportunities in the Project area, and to identify the need for additional information and interpretive services. The party responsible for any improvements to existing services or additional services will be identified. If necessary, protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures will be developed for project induced impacts and responsible parties will be identified.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

This study will be coordinated with REC-10, Recreation Opportunities and Needs Assessment. Survey questions developed as part of this study will be administered through the opportunities and needs study in REC-10. Coordination with the following studies should also be performed: • REC-1 Flow Information Feasibility Study • REC-9 Recreation Resources and Facility Inventory Assessment • REC-18 Use by Disadvantaged, Handicapped, and Minority Persons Assessment • CUL-5 Public Involvement in Historic Preservation

SCHEDULE:

The study program will be initiated in 2001.

REFERENCES:

None

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Trails (Spring, Summer and Fall, Non-snow season)

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Maintain or enhance trail systems and support facilities.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S): Maintain trails and support facilities near Project-related recreation areas.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Characterize the current uses and estimate the future demands for trails and trailheads at or near Project-related recreation areas.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Project operations and maintenance activities may affect trail opportunities at Project-related recreational areas.

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Identify trails and trailheads at or near Project facilities. 2. Identify and document existing trail use activities near Project facilities. that kinds of users are at the trailheads and using the trails (e.g., mountain bicycle, stock, backpackers, anglers, and hunters). 3. Develop recreation survey instrument to be used to gather data on existing and potential use, factors influencing use, if use is Project-induced and how, and perceived needs for recreation. 4. Meet with local representatives of trail user groups to discuss the Project area and associated trail use activities. 5. Identify target areas/sites that will be surveyed. 6. Conduct Dispersed Recreation Use Survey at target sites. 7. Use survey results and data from other appropriate sources to characterize the recreation opportunities and estimate future recreational needs. 8. Identify and document potential improvements to meet existing and future recreation uses.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

The trails study will identify and characterize trail systems and support facilities located near Project-related recreation areas. The study will include the following four components: (1) a literature review to identify trail and trailhead locations; (2) a literature review and consultation to obtain trail use data; (3) coordination with the Traffic/Circulation Study (LAND-6), Air Quality Assessment (LAND-10), Whitewater Recreation Assessment Study (REC-3), and Dispersed Recreation Opportunities and Needs Assessment (REC–17); and (4) an evaluation and analysis of data to determine the need for improvement of trail systems to meet existing and future demands.

A literature review will be performed to create a comprehensive list of trails and trailheads located near Project facilities and Project-related recreation areas. The information obtained from the literature review will include, trail and trailhead locations, types of allowable trail use, any restrictions based on user type, permitting requirements (if any), support facilities, and seasonality of trails. Data sources for the literature review will include, but not be limited to: USFS documents and maps, recreational guide books, interviews with user groups, and any other publications regarding recreation opportunities in the Big Creek Basin.

Trail use data, if available, will be obtained by conducting literature review as well as through consultation. The literature review will focus on USFS recreation user survey results, but will also consider publications of other agencies or user groups. Consultation with the USFS and special-interest user groups will supplement the published trail use data. Telephone consultation will be used to collect data from the USFS and trail user groups in the Project area and nearest urban center. The data to be gathered through the literature review and consultation includes types of users on each trail, frequency of trail use, trail conditions, and user needs. This data will aid in the characterization of trail use recreation opportunities and current and future demand.

Current trail use data will be obtained through a self-census survey of dispersed recreation activities. This survey will be performed as part of study plan REC-17, Dispersed Recreation Opportunities and Needs Assessment. The self-census survey will be accomplished by placing census forms in locked drop boxes at selected trailhead locations. The census will collect data on the experiential value associated with the trail use, as well as physical data on the numbers of trail users, types of uses, timing (seasonality) of trail use, reasons for choosing the particular trail, general trail condition, and destination locations. The data obtained from this census will be used to estimate current and future demand of the trail systems and support facilities near Project-related recreation areas.

The data collected through literature review, consultation, and coordination with REC-17 self-census survey will be compiled into a GIS database to characterize the current system of trails and support facilities, and the system’s relationship

with current and future user demand. The data will be summarized in a tabular format and presented graphically on GIS generated maps. Maps will be designed to depict the types and distribution of trails and support facilities.

STUDY AREA:

The REC-20, Trails (Spring, Summer and Fall, Non-snow season), survey is focused on the trails and trailheads located at or adjacent to SCE Project-related facilities.

ANALYSIS:

Project operations and maintenance measures will be evaluated to determine if they potentially affect the trail and trailhead system at or near Project-related facilities. Trails and trailheads that are identified as being potentially affected by project operations and maintenance activities will be further analyzed to determine the types of improvements or enhancement that can be performed to mitigate the project effects on the trail/trailhead. This type of analysis would be based on the physical condition of the trails and trailheads, and upon the current and future user demands for these recreational facilities.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

The Trails Study will require coordination with: • REC-17 Dispersed Recreation Opportunities and Needs Assessment • LAND-6 Traffic/Circulation Study • LAND-10 Air Quality Assessment • REC-3 Whitewater Recreation Assessment Study

Timing of the data evaluation and analysis components of the Trails study must follow the dispersed recreation data collected during the REC-17 study. Refer to the REC-17 detailed methodology regarding collection of dispersed recreational opportunities.

SCHEDULE:

This study will be initiated in 2002.

REFERENCES:

None

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Winter Recreation

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Maintain or enhance winter recreation opportunities near Project facilities and Project-related recreational areas.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

Maintain or enhance winter recreation near Project facilities and Project-related recreational areas.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Evaluate the current uses and future demands of winter recreational opportunities at trails, trailheads and Sno-parks near Project facilities and Project-related recreational facilities.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Project operations and maintenance activities may affect winter recreation opportunities at or near Project-related recreational facilities.

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Identify winter recreation opportunities (Sno-parks, snowmobile routes, ski resorts, and skiing trails) near Project facilities. 2. Identify and document existing winter recreational activities that occur at or near Project facilities. Identify the uses occurring at the trailheads, trails and Sno-parks (e.g., snowmobiles, cross county skiers, snow shoe hikers). 3. Develop a winter recreation survey (Winter Dispersed Recreation Use Survey) to be used to gather data on existing and potential use, factors influencing use, and perceived needs for recreation. 4. Meet with local representatives of winter recreation user groups to discuss winter recreation activities within the area. 5. Identify target areas/sites that will be surveyed. 6. Conduct Winter Dispersed Recreation Use Survey at target sites. 7. Use data from survey and other appropriate sources to characterize the recreation opportunities and future recreational needs. 8. Identify and document potential improvements to meet existing and future winter recreation uses.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

The winter recreation study will identify and characterize winter recreation opportunities near Project facilities and Project-related recreation areas. The study will include the following components: (1) a literature review and consultation with existing user groups and the SNF recreational specialist to identify winter recreation opportunities; (2) a literature review and consultation to obtain user data at the identified winter recreation opportunity sites; (3) development and administration of a self-census user survey to characterize use at winter recreation opportunity sites; and (4) an evaluation and analysis of data to determine the need for enhancement of winter recreation opportunities.

The objective of the literature review and consultation is to create a comprehensive list of winter recreation opportunities near Project facilities and Project-related recreation areas. The data will include locations, allowable uses, and support facilities of public, private, and SCE operated winter recreation sites including sno-parks, snowmobile routes, ski resorts, and skiing trails. The review will evaluate documents and maps describing winter recreation in the Basin published by the USFS, California Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks), Southern California Edison, and special-interest recreation groups.

Winter recreation use data will be obtained through a literature review and agency and user group consultation. The review will focus on SNF recreation user survey results, but will also consider publications or data from other agencies or special-interest user groups. Consultation with the SNF, State Parks, SCE, the Sierra Snowmobile Association, the Pine Ridge Nordic Ski Patrol, and any other special-interest recreation groups identified will supplement the published winter recreation user data. The data to be gathered through these processes includes, but is not limited to, location of activity, activity type, frequency of use, area conditions, snow depth, weather conditions, and user needs. The data will allow characterization of winter recreation opportunities, current and future demand, and reason for choosing the particular area.

A self-census user survey will be conducted as part of this study to obtain current information on the location and types of winter recreation activities, user profiles, and user needs. The user survey will collect the following data: the type of recreation activity; location of activity; timing, frequency, and duration of activity; user information including origin and distance traveled; reason for choosing the particular area; and special needs for the recreation area or support facilities to maintain or enhance the experience. The self-census survey will be accomplished by having users place completed survey forms into locked drop boxes near winter recreation staging areas. The data obtained from this census will be used to estimate current and future demand of the winter recreation sites and support facilities near Project-related recreation areas.

The data collected through literature review, consultation, and the user survey will be evaluated and compiled into a GIS database of Project area winter recreation opportunities and use. The data will be tabulated and presented in a graphical format. Maps will be designed using the database to depict the types and distribution of winter recreation areas and recreational use.

STUDY AREA:

The REC-21 study area includes all designated winter recreation opportunity sites and support facilities near Project facilities or Project-related recreation areas. Public and SCE operated Sno-parks, snowmobile routes, and skiing trails comprise some of the designated winter recreation sites in the area. The Sno- parks are located near Huntington and Shaver Lakes and at Balsam; and snowmobile routes and ski trails are located in the region between Huntington and Shaver Lakes, surrounding the Kaiser Wilderness, and extending to Florence Lake and Lake Thomas A. Edison. SCE operates cross-country ski trails in the area of Camp Edison and southwestern Shaver Lake.

ANALYSIS:

An analysis will be conducted of all winter recreation opportunity data collected through literature review, consultation and the user survey. The existing recreation opportunity sites and support facilities in the Basin will be evaluated to determine the capability of supporting the current and reasonably foreseeable future demand for winter recreation near Project facilities and Project-related recreation areas. During analysis, necessary improvements to winter recreation sites and support facilities will be identified and classified by responsible parties. Proposed modification to SCE’s operations and maintenance activities that would enhance winter recreation will also be identified.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

None

SCHEDULE:

This study will be initiated in the winter 2001/2002.

REFERENCES:

None

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Wilderness Area Use Characterization

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Manage recreation activities within the Big Creek Basin to preserve the wilderness area quality within USFS designated wilderness areas.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES(S):

Ensure that recreation activities conducted at developed recreation facilities do not adversely affect the character of adjacent wilderness areas.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Evaluate the recreational use and character of wilderness areas to determine if Project-related dispersed recreation activities adversely affect the quality of the wilderness experience and character.

PROJECT NEXUS:

The sphere of influence from dispersed Project-related recreational activities occurring at Project reservoirs (specifically Lake Thomas A. Edison and Florence Lake) may extend into the adjacent wilderness areas affecting the character of the wilderness.

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Identify dispersed recreation opportunities at Project reservoirs that extend into adjacent wilderness recreation areas. 2. Review the wilderness use permits issued by the USFS, including a review of access points into the wilderness and the length of stay. 3. Develop and conduct a user survey at developed recreational facilities located adjacent to wilderness areas to characterize the types and geographical range of dispersed recreational activities that originate from the developed sites and extend into wilderness areas. 4. Assess the potential for effects on the character of the wilderness areas from nearby Project facilities, Project-related recreation facilities, or from modifications or enhancements to existing facilities.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

This study will characterize Project-related dispersed recreation activities that originate from project related developed recreational sites that are located adjacent to wilderness areas (i.e., Lake Thomas A. Edison and Florence Lake).

The focus of the study is on day use recreational opportunities that originate from developed recreational sites and extend into adjacent wilderness areas. This study will be accomplished by: (1) identifying the types of day use dispersed recreation activities that originate from the developed Project-related facilities; (2) reviewing documented wilderness area use; (3) obtaining dispersed recreation use data and experiential data on wilderness areas through user surveys; and (4) evaluating the affect of Project facility modifications and Project-related dispersed recreation activities upon the character of wilderness areas.

Day use dispersed recreation activities that originate from developed recreation facilities and extend into the adjacent wilderness areas will be identified through consultation with resource agencies, special interest user groups, private resort operators, and recreational guide/outfitting services. Recreation specialists from the USFS will be consulted regarding wilderness area recreational opportunities. Special interest user groups will include, but not be limited to, hiking, angling, equestrian, and backpacking organizations. Private resort operators and guide/outfitters will include facilities such as the Vermilion Valley Resort at Lake Thomas A. Edison and Muir Trail Ranch near Florence Lake. The information that will be obtained through consultation and interviews include types of recreational opportunities (hiking, picnicking, etc.), day use destination locations, staging areas, and entry points into the wilderness area.

SCE will obtain, review, and summarize wilderness use data that is maintained by the USFS from the Wilderness Use Permit Program. Wilderness area use is documented and tracked by the USFS through a permit program that requires overnight users to obtain wilderness entry permits. This program is intended to limit and track the number of users entering the wilderness areas for overnight stays, thus preserving the character of the wilderness areas. The data obtained from the USFS permits will identify wilderness use patterns in terms of entry and exit dates, length of stay, entry and exit points, destination locations, method of travel, and size of user groups.

Additional information will be obtained by conducting a user survey at developed recreational facilities located adjacent to wilderness areas. The survey will obtain information on the geographical range of day use recreational activities that extend into wilderness areas, but originate from developed areas. Survey data will be collected by a self-census survey of dispersed recreation activities. This survey will be performed in coordination with study plan REC-17, Dispersed Recreation Opportunities and Needs Assessment. The self-census survey will be completed by placing locked census form drop boxes at selected trailhead locations. The census will collect data on the experiential value associated with the trail use, as well as physical data on the number of trail users, types of uses, timing (seasonality) of trail use, and destination locations.

Data collected by this study will be compiled into a GIS database to characterize the current system of trails into wilderness areas, the associated developed support facilities, and the system’s relationship with current and future user demand. The data will be summarized in a tabular format and presented

graphically on GIS generated maps. Maps will be designed to depict the types and distribution of trails and support facilities, and the user demands upon these facilities.

STUDY AREA:

The study area would be focused upon developed recreation facilities located adjacent to designated wilderness areas. This would include campgrounds adjacent to Lake Thomas A. Edison, Florence Lake, Mono Diversion and Forebay, Portal Forebay, and Huntington Lake. These facilities are co-located with trailheads leading into the wilderness areas.

ANALYSIS:

An analysis of data obtained through consultation, data review, and the user survey will be conducted. The effects of Project facility operations and maintenance activities and Project-related recreation activities will be evaluated to determine potential influence on the wilderness character and experience. If Project facilities or Project-related recreational facilities located near wilderness areas are modified, enhanced, or created as part of a protection, mitigation or enhancement measure, then additional analysis will be performed to determine if such facilities would affect the character of the wilderness.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

This study would be closely coordinated with: • REC-17 Dispersed Recreation Opportunities and Needs Assessment This study would rely heavily upon the dispersed user data obtained in the REC- 17 study.

All proposed PM&E measures affecting the character of the wilderness will need to be identified by each working group for inclusion into this study.

SCHEDULE:

This study will be initiated in 2002.

REFERENCES:

None

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY PLANS TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES STUDY PLANS TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

TERR – 1 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES ...... 6-1 TERR – 2 INVASIVE/EXOTIC PLANT SPECIES...... 6-5 TERR – 3 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT POPULATIONS...... 6-9 TERR – 4 NATIVE AMERICAN PLANTS ...... 6-13 TERR – 5 COMMON AND SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES ...... 6-17 TERR – 6 VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONGHORN BEETLE ...... 6-23 TERR – 7 MIGRATORY WATERFOWL...... 6-27 TERR – 8 RAPTORS ...... 6-31 TERR – 9 BALD EAGLE AND OSPREY...... 6-35 TERR – 10 GREAT GRAY OWL...... 6-41 TERR – 11 RIPARIAN-NESTING SONGBIRDS ...... 6-45 TERR – 12 SPECIAL-STATUS BAT SPECIES ...... 6-49 TERR – 13 MESOCARNIVORES...... 6-53 TERR – 14 MULE DEER ...... 6-57 TERR – 15 OTHER GAME ...... 6-63

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Vegetation Communities

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Maintain biodiversity in the Big Creek Basin.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

Maintain terrestrial habitat in a mosaic of successional stages.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Identify and map vegetation communities near Project facilities and bypass and flow-augmented reaches.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Potential loss or degradation of vegetation communities from Project operations and/or maintenance activities.

GENERAL APPROACH: 1. Aerial photographs will be used to characterize and map vegetation communities near Project facilities and bypass and flow-augmented reaches. 2. The vegetation map prepared from aerial photograph interpretation will be ground-truthed on foot and by vehicle.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY: 1. Existing aerial photographs and a meadow GIS data layer will be obtained from USFS. Additional aerial photographs may be obtained as needed. These photographs will be used to characterize and map vegetation communities within ¼ mile of Project facilities and bypass and flow- augmented reaches, including Project-related recreational facilities. All major plant communities, including wetlands, scrublands, and forested areas, will be delineated. Cover types will also include non-vegetated wildlife habitats, such as riverine habitat and rock outcrops identifiable from aerial photographs. Vegetation community classification will be based primarily on the Preliminary Descriptions of Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986) and cross-referenced to the series A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer & Keeler-Wolf 1995).

2. Ground-truthing of the plant community map will be conducted in all areas where concerns about plant community identification or boundaries arise during the aerial photography interpretation. In addition, an appropriate number of random samples within each vegetation community type will be ground-truthed in order to determine the accuracy of aerial photography interpretation for that community. Areas that are inaccessible will not be ground-truthed. Vegetation community types that are particularly difficult to detect by aerial photograph, such as wetlands and riparian communities, will be ground-truthed more extensively than those vegetation community types that are easily identifiable from aerial photography. During and after ground- truthing, aerial photography interpretation will be corrected for any vegetation community type originally misidentified. Revisions or modification to community boundaries or community types will be mapped during the field surveys on mylar overlays of the aerial photographs or on full-size paper copies. The revised community boundaries will be transferred into a GIS database. Polygons will be a minimum of 1 acre in size with the exception of sensitive habitats, such as wetlands, which may be smaller. Wetland polygons will not be mapped as polygons unless they are at least 0.25 acres in area. Wetlands encountered that are smaller in size may be indicated as points. Any unique habitats or features, such as springs, bogs, fens, caves, cliffs, and rock outcrops, not previously identified during the aerial photograph interpretation, will be added to the vegetation map and incorporated into a GIS database.

STUDY AREA:

The study area will be ¼ mile around Project facilities, roads, transmission lines, bypass and flow-augmented reaches, including Project-related recreational facilities.

ANALYSIS:

Occurrences of vegetation communities will be evaluated to establish distribution in relation to Project facilities and bypass and flow-augmented reaches, including Project-related recreational facilities, and the potential for Project operations and maintenance activities to affect these communities.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

· Fuels mapping from Fire Prevention and Protection Adequacy Evaluation study plan (LAND – 4). · Vegetation community mapping for Invasive/Exotic Plant Species study plan (TERR – 2), Special-status Plant Populations study plan (TERR – 3), and Native American Plants study plan (TERR – 4). · Habitat mapping for Common and Special-status Wildlife Species study plan (TERR – 5), Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle study plan (TERR – 6), Migratory Waterfowl study plan (TERR – 7), Raptors study plan (TERR – 8), Bald Eagle and Osprey study plan (TERR – 9), Great Gray Owl study plan

(TERR – 10), Riparian-nesting Songbirds study plan (TERR – 11), Special- status Bat Species study plan (TERR – 12), Mesocarnivores study plan (TERR – 13), Mule Deer study plan (TERR – 14), Other Game study plan (TERR – 15), Amphibians and Reptiles study plan (CAWG – 8), and Riparian study plan (CAWG – 11). SCHEDULE:

2001: Vegetation community mapping (precursor to other studies).

REFERENCES:

Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

Sawyer J. O., and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A manual of California vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Invasive/Exotic Plant Species

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S): Reduce the rapid spread of invasive/exotic plant species.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

1. Prevent the introduction and establishment of noxious weeds in areas of potential Project impacts. 2. Where possible, eradicate exotic plant species. 3. Contain/suppress noxious weed populations. 4. Reduce the rapid spread of invasive/exotic plant species.

BACKGROUND:

Twenty-one species of noxious weeds or invasive non-native plants are known to occur in or near the Sierra National Forest (as of 1999). Three of the species are A-rated pests, determined by the California Department of Agriculture to be pests of known economic significance, with the highest priority for eradication upon detection. These A-rated pests are diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa), spotted knapweed (C. maculosa), and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). The worst weed in the Sierra National Forest at this time is yellow starthistle (C. solstitialis), a C- rated pest under CDFA’s pest rating system. Seven species are categorized by the California Exotic Pest Plant Council as the most invasive wildland pest plants (www.caleppc.org).

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Document the occurrence and abundance of invasive/exotic plant populations adjacent to Project facilities, including Project-related recreational facilities.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Potential spread of invasive/noxious weeds within and into the Project area during Project maintenance and operations.

GENERAL APPROACH: 1. Information on invasive/exotic plant species in the Project area will be compiled, reviewed, and analyzed. Known occurrences of invasive/exotic plant species near Project facilities will be mapped and incorporated into a GIS database.

2. The presence and absence of noxious weeds and invasive plant species near Project facilities will be recorded as required under Section 2083 of the Forest Service Manual, Information and Reporting Guidelines for Noxious Weeds (USFS 1991).

DETAILED METHODOLOGY: 1. Information on invasive/exotic plant species in the Project area will be compiled, reviewed, and analyzed. This will include a review of: (1) Sierra National Forest Noxious Weed and Invasive Plants List (USFS 1999); (2) the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s Noxious Weed List (CDFA 2000); (3) California Exotic Pest Plant Council’s List of Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in California (CalEPPC 1999); (5) the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USFS 2001); and (6) information from appropriate agency representatives such as the Sierra National Forest botanist. Known occurrences of invasive/exotic plant species near Project facilities will be mapped and incorporated into a GIS database. 2. The presence and absence of noxious weeds and invasive plant species near Project facilities will be identified during field surveys conducted in the summer and recorded as required under Section 2083 of the Forest Service Manual, Information and Reporting Guidelines for Noxious Weeds (USFS 1991). This will include reporting the acres infested by noxious weeds, by species and location. Levels of infested acres will be reported as follows: low (<6% canopy cover), moderate (6-25% canopy cover), and high (>25% canopy cover). Areas that have been thoroughly surveyed and found to be weed-free will also be identified.

STUDY AREA:

The survey area will consist of a 150-foot area around the following Project facilities: dams, small and moderate diversions, gaging stations, powerhouses, transmission lines, and Project-related recreational facilities (i.e., campgrounds, day-use areas, parking areas, boat launches, and trailheads). A 30-foot area will be surveyed around Project roads, and the area visible from the trail but not less than 5 feet on either side will be surveyed around Project trails.

ANALYSIS:

Occurrences of invasive/exotic plant species will be evaluated to establish distribution in relation to Project facilities, including Project-related recreational facilities, and the potential for Project operations and maintenance activities to worsen infestations of these species, and to bring in new weed species.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

· Vegetation mapping from Vegetation Communities study plan (TERR – 1). · Survey schedule from Special-status Plant Populations study plan (TERR – 3).

SCHEDULE:

Spring/summer 2001/2002: Noxious weeds survey (in conjunction with special- status plant surveys).

REFERENCES:

California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). 2000. Pest Ratings of Noxious Weed Species and Noxious Weed Seed. Unpublished report dated January 6, 2000. Available at: http://pi.cdfa.ca.gov/weedinfo/sortbyrating2.htm.

California Exotic Pest Plant Council (CalEPPC). 1999. Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in California. Dated October 1999. Available at: http://www.caleppc.org/info/pestplants99.pdf.

Hickman, J. C., ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual. University of California Press, Berkley, California.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1991. Section 2083, Information and Reporting Guidelines for Noxious Weeds. In: Forest Service Manual, Section 2080, dated June 1991. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/boise/nature/weeds/documents/2080.PDF#xml=http: //www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/texis/searchsites/search.allsites/xml.txt?query=Fore st+Service+Manual+2083&db=allsites&id=3a651a1e0.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1999. Sierra National Forest Noxious Weed and Invasive Plants List.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. January 2001.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Special-status (including Forest Service Sensitive) Plant Populations

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Protect special-status plant populations.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

1. Protect and enhance special-status plant populations in areas of potential Project impact. 2. Maintain and/or enhance habitat for special-status plant species.

BACKGROUND:

Twenty-one special-status plant species are known to occur or have the potential to occur in the Project vicinity. Twenty of these species are identified as special- status species by the resource agencies (e.g., USFS, USFWS, CDFG, etc.). One of those 20 species is listed by the State of California as threatened or rare. The federally listed plant species include Mariposa pussypaws (Calyptridium pulchellum). The Forest Service Sensitive plant species include: moonwort (Botrychium spp.), Mono Hot Springs evening primrose (Camissonia sierrae ssp. alticola), tree-anemone (Carpenteria californica), flaming trumpet (Collomia rawsoniana), mountain lady’s slipper (Cypripedium montanum), unexpected larkspur (Delphinium inopinum), Tulare County bleeding heart (Dicentra nevadensis), Shuteye Peak fawn lily (Erythronium pluriflorum), subalpine fireweed (Epilobium howellii), Hall’s daisy (Erigeron aequifolius), Kettle Dome buckwheat (Eriogonum prattenianum var. avium), short-leaved hulsea (Hulsea brevifolia), Congdon’s lewisia (Lewisia congdonii), Yosemite lewisia (Lewisia disepala), orange lupine (Lupinus citrinus var. citrinus), slender-stalked monkeyflower (Mimulus gracilipes), and gray-leaved violet (Viola pinetorum ssp. grisea). The Watch List plants include: moonwort (Botrychium spp.), Fresno linanthus (Linanthus serrulatus), prairie wedge grass (Sphenopholis obtusata), and Hall’s wyethia (Wyethia elata). Meadow sedge (Carex praticola) is a CNPS List 2 species.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Document the presence and abundance of special-status plant populations adjacent to Project facilities and Project-related recreational facilities.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Potential habitat modification or take/harm of special-status plant species resulting from Project operations and/or maintenance activities.

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Existing information on special-status plant species known or having the potential to occur in the Project area will be compiled, reviewed, and analyzed. 2. Information on the presence of vegetation communities and soil survey maps will be evaluated to determine areas that could potentially support special- status plant populations. 3. Areas identified, as potentially supporting special-status plant populations will be surveyed. Data will be collected on each special-status plant species or population observed. 4. For special-status plant species that could occur in riparian areas of Project affected reaches, impacts will be evaluated in a habitat-based approach. (Refer to Riparian study plan (CAWG – 11)).

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

1. Existing documentation pertinent to the botanical resources of the Project area will be compiled, reviewed, and analyzed. This will include a review of: (1) the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants (Skinner & Pavlik 2000); (2) CDFG’s Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFG 2000a); (3) USFS’s Threatened, Endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species Database for the Terrestrial Species of the Sierra National Forest (USFS 2001a); (4) the Sierra National Forest’s Order 3 Soil Survey (1991, 1992); (5) the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USFS 2001b); and (6) information from appropriate agency representatives, such as the Sierra National Forest botanist. Known occurrences of special-status plant species near Project facilities and bypass and flow-augmented reaches will be mapped on 7.5-minute USGS quadrangles and incorporated into a confidential GIS database. 2. Vegetation communities identified and mapped as part of the vegetation classification survey will be evaluated to determine if they could potentially support special-status plant populations. (Refer to Vegetation Communities study plan (TERR – 1) and Riparian study plan (CAWG – 11). 3. Surveys will be conducted near Project facilities and Project-related recreational facilities during the spring and summer in accordance with the Guidelines for Assessing Effects of Proposed Projects on Rare Plants and Plant Communities (CDFG 2000b). Timing of the surveys will be determined based on known blooming period, agency consultation, and an evaluation of the blooming period at reference populations in the Project vicinity. The surveys will be floristic, and taxonomy will be primarily after Hickman (1993).

Any voucher specimens of non-listed plant species that are collected that may be of interest to USFS will be donated to the USFS Herbarium. [USFS] For each special-status plant species or population observed, digital photographs will be taken and GPS coordinates will be recorded (if possible), and an estimate of the number of individuals present, their phenology, and the associated vegetation will be recorded. For each special-status plant species or population, a CNDDB field survey form will be completed. The location of all special-status plant species observed will be mapped and incorporated into a confidential GIS database. 4. For riparian plant species, a habitat-based approach will be used to determine Project effects from operation and maintenance activities on special-status plant species (see Riparian study plan (CAWG – 11)). At sampling sites identified during the riparian study, surveys will be conducted for riparian special-status plant species. Any individuals or populations observed will be documented as in the above section. If the Project is determined to have adverse effects on riparian communities within the range of and appropriate habitat for special-status riparian species (as determined in the Riparian study plan (CAWG – 11)), then presence of special-status (including Forest Service Sensitive) riparian plants will be assumed and appropriate protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures will be developed.

STUDY AREA:

The study area will consist of habitat potentially supporting special-status plant species near Project facilities and bypass and flow-augmented reaches, including Project-related recreational facilities. Surveys will be conducted in an area 200 feet around the following Project facilities: dams, reservoirs, moderate diversions, forebays, powerhouses, transmission lines, and Project-related recreational facilities. A 300-foot area will be surveyed around Project-related campgrounds. A 50-foot area will be surveyed around small diversions, and a 30-foot area will be surveyed around roads. Project trails are not maintained and are used only a few times a year. Therefore, the disturbance involved in surveying off trails would be a greater impact than that from the trail itself when there is dense vegetation adjacent to the trail. Therefore, the area visible from the trail but not less than 5 feet on either side will be surveyed around trails. Areas that are inaccessible (e.g., due to safety issues or dense vegetation) will not be surveyed by biologists. If a population is on the edge of the survey area, the survey area will be extended to determine the extent of that population. Riparian plant species that could potentially occur in Project-affected streams (i.e., diverted and flow-augmented streams) will be evaluated on a habitat-based approach (see Riparian study plan (CAWG – 11)). Focused special-status plant surveys in riparian habitat along Project-affected streams are not proposed.

ANALYSIS:

Occurrences of special-status plant species will be evaluated to establish distribution in relation to Project facilities and bypass and flow-augmented

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 6-11 Terrestrial Resources TERR – 3 Special-status Plant Populations reaches, including Project-related recreational facilities, and the potential for Project operations and maintenance activities to affect these species. The effects of trails (e.g., increased erosion) on special-status plant species will be examined and coordinated with the Trails study plan (REC – 20).

COORDINATION NEEDS:

· Vegetation mapping from Vegetation Communities study plan (TERR – 1). · Riparian community identification and Project impacts on riparian communities from Riparian study plan (CAWG – 11). · Locations of trails from Trails study plan (REC – 20).

SCHEDULE:

2001: Literature review and agency consultation.

Spring/summer 2001/2002: Special-status plant surveys.

REFERENCES:

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2000a. Rarefind 2,California Natural Diversity Database. Electronic database. Sacramento, California.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2000b. Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed Projects on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Natural Communities. Guidelines Produced for the California Department of Fish and Game, May 8, 2000 Revision of Guidelines Dated December 9, 1983.

Hickman, J. C., ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Skinner, M. W and B. M. Pavlik, eds. 2000. Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. 6th edition. California Native Plant Society Special Publication Number 1, Sacramento, California.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1991. Order 3 Soil Survey. Sierra National Forest.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1992. Order 3 Soil Survey. Sierra National Forest.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2001a. Threatened, Endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species Database for the Terrestrial Species of the Sierra National Forest. Electronic database.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2001b. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. January 2001.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Native American Plants

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Protect plants of value to Native American cultures.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

1. Protect plants of value to local Native American cultures in areas of potential Project impacts. 2. Maintain habitat for plants of value to local Native American cultures.

BACKGROUND:

There are several plant species of value to local Native American culture (hereafter Native American plant species) that could potentially occur in the Project area. These include, but are not limited to, sourberry (Rhus trilobata), elderberry (Sambucus spp.), acorns (Quercus spp.), several species of mushrooms (various Ascomycetes and Basidiomycetes), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), California redbud (Cercis occidentalis), wild onion (Alium spp.), manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.), wormwood (Artemisia spp.), sedge (Carex spp.), (Ceanothus spp.), soaproot (Chlorogalum pomeridianum and C. angustifolium), Sierra chinquapin (Chrysolepis sempervirens), California flannelbush (Fremontodendron californicum), willow (Salix spp.), California wild grape (Vitis californica), and muhly or deergrass (Muhlenbergia rigens).

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Identify areas adjacent to Project facilities and bypass and flow-augmented reaches, including Project-related recreational facilities, that support or could potentially support Native American plant species.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Potential habitat modification or take/harm of Native American plant species resulting from Project operations and/or maintenance activities, especially vegetation removal, herbicide use, and grading around Project facilities and bypass and flow-augmented reaches.

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Identify species and locations of plant populations traditionally harvested and map known occurrences. 2. Determine if vegetation communities identified and mapped as part of the vegetation classification survey could potentially support Native American plant species. 3. Survey vegetation communities and soil series identified as potentially supporting Native American plant populations.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

1. Existing studies, archives, oral histories, photographs, and other records will be reviewed, and Western Mono groups will be consulted, to identify species and locations of plant populations traditionally harvested. Known occurrences of Native American plant species near Project facilities and bypass and flow- augmented reaches will be mapped on 7.5-minute USGS quadrangles and incorporated into a confidential GIS database. 2. Vegetation communities, identified and mapped as part of the vegetation classification survey, will be evaluated to determine if they could potentially support Native American plant populations (Hickman 1993, Holland 1986, Sawyer & Keeler-Wolf 1995). 3. Although a focused survey for these plants is not proposed, their location and relative abundance will be recorded during Vegetation Communities study plan (TERR – 1), Special-status Plant Populations (TERR – 3), Riparian (CAWG – 11), and elderberry shrub mapping as part of the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle study plan (TERR – 6).

STUDY AREA:

The study area will consist of portions of representative habitat for Native American plant species near Project facilities, including Project-related recreational facilities. Surveys will be conducted in an area 150 feet around the following Project facilities: dams, reservoirs, moderate diversions, forebays, powerhouses, transmission lines, and Project-related recreational facilities. A 50- foot area will be surveyed around small diversions, a 30-foot area will be surveyed around roads, and the area visible from the trail but not less than 5 feet on either side will be surveyed around trails.

ANALYSIS:

Occurrences of Native American plant species will be evaluated to establish distribution in relation to Project facilities and bypass and flow-augmented reaches, including Project-related recreational facilities, and the potential for Project operations and maintenance activities to affect these species.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

· Identification of species of concern to Native Americans from Native American Places of Cultural Concern study plan (CUL – 3). · Vegetation mapping from Vegetation Communities study plan (TERR – 1). · Elderberry shrub mapping from Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle study plan (TERR – 6). · Survey schedule from Special-status Plant Populations study plan (TERR – 3). · Riparian vegetation mapping from Riparian (CAWG – 11).

SCHEDULE:

Spring/summer 2001/2002: Native American plant mapping (in conjunction with special-status plant survey).

REFERENCES:

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2000. Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed Projects on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Natural Communities. Guidelines produced for the California Department of Fish and Game, May 8, 2000 revision of guidelines dated December 9, 1983. Available at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/assets/docs/guideplt.pdf

Hickman, J. C., ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Common and Special-status (including Forest Service Sensitive) Wildlife Species

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

1. Protect common and special-status wildlife species. 2. Maintain biodiversity in the Big Creek Basin.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

1. Protect common wildlife species and their habitat in areas of potential Project impact. 2. Maintain and enhance habitat for wildlife on Southern California Edison (SCE) private lands outside the FERC project boundary as potential off-site mitigation. 3. Maintain terrestrial habitat in a mosaic of successional stages. 4. Review and revise, if necessary, SCE’s Endangered Species Alert Program (ESAP) to protect endangered and sensitive species during operations and maintenance activities.

BACKGROUND:

A total of eighteen wildlife habitats occur in the Project area. This includes nine forest or woodland types, three shrub types, three grassland and wetland types, and three riparian types. This wide range of habitats represents potential habitat for a diverse group of common and special-status wildlife species. A total of fifty special-status wildlife species could potentially occur in the Project area (refer to the Terrestrial Working Group Project Nexus Table for a list of these species).

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Determine the presence of common and special-status wildlife species and their habitats adjacent to Project facilities, bypass and flow-augmented reaches, and Project-related recreational facilities.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Potential habitat modification, alteration of prey or forage abundance, disturbance/harassment, or take/harm of common or special-status wildlife species, resulting from Project operations and/or maintenance activities.

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Existing information pertinent to the terrestrial resources (i.e., invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) of the Project area will be compiled, reviewed, and analyzed. Appropriate agency representatives will be consulted. Information obtained during this literature review will be used for all other resource studies. Known occurrences of special-status species near Project facilities, bypass and flow-augmented reaches, and Project- related recreational activities will be mapped and incorporated into a GIS database. 2. During vegetation community mapping, habitat for common and special- status wildlife species will be identified and mapped. 3. A reconnaissance-level survey will be conducted in representative habitats near Project facilities and bypass and flow-augmented reaches, to describe wildlife use of the vegetation communities. Wildlife use of the site will be described based on known and anticipated occurrence. Incidental observations of any common and special-status wildlife species will be recorded during all other field surveys completed as part of the Big Creek Hydroelectric Relicensing Project. 4. SCE’s Endangered Species Alert Program (ESAP; Biosystems Analysis, Inc. 1992) will be reviewed and revised, if necessary to protect endangered and sensitive species during operation and maintenance activities.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

specific vocalizations are heard, or if diagnostic field signs are found (e.g., scat, tracks, and pellets). Some species that are known to occur in the Project vicinity, and for which appropriate habitat is present within the Project area, will be recorded as “expected, but not observed.” Wildlife taxonomy will be based on California’s Wildlife, Volumes I, II, and III (Zeiner et al. 1988- 1990). · These surveys will involve traversing habitats by walking and driving on roads in representative portions of the habitat types (vegetation communities). Visual surveys will be conducted to document the occurrence of wildlife species, including birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates. Additionally, loose boards, rocks, logs, and leaf litter will be checked for amphibians and reptiles. General observations of the suitability of cover types for various special-status species will also be recorded. All observations will be recorded in field notebooks and transcribed onto data sheets for input into a GIS database. If special-status species are observed during reconnaissance surveys, their location will be identified, mapped onto a 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle map, and incorporated into a GIS database. For each special-status wildlife species observed, a CNDDB field survey form will be completed and USFS will be contacted. 4. ESAP is designed to provide SCE personnel with a means for identifying potential occurrences of legally protected plant and animal species within and near SCE facilities. The ESAP manual includes a photograph, description, natural history information, and species distribution map for species potentially occurring within the Project area. This program provides maintenance and/or construction crews with information to avoid unnecessary impacts to special-status plants and wildlife and encourages crews to contact qualified SCE biologists if they have any questions or concerns about impacts to natural resources due to planned or ongoing activities. ESAP will be evaluated and revised, if necessary, to provide continued protection to endangered, threatened, species of special concern, and Forest Service Sensitive species.

STUDY AREA:

Wildlife habitats will be mapped within ¼ mile of Project facilities and bypass and flow-augmented reaches, including Project-related recreational facilities. For the reconnaissance-level survey, portions of representative habitats within and near Project facilities and bypass and flow-augmented reaches, including Project- related recreational facilities, will be walked and/or driven to search for wildlife. The survey area will consist of a 150-foot area around the following Project facilities: dams, reservoirs, moderate diversions, forebays, large and moderate diverted and augmented streams, powerhouses, transmission lines, and Project- related recreational facilities. A 50-foot area will be surveyed around small diversions and small augmented and diverted streams, a 30-foot area will be

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 6-19 Terrestrial Resources TERR – 5 Common and Special-status Wildlife Species surveyed around roads, and the area visible from the trail but not less than 5 feet on either side will be surveyed around trails.

ANALYSIS:

Occurrences of common and special-status wildlife species will be evaluated to establish distribution in relation to Project facilities and bypass and flow- augmented reaches, including Project-related recreational facilities, and the potential for Project operations and maintenance activities to affect these species.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

· Habitat mapping from Vegetation Communities study plan (TERR–1). · Literature review and field surveys conducted as part of Amphibians and Reptiles (CAWG–8), Riparian (CAWG-11), Fire Prevention and Protection Adequacy Evaluation (LAND–4), and Hunting (REC–12). · Literature review and reconnaissance-level wildlife survey for Migratory Waterfowl study plan (TERR–7), Raptors study plan (TERR–8), Bald Eagle and Osprey study plan (TERR–9), Great Gray Owl study plan (TERR–10), Riparian-nesting Songbirds study plan (TERR–11), Special-status Bat Species study plan (TERR–12), Mesocarnivores study plan (TERR–13), Mule Deer study plan (TERR–14), and Other Game study plan (TERR–15).

SCHEDULE:

2001: Literature review.

Spring/summer 2001/2002: Reconnaissance-level wildlife survey.

REFERENCES:

Biosystems Analysis, Inc. 1992. Endangered Species Alert Program Manual. Prepared for Southern California Edison, Environmental Affairs Division. Santa Cruz, California.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2000a. Rarefind 2,California Natural Diversity Database. Electronic database. Sacramento, California.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2000b. Wildlife Habitat Relationship System. Electronic database. Sacramento, California.

Mayer, K.E., and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., editors. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2001a. Threatened, Endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species Database for the Terrestrial Species of the Sierra National Forest. Electronic database.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1988-1990. California’s Wildlife Volumes I, II, and III. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (VELB)

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Protect VELB and their host plants (i.e., elderberry shrubs).

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

Maintain VELB and their host plants in areas of potential Project impacts.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Determine the location of VELB habitat (i.e., elderberry shrubs) below 3000 feet near Project facilities.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Potential habitat modification or direct take resulting from Project operations and/or maintenance activities.

GENERAL APPROACH: 1. Information on the VELB will be compiled in conjunction with the literature review for common and special-status (including Forest Service Sensitive) wildlife species. Known occurrences of the VELB near Project facilities will be mapped and incorporated into a GIS database. 2. Elderberry shrubs near Project facilities below 3000 feet where vegetation removal may occur (i.e., dams, diversions, gaging stations, powerhouses, roads, buildings, utilities, and transmission lines) will be identified and mapped during ground-truthing of the vegetation community mapping and special-status plant species surveys. During elderberry shrub mapping, shrubs will be inspected for signs of VELB occupancy. 3. Establishing and maintaining a 100-foot (or wider) buffer zone around the elderberry plants provides complete avoidance (i.e., no adverse effect) of VELB habitat (USFWS 1999). If it is anticipated that Project maintenance activities could result in an impact to elderberry shrubs by encroaching Upon the 100-foot buffer zone, a detailed survey in accordance with USFWS Service Conservation Guidelines for Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (USFWS 1999) will be conducted.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY: 1. A literature review will be conducted and will include a review of (1) CDFG’s Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFG 2000a); (2) CDFG’s Wildlife Habitat Relationship System (CDFG 2000b); (3) USFS’s Threatened, Endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species Database for the Terrestrial Species of the Sierra National Forest (USFS 2001a); (4) the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USFS 2001b); and (5) other relevant documents in the Project area (e.g., timber harvest plans and environmental documents). Consultation with resource specialists and agency representatives will also be conducted to augment information from the review of the literature and databases. Occurrences will be mapped on a 7.5- minute USGS quadrangle map and incorporated into a confidential GIS database. 2. Vegetation communities will be mapped by aerial photography and ground- truthing. (See Vegetation Communities study plan (TERR – 1) detailed methodology 1 and 2 for further description of vegetation community mapping methodology) In conjunction with special-status plant surveys and riparian surveys, elderberry shrub mapping will be completed. Occurrences will be mapped on a 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle map and incorporated into a GIS database. 3. If it is determined that Project operations or maintenance activities could result in removal of shrubs or if activities within the 100 foot buffer zone could adversely affect the shrubs, a protocol-level survey would be conducted in accordance with the USFWS Conservation Guidelines for Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (USFWS 1999). · The protocol-level survey would include examining elderberry shrubs for beetle exit holes; determining the percent coverage of exit holes on each shrub; and counting the number of stems greater than or equal to 1 inch in diameter and less than or equal to three inches (>1 and < 3), stems greater than three and less than five inches in diameter (> 3 and <5), and stems greater than or equal to five inches (> 5) in diameter (USFWS 1999). VELB occupancy will be determined by the presence of exit holes (external evidence of beetle presence).

STUDY AREA:

The study area will be comprised of appropriate habitat that may support elderberry shrubs near Project facilities, including Project-related recreational facilities, where vegetation removal may occur below 3000 feet elevation. Since elderberries have a 100-foot buffer zone requirement, survey areas will extend a minimum of 100 feet past possible disturbance at each facility where vegetation removal occurs. The survey area will consist of a 150-foot area around the following Project facilities: dams, reservoirs, moderate diversions, gaging stations, forebays, powerhouses, transmission lines, and Project-related recreational facilities. A 100-foot area will be surveyed around small diversions, a 100-foot

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 6-24 Terrestrial Resources TERR– 6 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle area will be surveyed around roads, and a 100-foot area will be surveyed around trails.

ANALYSIS:

The potential for disturbance of VELB will be determined by using data collected from elderberry shrub mapping and operation and maintenance information from SCE. Opportunities to enhance or restore VELB habitat by incorporating elderberry shrubs into planting programs will also be evaluated.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

· Habitat mapping from Vegetation Communities study plan (TERR – 1). · Elderberry shrub location at sampling sites for the Riparian study plan (CAWG – 11). · Elderberry shrub mapping and survey schedule from Special-status Plant Species study plan (TERR – 3). · Locations of elderberry shrubs from Native American Places of Cultural Concern study plan (CUL - 3).

SCHEDULE:

2001: Literature review.

Spring/summer 2001/2002: Elderberry survey (in conjunction with special-status plant survey).

REFERENCES:

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2000a. Rarefind 2, California Natural Diversity Database. Electronic database. Sacramento, California.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2000b. Wildlife Habitat Relationship System. Electronic database. Sacramento, California.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Conservation Guidelines for Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2001a. Threatened, Endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species Database for the Terrestrial Species of the Sierra National Forest. Electronic database.

U.S. Forest Service. 2001b. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. January 2001.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Migratory Waterfowl

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Protect migratory waterfowl.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S): 1. Manage water levels and fluctuation patterns in reservoirs, forebays, and other impounded waters to protect migratory waterfowl. 2. Maintain and protect waterfowl habitat in areas of potential Project impacts.

BACKGROUND:

Several species of waterfowl are occasional visitors to the Project area. This includes, but is not limited to: mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), green-winged teal (Anas crecca), blue-winged teal (Anas discors), American widgeon (Anas americana), ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis), cinnamon teal (Anas cyanoptera), canvasback (Aythya valisineria), pintail (Anas acuta), and bufflehead (Bucephala albeola).

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Determine the relative abundance and location of appropriate habitat to support migratory waterfowl at and immediately surrounding Project reservoirs, large diversions, forebays, and diverted and augmented streams.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Potential habitat modification resulting from Project operations and/or maintenance activities.

GENERAL APPROACH: 1. Information on migratory waterfowl will be compiled in conjunction with the literature review for common and special-status (including Forest Service Sensitive) wildlife species. Known occurrences of migratory waterfowl near Project facilities and bypass and flow-augmented reaches, will be mapped and incorporated into a GIS database. 2. During vegetation community mapping, common and special-status wildlife habitat mapping, and the reconnaissance-level wildlife survey, habitat for migratory waterfowl will be identified, mapped, and incorporated into a GIS database. Incidental observations of any migratory waterfowl will be recorded

during all other field surveys completed as part of the Big Creek hydroelectric relicensing Project. DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

· A literature review will be conducted and will include a review of CDFG’s Wildlife Habitat Relationship System (CDFG 2000), other relevant documents in the Project area (e.g., timber harvest plans and environmental documents) and information from appropriate agency representatives. · Vegetation communities will be mapped by aerial photography and ground- truthing. See Vegetation Communities study plan (TERR – 1) detailed methodology 1 and 2 for further description of vegetation community mapping methodology Wildlife habitat within these vegetation communities will be determined with A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988) and CDFG’s Wildlife Habitat Relationship System (CDFG 2000). See detailed methodology in Common and Special-status Wildlife Species study plan (TERR – 5) for reconnaissance-level wildlife survey methodology.

STUDY AREA:

The study area will consist of portions of representative habitat for migratory waterfowl near the following Project facilities: reservoirs, forebays, and diverted and augmented streams. The survey area will consist of a 150-foot area around the following Project facilities: reservoirs, forebays, and large and moderate diverted and augmented streams. A 50-foot area will be surveyed around small diversions and small augmented and diverted streams.

ANALYSIS:

Occurrences of migratory waterfowl and their habitat will be evaluated to establish distribution in relation to Project facilities and bypass and flow-augmented reaches, including Project-related recreational facilities. Data obtained from the Hydrology study plan (CAWG – 6) will be evaluated to determine Project effects on waterfowl from Project operation and maintenance activities and Project-related recreational facilities.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

· Habitat mapping from Vegetation Communities study plan (TERR – 1). · Reconnaissance-level wildlife survey methodology and survey schedule from Common and Special-status Wildlife Species (TERR – 5). · Information on reservoir fluctuations and stream flows from Hydrology study plan (CAWG – 6).

SCHEDULE:

2001: Literature review.

Spring/summer 2001/2002: Occurrences of migratory waterfowl (in conjunction with reconnaissance-level wildlife survey).

REFERENCES:

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2000. Wildlife Habitat Relationship System. Electronic database. Sacramento, California.

Mayer, K.E., and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., editors. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Raptors

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

1. Protect migrating and nesting raptors. 2. Protect the northern goshawk network. 3. Protect California spotted owl populations.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

1. Review, revise, and implement Southern California Edison’s (SCE) Raptor Protection Program (RPP). 2. Protect suitable nesting and foraging habitat for northern goshawk in areas of potential Project impacts. 3. Protect and enhance nesting and foraging habitat for California spotted owls in areas of potential Project impacts.

BACKGROUND:

Several raptors are known to occur or could potentially occur in the Project area. This includes, but is not limited to, Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), white-tailed kite (Elanus caeruleus), merlin (Falco columbarius), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), long-eared owl (Asio otus), and California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis).

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

1. Determine the presence of appropriate foraging and nesting habitat for raptors near Project facilities and bypass and flow-augmented reaches. 2. Determine if the design of transmission lines follows guidelines set forth in Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1996 (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 1996).

PROJECT NEXUS:

Potential habitat modification, disturbance/harassment, or alteration of prey abundance resulting from Project operations and/or maintenance activities.

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Information on raptors will be compiled in conjunction with the literature review for common and special-status (including Forest Service Sensitive) wildlife species. Known occurrences of raptors near Project facilities and bypass and flow-augmented reaches will be mapped and incorporated into a GIS database. 2. During vegetation community mapping, common and special-status wildlife habitat mapping, and the reconnaissance-level wildlife survey, occurrences of raptors, raptor nests, and appropriate raptor habitat will be identified, mapped, and incorporated into a GIS database. Historical sightings by qualified SCE, CDFG, and Sierra National Forest personnel and other incidental observations of any raptors during all other field surveys completed as part of the Big Creek hydroelectric relicensing Project will be recorded. Other sightings will be considered. 3. SCE’s Raptor Protection Program will be reviewed and revised/updated as necessary to provide protection to nesting raptors. 4. Transmission line design will be reviewed to determine if they comply with guidelines set forth in the Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1996 (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 1996).

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

1. During 2001, a literature review will be conducted and will include a review of (1) CDFG’s Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFG 2000a); (2) CDFG’s Wildlife Habitat Relationship System (CDFG 2000b); (3) USFS’s Threatened, Endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species Database for the Terrestrial Species of the Sierra National Forest (USFS 2001a); (4) Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1996 (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 1996); (5) the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USFS 2001b); (6) other relevant documents in the Project area (e.g., timber harvest plans and environmental documents); and (7) information from appropriate agency representatives. Occurrences will be mapped on a 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle map and incorporated into a GIS database. Special-status raptor occurrences, including locations of nests, will be confidential. 2. Vegetation communities will be mapped by aerial photography and ground- truthing. (See Vegetation Communities study plan (TERR – 1) detailed methodology 1 and 2 for further description of vegetation community mapping methodology) Wildlife habitat within these vegetation communities will be determined with A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988) and CDFG’s Wildlife Habitat Relationship System (CDFG 2000b). (See detailed methodology in Common and Special-status Wildlife Species study plan (TERR – 5) for reconnaissance-level wildlife survey methodology).

3. SCE’s Raptor Protection Program helps protect susceptible raptors from electrocution or injury, by installation of equipment to help prevent raptor mortality, and implementation of program procedures to avoid and report raptor mortality. To prevent raptor mortality, SCE routinely installs bird screens and guards on problem poles to discourage nesting and perching. Nest cages may be installed on poles subsequent to removal of a nest to prevent rebuilding. SCE reports facility-related raptor mortality to SCE biologists. Raptor nests are not removed or disturbed from February to June, and eagle nests are not removed at any time. If nests must be removed for the continued safe operation of the line, field personnel first try to trim the nest. If the nest must be removed, SCE biologists obtain the necessary permits. SCE will review the Raptor Protection Program and revise it, if necessary, to provide continued protection to raptors. 4. Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1996 discusses raptor electrocution on power lines and reviews power line designs that cause or reduce electrocutions (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 1996). This document also gives recommendations on power line design that may reduce raptor electrocutions. The design of SCE’s transmission lines will be evaluated to determine if they comply with the guidelines in this document.

STUDY AREA:

The study area will consist of portions of representative habitat for raptors near Project facilities and bypass and flow-augmented reaches, including Project- related recreational facilities. The survey area will consist of a 150-foot area around the following Project facilities: dams, reservoirs, moderate diversions, forebays, large and moderate diverted and augmented streams, powerhouses, transmission lines, and Project-related recreational facilities. A 50-foot area will be surveyed around small diversions and small augmented and diverted streams, a 30-foot area will be surveyed around roads, and the area visible from the trail but not less than 5 feet on either side will be surveyed around trails. In addition, SCE’s three transmission lines (Big Creek 1 – Eastwood Power Station Transmission Line, Big Creek 3 – Mammoth Pool Power House Transmission Line, and Portal Power House (PPH) Grid Interconnect) will be examined for effects on raptor mortality.

ANALYSIS:

Potential disturbance of raptors will be evaluated in relation to the proximity of locations of raptor nests to Project facilities and bypass and flow-augmented reaches, including Project-related recreational facilities. In addition, the potential for raptor electrocution based on transmission line design will be evaluated. If impacts are determined, appropriate protection, minimization, and enhancement measures will be developed.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

SCHEDULE:

2001: Literature review.

Spring/summer 2001/2002: Occurrences of raptors and raptor nests (in conjunction with reconnaissance-level wildlife survey).

REFERENCES:

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1996. Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1996. Edison Electric Institute and The Raptor Research Foundation. Washington, D.C.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2000a. Rarefind 2, California Natural Diversity Database. Electronic database. Sacramento, California.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2000b. Wildlife Habitat Relationship System. Electronic database. Sacramento, California.

Mayer, K.E., and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., editors. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

Southern California Edison. Unknown date. Raptor Protection Program.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2001a. Threatened, Endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species Database for the Terrestrial Species of the Sierra National Forest. Electronic database.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Bald Eagle and Osprey

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

1. Protect migrating and nesting raptors. 2. Protect bald eagle populations. 3. Protect osprey populations.

STAKEHOLDER RESOURCE OBJECTIVE(S):

1. Review, revise, and implement Southern California Edison’s (SCE) Raptor Protection Program (RPP). 2. Protect and maintain habitat for nesting bald eagles (i.e., nest sites, feeding areas, and prey base) at Edison Lake, Shaver Lake, and other areas of appropriate habitat (e.g., Mammoth Pool). 3. Protect and maintain habitat (e.g., important roost trees, feeding areas, and prey base) for wintering bald eagles at Shaver Lake, Redinger Lake, and other areas of appropriate habitat.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Determine the presence of nesting bald eagles and osprey and foraging and wintering habitat near Project reservoirs, forebays, and diverted and augmented streams.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Potential habitat modification, disturbance/harassment, take/harm, or decrease in prey abundance resulting from Project operations and/or maintenance activities.

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Information on bald eagles and osprey will be compiled in conjunction with the literature review for common and special-status (including Forest Service Sensitive) wildlife species. Known occurrences of bald eagles and osprey near. Project facilities and bypass and flow-augmented reaches will be mapped and incorporated into a confidential GIS database.

2. During the vegetation community mapping, common and special-status wildlife habitat mapping, and the reconnaissance-level wildlife survey, bald eagle and osprey nesting locations and foraging and wintering habitat will be identified, mapped, and incorporated into a GIS database. Historical SCE, CDFG, and Sierra National Forest observations by qualified personnel and other incidental observations of bald eagle and osprey during all other field surveys completed as part of the Big Creek hydroelectric relicensing Project will be recorded. Other sightings will be considered. 3. A nest survey will be performed to determine where bald eagles are nesting within ½ mile of Project reservoirs and the main stem and south fork of the San Joaquin River within the Project area. 4. Any nests that are detected in the Project area will be monitored. 5. A single, comprehensive bald eagle management plan will be developed for all Project reservoirs that do not currently have one in place. 6. SCE’s Raptor Protection Program will be reviewed and revised/updated as necessary to provide protection to nesting raptors. 7. Transmission line designs will be reviewed to determine if they comply with guidelines set forth in the Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1996 (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 1996).

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

1. A literature review will be conducted and will include a review of (1) CDFG’s Natural Diversity Database (CDGH 2000a); (2) CDFG’s Wildlife Habitat Relationship System (CDFG 2000b); (3) USFS’s Threatened, Endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species Database for the Terrestrial Species of the Sierra National Forest (USFS 2001a); (4) Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1996 (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 1996); (5) the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USFS 200b); (6) other relevant documents in the Project area (e.g., timber harvest plans and environmental documents); and (7) information from appropriate agency representatives (e.g., annual USFS wintering bald eagle survey reports and CDFG nesting bald eagle survey reports). Occurrences will be mapped on a 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle map and incorporated into a confidential GIS database. 2. Vegetation communities will be mapped by aerial photography and ground- truthing. See Vegetation Communities study plan (TERR – 1) detailed methodology 1 and 2 for further description of vegetation community mapping methodology. Wildlife habitat within these vegetation communities will be determined with A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988) and CDFG’s Wildlife Habitat Relationship System (CDFG 2000b). See detailed methodology in Common and Special-status Wildlife Species study plan (TERR – 5) for reconnaissance-level wildlife survey methodology.

3. A bald eagle nest survey will be conducted by qualified biologists to determine where bald eagles are nesting in the Project area. The survey will be conducted early in the nesting season (March to April) and will take place within ½ mile around the perimeter of all Project reservoirs that are not currently surveyed and/or monitored by CDFG, USFS, or SCE and ½ mile along the main stem and south fork of the San Joaquin River within the Project area (Ron Jackman, pers. comm.). The survey will consist of visual observation from a helicopter. Each reservoir will be visited once, but additional visits will be conducted if necessary. The locations of any nests detected will be recorded with a GPS unit, if possible, and then mapped and incorporated into a GIS database. 4. Any bald eagle nests detected in the project area will be monitored according to CDFG protocol (Jurek 1999). Monitoring of nests along the San Joaquin River will depend on access. This protocol requires that nests be checked at least three times during a single nesting season. During early March (early incubation stage), the nest should be checked to determine whether the territory is occupied. The following data will be recorded for this visit: presence of adults, courtship behavior, evidence of nest repair or construction, and evidence of incubation. This survey will coincide with the bald eagle nest survey described above. During late April or early May (early nestling period), a biologist will confirm that a territory is occupied and whether the pair is still tending the nest (e.g., incubating eggs or tending young). During mid-June (late nestling period), a biologist will determine how many nestlings are approaching fledgling age. In addition, data on surrounding habitat and number of snags will be recorded. Datasheets from CDFG will be used to record observations. Copies of completed datasheets will be sent to CDFG Region 4 and the Sacramento Office Natural Heritage Division for incorporation into the CDFG bald eagle database. 5. A single, comprehensive bald eagle management plan will be developed for all Project reservoirs that do not currently have one in place. The final plan will be reviewed and approved by USFWS. 6. Refer to Raptors study plan (TERR – 8) detailed methodology 3 for a description of the proposed review of the Raptor Protection Program. 7. Refer to Raptors study plan (TERR – 8) detailed methodology 4 for a description of Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1996 and the proposed review of SCE transmission lines included within the Big Creek Hydroelectric Project boundaries (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 1996).

STUDY AREA:

The general study area will consist of portions of representative habitat for bald eagle and osprey near Project facilities and bypass and flow-augmented reaches, including Project-related recreational facilities. The survey area will consist of a 150-foot area around the following Project facilities: dams, reservoirs, moderate diversions, forebays, large and moderate diverted and augmented streams,

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 6-37 Terrestrial Resources TERR–9 Bald Eagle and Osprey powerhouses, transmission lines, and Project-related recreational facilities. A 50- foot area will be surveyed around small diversions and small augmented and diverted streams, a 30-foot area will be surveyed around roads, and the area visible from the trail but not less than 5 feet on either side will be surveyed around trails. The focused survey area will consist of ½ mile around all project reservoirs that are not currently monitored by CDFG, USFS, or SCE and ½ mile around the main stem and south fork of the San Joaquin River. The three transmission lines within the Big Creek system Project boundaries (Big Creek 1 - Eastwood Power Station Transmission Line, Big Creek 3 - Mammoth Pool Transmission Line, and the Portal Power House (PPH) Grid Interconnect) will also be examined for effects on raptor mortality.

ANALYSIS:

The location of appropriate habitat and all nests detected will be compared with the location of potential sources of disturbance, including Project operation and maintenance activities and activities in Project-related recreational facilities. Project operation and maintenance activities will also be evaluated to determine their effects on the bald eagle and osprey prey base (see coordination needs below).

COORDINATION NEEDS:

· Habitat mapping from Vegetation Communities Study (TERR – 1). · Reconnaissance-level wildlife survey methodology and survey schedule from Common and Special-status Wildlife Species (TERR – 5). · Prey base information from several studies including: Characterize Stream and Reservoir Habitats (CAWG – 1), Geomorphology (CAWG – 2), Determine Flow-Related Physical Habitat in Bypass Reaches (CAWG – 3), Chemical Water Quality (CAWG – 4), Water Temperature (CAWG – 5), Characterize Fish Populations (CAWG – 7), Entrainment (CAWG – 9), Macroinvertebrates (CAWG – 10), Water Use (CAWG – 12), and Fish Passage (CAWG – 14).

SCHEDULE:

2001: Literature review.

Spring/summer 2001/2002: Occurrences of bald eagle and osprey and their nests (in conjunction with reconnaissance-level wildlife survey).

REFERENCES:

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2000a. Rarefind 2, California Natural Diversity Database. Electronic database. Sacramento, California.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2000b. Wildlife Habitat Relationship System. Electronic database. Sacramento, California.

Jurek, R. 1999. Bald eagle breeding survey instructions. Revised 11/99. California Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Conservation Planning Branch, Sacramento, California.

Mayer, K.E., and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., editors. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

Southern California Edison (SCE). Unknown date. Raptor Protection Program.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2001a. Threatened, Endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species Database for the Terrestrial Species of the Sierra National Forest. Electronic database.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Great Gray Owl

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Protect great gray owl populations.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

Maintain or enhance productivity of meadows and nesting habitat in areas of potential Project impacts.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Determine the location of appropriate habitat for great gray owl near Project facilities and bypass and flow-augmented reaches.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Potential habitat modification and/or alteration of prey or forage abundance resulting from Project operations and/or maintenance activities.

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Information on the great gray owl will be compiled in conjunction with the literature review for common and special-status (including Forest Service Sensitive) wildlife species. Known occurrences of the great gray owl near Project facilities and bypass and flow-augmented reaches will be mapped and incorporated into a GIS database. 2. During the vegetation community mapping and common and special-status wildlife habitat mapping, great gray owl nesting habitat and foraging habitat will be identified and mapped. Historical observations by Sierra National Forest, CDFG, and SCE qualified personnel and other incidental observations of any great gray owls during all other field surveys completed as part of the Big Creek hydroelectric relicensing Project will be recorded. 3. If appropriate habitat to support great gray owl is present near Project facilities, a focused survey for great gray owl would be conducted in accordance with the USFS Survey Protocol for the Great Gray Owl in the Sierra Nevada of California (Beck and Winter 2000).

4. SCE’s Raptor Protection Program will be reviewed and revised/updated as necessary to provide protection to nesting raptors. 5. Transmission line designs will be reviewed to determine if they comply with guidelines set forth in the Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1996 (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 1996).

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

1. A literature review will be conducted and will include a review of (1) CDFG’s Natural Diversity Database (CDFG 2000a); (2) CDFG’s Wildlife Habitat Relationship System (CDFG 2000b); (3) USFS Threatened, Endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species Database for the Terrestrial Species of the Sierra National Forest (USFS 2001a); (4) the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USFS 2001b); (5) other relevant documents in the Project area (e.g., timber harvest plans and environmental documents); and (6) information from appropriate agency representatives. Occurrences will be mapped on a 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle map and incorporated into a confidential GIS database. 2. Vegetation communities will be mapped by aerial photography and ground- truthing. See Vegetation Communities study plan (TERR – 1) detailed methodology 1 and 2 for further description of vegetation community mapping methodology. Potential great gray owl nesting and foraging habitat within these vegetation communities will be determined based on a review of A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988) and CDFG’s Wildlife Habitat Relationship System (CDFG 2000b). 3. If appropriate habitat (closed mature conifer adjacent to meadows of at least 25 acres in area, as defined in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USFS 2001b) and Beck and Winter (2000)) to support nesting great gray owls is found within 150 feet of Project facilities, including Project-related recreational facilities, focused surveys will be conducted in accordance with the USFS Survey Protocol for the Great Gray Owl in the Sierra Nevada of California (Beck and Winter 2000). · Great gray owl protocol-level surveys will be conducted during the spring and summer. The USFS protocol sets survey periods based on the elevation. Five calling visits are conducted from February 15 to June 15 for low elevations, from March 10 to July 10 for middle elevations, and from April 10 to August 5 for high elevations. A sixth visit, consisting of a meadow search, is conducted between August 1 and September 15 for all locations for maximum possible findings.

· Calling stations and survey routes will be established 0.10 to 0.15 miles apart to obtain complete coverage of the survey area. This distance may vary depending on topography and location of habitat. Night surveys will be conducted between 2 hours before sunset to 1 or 2 a.m., depending on the timing of the visit. During each visit, appropriate great

gray owl calls will be used. Surveys will consist of driving routes or walking routes in all appropriate habitat within the Project area. During driving surveys 6-8 minutes will be spent at each station. During walking surveys 5-6 minutes will be spent at each station. If a great gray owl is heard or observed, a compass bearing will be taken from at least two locations on the survey route to identify the location of the owl.

· If a great gray owl is detected during the night survey a follow-up day survey will be completed. Day surveys will be conducted during the first several hours of daylight or the last several hours prior to sunset. The goal of this survey is to visually confirm the presence and location of one or more great gray owls and to locate the nest tree if the owl is detected during the incubation/brooding period. · The final visit will consist of a meadow search to identify any evidence of great gray owl use of the site. This will include identification of any diagnostic sign (e.g., pellets, whitewash, feathers, etc.). 4. Upon completion of the field surveys, a review of SCE’s Raptor Protection Program will be completed to determine the adequacy of the plan and recommend revisions to the plan, if appropriate. See Raptors study plan (TERR – 8) detailed methodology 3 for a review of the Raptor Protection Program. 5. Refer to Raptors study plan (TERR – 8) detailed methodology 4 for a description of Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1996 and the proposed review of SCE transmission lines included within the Big Creek Hydroelectric Project boundaries (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 1996).

STUDY AREA:

The study area will consist of appropriate habitat for great gray owl near Project facilities and bypass and flow-augmented reaches, including Project-related recreational facilities. The survey area will consist of a 150-foot area around the following Project facilities: dams, reservoirs, moderate diversions, forebays, large and moderate diverted and augmented streams, powerhouses, transmission lines, and Project-related recreational facilities. A 50-foot area will be surveyed around small diversions and small augmented and diverted streams, a 30-foot area will be surveyed around roads, and the area visible from the trail but not less than 5 feet on either side will be surveyed around trails. The three transmission lines within the Big Creek system Project boundaries (Big Creek 1 - Eastwood Power Station Transmission Line, Big Creek 3 - Mammoth Pool Transmission Line, and the Portal Power House (PPH) Grid Interconnect) will also be examined for effects on raptor mortality.

ANALYSIS:

The location of appropriate habitat and all nests detected will be compared with the location of potential sources of disturbance including Project operation and maintenance activities and activities in Project-related recreational facilities.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

· Habitat mapping from Vegetation Communities study plan (TERR – 1). · Review of Raptor Protection Program with Raptors study plan (TERR – 8).

SCHEDULE:

2001: Literature review.

2002: Great gray owl survey.

REFERENCES:

Beck, T.W., and J. Winter. 2000. Survey Protocol for the Great Gray Owl in the Sierra Nevada of California. U.S. Forest Service.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2000a. Rarefind 2, California Natural Diversity Database. Electronic database. Sacramento, California.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2000b. Wildlife Habitat Relationship System. Electronic database. Sacramento, California.

Mayer, K.E., and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., editors. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

Southern California Edison (SCE). Unknown date. Raptor Protection Program.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2001a. Threatened, Endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species Database for the Terrestrial Species of the Sierra National Forest. Electronic database.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Riparian-nesting Songbirds

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

1. Protect riparian communities. 2. Protect yellow-breasted chat, yellow warbler, and willow flycatcher populations. 3. Protect other riparian-nesting songbird populations.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

1. Mimic the shape of the natural hydrograph and restore in-stream flows (e.g., timing and quantity) sufficient to sustain riparian vegetation in areas of potential Project impact. 2. Protect and enhance riparian habitat on Project lands and along Project waters (reservoirs, forebays, and diverted and augmented streams) that supports or could potentially support riparian-nesting songbirds, including but not limited to, yellow-breasted chat, yellow warbler, and willow flycatchers.

BACKGROUND:

Three special-status (including Forest Service Sensitive) riparian-nesting songbirds could potentially occur in the Project area. This includes yellow- breasted chat (Icteria virens), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), and willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii).

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Determine if riparian-nesting songbirds (e.g., yellow-breasted chat, yellow warbler, and willow flycatcher) or appropriate habitat to support them is present near Project facilities and bypass and flow-augmented reaches.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Potential habitat modification, disturbance/harassment, and take/harm of yellow- breasted chat, yellow warbler, and willow flycatcher.

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Information on riparian-nesting songbirds will be compiled in conjunction with the literature review for common and special-status wildlife species. Known occurrences of riparian-nesting songbirds near Project facilities and bypass

and flow-augmented reaches will be mapped and incorporated into a GIS database. 2. During vegetation community mapping, common and special-status wildlife habitat mapping, and the reconnaissance-level wildlife survey, habitat for riparian-nesting songbirds will be identified, mapped, and incorporated into a GIS database. Incidental observations of any riparian-nesting songbirds will be recorded during all other field surveys completed as part of the Big Creek hydroelectric relicensing Project. Incidental sightings of brown-headed cowbirds, potential nest parasites of riparian-nesting songbirds, will also be documented. 3. Riparian communities will be evaluated to determine if they represent habitat for special-status riparian-nesting songbirds. Riparian areas in Project- affected reaches that could support these species will be evaluated in a habitat-based approach (Refer to Riparian study plan (CAWG-11)).

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

STUDY AREA:

Study area will consist of portions of representative habitat for riparian-nesting songbirds near the following Project facilities: reservoirs, forebays, and diverted and augmented streams. The survey area will consist of a 150-foot area around the following Project facilities: dams, reservoirs, moderate diversions, forebays,

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 6-46 Terrestrial Resources TERR–11 Riparian-nesting Songbirds large and moderate diverted and augmented streams, powerhouses, transmission lines, and Project-related recreational facilities. A 50-foot area will be surveyed around small diversions and small augmented and diverted streams, a 30-foot area will be surveyed around roads, and the area visible from the trail but not less than 5 feet on either side will be surveyed around trails.

ANALYSIS:

The location of appropriate nesting habitat and all nests detected will be compared with the location of potential sources of disturbance, including Project operation and maintenance activities and activities in Project-related recreational facilities. Project effects on riparian habitat that could potentially support these species will also be evaluated (see Riparian study plan (CAWG – 11)).

COORDINATION NEEDS:

· Habitat mapping from Vegetation Communities study plan (TERR – 1). · Reconnaissance-level wildlife survey methodology from Common and Special- status Wildlife Species (TERR – 5). · Locations of riparian communities from Riparian study plan (CAWG – 11).

SCHEDULE:

2001: Literature review.

Spring/summer 2001/2002: Occurrences of riparian-nesting songbirds (in conjunction with reconnaissance-level wildlife survey).

REFERENCES:

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2000a. Rarefind 2, California Natural Diversity Database. Electronic database. Sacramento, California.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2000b. Wildlife Habitat Relationship System. Electronic database. Sacramento, California.

Mayer, K.E., and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., editors. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2001a. Threatened, Endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species Database for the Terrestrial Species of the Sierra National Forest. Electronic database.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Special-status (including Forest Service Sensitive) bat species

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Protect special-status bat populations.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

Maintain and protect roosting habitat for special-status bats in areas of potential Project impacts.

BACKGROUND:

Six special-status bats could potentially occur within the Project vicinity. This includes the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), spotted bat (Euderma maculatum), western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), Townsend’s western big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii townsendii), pale big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii pallescens), and California mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus).

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Determine the location of any active bat roosts or maternal roosts on or near Project facilities and Project-related recreational facilities. If roosts are found, determine what species are present.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Potential habitat modification, disturbance/harassment, or injury/mortality resulting from Project operations and/or maintenance activities.

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Information on special-status bat species will be compiled in conjunction with the literature review for common and special-status wildlife species. Known occurrences of special-status bat species near Project facilities, bypass and flow-augmented reaches, and Project-related recreational facilities will be mapped and incorporated into a confidential GIS database. 2. During vegetation community mapping, common and special-status wildlife habitat mapping, and the reconnaissance-level wildlife survey, habitat for special-status bats will be identified, mapped, and incorporated into a GIS database. Incidental observations of any special-status bats will be recorded during all other field surveys completed as part of the Big Creek hydroelectric relicensing Project.

3. A focused survey for bat roosts will be conducted by a qualified bat biologist approved by CDFG at or near Project facilities and Project-related recreational areas. This will include tunnels, adits, powerhouses, buildings, surge chambers, bridges, rock outcrops, and cliff faces. 4. If an active bat roost or maternal roost is identified, a survey to determine bat species present will be conducted.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

1. A literature review will be conducted and will include a review of (1) CDFG’s Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFG 2000a); (2) CDFG’s Wildlife Habitat Relationship System (CDFG 2000b); (3) USFS Threatened, Endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species Database for the Terrestrial Species of the Sierra National Forest (USFS 2001a); (4) the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USFS 2001b); (5) other relevant documents in the Project area (e.g., timber harvest plans and environmental documents); and (6) information from appropriate agency representatives. Occurrences will be mapped on a 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle map and incorporated into a confidential GIS database. 2. Vegetation communities will be mapped by aerial photography and ground- truthing. See Vegetation Communities study plan (TERR – 1) detailed methodology 1 and 2 for further description of vegetation community mapping methodology. Wildlife habitat within these vegetation communities will be determined with A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988) and CDFG’s Wildlife Habitat Relationship System (CDFG 2000b). See detailed methodology in Common and Special-status Wildlife Species study plan (TERR – 5) for reconnaissance-level wildlife survey methodology. 3. Roost and species surveys will be conducted during the summer in Project tunnels, adits, buildings, surge chambers, and bridges and in cliff faces within Project facilities and Project-related recreational facilities. Structure surveys involve searching for day or night roosting bats or bat sign (e.g., guano, staining, and culled insect parts) during mid-summer (i.e., maternity colony season). Structures that cannot be thoroughly investigated are monitored at emergence time with bat detectors to watch for emerging bats (Heady, personal communication). 4. Species using the structures will be identified and the type of use determined (e.g., maternity roost or night roost). Multiple survey techniques (acoustic sampling, mist-netting, and roost surveys) will be used to determine species’ presence and relative abundance to counteract inherent biases in individual techniques. Acoustic sampling will be performed with the Anabat system (Titley Electronics), which uses an Anabat II bat detector to detect bat echolocation calls in the field and uses an analyzer unit to convert detected signals into frequency/time graphs on a computer. These graphs can be used to identify species by their vocal signature. In addition, mist-netting will

be employed to identify species. Nets will be placed over water, trails, and other known flyways (Heady, personal communication).

STUDY AREA:

Focused bat surveys will be conducted at Project facilities and Project-related recreational facilities including tunnels, adits, surge chambers, powerhouses, buildings, and bridges.

ANALYSIS:

The potential for disturbance from Project operation and maintenance activities and Project-related recreational activities on special-status bats will be evaluated based on locations of special-status bat colonies mapped during the study.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

· Habitat mapping from Vegetation Communities study plan (TERR – 1).

SCHEDULE:

2001: Literature review.

Summer 2002: Special-status bat species survey.

REFERENCES:

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2000a. Rarefind 2, California Natural Diversity Database. Electronic database. Sacramento, California.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2000b. Wildlife Habitat Relationship System. Electronic database. Sacramento, California.

Heady, P. Personal communication, January 23, 2001.

Mayer, K.E., and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., editors. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2001a. Threatened, Endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species Database for the Terrestrial Species of the Sierra National Forest. Electronic database.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Mesocarnivores

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Protect special-status (including Forest Service Sensitive) furbearers (i.e., Pacific fisher, pine marten, Sierra Nevada red fox, and California wolverine).

STAKEHOLDER RESOURCE OBJECTIVE(S):

1. Protect and maintain habitat for special-status mesocarnivores in areas of potential Project impact. 2. Avoid disturbance to special-status furbearers during Project operations and maintenance activities.

BACKGROUND:

Four Forest Service Sensitive mesocarnivores have the potential to occur within the Project vicinity: Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti pacifica), Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator), pine marten (Martes americana), and California wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus).

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Determine if appropriate habitat is present near Project facilities and bypass and flow-augmented reaches.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Potential habitat modification and/or decrease in prey abundance resulting from Project operations and/or maintenance activities.

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Information on mesocarnivores will be compiled in conjunction with the literature review for common and special-status wildlife species. Known occurrences of mesocarnivores near Project facilities and bypass and flow- augmented reaches will be mapped and incorporated into a GIS database. 2. During vegetation community mapping, common and special-status wildlife habitat mapping, and the reconnaissance-level wildlife survey, appropriate denning and foraging habitat for mesocarnivores will be identified, mapped, and incorporated into a confidential GIS database. Historic sightings by

qualified SCE, Sierra National Forest, and CDFG employees and other incidental observations of any mesocarnivores identified during all other field surveys completed as part of the Big Creek hydroelectric relicensing Project will be recorded. Other sightings will be considered. 3. Incidental sightings of mesocarnivore sign (i.e., tracks and scat) will be recorded and photographed during the habitat mapping and reconnaissance- level wildlife survey.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

1. A literature review will be conducted and will include a review of (1) CDFG’s Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFG 2000a); (2) CDFG’s Wildlife Habitat Relationship System (CDFG 2000b); (3) USFS’s Threatened, Endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species Database for the Terrestrial Species of the Sierra National Forest (USFS 2001a); (4) the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USFS 2001b); (5) other relevant documents in the Project area (e.g., timber harvest plans and environmental documents); and (6) information from appropriate agency representatives. Occurrences will be mapped on a 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle map and incorporated into a confidential GIS database. 2. Vegetation communities will be mapped by aerial photography and ground- truthing. See Vegetation Communities study plan (TERR – 1) detailed methodology 1 and 2 for further description of vegetation community mapping methodology. Wildlife habitat within these vegetation communities will be determined with A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988) and CDFG’s Wildlife Habitat Relationship System (CDFG 2000b). See detailed methodology in Common and Special-status Wildlife Species study plan (TERR – 5) for reconnaissance-level wildlife survey methodology. 3. During habitat mapping and the reconnaissance-level wildlife survey, signs of mesocarnivores will be recorded and photographed. Special attention will be given to transmission line corridors to determine if current management activities could result in adverse effects to mesocarnivores. Tracks and scat will be identified, measured, and photographed in the field. A specialist will identify tracks and scat to species and provide a level of confidence rating of that determination. Scat that may be from mesocarnivores will be collected in plastic bags and sent, along with any photographs of potential mesocarnivore tracks, to qualified CDFG and USFS Pacific Southwest Research Station (PSW) biologists to verify species determinations.

STUDY AREA:

The study area will consist of portions of representative habitat for mesocarnivores near Project facilities and bypass and flow-augmented reaches, including Project- related recreational facilities and transmission lines. This area will consist of a 150- foot area around the following Project facilities: dams, reservoirs, moderate

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 6-54 Terrestrial Resources TERR–13 Mesocarnivores diversions, forebays, large and moderate diverted and augmented streams, powerhouses, transmission lines, and Project-related recreational facilities. A 50- foot area will be surveyed around small diversions and small augmented and diverted streams, a 30-foot area will be surveyed around roads, and the area visible from the trail but not less than 5 feet on either side will be surveyed around trails.

ANALYSIS:

The location of appropriate habitat will be compared with the location of potential sources of disturbance, including Project operation and maintenance activities and activities in Project-related recreational facilities.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

· Habitat mapping from Vegetation Communities study plan (TERR – 1). · Reconnaissance-level wildlife survey methodology from Common and Special- status Wildlife Species (TERR – 5).

SCHEDULE:

2001: Literature review.

Spring/summer 2001/2002: Occurrences of mesocarnivores (in conjunction with reconnaissance-level wildlife survey).

REFERENCES:

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2000a. Rarefind 2, California Natural Diversity Database. Electronic database. Sacramento, California.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2000b. Wildlife Habitat Relationship System. Electronic database. Sacramento, California.

Mayer, K.E., and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., editors. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2001a. Threatened, Endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species Database for the Terrestrial Species of the Sierra National Forest. Electronic database.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Mule deer

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S):

Protect deer holding areas, summer and winter ranges, and migration corridors.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

1. Minimize disturbance in deer holding areas (population centers). 2. Protect and enhance deer summer and winter habitat in areas of potential Project impact. 3. Protect deer migrating by Project facilities and through Project waters (reservoirs, forebays, and diverted and augmented streams), especially at Mammoth Pool Reservoir. 4. Provide a mosaic of successional stages in areas of potential Project impacts. 5. Maintain or increase the quality of deer habitat in the area of potential Project impact.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Determine the location of deer holding areas, summer and winter habitat areas, and migration routes. Identify and characterize areas of deer mortality at Project facilities (i.e., Mammoth Pool) during migration.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Potential habitat modification, or forage abundance, and/or injury/mortality resulting from Project operations and/or maintenance activities.

GENERAL APPROACH:

1. Information on mule deer holding areas, key winter and summer ranges, and migration corridors will be compiled based on a review of existing literature and databases and through agency consultation. These important mule deer areas will be mapped and incorporated into a GIS database. 2. Information on mule deer migration (timing, numbers, barriers, and mortality) along key migration routes near Project facilities, bypass and flow-augmented reaches, and Project-related recreational facilities will be collected from existing literature and through agency consultation.

3. At Mammoth Pool Reservoir (an area with historic deer losses), deer migration will be monitored in the field to document deer survival when migrating across the reservoir. Incidental observations of any deer will be recorded during all other field surveys completed as part of the Big Creek hydroelectric relicensing Project. 4. SCE’s and CDFG’s existing mitigation measures for deer at Mammoth Pool Reservoir will be assessed to determine current status and adequacy.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY:

1. A literature review will be conducted to collect information on mule deer holding areas, key winter and summer ranges, and major migration corridors, including CDFG deer herd management plans and progress reports (i.e., San Joaquin Deer Herd Management Plan (CDFG 1983), Huntington Deer Herd Habitat Rehabilitation Plan (CDFG 1978), North Kings Deer Herd Study (CDFG 1984)), the Sierra National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS 1991), the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USFS 2001), other published literature, agency reports, and agency files. Additional information will be collected through consultation with resource specialists who have current and historical knowledge of deer herds in the Project area. A key element of the data collection will be to identify areas where Project operations or maintenance activities may impact deer habitat or result in deer mortality. Important mule deer areas will be mapped and incorporated into a GIS database. Using GIS, the overlap of important deer herd areas and areas affected by Project operations and maintenance will be identified. 2. Based on an initial review of existing information and agency consultation, five areas of concern regarding deer mortality associated with ongoing Project operations have been identified, including: (1) potential loss of deer migrating across Mammoth Pool Reservoir (a historical migration route), especially near the dam; (2) higher deer mortality from hunters positioned at Project roads and transmission line crossings; (3) potential loss of deer migrating across river reaches where controlled high flow releases are scheduled for other resource areas (i.e., recreation, channel/sediment maintenance); (4) how SCE operations and maintenance activities and access controls may affect important fawning areas; and (5) how SCE habitat management and improvements from existing license conditions are affecting deer herds (e.g., availability of forage, cover, and fawning). The focus of the deer survey will address these five issues. 3. Deer migration at Mammoth Pool Reservoir will be studied during the summer migration period. The study will focus on documenting key migration routes across the reservoir and relative use, identifying potential migration barriers in the reservoir or along the shoreline, and documenting any deer mortality in the reservoir. · During focused deer migration studies at Mammoth Pool, observations of migrating deer will be conducted in two, 1.5-hour blocks, at dawn and dusk from early April to mid-June. The initial surveys beginning in early

April will be conducted three days a week. Surveys will continue at a frequency of three days per week until the peak migration begins. Once the peak migration begins, survey frequency will increase to four days per week for no more than two weeks. After peak migration, surveys will taper from four to three to two to one days per week until mid-June. If peak migration has not occurred prior to mid-June and system spills are anticipated, surveys will continue through the peak migration. To the extent possible, if dam spill events occur outside of the peak migration period, survey frequency will increase to two days a week to coincide with a dam spill event. · During each survey, one observer will be stationed near the dam and a second observer stationed at a key migratory trail approaching the reservoir. Each observer will be equipped with a spotting scope and binoculars to remotely monitor deer migration from a distance to reduce disturbance. The exact location of the strategic observation points will be determined based on consultation with CDFG and the Sierra National Forest. At each location, the observers will record the time and number of deer crossing, the age-class and sex of migrating deer (if possible), the paths they take to cross (e.g., use of the road that crosses the crest of the dam or swimming across the reservoir), any observed difficulty in crossing or in entering and exiting the reservoir at ingress and egress points, and any drowning. Observations of deer crossing the reservoir and any mortality in the reservoir after mid-June will be collected by interviewing fishermen/boaters as part of the Angling Opportunity and Experience Assessment Study (see Rec-8).

· In addition, a total of four boat surveys will be conducted (between mid- April and mid-June, if feasible), along the entire shoreline of Mammoth Pool to identify key deer migration trails and relative use (based on tracks). The location of any migration barriers along the shoreline or in the reservoir will be noted. During these surveys, the location and number of any deer carcasses will also be recorded. All key deer migration trails, migration barriers, and deer carcasses observed during the survey will be mapped on a 7.5-minute quadrangle USGS map and incorporated into a GIS layer. · At Mammoth Pool Dam during the peak deer migration period, a Trailmaster infrared beam camera or a video camera, whichever is most feasible, will obtain photographs or videotape of deer using the road on the crest of the dam. Information on the timing, number, age-class structure, and sex (if possible) of deer migrating across the dam road will be documented. 4. SCE implemented agency-recommended mitigation measures to mitigate for the loss of deer at Mammoth Pool Reservoir when the reservoir was created. These measures include fencing, buoys, bridges, and sand placement on the dam to aid in deer crossing. During the focused deer migration studies

described above, deer use, response, and behavior at these facilities will be documented. This information will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of these mitigation measures. The facilities will also be examined to determine if they are being maintained in accordance with CDFG agreements. 5. SCE implemented agency-recommended mitigation measures on SCE- owned lands around Shaver Lake to mitigate for the construction of the Balsam Meadows (Eastwood Power Station) Project. These measures include, but are not limited to, road access controls, tunnel muck access restrictions during fawning season, cattle grazing exclusions, and habitat improvements directed by the Habitat Area Planning (HAP) Team. A site survey will be conducted to verify that these measures are being implemented in accordance with CDFG agreement. A summary of mitigation/management activities will be developed and the potential benefits of implementation of these measures will be described.

STUDY AREA:

The general deer study area, including identified holding areas, summer and winter ranges, and key migration corridors from existing literature and agency consultation, will consist of the upper San Joaquin River Basin. The focused deer migration study will be conducted at Mammoth Pool Reservoir. The three Project transmission line corridors (Eastwood Power Station-Big Creek No. 1, Mammoth Pool Powerhouse- Big Creek No. 3, and Portal Power House (PPH)) will also be analyzed to determine the potential for increased deer harvest.

ANALYSIS:

One portion of the analysis will rely heavily on GIS to identify the potential for Project impacts (i.e. habitat modification, disturbance, or migration barriers) by comparing the location of deer holding areas, key summer and winter ranges, and migration corridors with the location of Project facilities and bypass and flow- augmented reaches, or Project-related recreation facilities. In areas of potential impact, the timing and extent of Project activities will be compared to seasonal use by the deer. Deer migration and mortality at Mammoth Pool Reservoir and the effectiveness of SCE implemented mitigation measures will be determined from survey results. The location of fires will also be included in the GIS.

To address the potential for increased deer harvest associated with Project facilities and bypass and flow-augmented reaches, a GIS map will be produced depicting key deer migration corridors, Project transmission line corridors, and roads. Areas of potential concern, if any, will be identified based on an overlap of these layers. At each area of concern, a site visit will be conducted in the fall to assess vulnerability of migrating deer, including documentation of vegetation screening along the roadway and the presence of adjacent parking areas.

If controlled high flow releases are being considered in any of the Project reaches, the timing and magnitude of the releases will be assessed in relationship to the

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 6-60 Terrestrial Resources TERR–14 Mule Deer increased risk to migrating deer. GIS will be used to identify if any of the proposed high flow releases are in river reaches that intersect key deer migration routes. Where river crossings along key migration routes are affected, the timing of the deer migration period will be compared to the timing of the controlled high flow releases to identify potential conflicts. In these cases, an analysis of the increased risk of deer drowning will be conducted based on the magnitude of the flow release in relationship to channel characteristics at the river crossing.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

· Location and magnitude of any anticipated controlled high flow releases associated with providing whitewater recreation (Whitewater Recreation Assessment Study (REC – 3)) or channel maintenance/sediment transport flows (Geomorphology study plan (CAWG – 2)). · Deer injury and mortality from Hunting study plan (REC – 12). · Incidental sightings of deer mortality from the Angling Opportunities and Experience Assessment study plan (REC – 8).

SCHEDULE:

2001: Literature review and agency consultation to identify deer holding, key summer and winter range, and key migration routes.

Spring/Summer 2002: Deer migration/mortality study at Mammoth Pool.

REFERENCES:

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1978. Huntington Deer Herd Habitat Rehabilitation Plan.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1983. San Joaquin Deer Herd Management Plan.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1984. North Kings Deer Herd Study.

Mayer, K.E., and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., editors. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

U.S. Forest Service. 1991. Forest Land and Resource Management Plan: Sierra National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

RESOURCE INTEREST:

Other Game1

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT GOAL(S): 1. Protect game bird populations. 2. Protect small game species. 3. Protect other big game species populations (e.g., black bear and mountain lion).

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE(S):

1. Manage and protect habitat for game birds in areas of potential Project impacts. 2. Manage and protect habitat for small game species in areas of potential Project impacts. 3. Provide a mosaic of successional stages. 4. Manage and protect habitat for other big game species in areas of potential Project impacts.

BACKGROUND:

Several game bird species exist within the Project vicinity: California valley quail (Callipepla californica), mountain quail (Oreotyx pictus), band-tailed pigeon (Columba fasciata), wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), blue grouse (Dendragapus obscurus), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). Additionally, several species of small and large game exist: western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus), jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), black bear (Ursus americanus), coyote (Canis latrans), and bobcat (Felis rufus).

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S):

Determine the location of habitat to support game birds, small game, and big game species.

PROJECT NEXUS:

Potential habitat modification and/or alteration of prey or forage abundance resulting from Project operations and/or maintenance activities.

1 Some Native American tribes, organizations, and individuals consider some animal species (such as bear and mountain lion) to have cultural values beyond that as a game or harvest species.

GENERAL APPROACH: 1. Information on game birds, small game, and big game species will be compiled in conjunction with the literature review for common and special- status wildlife species. Known occurrences of game animals near Project facilities and bypass and flow-augmented reaches will be mapped and incorporated into a GIS database. 2. During vegetation community mapping, common and special-status wildlife habitat mapping, and the reconnaissance-level wildlife survey, habitat for game birds, small game, and big game species will be identified. Incidental observations of any other game species will be recorded during all other field surveys completed as part of the Big Creek hydroelectric relicensing Project.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY: 1. A literature review will be conducted and will include a review of (1) CDFG Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFG 2000a); (2) CDFG’s Wildlife Habitat Relationship System (CDFG 2000b); (3) USFS’s Threatened, Endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species Database for the Terrestrial Species of the Sierra National Forest (USFS 2001); (4) other relevant documents in the Project area (e.g., hunting licenses, harvest and survey records from CDFG, USFS historical fire data, and environmental documents); and (5) information from appropriate agency representatives. 2. Vegetation communities will be mapped by aerial photography and ground- truthing. See Vegetation Communities study plan (TERR – 1) detailed methodology 1 and 2 for further description of vegetation community mapping methodology. Wildlife habitat within these vegetation communities will be determined with A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988) and CDFG’s Wildlife Habitat Relationship System (CDFG 2000b). See detailed methodology in Common and Special-status Wildlife Species study plan (TERR – 5) for reconnaissance-level wildlife survey methodology.

STUDY AREA:

The study area will consist of portions of representative habitat for other game species near Project facilities and bypass and flow-augmented reaches, including Project-related recreational facilities. The survey area will consist of a 150-foot area around the following Project facilities: dams, reservoirs, moderate diversions, forebays, large and moderate diverted and augmented streams, powerhouses, transmission lines, and Project-related recreational facilities. A 50-foot area will be surveyed around small diversions and small augmented and diverted streams, a 30-foot area will be surveyed around roads, and the area visible from the trail but not less than 5 feet on either side will be surveyed around trails.

ANALYSIS:

The location of appropriate habitat for other game species detected will be compared with the location of potential sources of disturbance including Project operation and maintenance activities and Project-related recreational activities.

COORDINATION NEEDS:

· Habitat mapping from Vegetation Communities study plan (TERR – 1). · Reconnaissance-level wildlife survey methodology from Common and Special- Status Wildlife Species (TERR – 5). · Injury and mortality information from Hunting study plan (REC – 12).

SCHEDULE:

2001: Literature review.

Spring/summer 2001/2002: Occurrences of other game species (in conjunction with reconnaissance-level wildlife survey).

REFERENCES:

California Department of Fish and Game. 2000a. Rarefind 2, California Natural Diversity Database. Electronic database. Sacramento, California.

_____. 2000b. Wildlife Habitat Relationship System. Electronic database. Sacramento, California.

Mayer, K.E., and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., editors. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

U.S. Forest Service. 2001. Threatened, Endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species Database for the Terrestrial Species of the Sierra National Forest. Electronic database.

Copyright 2001 by Southern California Edison Company 6-65 (This page left intentionally blank) GLOSSARY alluvial As used in CAWG-2, alluvial refers to channels whose bed and banks are formed by sediment transported by the stream and distinguishes between alluvial channels that have the ability to adjust their bed, banks, and overall pattern, from relatively non-adjustable (non-alluvial) channels.

Basin Plan This term is used to describe the Fourth Edition of the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins. beneficial uses These uses of the waters of the state that may be protected against quality degradation include, but are not limited to, domestic, municipal, agricultural and industrial supply; power generation; recreation; aesthetic enjoyment; navigation; and preservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and other aquatic resources or preserves.

CA Toxic Rule This term as used in CAWG-4 refers to the 2000 Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State of California published by the Environmental Protection Agency.

National Toxic Rule This term as used in CAWG-4 refers to the 1992 Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants published by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Rosgen Level I (1999) Rosgen defines Level I as describing the geomorphic characteristics that result from the integration of basin relief, landform, and valley morphology. The dimension, pattern, and profile of rivers are used to delineate geomorphic types at a coarse-scale. Level I criteria can be determined from topographic and landform maps, and from aerial photography. (used in CAWG-2)

Rosgen Level II (1999) Rosgen defines Level II as providing a more detailed morphological description of stream types extrapolated from field determined reference reach information. The channel entrenchment, dimensions, pattern, profile, and boundary materials are quantified at this level and are described by discreet categories of stream types. (used in CAWG-2) small stream diversions Small stream diversions are generally diversions without appreciable storage; these diversions generally operate during the run-off period each year. large and mid-sized diversions Large and mid-sized diversions are generally those that contain appreciable storage and may be diverted through most of the year.

i water contact recreation Uses of water for recreational activities involving body contact with water, where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses include but are not limited to, swimming, wading, water-skiing, skin and scuba-diving, surfing, white water activities, fishing, or use of natural hot springs.

ii Distribution List for Final Technical Study Plan Package Big Creek Alternative Licensing Process

Ms. Carla Anthony Mr. Brent Auernheimer SCE Camp Keola P.O. Box 100 1166 N. Klein Avenue 54205 Mountain Poplar Rd. Reedley CA 93654 Big Creek CA 93605 Mr. Bob Baiocchi Ms. Maureen Barile, Secretary P.O. Box 1790 SAMS Coalition Graeagle CA 96103 P.O. Box 184 Lakeshore CA 93634 Mr. Stephen Barile Ms. Leora Lou Beihn County of Fresno The Mono Nation 2220 Tulare Street, Sixth Floor 32024 Poy-ah-now Road Fresno CA 93721 North Fork CA 93643 Dr Ed Bianchi Jr. Mr. Chuck Bonham ENTRIX, Inc. California Hydro Coordinator 2601 Fair Oaks Blvd., Suite 200 Trout Unlimited Sacramento CA 95864 828 San Pablo Avenue, #208 Albany CA 94706 Ms. Maria Boroja Ms. Brandi Bradford US Fish and Wildlife Service National Park Service 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605 600 Harrison Street, Suite 600 Sacramento CA 95825 San Francisco CA 94104 Mr. Tim Broader Mr. Dan Buckley 5538 W. Los Altos Tributary Whitewater Tours Fresno CA 93722 20480 Woodbury Drive Grass Valley CA 95949 Lt. Greg Burton Mr. Van Button Fresno County Sheriff FERC 2200 Fresno Street 888 1st 600 Street, NE Fresno CA 93721 Washington DC 20426 Mr. Jim Canaday Ms. Jen Carville Environmental Specialist Policy Advocate SWRCB Friends of the River P.O. Box 2000 915 20th Street 1001 I Street Sacramento CA 95814 Sacramento CA 95812-2000 Mr. Mike Clifton Ms. Joanna Clines San Joaquin Paddlers Association US Forest Service 5334 E. White Street 1600 Tollhouse Road Fresno CA 93727 Clovis CA 93611 Mr. Laughing Coyote Mr. Jim Crenshaw, President Mono Nation CA Sportfishing Protection Alliance 34329 Shaver Springs Road 1248 East Oak Drive Auberry CA 93602 Woodland CA 95695

A-1 Distribution List for Final Technical Study Plan Package Big Creek Alternative Licensing Process

Mr. Jerry DeGraff Ms. Mary Deming US Forest Service Environmental Specialist 1600 Tollhouse Road SCE Clovis CA 93611 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead CA 91770 Ms. Holly Eddinger Mr. Steve Edmondson US Forest Service National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 559 777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325 29688 Auberry Road Santa Rosa CA 95404 Prather CA 93651 Mr. Fred Eissler Mr. Tom Eliason Scenic Shoreline Sierra Club 4623 More Mesa Drive 1527 W. San Ramon Santa Barbara CA 93110-2028 Fresno CA 93711 Environmental Department Environmental Department North Fork Rancheria Bishop Paiute Tribe P.O. Box 929 50 Tu Su Lane North Fork CA 93643 Bishop CA 93514 Environmental Department Environmental Department Big Sandy Indian Rancheria Cold Springs Rancheria Tribal Office P.O. Box 337 P.O. Box 209 33041 Auberry Road, Suite 101 32851 Sycamore Road Auberry CA 93602 Tollhouse CA 93667 Environmental Department Environmental Department Dunlap Band of Mono Indians Table Mountain Rancheria P.O. Box 45 P.O. Box 410 Dunlap CA 93621 Friant CA 93626 Environmental Department Mr. John Exline Picayune Rancheria Acting Asst. Lands Officer 46575 Road 417 US Forest Service Coarsegold CA 93614 1600 Tollhouse Road Clovis CA 93611 Mr. Jim Fargo Ms. Barbara Ferguson FERC Fresno County Home Rule Advisory 888 First Street, NE Committee Washington DC 20426 32352 Auberry Road Auberry CA 93602 Ms. Elaine Fink Mr. Earle Franks Sierra Mono Museum Hydrologist P.O. Box 275 US Forest Service North Fork CA 93643 1600 Tollhouse Road Clovis CA 93611 Mr. William Fulmer Mr. John Gangemi 3002 South University Conservation Director Visalia CA 93277 American Whitewater Affiliation 482 Electric Avenue Bigfork MT 59911

A-2 Distribution List for Final Technical Study Plan Package Big Creek Alternative Licensing Process

Ms. Deborah Giglio Mr. Ron Goode, Chairperson Fish & Wildlife Biologist North Fork Mono Tribe US Fish and Wildlife Service 133 Sierra Avenue 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605 Clovis CA 93612 Sacramento CA 95825 Mr. Paul Hayes Mr. Ryan Henning US Geological Survey Greystone Environmental Consultants 8550 23rd Street 650 University Avenue, Suite 100 Sacramento CA 95826 Sacramento CA 95825 Mr. Mike Henry Mr. James Hines FERC P.O. Box 6058 101 Southwest Main Street, Suite 905 Ventura CA 93006 Portland OR 97204 Mr. James Honey Mr. Rick Hopson CHRC Hydrologist 2140 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 500 US Forest Service Berkeley CA 94704 P.O. Box 559 Prather CA 93651 Mr. Charles (Toby) Horst Ms. Katie Horst Esq., Director SAMS Coalition Resource Conservation District 36281 Lodge Road 36281 Lodge Road Tollhouse CA 93667 Tollhouse CA 93667 Mr. Fred Ilchert Dr Thomas L. Jackson 2613 Greenwood Drive Principal Madera CA 93637 Pacific Legacy, Inc. 1525 Seabright Avenue Santa Cruz CA 95060 Mr. Russ Kanz Mr. Laurence Kimura Environmental Specialist Friant Water Users Authority SWRCB 854 N. Harvard Avenue P.O. Box 2000 Lindsay CA 93247 1001 I Street Sacramento CA 95812-2000 Aerie Preserve Mr. Wayne Lifton 3275 W. Ashlan, #3343 ENTRIX, Inc. Fresno CA 93722 590 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 200 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Mr. Larry Lockwood Mr. Tom Lowe SAMS Coalition US Forest Service 37999 Peterson Road 1600 Tollhouse Road Auberry CA 93602 Clovis CA 93611 Mr. Timothy R. Maddock Mr. Dick Mangan Retired Edison 11400 Kona Ranch 1743 Tollhouse Lane Missoula MT 59804 Clovis CA 93611

A-3 Distribution List for Final Technical Study Plan Package Big Creek Alternative Licensing Process

Mr. David Martinez Mr. Paul Martzen, Conservation Chair MTZ Associates San Joaquin Paddlers Association 6235 Galena Drive 942 N. Harrison El Dorado CA 95623 Fresno CA 93728 770 Mr. Nino Mascolo, Senior Attorney Mr. Jeff McPheeters, Manager SCE No. Hydro Region & Big Creek 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Room 354 SCE Rosemead CA 91770 P.O. Box 100 Big Creek CA 93605 Ms. Julie Means Mr. Jerry Mensch, Director Environmental Specialist Relicensing CA Sportfishing Protection Alliance CDFG 2553 Stonehaven Lane 1234 East Shaw Avenue Sacramento CA 95827 Fresno CA 93710 Mr. Joe Meyer Ms. Karen Miller, Forest Heritage P.O. Box 418 Program Manager El Portal CA 95318 US Forest Service 1600 Tollhouse Road Clovis CA 93611-0532 Mr. Dale Mitchell Mr. Kevin Moody CDFG US Bureau of Reclamation 1300 East Shaw Avenue, #155 1243 N Street Fresno CA 93710 Fresno CA 93721 Dr. Michael J. Moratto, Ph.D. Mr. Richard Moss CSU Fresno Friant Water Users Authority 5245 N. Backer M/S16 854 North Harvard Avenue Fresno CA 93740-8001 Lindsay CA 93247 Mr. Larry Naney, Conservation Officer Ms. Sue Norman Fresno Flyfishers for Conservation, Inc. US Forest Service 4774 E. Harvard 870 Emerald Bay Road, Suite 1 Fresno CA 93703 South Lake Tahoe CA 96150 Ms. Chris Oberti, President Mr. Bud Olsen Huntington Lake Association Eastern Fresno Historical Society 8116 N. Preuss P.O. Box 625 Clovis CA 93611 Auberry CA 93602 Mr. Martin Ostendorf Mr. William Pistor, Vice President ENTRIX, Inc. Kearns & West 2601 Fair Oaks Blvd., Suite 200 235 Pine Street, Suite 1675 Sacramento CA 95864 San Francisco CA 94104 Ms. Lorrie Planas Ms. Polly Quick Tribal Relations Officer IT Corp US Forest Service 4005 Port Chicago Highway P.O. Box 559 Concord CA 94520 Prather CA 93651

A-4 Distribution List for Final Technical Study Plan Package Big Creek Alternative Licensing Process

Mr. Geoff Rabone Mr. Gregory Reichert, District Engineer SCE URSGWC 2nd Floor 500 12th Street 300 North Lone Hill Avenue Oakland CA 94607 San Dimas CA 91773 Mr. Brent Roath Mr. Roger W. Robb, Consultant US Forest Service Friant Water Users Authority 1600 Tollhouse Road 440 N. Colby Place Clovis CA 93611 Porterville CA 93257 Mr. Steve Rowan Mr. Ed Salazar SCE US Bureau of Reclamation P.O. Box 100 2666 N. Grove Industrial Drive, #106 Big Creek CA 93605 Fresno CA 93727 Mr. Paul Sanders, Road Manager Mr. Sheldon Sandstrom, Owner US Forest Service Sierra Marina P.O. Box 559 P.O. Box 56 Prather CA 93651 Shaver Lake CA 93664 Mr. Pete Scaparo Mr. Lonnie Schardt Sierra Summit Mountain Resort Huntington Lake Association P.O. Box 236 7184 N. Dewey Lake Shore CA 93634 Fresno CA 93711 Mr. Monty Schmitt Mr. Vernon D. Sherwood Natural Resources Defense Council 2028 West Via Tivoli 71 Stevenson Street, Suite 1825 Fresno CA 93711 San Francisco CA 94105 Ms. Kim Sorini-Wilson Mr. Kevin Statham Wildlife Biologist San Joaquin Paddlers Association US Forest Service 1260 N. Nelson P.O. Box 559 Sanger CA 93657 29688 Auberry Road Prather CA 93651 Mr. Stan Stephens Ms. Sharon Stohrer CDFG Environmental Specialist 1234 East Shaw SWRCB Fresno CA 93710 P.O. Box 2000 (zip 95812) 1001 I Street, 4th Floor Sacramento CA 95814 Mr. Phil Strand Mr. Gary Taylor Fisheries Program Manage US Fish and Wildlife Service US Forest Service 2800 Cottage Way 57003 Road 225 Room W-2605 North Fork CA 93643 Sacramento CA 95825-1846 Mr. Craig Tolmie Tribal Chair Environmental Coordinator Bishop Paiute Tribe CA Dept of Forestry 50 Tu Su Lane 210 S. Academy Bishop CA 93514 Sanger CA 93657

A-5 Distribution List for Final Technical Study Plan Package Big Creek Alternative Licensing Process

Tribal Chair Tribal Chair Table Mountain Rancheria Dunlap Band of Mono Indians P.O. Box 410 P.O. Box 45 Friant CA 93626 Dunlap CA 93621 Tribal Chair Tribal Chair Mono Nation Picayune Rancheria P.O. Box 197 46575 Road 417 Dunlap CA 83621 Coarsegold CA 93614 Tribal Chair Ms. Julie Tupper, Hydrologist North Fork Rancheria US Forest Service P.O. Box 929 650 Capitol Mall North Fork CA 93643 Suite 8-200 Sacramento CA 95814 L. C. Turnquist Ms. Wendi Van Dyke P.O. Box 133 Environmental Big Creek CA 93605 North Fork Rancheria P.O. Box 929 North Fork CA 93643 Ms. Anna West, Principal Ms. Cynthia Whelan Kearns & West US Forest Service 235 Pine Street, Suite 1675 P.O. Box 559 San Francisco CA 94104-2701 Prather CA 93651 Mr. Russ Wickwire Ms. Jesse Wild CDFG US Fish and Wildlife Service 1234 East Shaw 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605 Fresno CA 93710 Sacramento CA 95864 Mr. Harry Williamson, Planner Mr. Frank Winchell National Park Service FERC 600 Harrison Avenue, Suite 600 888 1st Street, NE San Francisco CA 94107 Washington DC 20426

A-6

Appendix C Summary Table of Written Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package

Rick Hopson, USFS-SNF (Unresolved comment from the June 13 Plenary Meeting Notes) Study Paragraph Plan # Page # Section or Bullet Comment Response General The EMERGE technology is a useful tool that will Examples of digital imagery produced by EMERGE technology Comment on provide information of sufficient detail to complete the were reviewed by GIS, vegetation, and wildlife specialists who Aerial study plans. would be the primary users. The technical specialists indicated Photography that the imagery was of sufficient quality to meet their needs and provided advantages in mapping efficiency over standard color aerial photography. However, the necessary work could be accomplished from standard true-color aerial photography available from the US Forest Service. Russ Kanz, State Water Resources Control Board (Unresolved comment from the June 13 Plenary Meeting Notes) CAWG-2 The geomorphology study plan is too qualitative and The CAWG-2 Geomorphology Study Plan consists of two (General) should be more quantitative. phases: a qualitative first phase to provide a broad look at study areas; and a quantitative phase that will provide detailed analyses at specific sites identified from the first phase. It is recognized that certain techniques requested by stakeholders, while broadly accepted, such as PFC, are qualitative in nature. General The existing black and white aerial photography will The primary studies that require the use of aerial imagery are Comment on not provide the resolution we want for the detailed those related to vegetation and wildlife habitat. After careful Aerial studies. The new EMERGE infra-red technology may consideration, the technical specialists responsible for those Photography not provide the level of resolution needed for the studies have indicated that either existing US Forest Service detailed studies. color aerial photography or the EMERGE orthorectified false color infrared imagery was of sufficient quality to meet their needs, although the EMERGE imagery provided definite advantages over the existing aerial photography. It is recognized that this imagery may not be as useful for other potential uses, such as viewing stream macro habitat features. However, stream habitat data have been collected on the ground by technical specialists and will be supplemented by helicopter overflights, where needed.

C-1 Appendix C Summary Table of Written Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package

Earl Franks, USFS Sierra National Forest, June 18, 2001 (Unresolved comment from the June 13 Plenary Meeting) Study Paragraph Plan # Page # Section or Bullet Comment Response

LAND-10 4-41 Stakeholder Since this project cannot ensure air quality MEETS The stakeholder management goal has been modified. Management standards, it should be reworded as: “Ensure air Goal(s) quality is not adversely affected by project operation and maintenance”. LAND-10 4-41 Study Add the objective: “Identify PM10 production resulting This study objective has been added to the plan. Objective(s) from project operations and maintenance activities.”

LAND-10 4-41 General Add to #4: 4. Quantify dust emissions associated The results from existing studies will be reviewed and used to Approach with Project-related roads “and determine if emissions ascertain if dust emissions from project related roads contribute below 3,000 ft elevation contribute to degraded valley to degraded air quality in the valley. air quality.” LAND-10 4-42 Detailed Paragraph 1 Change San Joaquin County Air Resources Board to This change has been made as requested. Methodology “San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District”

CAWG Water Yield from Public lands can be manipulated This comment is addressed in the Land- 5 Storage Capacity Nos.1-14 with land management practices that influence and Generation Assessment study. This study plan has vegetation cover. Studies should evaluate this fact been revised to include an evaluation of the potential to and the potential increase in water flows throughout increase runoff in the basin by modifying land management the Big Creek System. practices (e.g. vegetation management).

LAND-1 SCE land management practices and results should We appreciate your comment on Southern California serve as an example for the adjacent public lands. Edison’s (SCE’s) management of their lands. However, the The studies should stress that SCE should be given USFS has legal authority for land management on the Sierra more authority over the management of the Sierra National Forest. National Forest.

LAND-4 SCE program of utilizing fire and mechanical SCE uses fire and mechanical treatments only on its private treatment of forest fuels/vegetation should become lands. more dominant in the management of the Sierra National Forest lands.

C-2 Appendix C Summary Table of Written Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package

Patrick Emmert, Sierra Forest Products Consulting Forester, June 15, 2001 (Unresolved comment from the June 13 Plenary Meeting) Study Paragraph Plan # Page # Section or Bullet Comment Response REC-1 To accommodate whitewater recreation with real- The REC-1 Flow Information Feasibility Study is intended to time flows, I believe additional water yields should evaluate mechanisms through which real-time flow be managed for national forest lands. information can be conveyed to the boating community. The Land- 5 Storage Capacity and Generation Assessment study plan has been revised to include an evaluation of the potential to increase runoff in the basin by modifying land management practices (e.g. vegetation management). REC-7 General comment. I favor maximum use of stored Comment noted. water for hydro-electric generation. I do not want water flows restored for the reintroduction of salmon runs from the ocean. LAND “A study not readily apparent in the document, that The Land-5 Storage Capacity and Generation Assessment (General) might be of use to all interested parties would be study plan includes an evaluation of the value of water one in which the cost to implement increased water storage and generation benefits. One element of this study flows to provide “contact” watersports with additional is to evaluate the effects of any proposed protection, opportunities beyond normal rainfall/runoff flows mitigation and enhancement (PM&E) measures on power [was analyzed]. This study would also provide cost generation and downstream consumptive uses (e.g. statistics to further understand the economic impact agriculture). of additional flows from the existing system on waterstorage for agriculture and hydrogeneration, as The overall economic effects of proposed PM&E packages well as drinking water for human consumption.” will be analyzed in Land-3 Cumulative Effects Analysis study. Ultimately, the economic effects of each project alternative will be described in the Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment submitted to FERC. LAND “In addition, a study should be created to reveal the Land-3 Cumulative Effects Analysis study plan report will (General) economic impact of hydrogeneration of power include environmental and other costs of proposed PM&Es in versus the costs environmentally produced by new Big Creek licenses. alternative sources of power based on carboniferous and nuclear systems (including nuclear waste costs to the environment).”

LAND “Last, a study that reveals the economic costs to the The Endangered Species Act is a Federal law that SCE must (General) hydrogeneration system that is the Big Creek comply with to operate the Project. System, with and without the implementation of the Endangered Species Act and its mandated mitigation’s.”

C-3 Appendix C Summary Table of Written Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Comment letter June 28, 2001 Paragraph or Study Plan # Page # Section Bullet Comment Response

General The DTSPP describes the technical approaches that will be used The CAWG appreciates USFWS recognition of the care Comments to gather information and assess the environmental effects of and time that went into the preparation of the study relicensing SCE’s four Big Creek Hydroelectric Projects and to plans. assist in identifying potential protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures (PM&E’s). The draft study plans were developed over the last year in collaboration with numerous stakeholders, collectively referred to as the Big Creek Collaborative (BCC). These stakeholders represent State and Federal resource agencies, Native American tribes, local and regional authorities, non-government organizations, local communities, local businesses, and other members of the public.

The Introduction section describes how the ALP process was developed and implemented to date. This section is clearly written and provides useful insight into the ongoing collaborative process. The figures depicting project features, locations and the tables displaying data throughout this document are well done and facilitated our review. Organization and categorization of the individual study plans into labeled numerical groups, e.g., CAWG 1-14, enabled better understanding and tracking of the various plans during our review.

Use of the hierarchical organization within the individual study plans beginning with resource interests and working through goals, objectives, study objectives, project nexus, general approach, detailed methodology and mitigation alternatives demonstrated that the participants gave careful consideration to the content of studies and eventual manner in which the information would be used to make decisions. Frequent detailed descriptions of proposed analytical methods, stepwise data analysis, and alternative analysis of mitigation opportunities assisted our understanding and confidence that comprehensive data collection and analysis will be done.

C-4 Appendix C Summary Table of Written Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (cont.) Comment letter June 28, 2001 Paragraph or Study Plan # Page # Section Bullet Comment Response General The Service has been unable to fully participate in the BCS SCE appreciates receiving USFWS’ comments. Comments collaborative, and thus, had less opportunity to provide input to the collaborative development of studies framework and content. The SCE’s request for study comments affords us opportunity to describe our views about the collaborative and to convey our resource goals, interests, objectives and technical input to studies planning for the BCS-ALP. General The Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to fish and The approach taken by the CAWG and other work Comments wildlife conservation. This approach requires protecting or groups should result in a broad base of information for restoring the function, structure, and species composition of an the analysis of the Project on the affected watershed. ecosystem while providing for its sustainable socioeconomic use. We believe that the riverine environment affected by these four hydroelectric projects represents the foundation of the ecosystem itself; that it should not be construed as a user of water in competition with other users, and that if it is not protected, then the ecosystem will not be sustainable. Based on this ecosystem approach, the Service will be seeking information about systems, relationships, processes and linkages necessary to enhance and maintain a healthy, biologically diverse ecosystem in concert with the operations of these four hydroelectric projects. General Our participation in relicensing these projects is aimed at We recognize the USFWS’ interest and standing in this Comments representing our: 1) procedural interests to ensure applicants and process and look forward to their active participation in agency compliance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Big Creek Collaborative. Endangered Species Act (ESA), Federal Power Act, National Environmental Policy Act and other Service legal mandates and authorities, and 2) our substantive mission-related interests, for example, conservation of fish and wildlife populations and their habitat, restoration of natural pre-project ecosystem functions, structures, and composition, fulfilling trust responsibilities for anadromous fish, migratory waterfowl, wetlands, riparian habitat, and federally-listed species.

C-5 Appendix C Summary Table of Written Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (cont.) Comment letter June 28, 2001 Paragraph or Study Plan # Page # Section Bullet Comment Response General Service staff have not been able to visit the project areas, however, Another field trip to the Project area has been arranged Comments we have reviewed the information provided in the DTSPP, and for participants in the collaborative for summer 2001. participated in a few of the early pre-filing collaborative meetings. We look forward to USFWS participation. Our earlier participation was to initiate the process of identifying the types of information and studies necessary for making our agency determinations regarding the sufficiency of the environmental recommendations, requirements, or prescriptions for license conditions. General The Service is seeking studies that will provide for ecosystem- The CAWG has focused on studies that will result in Comments based analysis that allows comparison of historic pre-project data sufficient technically credible information to provide the with existing conditions to identify direct, indirect, and cumulative basis for evaluating Project effects and design of PM&E effects of the project. This, in turn, will allow us to develop measures. It has tried to utilize well-accepted and protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures for future proven study methodologies to avoid the inconclusive operation of the four hydroelectric projects. Our technical data problem noted. comments strive to ensure that the studies will provide conclusive and compelling data and results that will enable the participants to reach decisions based on well founded science. Whenever possible we want to avoid ending up with data gaps and/or inconclusive data that lead the participant to lengthy debates or adversarial arguments. General The Service seeks concurrent investigations of conditions that Many of the CAWG plans make use of reference Comments would occur in unaltered, free-flowing streams outside of the reaches. These include areas upstream of diversions project impaired areas, to obtain reference data. The use of and where necessary, nearby unaffected streams, reference data for comparison is a practice central to the design of where appropriate comparable conditions don’t exist many, if not most, field-based ecological investigations. Data upstream. Other approaches may be considered by the collection at several suitable reference-areas outside of the project CAWG, if needed and if appropriate. impaired area should be included in the study plans. Alternative methodologies for achieving the study objectives in the absence of reference data may be necessary. For example, one alternative would be to modify project operations for an extended period of time to simulate free-flowing conditions within the project boundaries. Without outside project reference-areas or acceptable alternatives, the objectives for many studies may not be accomplished because the comparisons necessary to assess project caused effects on abiotic or biotic conditions cannot be made.

C-6 Appendix C Summary Table of Written Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (cont.) Comment letter June 28, 2001 Paragraph or Study Plan # Page # Section Bullet Comment Response General The Service notes that many of these general concerns about SCE has requested and been granted non-Federal Comments approach to studies also apply to federally-listed species. Since designation by the FERC for consultation with the these species do occur within the proposed study area, it is Service on ESA compliance. SCE did meet with the important that the FERC and the applicant recognize that certain USFWS on May 3, 2001 to discuss the Big Creek ALP, types of studies potentially could adversely effect federally-listed get input on the draft study plans and discuss the species during the time the studies are underway. These studies process for ESA consultation. SCE also has a meeting include instream flow, water temperature, recreation and boating, scheduled for August 1, 2001 to discuss the need for and cultural resources to name a few. Various causes for potential additional consultation related to implementation of the adverse impacts on species or their habitats include disturbance approved study plans. due to noise, or movement, use of vehicles/equipment, substantial changes in volume of flows from their normal seasonal ranges, rapid rate of change in flows, rapid change in water temperatures due to flow changes or other project operations, and other factors associated with each study.

When an action may affect federally-listed species, consultation under the ESA is required. Thus, in order to prevent any unnecessary delay with the relicensing process, the Service recommends that: (1) the FERC designate the applicant as a non- Federal representative for purposes of ESA section 7 consultation, and (2) the applicant initiate consultation prior to the completion of study designs and initiation of studies. This is to ensure that study designs encompass areas directly, indirectly, and cumulatively affected by project operations, study designs are developed which will adequately address listed species questions, studies include all federally-listed species and species likely to become listed within the next one to five years, e.g., forest sensitive species, species of special concerns and candidate species, and that study designs and their implementation do not adversely affect federally-listed species. General The Service is pleased that SCE has retained highly qualified, Thank you. Comments neutral, facilitators for this ALP collaborative process. We appreciate the carefully structured framework established for the collaborative and anticipate an effective and technically proficient process will be completed. We are also pleased with the incorporation of a dispute resolution process to ensure any disagreements are addressed promptly and effectively.

C-7 Appendix C Summary Table of Written Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (cont.) Comment letter June 28, 2001 Paragraph or Study Plan # Page # Section Bullet Comment Response N/A 1-1 Introduction Paragraph 3 It is not clear whether the BCS is operated to meet any flood The upper San Joaquin River at Friant Dam is control requirements for downstream protection. managed by the US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) to provide flood control and other water uses. The extent to which the Big Creek system is affected by these operations is governed by contract between the USBR and SCE through target storage levels in the Mammoth Pool Agreement. N/A 1-10 Introduction Bullets 1-5 This indicates the collaborative has approved five working groups. This will be brought to the attention of the Plenary prior We recommend that in the future, a legal group be formed to begin to the start of negotiations for a settlement. considering the structure of any settlement agreement(s). N/A 1-10 Introduction Bottom It would be helpful to briefly describe the process that was used to This will be included in the Introduction. paragraph make decisions, e.g., consensus with a “willing to live with’ vote. N/A 1-13 Introduction The responsible entity that completed synthesis of the ENTRIX acted on behalf of the Plenary to synthesize management and stakeholder goals and objectives should be the stakeholder goals and objectives. The synthesized identified. stakeholder management goals and objectives were approved for inclusion in the study plans by Plenary.

C-8 Appendix C Summary Table of Written Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (cont.) Comment letter June 28, 2001 Paragraph or Study Plan # Page # Section Bullet Comment Response CAWG-1 2-3 Study This study should include investigation of sediment As described in CAWG-1, page 2-8, paragraph 2, objective #3 deposition/composition, shoreline erosion, edgewater habitat, reservoir substrate, (including sediment woody debris/nutrient cycling, inflow/current routing, and seasonal deposition/composition) “will be characterized at low hypolimnion changes. lake elevations and by underwater video or grab samples in deeper locations.” Also, “For each major We recommend adding another study objective to describe Project reservoir, a bathymetric survey will be relationships of stream and reservoir habitat conditions to water conducted using a digital echosounder and GPS year types. For example, in a critically dry water year, reaches of combination. Information collected from these surveys streams may be significantly different from season to season than will be entered into GIS for production of maps and in a wet or normal water year. Gaining clear understanding of how calculation of areas at different elevations.” (CAWG-1, hydrologic conditions affect stream and reservoir habitat conditions page 2-8, paragraph 2) is essential for making decisions on appropriate instream versus out of stream water supply allocations. Characterization of shoreline conditions (i.e., shoreline erosion and edgewater habitat) are addressed on page 2-8, paragraph 3, “Each reservoir will be characterized by the shoreline steepness, near shore substrate, the presence of aquatic vegetation, and the presence of potential habitat structure. Shoreline steepness will be measured from reservoir morphometry and bathymetry. Nearshore substrate, the presence of aquatic vegetation, and the presence of potential habitat structure will be measured from reservoir surveys.”

Seasonal hypolimnion changes are already recorded in the stream temperature monitoring study as part of the lake profiling (CAWG-5, page 2-64, “Determining Thermal Structure of Reservoirs”).

The effects of different water year types on the BCS will be addressed in CAWG-6, Hydrology.

C-9 Appendix C Summary Table of Written Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (cont.) Comment letter June 28, 2001 Paragraph or Study Plan # Page # Section Bullet Comment Response CAWG-1 2-12 Paragraph It is not clear from this description how habitat for given species or Water chemistry data (i.e., temperature, dissolved 3-5 guilds will be characterized within different reservoir strata. For oxygen, pH and specific conductance) collected during example, will Habitat Suitability Index criteria be used to describe the lake profiling will be used, as appropriate, to habitat for given species/guilds? Will water temperature and water evaluate habitat availability at different reservoir strata quality be included in habitat criteria descriptions? (elevation band) and in different seasons. If appropriate Habitat Suitability Index criteria are available, these will be discussed and assessed within the CAWG for potential use. CAWG-2 2-17 Paragraph 1 We note that biotic topics are included in this discussion element. Geomorphology affects these resources , therefore it is We believe this was done to demonstrate the interrelationships to necessary to point out how the information is to be used the physical components. We believe it makes the document more for other resources to interpret Project effects. confusing than it would be with geomorphology topics alone. CAWG-2 2-19 Paragraph 1 The study should determine the effects of the project features and Items 8 and 9 address the geomorphic function of operations on the geomorphologic character of affected reaches. woody debris, and further woody debris study may be Items 8, 9 and 10 seem out of place. It appears that items 6 and indicated by the results. Functionality of riparian habitat 12 are duplicate objectives. Investigation of project effects should is primarily addressed in study CAWG-11 (riparian), but examine how the project affects the composition, size class and important geomorphic and hydrologic information is distribution of sediment being transported from above, through and developed in this study. The study elements described below small and large reservoirs. in the remainder of the comment will be addressed by the study. CAWG-2 2-21 Bullet 6 We recommend that a separate bullet describe proposed Step 5 includes this study element. investigation of historical and current sediment management practices. CAWG-2 2-27 The proposed methodology incorporates both qualitative and Agreed. Steps 5 and 6 state this. quantitative steps to develop curves and relationships about sediment transport. Generally, the approach seems logical and is aimed at answering appropriate questions. In the event that the proposed methods fail to produce a valid and useful relationship to describe project effects and sediment transport, then it may be necessary to develop a quantitative sediment transport model. The option to have SCE complete a bedload transport model should rest with the collaborative.

C-10 Appendix C Summary Table of Written Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (cont.) Comment letter June 28, 2001 Paragraph or Study Plan # Page # Section Bullet Comment Response CAWG-3 2-36 Paragraph 5 Application of PHABSIM may also be needed in reaches with small The decision to use the wetted perimeter method in diversions to assess flow-habitat relationships for small streams was reached in collaboration with the macroinvertebrates or other aquatic organisms. In addition to CAWG. This was based on the fact that these streams many other factors, the degree of impacts caused by diversions will reach a critical habitat bottleneck, which likely depend on relative volume diverted to volume remaining in the constrains populations during the late summer, when stream during the period of diversion. The most sensitive time may the diversions in these streams are not in operation. be when flows begin to taper to lower summer base flow and This bottleneck may be caused by reduced flow or diversions are ready to cease operations. Other factors should be increased temperature or decreased water quality or examined concurrently, e.g., water temperature. Other biota may some combination of all these factors. However, these be impacted by diversions and other assessment tools may be bottleneck effects would occur even if the diversion more appropriate to determine effects. were never built. The primary effect of these runoff period diversions is likely on the sediment regime and geomorphology below these diversions, the consequences of which are addressed in CAWG-2.

The wetted perimeter method proposed is intended to provide an indication of the change in habitat area available during Project operations. This Evaluation will include an evaluation of the gross change in area during the entire period the diversion is in operation, and thus would incorporate the “taper off” period for which USFWS expresses concern. The data collected also will provide information on fish passage.

C-11 Appendix C Summary Table of Written Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (cont.) Comment letter June 28, 2001 Paragraph or Study Plan # Page # Section Bullet Comment Response CAWG-3 2-37 Paragraph 1, It is unclear whether the weighting of the transects will The number of transects to be used is described in items #1-6 proportionally reflect occurrences of mesohabitat. It is also unclear “Transect Selection” on page 2-37. how many transects are to be used to describe an individual Two transects will be placed in each major mesohabitat mesohabitat. These should be made clear. type within each channel type. In the case of backwater pools, where the application of WSP maybe needed, a third transect to represent the hydraulic control will be included. Where unique or critical habitats exist that may need to be modeled, additional transects may be placed in those habitats with the concurrence of the CAWG. The stratification by channel type and mesohabitat type will result in the full range of variation within that mesohabitat type being represented in the models for each reach. The transects will be weighted in accordance to the availability of the mesohabitat type it represents for that channel type and stream reach. This is discussed under “Habitat Modeling” on page 2-39. CAWG-3 2-38 In the survey protocols, it is unclear whether benchmarks will be Benchmarks within a given stream reach will not be tied tied together within individual reaches. This is important to assess together, however those within a given channel type will accuracy of flow direction and state of zero flow. It is also unclear be where it will not result in a major additional effort to what criteria are being used to determine the highest range of do so. The PHABSIM models require a single flows to be simulated. benchmark only when running the WSP model, and then only for the pool being modeled. WSP may be used for pools in some cases and thus a single benchmark is maintained where possible. WSP is not appropriate when there are major breaks in stream surface (i.e. a steep riffle or falls). Therefore it is not necessary or even useful to use a single datum for transects that are separated by several hundred yards, unless the control affects transects this far away.

C-12 Appendix C Summary Table of Written Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (cont.) Comment letter June 28, 2001 Paragraph or Study Plan # Page # Section Bullet Comment Response CAWG-3 2-39 HSC The methods of study require the CAWG to review existing HSC The statement by USFWS is correct, except that Selection and criteria to determine their adequacy for use in PHABSIM for all PHABSIM data may be collected prior to evaluation of Verification target species and life stages. We understand that CAWG will HSC due to logistical and operational constraints. The complete their review and approval of habitat suitability criteria, HSC will need to be approved by the CAWG prior to refine and if necessary recommend the design of new studies, prior habitat simulation, however. The collection of data for to study execution. PHABSIM will in no way constrain the choice of suitability criteria to be applied to the models. We note there are no plans to include adjacent velocity analysis in the PHABSIM modeling effort. We believe that adjacent velocity USFWS is correct in noting that there are no plans to analysis is warranted for determining flow/habitat relationships for use the adjacent velocity model or “HABTAV” during salmonid species. There are ample references to salmonid PHABSIM habitat simulations. While HABTAV has behavior that document resting in low velocity habitat and feeding been available for many years from the Biological in higher velocity habitat. Failure to include adjacent velocity Research Division of the USGS (formerly the USFWS’ analysis could bias flow habitat relationships toward lower flows. Instream Flow Group), this method has rarely been We believe that adjacent velocity considerations are necessary to used. It is certainly not traditional practice in fully describe suitable habitat for trout species. hydroelectric studies in California, nor is it standard practice for instream flow studies in Washington, where it was tried and found to be unnecessary and therefore not recommended (H. Beecher, Washington Department of Ecology pers. Comm. to L. Wise, ENTRIX Nov. 2000), nor is it standard practice in Oregon (R. Kreuger, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to L. Wise and others Dec. 2000). HABTAV requires the user to input the search distance and a suitable value for feeding velocity.

The habitat simulation available through HABTAV describes only one of the ways in which trout feed, in that it requires fish to move sideways to feed and does not permit them to feed immediately above their resting location, which is commonly observed when observing drift feeding trout. It also assumes that trout are feeding primarily on drift. An extensive 11 year study in a nearby California drainage has shown that drift feeding is important only during some portions of the year (Studley et al. 1995 and PG&E unpublished data). At other times of year, trout feed primarily on benthic organisms.

In addition to these arguments, the Habitat Suitability C-13 Appendix C Summary Table of Written Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (cont.) Comment letter June 28, 2001 Paragraph or Study Plan # Page # Section Bullet Comment Response Curves (HSC) typically used in PHABSIM studies are generally developed based on the Mean Column Velocity rather than the focal velocity. Thus these curves typically represent the velocity over the trout’s position in the water column, which typically has a higher value than the velocity at the trout’s actual position (its focal velocity). The use of the mean column velocity HSC thus at least in part accounts for the element of food transport that the USFWS is seeking by requesting the use of the HABTAV model.

In addition, if HSC that do not rely on adjacent cell velocities can be verified as adequately predicting habitat use by fish using the accepted suitability criteria testing procedures, there is no need to resort to other approaches to attain statistically acceptable predictors of fish habitat use.

Based on these arguments, SCE does not feel the a priori use of the adjacent velocity model, HABTAV, and additional adjacent cell velocity HSC is warranted. SCE, therefore, does not propose to use this model in PHABSIM studies for the Big Creek System. However, if the proposed suitability criteria are tested for trout and do not meet the transferability test criteria, the use of adjacent cell velocity criteria may be considered along with use of site-specific data to adjust curves, and the derivation of site-specific curves. The decision as to what additional steps are needed to provide verified objective HSC will be made with concurrence of the CAWG.

C-14 Appendix C Summary Table of Written Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (cont.) Comment letter June 28, 2001 Paragraph or Study Plan # Page # Section Bullet Comment Response CAWG-3 2-39 Bullet 3 Macroinvertebrate criteria. The Service supports the use of As stated in CAWG-3, on Page 2-39, in the third bullet, instream flow studies to determine flow-related effects upon the application of appropriate macroinvertebrate criteria aquatic benthic invertebrates as well as fish. We propose CAWG will be considered by the CAWG. approve application of existing macroinvertebrate curves (Gore, Layzer, and Mead, in press, Regulated Rivers). These curves would be compatible with normal PHABSIM habitat simulation routines. These curves have been developed over a 10 to 20-year span and have recently been applied in other FERC relicensing studies. These curves are available for both high gradient and low gradient streams. An appropriate level of field work should be done to validate the applicability of these existing curves. For purposes of validation, we have developed a benthic macroinvertebrate study protocol and would be willing to provide this to the CAWG for their consideration.

Our rationale for this recommendation is that benthic macroinvertebrates are an essential food source for salmonids and other fish species. Salmonids feed primarily on macroinvertebrate drift in moderate to swiftly flowing rivers; drift feeding has higher velocity requirements than resting behavior and therefore is more at risk from flow reductions. Benthic macroinvertebrates are most abundant in riffles and moderate to high-velocity glides, habitats which decline most rapidly with flow reductions. CAWG-4 2-49 Paragraph 4 Clarification is needed in these two paragraphs on existing water The study will identify the most stringent standards. If and 5 quality standards. There needs to be standard nomenclature the waters of the Project area do not meet these established for the Basin Plan that is consistent with that identified standards, the study will attempt to determine the cause in the reference section on page 2-58. Several objectives are of the water-quality impairment. If the cause is Project- described from the Basin Plan and other State and Federal related, appropriate mitigation will be developed. regulations. The paragraph ends with; “The most stringent standard is used to determine the relative protection of beneficial uses.” It has not been made clear what standards in which plans are the most stringent and if the intent of SCE is to meet those most stringent standards.

C-15 Appendix C Summary Table of Written Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (cont.) Comment letter June 28, 2001 Paragraph or Study Plan # Page # Section Bullet Comment Response CAWG-5 The collection of sufficient stream, reservoir, and tributary Water temperature simulation modeling provides a temperature information, and the use of an adequate field-tested good tool for analyzing a project’s effect on water temperature model, are necessary to assess the effects of the temperature. We propose, however, to first categorize project on the magnitude, duration, frequency, and timing of water each bypass reach as 1) “meeting Basin Plan” or not temperature regimes in the project affected areas. Adequate and, if not, 2) having temperatures above or below information includes historical records to verify that modeled appropriate temperature criteria. We will employ water unimpaired-project temperatures are similar to measured temperature modeling only if temperature increases in unimpaired-project temperatures. Water temperature simulation bypass reaches do not meet Basin Plan and do not modeling will be needed to characterize the projects direct, provide suitable temperatures (as determined in step indirect, and cumulative effects on water temperature and to 2). This approach has the potential for limiting the examine water temperatures under alternative operations or with amount of analysis to be done and also providing the added project features. justification if simulation modeling is required. CAWG-5 2-59 We note that the stakeholder management goals are stated more Comment noted. in terms of biota or recreational activities etc. rather than on physical description of water temperature conditions. The items #1 and #9 that are related to regulatory goals seem most appropriate for this ecosystem attribute. CAWG-5 2-60 We note that most of the stated objectives are qualitative rather As identified as the fourth bullet under general than quantitative. For this topic it seems that objectives similar to approach, we will review the scientific literature to item #3 are most appropriate. Specific numeric water determine the suitability of water temperatures for temperatures or ranges of temperatures based on literature review target biological resources. In the fifth bullet, we state should be developed and provided for consideration by the that we will determine the temperature suitability of collaborative. These specific water temperatures or ranges should Project bypass reaches for appropriate biological be for coldwater, warmwater and transitional reach habitats. Early resources. In addition, as stated in the second development of these water temperature criteria will facilitate future paragraph on page 2-70 of CAWG-5, we will compare management decisions that will need to be made later in this temperatures in the bypass reaches to temperature collaborative process and perhaps prevent last minute disputes criteria for target species. We will add language that could delay settlement. stating: “A review of the scientific literature will be made for temperature criteria of lifestages of target biological resources. A set of temperature criteria will be developed for use in this study with the concurrence of the CAWG. A stakeholder objective is to maintain daily mean temperature at or below 19° C. CAWG-5 2-61 We recommend adding the bold italicized language to objective Objective 14 will be changed to: “Characterize the #14 as follows: Characterize the ability of the Project to affect ability of the Project to affect water temperatures in water temperatures in the reservoirs, bypass and downstream bypass reaches and reaches downstream of Project reaches. reservoirs.”

C-16 Appendix C Summary Table of Written Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (cont.) Comment letter June 28, 2001 Paragraph or Study Plan # Page # Section Bullet Comment Response CAWG-5 2-61 Paragraph 3 We suggest changing this sentence to read as follows: Changes in OK. last sentence water temperature in bypass reaches affect habitat suitability for biota. CAWG-5 2-61 We recommend adding an objective #18. Characterize and OK. describe the location (s) of water temperature transition zones within project affected stream reaches. This should be done for all water year types. This would address stakeholder management objective #5 on page 2-60. CAWG-5 2-63 Paragraph 2 We recommend that every measure be taken to prevent loss of We agree that all prudent measures should be taken to data during the course of these studies. Because these studies avoid data loss. All units are checked before are generally limited to two seasons, loss of one month’s data deployment and spare units are carried by the field during a critical month could cause serious deficiency in data. crew. Calibration checks are made whenever the units are serviced, and data are checked in the office as soon as feasible after retrieval. Current measures include doubling up units in areas of high human use, checking units immediately before holiday weekends and immediately afterwards. Even with all these measures in place, a certain amount of data loss will still occur.

C-17 Appendix C Summary Table of Written Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Cont.) Comment letter June 28, 2001 Paragraph or Study Plan # Page # Section Bullet Comment Response CAWG-5 2-65 Paragraph 3 Considering the fact that the Big Creek project captures and Reservoir and stream temperature simulation modeling conveys water through a complex, interconnected-system of may indeed be needed. However, these should be streams and reservoirs, over a wide range of elevations, it is employed to address specific impact issues and difficult to imagine that incremental models for simulating water mitigation needs. It is likely that not all reaches will temperature in different water year types and under different need to be modeled. For example, near optimal water alternative management operations are not necessary. Our temperatures may exist in certain bypass reaches, in experience on various relicensing efforts in western Sierran other cases, such as small diversions without storage, watersheds suggests that satisfactory reservoir/stream reach undesirable water temperatures may not occur during models will be needed. These models will be essential for the period in which water is being diverted and naturally examining alternative options for maintaining coldwater high water temperatures may occur after the diversion hypolimnion reservoir pools, for selected water temperature criteria is turned out. Decisions will need to be made at various points downstream in bypass reaches and for objectively on a reach by reach basis. determining incremental effects of diversions seasonally on water If simulation modeling is necessary, we will use temperatures. In the event that the two seasons studies do not appropriate physical process models for analyzing include at least one season with very dry, hot meteorologic Project effects and for extrapolating to alternate conditions (worse case), it would be difficult to extrapolate data meteorological/hydrological conditions. We do not feel findings for those water year conditions. that it is difficult to extrapolate to extreme meteorological/hydrological conditions when applying an adequately calibrated physical process model. What is difficult is estimating the true uncertainty in simulated values when using these models for extrapolating to extreme conditions. CAWG-5 2-66 Bullet 4 It is unclear whether sufficient gaging is planned on currently Gaging and the need for additional gages is addressed ungaged stream reaches to ensure that adequate flow information in CAWG-6 Hydrology. However, efforts are being will be gathered. made including the measurement of discharges in larger ungaged tributaries in which water temperatures are monitored and flows cannot be estimated.

C-18 Appendix C Summary Table of Written Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (cont.) Comment letter June 28, 2001 Paragraph or Study Plan # Page # Section Bullet Comment Response CAWG-5 2-69 Paragraph 3 As stated, this paragraph suggests that the collaborative has The method employed in this first step is for agreed to accept any warming standards provided in the Basin categorizing bypass reaches only; it is intended to be a Plan and to allow for warming to occur so long as it does not filter to reduce the complexity of further analysis. If a exceed the Basin Plan standard. We suggest that results of the bypass reach currently meets the Basin Plan standard water temperature studies may reveal options to minimize warming and can be expected to meet Basin Plan standards in caused by project operations and thus benefit aquatic resources. the future, we feel it is unnecessary to further analyze Any stepwise analysis should allow for consideration of options potential Project effects to this reach. However, since that improve conditions beyond the Basin Plan standard. beneficial uses include aquatic life, appropriate criteria will be evaluated. If it is necessary to proceed to the third phase of our analysis some of those reaches considered “meeting Basin Plan” at the first stage may necessarily be further analyzed since those reaches may have to become part of the overall stream temperature analysis model. CAWG-5 2-70 Paragraph 2 As stated, this language suggests that if target criteria are met, Criteria and reference reaches to be used will be then little effort is needed in this particular reach. Careful decided with the concurrence of the CAWG. consideration should be given to setting target criteria since this is typically an area of debate. For example, setting a maximum allowable water temperature for coldwater species may not be sufficient to provide the best suitable habitat conditions for a given life stare or species. Water supply availability will need to be considered when formulating measures for maintenance of water temperatures in various reaches. Reference reach information should also be considered in criteria development.

C-19 Appendix C Summary Table of Written Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (cont.) Comment letter June 28, 2001 Paragraph or Study Plan # Page # Section Bullet Comment Response CAWG-5 2-72 Paragraph 1 In order to adequately analyze the potential for water temperature Reservoir temperature profiles are being collected. sentence 1 effects in project reservoirs, it is recommended that reservoir Reservoir temperatures will be simulated if it is temperature profiles and modeling be conducted to assess the necessary to perform stage 3 analysis. We have not effects and propose protection, mitigation, and enhancement of proposed analyzing reservoirs as habitat in CAWG-5, aquatic biota and ecosystems. The effects of seasonal as has been included in CAWG-2. We will look into stratification on aquatic ecosystems should be addressed based on reservoir temperatures since reservoirs could be a water year type with the project as compared to pre-project source of cool water for receiving streams. conditions. This water temperature monitoring data, profiles, and We are collecting stream temperatures on significant modeling, will be important for making future adaptive tributaries to bypass reaches and tributaries management decisions regarding effects of (1) hydro peaking discharging into Project reservoirs, as well as operations, (2) water releases (3) Aquatic resources management, discharges from Project facilities. and (4) downstream temperature effects. We recommend comprehensive efforts for water temperature monitoring at all project reservoirs in the BCS. Data should be collected for instream release effects or tributary effects for all water year types (critically dry, dry, normal, and wet) and water temperature characterization studies at the proposed monitoring sites under varying flows in the project affected areas. The influence of tributary inflows on stream reach water temperature are also important to the aquatic ecosystem, therefore we recommend water temperature monitoring in the important tributaries of the project area. CAWG-6 2-78 Paragraph 5 Fifteen minute data should be gathered in unimpaired comparable The study envisions that the CAWG will determine reference reaches and used to determine appropriate ramping specific locations for the ramping evaluation, based rates for project controlled reaches. This is consistent with relying upon specific concerns. It should be noted that with a on more natural real-time occurrences of flow rate changes (up few exceptions, such as Portal Powerhouse, most and down) to set acceptable standards for controlled flow changes. Project powerhouses discharge to afterbays or reservoirs and therefore ramping criteria for fish stranding is not an issue in most locations.

C-20 Appendix C Summary Table of Written Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (cont.) Comment letter June 28, 2001 Paragraph or Study Plan # Page # Section Bullet Comment Response CAWG-6 2-78 Paragraph 6 The IHA software was not fully developed to directly identify In the discussion regarding the use of IHA, the CAWG impacts of hydrologic changes on biota. It does provide analysis of understood that the significance of the results and the changes in hydrology that affect physical habitat components. The use of indices of hydrologic alteration will be IHA identifies altered hydrologic conditions that may flag important determined in other studies. areas for further investigation using other biotic assessment tools. It will be important for the collaborative participants to gain clear understanding of the IHA software, its capabilities, and its constraints. Ample time should be given to review of the IHA analysis and findings. Following this, the participants should consider how to build upon its findings with the results of other biotic assessment tools being used in the overall investigations. CAWG-6 2-79 Paragraph 1 It is important the IHA analysis be completed at the earliest IHA analysis will commence in late 2001. possible phase of the study. Results of the IHA can then be used to craft and guide implementation of other linked studies. CAWG-7 Although studies include fish surveys in the project reservoirs, It has already been shown that introduced salmonids there are no specific plans for addressing invasive non-native have a negative affect on sensitive amphibian species that are favored by habitat conditions in the project populations (Bradford 1989, Bradford et al. 1993, Corn reservoirs. The fish surveys should include collection of sufficient et al. 2000, Knapp 1996 and Knapp and Matthews information to assess the potential effects of non-native species on 2000). other native aquatic species, such as sensitive amphibian species. Fish and invertebrates often respond differently to environmental stressors. Applying habitat suitability criteria solely for fish does Few, if any, areas exist in the project area that do not not allow an evaluation of the effects of altered flows on have introduced salmonids. Particular attention will be invertebrates, which are key components of aquatic food webs that given to special status species (including amphibians) support amphibians, birds, and other animals, as well as fish. where they are found. If special status species are encountered during CAWG surveys, their presence and other environmental data are recorded in a field notebook and shared with appropriate agency personnel. These data will be maintained in the database for a description of their distribution in the project area. Activities will be planned and implemented to avoid a “take.” Amphibian surveys are addressed in CAWG-8. CAWG-8 2-95 We recommend adding a stakeholder management goal to A stakeholder management goal to undertake a undertake a predator management program for non-native species,predator management program has been added to which affect sensitive native amphibians. CAWG-8. The species that will be considered for this program will be determined in consultation with the CAWG.

C-21 Appendix C Summary Table of Written Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (cont.) Comment letter June 28, 2001 Paragraph or Study Plan # Page # Section Bullet Comment Response CAWG-8 2-97 We recommend that the applicants conduct site assessments A site assessment for California red-legged frogs will be consistent with our February 18, 1997, Guidance on site conducted in accordance with the Guidance on site Assessment and Field Surveys for California Red-legged Frogs Assessment and Field Surveys for California Red- prior to pursuing surveys for listed amphibians. These legged Frogs. This will include determining known assessments shall be reviewed by the Endangered Species locations of California red-legged frog within 8 km (5 Division of the Service, which will provide further guidance to the miles) of the project boundary, identifying habitats CAWG on sampling protocols. within 1.6 km (1 mile) of project boundaries, and preparation of a site assessment report. Because the Big Creek Hydroelectric Relicensing Project is large and encompasses over a thousand square miles of drainage area, existing aerial photographs and a helicopter reconnaissance survey will be used to identify habitats within 1.6 km of project boundaries. CAWG-10 2-111 We recommend that an additional stakeholder and study objective Stakeholder objectives can be added by the be included to address potential project effects on stakeholders. Recommended additions and changes to macroinvertebrates. The objective should be stated as follows: the study objectives of the CAWG studies will be Develop flow/habitat relationships for macroinvertebrates in the presented to the CAWG for approval prior to inclusion project affected bypass reaches. As state in our comment on page in the study plans. The CAWG will consider the use of 2-39, bullet 3, we are recommending that macroinvertebrates be macroinvertebrate suitability criteria as part of CAWG-3. included in the instream flow study using the PHABSIM model We understand that USFWS will provide the CAWG application. Macroinvertebrate weighted usable area provides an with scientific literature describing potential criteria and additional basis for determining instream flows. Given the their appropriateness for their consideration. ecological importance of macroinvertebrates as food for salmonids, instream nutrient cycling, and bio-diversity components, there is ample argument for including them in instream flow analyses.

We note that the California Stream Bio-assessment Procedure will be used. While we agree that is an appropriate assessment procedure for assessing water quality, we do not believe it will address the objective above. We believe it is important to understand and quantify the changes that occur with macroinvertebrate populations and their habitats when flows are reduced. We have developed an alternative protocol that would address biomass and habitat effects and are willing to provide this for consideration by the CAWG.

C-22 Appendix C Summary Table of Written Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (cont.) Comment letter June 28, 2001 Paragraph or Study Plan # Page # Section Bullet Comment Response TERR Specific projections should be made for alteration of terrestrial The Big Creek Hydroelectric Relicensing Process does habitat for future transmission and/or distribution line construction not include the construction of new transmission and/or or maintenance within the project area so that appropriate distribution lines. If it is determined in the future that recommendations for mitigation or enhancement can be proposed additional transmission and/or distribution lines would by the resource agencies. The Service recommends that be constructed, USFWS would be consulted and transmission and distribution lines be designed according to appropriate mitigation and/or enhancement measures guidelines provided in “Suggested Practices for Raptors Protection would be developed. As indicated in TERR - 8, TERR - on Power lines: The State of the Art in 1996” (APLIC 1996). This 9, and TERR - 10, SCE’s transmission lines will be would help reduce the loss of wildlife habitat and prevent collisions evaluated to determine if they comply with the or electrocution of perching birds, particularly condors, hawks, and Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power eagles. Lines: The State of the Art in 1996 (Avian Powerline Interaction Committee 1996).

C-23 Appendix C Summary Table of Written Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (cont.) Comment letter June 28, 2001 Paragraph or Study Plan # Page # Section Bullet Comment Response TERR-5 Common and The Service will provide guidance to the BCC during this first Stage SCE requested an official list of federally listed, Special- process regarding information and analysis that will be necessary proposed, and candidate species from USFWS on status Wildlife to ensure compliance with the ESA. This includes assistance in March 8, 2001. On April 10, 2001this list was received Species- developing studies and survey protocols for appropriate species of from USFWS (1-1-01-SP-1400). General interest to the Service. The BCC should request an official list of The BCC has requested that USFWS identify the study Comment federally listed, proposed, and candidate species from the Service plans, and the components of those study plans that as soon as possible. These lists are effective for 90 days , may require ESA consultation prior to initiation. therefore updated lists will be required for each phase of study. Following receipt of this information, ESA consultation The collaborative group meetings have included discussions will be initiated as appropriate. Additionally, as stated regarding federal and state-listed species issues and BCC has under Detailed Methodology #11, USFWS will be been cooperative in developing the necessary information and consulted with respect to special-status amphibians and studies for those species. The Service can provide approved reptiles that may be affected by scheduled flow survey protocols for listed species evaluated in project study plans. releases for the whitewater boating study (REC - 3). ESA consultation may be required by the Service in order to SCE has scheduled a meeting with USFWS’ conduct surveys proposed in project study plans (i.e. cultural Endangered Species Division to discuss study plans resources, wildlife and fish surveys and other study plan that may require ESA consultations. disturbances to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems). Additionally, the Service recommends that prior to implementation of any proposed increased recreational or study flow releases the BCC The Draft Technical Study Plans were developed from initiate ESA section 7 consultation to minimize the effects of the input from 82 collaborative meetings/conference calls proposed releases to special status species and their habitat within conducted between May 2000 and May 2001. The the project area. BCC is made up of state and federal resource agencies, Native American tribes, local and regional authorities, non-government organizations, local The Service renders its biological opinion of project effects to listed communities and businesses, and members of the species based on the best available scientific information. If the public. The BCC and Working Groups, led by technical information provided by the studies does not include specifics on experts, have developed study plans to obtain a the distribution, abundance, and status of listed species and their sufficient amount of information on the potential project habitat in this area, or does not adequately analyze direct, indirect, effects on special-status resources (including federally and cumulative project effects upon listed species, the Service may listed species). base the opinion upon an assumption of presence of listed species The assumption of the presence of listed species in in all suitable habitat and worst case impact scenarios. We suitable habitats can be rationalized in a Biological encourage the BCC to conduct studies at a sufficiently fine scale to Opinion, in the absence of definitive proof to the identify special habitat features and to enable informed effect contrary. The lack of finalized survey protocols for determinations. some recently listed and future listed species and the large area and variety of habitats covered by the Big Creek watershed makes the demonstration of absence problematical. However, the assumption of worst-case impact scenarios needs better explanation. The goal of the ALP is to try to effectively produce information C-24 Appendix C Summary Table of Written Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (cont.) Comment letter June 28, 2001 Paragraph or Study Plan # Page # Section Bullet Comment Response allowing appropriate decisions to be made concerning the continued operations of the Big Creek System. It is not possible within the resources available to the ALP or necessary to provide definitive research-grade information on all listed and future listed species which could possibly exist in the region.

References:

Bradford, D. F. 1989. Allotopic distribution of native frogs and introduced fishes in high Sierra Nevada lakes of California: implication of the negative effect of fish introductions. Copeia 1989:775-778. Bradford, D. F., F. Tabatabai, and D. M. Graber. 1993. Isolation of remaining populations of the native frog, Rana muscosa, by introduced fishes in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, California. Conservation Biology 7:882-888. Corn, P. S., and R. A. Knapp. 2000. Fish stocking in protected areas: summary of a workshop. Proceedings: Wilderness Science in a Time of Change. Proceedings RMRS-P-00, pages 301-303. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Knapp, R. A. 1996. Non-native trout in natural lakes of the Sierra Nevada: an analysis of their distribution and impacts on native aquatic biota. Pages 363-407 in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: final report to Congress. Volume III, Chapter 8. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California, Davis (available online at ceres.ca.gov/snep/pubs/v3.html). Knapp, R. A., and K. R. Matthews. 2000. Nonnative fish introductions and the decline of the mountain yellow-legged frog from within protected areas. Conservation Biology 14:428-438. Studley, T. K., J. E Baldrige, L. M. Wise, A. P. Spina, S. F. Railsback, E. McElravy, L. Travanti, T. D .F. Yuen, R. B. Lindahl, S. D. Chase, and R. W. Smith. 1995. Response of fish populations to altered flows project, volume 1: predicting trout populations from streamflow and habitat variables. Pacific Gas and Electric Company Research and Development, San Ramon, California.

C-25 Appendix D June 13, 2001 – Summary Table of Verbal Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package (Reproduced from draft meeting minutes transcript provided by court reporter)

Comment # Name/Affiliation Topic Comment Response 1 Barbara Stakeholder In this document there's all kinds of highlighted goals and objectives. Most of the stakeholder management goals and objectives Ferguson Management Could you please tell me what that means? The management goals contained in the draft technical study plans were synthesized from a VP-Public Lands Goals and and objectives, why are they highlighted in the document? collection of individual organization’s management goals and for Back Country Objectives objectives. However, during the latter stages of study plan Horsemen of development, several stakeholders including U.S. Forest Service California (USFS) and Southern California Edison (SCE) felt that their Co-chair of management goals and objectives hadn’t been adequately captured SAM’s and provided new management goals and objectives. These new Fresno County management goals and objectives are highlighted and attributed in Planning the study plans. Commission Prior to the distribution of the Final Technical Study Plan Package, these new management goals and objectives will be added to the compilation of individual stakeholder interest-based management goals and objectives. The final study plans will include an updated version of the synthesized management goals and objectives approved by the Plenary that reflect these new interests. A description of development and approval of the stakeholder management goals and objectives was provided in Pages 1-10 through 1-14 of the Draft Technical Study Plan Package (DTSPP). 2 Barbara Stakeholder I know that most of them (highlighted stakeholder management goals Several stakeholders including U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Ferguson Management and objectives) are U.S. Forest Service, and I was wondering if this Southern California Edison (SCE) provided new management goals Goals and is a direct result of the analysis of the new framework for the Sierra- and objectives. These new interest based management goals and Objectives Nevada, but maybe that's more appropriate for the Forest Service. objectives are highlighted and attributed in the study plans. As anticipated by the Big Creek Collaborative, the USFS provided new management goals and objectives after the Sierra Nevada Framework was formally adopted. 3 Barbara Stakeholder I am a little bit uneasy about the management goals and objectives The management goals and objectives provided by the Ferguson Management that I see in here because, to me, it seems as though you, in effect, stakeholders represent an initial effort by the parties to Goals and have some showstoppers in here. I mean, there are some communicate and better understand the diverse and often Objectives statements made in here when you – when I see "maintain and conflicting interests involved in relicensing of the Big Creek System. restore," you know, all of this kind of thing and you're talking about The working groups have used the management goals and flood plains, all kinds of issues involved in here, to me that implies objectives to guide the development of draft technical study plans. that there's going to be some impact on your water flows, when you The goal of the studies is to obtain sufficient information to identify have to release, how much hydroelectric you're going to able to impacts from on-going operation and maintenance activities and produce. So to me the relevant question is: What is it that you're evaluate potential protection, mitigation and enhancement trying do here, and it would seem to me what you're trying to do is measures. relicense the system, but I'm concerned about the goals and The stakeholder management goals and objectives do not reflect objectives that are here in and what impact that's going to have on the final license terms and conditions. New license terms and your ability to produce hydroelectricity and also to store water for the conditions for the Project will be negotiated during the settlement downstream users. phase of the process.

D-1 Appendix D June 13, 2001 – Summary Table of Verbal Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package (Reproduced from draft meeting minutes transcript provided by court reporter)

Comment # Name/Affiliation Topic Comment Response 4 Barbara Stakeholder I guess this is section 5, Recreational Resources. Point 4, you The stakeholder management objective referred to in this Ferguson Management have a stakeholder management objection, "Maintain or Enhance comment can be found in REC-3 Whitewater Recreation Goal on the Contact Recreation, beneficial use of project waters with Assessment Study – Stakeholder Management Objective No. 4. Recreation environmental sensitivity to potential effects of out of season flow Water contact recreation is a legal term used by the State Water releases on the aquatic biota." First of all, because "contact Resources Control Board (SWRCB). It is defined in the Fourth recreation" is capitalized, one would assume that would be defined Edition of the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the somewhere. I can't find a definition. You mentioned earlier this Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins as follows: includes swimming. In reading this, it sounds like to me like it's “Water Contact Recreation (REC-1) – Uses of water for related only to flows, stream flows, which would imply to me this is recreational activities involving body contact with water, where white water rafting or some form of boating. ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses include, Certainly I think when you use a term such as that, you should but are not limited to, swimming, wading, water-skiing, skin and define it somewhere. You're very careful on all your other scuba diving, surfing, white water activities, fishing, or use of acronyms and whatever to define them. Also, I don't know what natural hot springs”. that statement means. That's not a very clear management The management goal and objective was provided by the objective to me. On the one hand, it seems to be saying that we SWRCB. The intent of this objective is to emphasize that while want out-of-season flow for these contact recreational activities, but contact recreation (in this case, whitewater boating) is a then on the other hand, it's concerned apparently about the aquatic recognized beneficial use of the Project waters, any proposals to biota. I just don't know what that objective does, mean, you know. modify project operations to enhance this use must also consider So I think that needs to be clarified. It's not the least bit clear to potential effects on aquatic biota. me. The management goals and objectives were largely developed by technical experts representing a diverse group of stakeholders. The Working Group and Plenary participants understand the intent of each of these objectives. The study plans were developed to collect the information necessary to evaluate the impact of the project, if any, on the attainment of these objectives. The final study plans will include an updated version of the synthesized management goals and objectives approved by the Plenary. The goal will be to clearly communicate the intent of each of the objectives. The final study plan package will also contain a glossary of terms.

D-2 Appendix D June 13, 2001 – Summary Table of Verbal Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package (Reproduced from draft meeting minutes transcript provided by court reporter)

Comment # Name/Affiliation Topic Comment Response 4 Barbara If you don't have a clear understanding of what your goals and Continuation of comment No 4, please refer to response above. (cont.) Ferguson objectives are, then it would seem to me we're going to have some (continued) difficulty defining the study of what you're supposedly looking at to look at that management goal and objective. That's a goal and objective. If you can't understand what it is, how do you define the study? You know, a little bit of a problem there. And I would also -- I want to caution you from someone who's been just picking up the document and reading it and not been in all the detailed meetings, and I think this may not be directed at you as much as it's directed at these agencies who are participating like the State Water Resources Control Board, which was the -- apparently the author of that goal and objective. You need to speak English to the public. I think also what you need to do is you need to consider what it is that you're asking for and make and phrase it so that it is generally understandable so that you can understand the implications, and I can only draw a parallel to all these goals and objectives that I've seen in here and a lot of are submitted by the U.S.Forest Service -- and I don't mean to slam them -- but -- well maybe I do, but the impact is you take a look at what you're saying and you say what are the consequences of what it is I'm asking for here. And I hate to say it, but we've just gone through a very, very long process with the new management plan for the whole Sierra-Nevadas, which you all are part of, Big Creek is a part of that, and we are now "suffering the consequences," and a lot of them unintended were the words that were in the management plan for that document. So I really can't strongly stress that you speak in English, you know, and that you understand what it is you're asking for, because you might not like it when you get it. 5 Gary Rogers Stakeholder Because of actions of the Forest Service, I have questions about See response to Comment No. 3 above. Former sawmill Management some of the things that they put in here that, to me, really impacts employee Goals and what Southern California Edison's ability to maintain their stream Objectives flows are. When they talk about "Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity for aquatic and riparian species within and between watersheds," it makes me a little scared. 6 Thad Bettner Stakeholder I'm going to talk from a personal standpoint, not representing a See response to Comment No. 3 above. Westlands Management district. First of all, I'd like to say that I agree with a couple of the Water District Goals and previous speakers regarding the Forest Service late comments. I Objectives think adding that in there added quite a bit of confusion and some conflicting standards, as Jeff mentioned. I think that hopefully the Plenary group, when they looking through it, takes careful consideration and opts to throw a lot of those comments out, because they should have been included in initial phases of the study.

D-3 Appendix D June 13, 2001 – Summary Table of Verbal Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package (Reproduced from draft meeting minutes transcript provided by court reporter)

Comment # Name/Affiliation Topic Comment Response 7 Gary Rogers Public Notice Where are the public announcements going to be? Are they going The formal public announcements for this project will be provided to be in The Fresno Bee, in the Visalia paper? What are you going in the Fresno Bee, the Mountain Press, and on SCE Project to use as a vehicle to get your public notices out? Website (http://www.SCE.com/bigcreek/index.shtml). Regular up-dates of the project are also provided in quarterly newsletters mailed to individuals and organizations on the distribution list. The SCE website provides detailed information on project activities. 8 Maureen Barile Comment My question is: I know we were allowing 30 days for comment. I The formal notice for the public meeting was published in Fresno Secretary of Period believe the legal notice appeared in The Fresno Bee on May 22 Bee and Mountain Democrat at least 15 days prior to the meeting Sierra-Nevada and again on May 29. However, we're giving the public until consistent with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Access Saturday, June 16, and I don't know if that's a receipt date or I regulations. Coalition don't know if that's a postal date, and many times they -- you can't The 30-day comment period began on May 17, 2001, the day the have end dates for public comments to be a Saturday. So I have a DTSPP was distributed to the public. The public was provided question about that. But I also have a question about the 30 days, with prior notification of upcoming study plan review period in if we're really allowing people 30 days, because I think we're a little the quarterly newsletter and SCE website short. (http://www.SCE.com/bigcreek/index.shtml). 9 Toby Horst Board of We finally got the materials (DTSPP) to give to the board of SCE will contact the County Board of Supervisors and, if Resource Supervisors supervisors on Monday this week. They told us, you know, that's a requested, set-up a meeting to present an overview of the Big Conservation Update little short notice to try to get someone here, to a meeting like this, Creek Alternative Licensing Process (ALP) and answer any of Districts so that they could intelligently speak. We had hoped to maybe their questions. have a session with them before tonight. The best I could do was at least have a fairly good long session with the District 5, which has all the Big Creek project, which is Bob Waterston. We had a few minutes, and his greatest concern in expression is that we haven't effectively -- we are trying very well to try to communicate everything we're doing, but he thumbed through the rather thick document and says you expect me to try to understand this in this short interval and come and sit in a meeting and trying to grasp it? Somehow we're going to need to have some sessions with somebody like the board of supervisors where we can allow them time -- which, remember, they're busy people. 10 Lou Beihn Native I would like a correction in the list of participants, a change in Mono This correction will be made. American Nation tribes to Native American or Native American tribes Tribal because the Mono Nation is a separate organization, nonprofit, Designations which will be represented separate from the other tribes. 11 Barbara Project Effects The project is in existence, so what I'm having a problem The FERC relicensing process requires that on-going effects of Ferguson understanding is what are potential effects -- are you talking about project operation and maintenance activities are identified. new effects? Are you talking about old effects? Are there some effects that are more relevant than others?

D-4 Appendix D June 13, 2001 – Summary Table of Verbal Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package (Reproduced from draft meeting minutes transcript provided by court reporter)

Comment # Name/Affiliation Topic Comment Response 12 Barbara Cost of Studies There's nothing in here that talks about the cost of these 66 The studies were developed by the Big Creek Collaborative to Ferguson studies. Have you drawn any cost analysis? You did refer to collect the information necessary to identify potential project “cost-effective.” There's no dollars associated with any of these impacts and develop future license conditions. The studies were studies as yet? not selected based on cost, but rather, on information required to make sound decisions. 13 Gary Rogers Cost of Studies These studies – and I realize the studies have to be done because SCE is currently funding these studies. However, eventually, the you do have people that are interested. Will those costs be passed cost of these studies will be passed on to the consumers through on to the rate payers? How is this being funded? the rate base. 14 Gary Rogers Power Who is going to tell Gray Davis that we're going to produce less Modifications to Project operations and the resulting effects on Generation/ power out of this system as a result of these studies? He's under a power generation will not be known until new license conditions Cost of Power lot of pressure to have more power, not less, and I see everything are issued by the FERC. However, the settlement agreement in here -- not everything, but a lot of things in here that reduce it. from the Big Creek Collaborative anticipated in 2004, will present recommendations to the FERC for these new conditions. Information on the Big Creek ALP including the meeting schedule, and the development and evaluation of future PM&E measures contained in the settlement agreement will be readily available to the public on SCE website. All interested parties are encouraged to attend and participate in the Big Creek ALP. 15 Gary Rogers Power Nowhere in here is the value of water as power generation listed. The Land-5 Storage Capacity and Generation Assessment study Generation/ Is that in the other half of the study that we don't see or just you plan includes an evaluation of the value of water storage and Cost of Power know all of that already and so that isn't talked about? If you generation benefits. One element of this study is to evaluate the reduce the water stored for in-stream flows, but, you know, when effects of any proposed PM&E measures on power generation you would rather store it, that -- I mean, there's a value there. So and downstream consumptive uses (e.g. agriculture). how do you value the difference between releasing more water versus making more power? You are a power generation company, among other things. How do you come up with and how do you value that? Will that calculation be used at some point in these studies? 16 Toby Horst Power It happens to be Land Management 5 (Study Plan), storage This comment was provided in response to Comment No. 15. Generation/ capacity and generating assessment. It is in there and it's “… Cost of Power perform economic evaluations of changes to electric generation from proposed flow regimes,” which is broad based words that we put in, but hopefully that captured the essence that – because definitely the county of Fresno is interested in the cost that is going to cause to electric rate increase if we lose the generation. So that was one of their greatest interests that we make a cost evaluation of what any reduction in flows would be.

D-5 Appendix D June 13, 2001 – Summary Table of Verbal Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package (Reproduced from draft meeting minutes transcript provided by court reporter)

Comment # Name/Affiliation Topic Comment Response 17 Thad Bettner Power Pertaining to what Gary Rogers said, I think he talked initially about The Land-5 Storage Capacity and Generation Assessment study Generation/ trying to head towards a NEPA study investigation. One of the plan includes an evaluation of the value of water storage and Rates considerations with a NEPA study is also concern what economic generation benefits. One element of this study is to evaluate the impacts are, and I think really -- I know there's -- it's weaved effects of any proposed PM&E measures on power generation through different study groups that talk about economics, but really and downstream consumptive uses (e.g. agriculture). economics should be a tab in here and really address what is the impact not only from an electrical standpoint, but replacing generation, what's the cost of that to consumers. There was The overall economic effects of a proposed PM&E package will mention that Steve brought about what the emissions are going to be analyzed in Land-3 Cumulative Effects Analysis study. do, that sort of thing. You also have impacts to agriculture, which Ultimately, the economic effects of each project alternative will be we're concerned about. You're take land out of production. described in detail in the Preliminary Draft Environmental Definitely what's the cost of that, not only the cost of resource. Assessment submitted to FERC. 18 Barbara Land One other thing I observed in here is that you have 1,000 square Land- 5 Storage Capacity and Generation Assessment study plan Ferguson Management miles of watershed that's feeding the system. I don't see -- and has been revised to include an evaluation of the potential to maybe I missed it, but I don't see anything in here that addresses increase runoff in the basin by modifying land management those specific lands in the view of producing more water, practices (e.g. vegetation management). increasing the flow off the watershed, which I think is a pretty important issue. Sure, you can't -- I mean, you can't really make it rain more, but there are mechanisms by which you can reduce evapotransformation, you know, do vegetative treatments that will allow the water to sit – or the snow to sit on the ground longer, allow for a longer runoff, et cetera, et cetera. I didn't see those studies in here, which I think are pretty important, especially when you're talking about releasing stream flows or, you know, enhancing and restoring stream flows to the detriment of producing hydroelectric for storage. 19 Gary Rogers Land I didn't see a study in there that would show that the difference of See response to Comment No.18. Management the water you can generate, coming off of the system of managed lands, and I know Southern California Edison does a terrific job managing their forest lands versus lands that are no longer managed or for some reason you wouldn't manage, because a managed forest will produce a lot more water, which would answer a lot of people's requests for what the pocket that you have to divide. Is there a study there that I couldn't find or would you consider putting that study in to determine how much more water you can generate?

D-6 Appendix D June 13, 2001 – Summary Table of Verbal Comments and Approved Responses on Draft Technical Study Plan Package (Reproduced from draft meeting minutes transcript provided by court reporter)

Comment # Name/Affiliation Topic Comment Response 20 Thad Bettner Recreation Third from the personal standpoint, I do a lot of backpacking, and A two-day site visit to the Project area was provided to the this area is rugged country. And I'm just curious, have you taken stakeholders on June 20 and 21, 2000. Additional site visits will stakeholders on a hike through this area to really look at it? be conducted. These tours provide the stakeholders with a sense Because some of the stuff you can't even get to. I've spent, you of the remote and challenging terrain present in the Project area. know, weeks in here and you just can't get to it. I think it's one Many of the stakeholders have greater knowledge of the Project thing to look at this on paper and say yeah, I want to do this, this, area through years of working and/or recreating in the forest. We and this, but some of this area, if you want to go and put trees in rely on input from these stakeholders to help guide the the stream like they want to do, you have to haul in a chainsaw. It development of reasonable PM&E measures. would probably take you half a day to get in there just to the section of the channel that you want to knock the tree down into. I would encourage you to really, if you haven't, take some of these stakeholders into some of the areas and show them. Say, “Is this what you really want?” 21 Gary Rogers Recreation I take it water contact recreation is whitewater rafting? See response to Comment No. 4, above. 22 Dan McDivitt Safety/ We've done a few body recoveries on the San Joaquin and some The REC-16 Emergency Services Evaluation study plan Fresno County Emergency of the places that are listed are very remote. I hope there is some evaluates the need, if any, for improved emergency services as a Search & Services consideration when you go into this process you contact both result of recreational enhancements from Project PM&E Rescue County of Fresno Sheriff's Department and Madera County measures and identifies the level of funding and parties Sheriff's Department for their input before making a decision on to responsible for any emergency services improvements. The plan opening areas that are now closed are or inaccessible. includes consultation with the Fresno and Madera County Sheriff Departments. 23 Joel Hausser Safety/ The only concerns we have, we've gotten into this late. I see the We look forward to receiving the comments from the Sheriff’s Fresno County Emergency board of supervisors would probably be dealt with, I guess, if you Department through the County Board of Supervisors. Sheriff’s Services want to call it that from the Sheriff's Department. They're going to Department do their draft comments through the board, so that comes to you. 24 Joel Hausser Safety/ We probably do in Southern Cal Edison's area six or seven critical See response to Comment No. 22. Emergency search and rescues a year. PG&E, we do probably a similar Services amount, a little more. You know your water sheds. God forbid, I cringe every time I have to go into Southern California Edison's area. It is that rugged. We probably average seven or eight team members, Sheriff's Department personnel to an average rescue down in your area. Seven or eight of us, figure six hours in, have to do stabilization of the victim. We usually end up carrying them to the helicopter because we can't get into these areas. Forest service has restrictions on us as well, you know that, towards helicopter landings in certain area. So it's put a burden on us. Sheriff's Department and Forest Service both have fairly good records on most of our search, and the rounded-out cost for most of the emergency services list us -- services probably average at least 4 to 5,000 without the chopper. Things like that need to be considered into that.

D-7