Yuba River Fish Passage

Conceptual Engineering Project Options

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010

Yuba River Fish Passage

Conceptual Engineering Project Options

This document was prepared for: National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Region Habitat Conservation District Contact: Richard Wantuck

This document was prepared by: MWH Americas, Inc. 3321 Power Inn Rd, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95826 Contact: Stephanie Theis

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ...... 1-1 History of Anadromous Salmonids in the Central Valley ...... 1-2 History of the Yuba River Fisheries ...... 1-3 2 Regulatory and Management Considerations ...... 2-1 Hydropower Relicensing and the Endangered Species Act ...... 2-1 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Jurisdiction in the Yuba-Bear/Drum- Spaulding Hydropower Complex ...... 2-2 The Lower Yuba River Fisheries Management Plan, State Water Board Hearings, and the Lower Yuba River Accord of 2007 ...... 2-4 3 Fish Habitat ...... 3-1 Previous Studies for Chinook Salmon and Steelhead ...... 3-1 Lower Yuba River Fisheries ...... 3-2 South Yuba Fish Habitat ...... 3-5 Middle Yuba Fish Habitat ...... 3-7 North Yuba Fish Habitat ...... 3-9 Potential Available Fish Habitat ...... 3-10 South Yuba...... 3-10 Middle Yuba ...... 3-10 North Yuba...... 3-10 4 Possible Fish Passage Facilities ...... 4-1 Program Issues ...... 4-1 Possible Types and Locations of Fish Passage Facilities ...... 4-2 5 Interim Collection and Transport Program ...... 5-1 Adult Collection and Transport ...... 5-1 Juvenile Collection and Transport ...... 5-3 6 Upstream Facilities ...... 6-1 Englebright Dam Fish Ladder ...... 6-1 Facility Description ...... 6-2 Possible Pilot Facilities ...... 6-3 Cost Estimate ...... 6-4 Operations and Maintenance ...... 6-4

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – i Yuba River Fish Passage Project

Englebright Dam Fish Tramway ...... 6-4 Facility Description ...... 6-4 Possible Pilot Facilities ...... 6-6 Cost Estimate ...... 6-6 Operations and Maintenance ...... 6-6 Daguerre Point Dam Collection and Transport ...... 6-6 Facility Description ...... 6-7 Possible Pilot Facilities ...... 6-8 Cost Estimate ...... 6-8 Operations and Maintenance ...... 6-9 7 Downstream Facilities ...... 7-1 Englebright Fish Screens and Bypass ...... 7-2 Facility Descriptions ...... 7-2 Cost Estimate ...... 7-5 Operations and Maintenance ...... 7-5 Englebright Floating Surface Collector ...... 7-6 Facility Descriptions ...... 7-6 Cost Estimate ...... 7-9 Operations and Maintenance ...... 7-9 Tributary Fish Screens and Barriers ...... 7-9 Assumptions ...... 7-10 Facility Descriptions ...... 7-10 Cost Estimate ...... 7-14 Operations and Maintenance ...... 7-14 8 Opinion of Probable Costs ...... 8-1 9 References ...... 9-1

ii – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service Table of Contents

Tables

Table 3-1. Fish Migration Periods in the Lower Yuba River ...... 3-2 Table 3-2. Field Observations of the Yuba River Watershed ...... 3-4 Table 3-3. Fish Barriers in the South Yuba ...... 3-6 Table 3-4. Fish Barriers in the Middle Yuba ...... 3-8 Table 3-5. Fish Barriers in the North Yuba ...... 3-10 Table 4-1. Potential Upstream Passage Facilities ...... 4-3 Table 4-2. Potential Downstream Passage Facilities ...... 4-4 Table 7-1. Design Exceedence Flow for the North, Middle and South Yuba Rivers .. 7-10 Table 7-2. Estimated Costs for Construction of a Fish Screen in the North, Middle and South Yuba Rivers ...... 7-14 Table 8-1. Opinion of Probable Costs for Fish Passage Alternatives in 2009 Dollars .... 8-2

Plates

Plate 1. Yuba River Watershed Fish Impediments Plate 2 Photographs of Juvenile Fish Collection and Transport Options Plate 3 Englebright V-Slot Fish Ladder Conceptual Details Plate 4 Englebright V-Slot Fish Ladder Conceptual Details Plate 5 Englebright Tramway Conceptual Plan Plate 6 Englebright Tramway Conceptual Details Plate 7 Daguerre Point Dam Collection and Transport Plate 8 Daguerre Point Dam Collection and Transport Plate 9 Englebright Dam Fish Screens and Bypass General Plan Plate 10 Englebright Dam Fish Screens and Bypass Narrows I Intake Modifications Plate 11 Englebright Dam Fish Screens and Bypass Narrows II Intake Modifications Plate 12 Englebright Dam Fish Screens and Bypass Fish Screen Profiles Plate 13 Englebright Dam Floating Surface Collector General Plan Plate 14 Englebright Dam Floating Surface Collector 3-D Rendering Plate 15 South Yuba River Example Barrier and Screen General Plan

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – iii Yuba River Fish Passage Project

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AACE Association of American Cost Engineers AWS auxiliary water system BLM Bureau of Land Management cfs cubic feet per second DFG California Department of Fish and Game DPS Distinct Population Segment D-1644 Water Right Decision 1644 ESA Endangered Species Act ESU evolutionarily significant unit FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission fps feet per second FR Federal Register FSC floating surface collector msl mean sea level NID Nevada Irrigation District NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NTS Net Transition Structure OPCC Opinions of Probable Construction Cost PCWA Placer County Water Agency PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company RM River Mile SR State Route USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFS U.S. Forest Service YBDS Yuba-Bear/Drum-Spaulding YCWA Yuba County Water Agency

iv – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service 1 Introduction

1 Introduction

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Southwest Region, is currently researching the feasibility of various fish passage alternatives for reintroduction of anadromous fishes into their historic habitats that have been blocked for decades by the construction of a network of large and small dams. An important objective in the NMFS’ Central Valley Draft Recovery Plan is to expand the spatial distribution of spawning habitat by restoring spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead to their historic, higher elevation habitats. In certain cases, this may require implementation of either dam removal or engineered fish passage systems. The upper Yuba River is identified in NMFS’ Draft Recovery Plan (2009) as a prime candidate for reintroduction of spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead. The upper Yuba River, consisting of the North Yuba, Middle Yuba and South Yuba rivers, is one of these waterways and is the subject of this study (Plate 1). The Yuba River Basin supports a number of anadromous fish species under NMFS’ jurisdiction. These species include the Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) (70 Federal Register (FR) 37160, June 28, 2005); the California Central Valley steelhead (O. mykiss) Distinct Population Segment (DPS) (71 FR 834, January 5, 2006); and the Southern DPS of the North American green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) (71 FR 17757, April 7, 2006); which are listed under the ESA as Threatened. In addition, NMFS has designated critical habitat on the Yuba River for Central Valley spring-run Chinook and California Central Valley steelhead (70 FR 52488, September 2, 2005). Englebright Dam was constructed on the Yuba River in 1941 as a debris-control facility to alleviate remnant impacts of the gold mining era. Standing 260-feet tall, Englebright Dam effectively truncates the Yuba River watershed and presents a complete barrier to fish movement between the lower Yuba River and the upstream habitats in the South, Middle and North Yuba rivers. New Bullards Bar Dam, 645-feet tall and completed in 1969, also forms a complete barrier to fish movement in the North Yuba River, as does Our House Dam on the Middle Yuba River. In addition, numerous other structures have been constructed in the South and Middle Yuba rivers -many of which are hydroelectric facilities currently subject to relicensing before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The river downstream from Englebright Dam is called the lower Yuba River and it has populations of fall-run and spring-run Chinook salmon, steelhead, and green sturgeon. Spring-run Chinook salmon do occur in small numbers, but likely genetically mix with the fall-run Chinook because of the lack of spatial separation. In addition, hatchery strays, mostly from the Feather River Fish Hatchery, intermingle with the Chinook salmon spawning population (California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) 2006). Despite the fact that anadromous fish appear to be persisting at historically low levels in the lower Yuba River, it is also true that three of these species are part of ESUs that are listed as threatened with extinction under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – 1‐1 Yuba River Fish Passage Project

The fourth anadromous species occupying the lower Yuba River, fall-run Chinook salmon, is a species of concern under ESA but was not warranted for listing at the time of the last formal review (69 FR 19975, April 15, 2004). However, escapements of fall run Chinook salmon have been extremely low in recent years, thus prompting new consideration of additional regulatory protective measures. The Yuba River, including the sections upstream from Englebright Dam, has been designated as Essential Fish Habitat under the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act. The river upstream of Englebright Dam is referred to as the upper Yuba River. The upper Yuba River consists of 3 ‘forks’, the South Yuba, Middle Yuba and North Yuba rivers. Fish passage into the upper Yuba River was terminated in 1941 without consideration of the ensuing fisheries impacts, which have been occurring for nearly 70 years without adequate mitigation. This situation is a fisheries management concern for NMFS because the different runs of Chinook salmon and steelhead, which historically evolved to fulfill their reproductive requirements in the extensive, higher elevation habitats of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, can no longer access these vital habitats. Thus, the different anadromous fish runs that used to proliferate with the benefits of separation in time and space, are now forced to compete for limited (and often less productive) habitats in the lower elevation habitats of the Central Valley floor. This report focuses mainly on conceptual engineering alternatives for restoring anadromous fish passage to the upper Yuba River watershed. Also presented is a brief perspective of the history, habitats, and regulatory context of salmon management in the Yuba River. History of Anadromous Salmonids in the Central Valley Anadromous salmonids in the Central Valley of California have been substantially affected by anthropogenic components, including construction of dams and alterations of water flow and temperature. Construction of major dams for flood control, power, and water diversions have blocked access to most historic spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead habitat in Central Valley rivers and streams. In addition, dams have reduced or prevented recruitment of spawning size gravel to downstream riffles. Riffles downstream of dams are anticipated to continue to degrade as flood flows move gravel downstream without replenishment from upstream areas. The construction of dams, streambank modifications, and other watershed activities have led to an overall decrease in the amount of instream wood input into the riverine systems. Fish habitat quality and quantity is directly enhanced by the presence of instream woody material, which provides cover from predators, overhead cover, additional structure and food (Lisle 1986, Everett and Ruiz 1993). The abundance of salmonids is often positively associated with the abundance of instream woody material in a river (Bisson et al. 1987, Hartman and Brown 1987). Historically, different runs of Chinook salmon occupying the same stream were separated in space and time. For example, adult spring-run Chinook salmon migrated in the spring and held and spawned in the colder, higher elevation waters, while fall-run adults started migrating in the fall and spawned lower in the river. However, a large portion of historic

1‐2 – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service 1 Introduction

spring-run Chinook and steelhead habitats were blocked by dams decades ago, as was the case in the Yuba River with the construction of Englebright, New Bullards Bar, and Our House dams.1 Presently, both Central Valley spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon are often forced to spawn together downstream of dams, (with the exceptions of Mill, Deer and Butte creeks). As a result, interbreeding has occurred because the spawning periods for spring- and fall-run Chinook salmon overlap and much of the time the fish intermingle while they spawn, or redd superimposition occurs. Spring-run Chinook salmon historically spawned in the upper sections of at least 18 major rivers and tributaries in the Central Valley, including the Yuba River. Because of the factors described above, numerous salmonid populations were extirpated, in particular, Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon and Central Valley steelhead (Lindley et al. 2007). Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon were listed by NMFS under the Federal ESA as a threatened evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) on September 16, 1999 (64 FR 50393), and critical habitat was designated which includes the lower Yuba River (65 FR 7764, February 16, 2000). On February 5, 1999, the California Fish and Game Commission listed spring-run Chinook salmon as threatened under the California ESA. Central Valley steelhead was listed by NMFS as threatened (63 FR 13347, March 19, 1998), and critical habitat was designated for this ESU (65 FR 7764, February 16, 2000). The lower Yuba River is included in the critical habitat range for Central Valley steelhead. Most Central Valley systems with larger populations of Chinook salmon and steelhead are augmented by hatchery fish. Therefore, many of the populations have been genetically affected. One of the key factors that increases the value and importance of the Yuba River fisheries for the recovery of anadromous fishes is the fact that there is no hatchery, or hatchery augmentation in the Yuba River. However, the Feather River Fish Hatchery Chinook salmon frequently stray into the lower Yuba River (DFG 2005, Jones and Stokes 2005, Lindley et al. 2007) History of the Yuba River Fisheries The Yuba River is the fourth largest river in the Sacramento River Basin. The river provides water for agriculture, domestic use, hydroelectric power generation, and recreation. In addition, the Yuba River downstream from Englebright Dam (lower Yuba River) supports numerous species of fish including Chinook salmon and steelhead. Historically, Chinook salmon inhabited the entire watershed of the Yuba River, including the North, Middle and South Yuba rivers. Although no population estimates are available for the Yuba River fisheries prior to the construction of Englebright Dam and New Bullards Bar Dam, anecdotal information indicates that Chinook salmon were abundant and in considerable numbers (Yoshiyama et al. 2001)

1 While there are many other diversion dams in Central Valley watersheds - many of which also block historic anadromous fish habitat to one degree or another – this report cites the three major three dams that block the most fish habitat in the upper Yuba River, i.e.- Englebright, New Bullards Bar, and Our House.

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – 1‐3 Yuba River Fish Passage Project

Englebright Reservoir is located on the Yuba River about nine miles downstream of New Bullards Bar Reservoir and about 26 miles east of Marysville. Englebright Dam was completed by the California Debris Commission in 1941 as a debris barrier and is now under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Englebright Dam impounds the waters of the upper Yuba (North, Middle and South Yuba rivers), creating Englebright Lake, which serves as the afterbay for New Colgate Powerhouse and the forebay for power generation at the Narrows I and Narrows II powerhouses. The Yuba River watershed, composed of the lower mainstem river fed by its upper North, Middle, and South Fork branches and tributary streams, is identified as having historic habitat and populations of spring-run Chinook salmon, fall-run Chinook salmon and steelhead. Both spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead historically migrated as far as they could into higher elevation habitats before reaching a passage impediment in the North, Middle and South Yuba rivers where they would hold, spawn and rear. In the North Yuba, there are no apparent natural barriers upstream from New Bullards Bar Reservoir, so Chinook salmon were historically able to ascend a considerable distance. The historic upper limit of migration for spring-run Chinook, and possibly steelhead was about two miles upstream from the confluence with Salmon Creek (around River Mile (RM) 50) and their absolute upstream limit on the North Yuba was likely Loves Falls (Yoshiyama et al. 2001). Deep pools are present throughout the North Fork Yuba River up to Sierra City and likely provided prime holding habitat for spring-run Chinook salmon. On the Middle Yuba, at about 0.4 miles upstream from the confluence with the North Yuba is a cascade totaling approximately 13 to 15 feet (Gast et al. 2005, and Vogel 2006 both in DWR 2007). This cascade is likely a partial barrier to anadromous fish passage at low flows, but may be passable by larger fish at higher flows (Gast et al. 2002005 in DWR 2007). In addition, there are apparently two low-flow (less than 200 cubic feet per second (cfs)) barriers that are located at RM 0.2 and RM 3.2 (Gast et al. 2005). These locations need additional evaluation by qualified fish passage engineer(s) and hydrologists to determine the exact extent and duration of fish passage impedance. Both Chinook salmon and steelhead were observed during a DFG survey in 1938 in the Middle Yuba near its confluence with the North Yuba (DFG unpublished data as cited in Yoshiyama et al. 2001). Steelhead were found as far upstream as the mouth of Bloody Run Creek (around RM 17.5) (DFG unpublished data as cited in Yoshiyama et al. 2001). Our House Dam, located at RM 12.7, was constructed in 1969 without fish passage facilities. At around 75 feet high, this dam currently constitutes a complete barrier to fish passage. The original distribution of Chinook salmon and steelhead in the South Yuba is uncertain. There are records of Chinook salmon in the South Yuba River within one to two miles upstream of the confluence with the Yuba River (DFG unpublished data as cited in Yoshiyama et al. 2001). Two cascades with at least a 6-foot drop, located at RM 6.2 and at RM 20 (one-half mile below the juncture of Humbug Creek (Yoshiyama et al. 2001, Gast et al. 2005)), may have posed a significant obstruction to salmon migration in low flow conditions. Steelhead ascended the South Yuba as far as the juncture of Poorman Creek near the present town of Washington (DFG unpublished data as cited in

1‐4 – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service 1 Introduction

Yoshiyama et al. 2001), and perhaps some spring-run Chinook salmon historically also reached that point. The lower Yuba River currently sustains one of the few remaining natural (non-hatchery) Chinook salmon and steelhead populations in the Central Valley, although there is input of strays from the Feather River and other Central Valley hatcheries. There is a relatively sustainable fall-run Chinook salmon population that is surveyed annually. The lower Yuba River also has a sustainable Central Valley steelhead population, though the population size is relatively unknown due to the difficulty in quantifying steelhead population sizes. In addition, there is currently a small spring-run Chinook salmon population. There are several field investigations and reports that vary in their identification of the upstream migration limits as well as descriptions of the natural barriers (Gast et al, 2005, Vogel 2006). Regardless, NMFS believes that small or moderate natural barriers could be reasonably modified if fish passage were a management objective to open up important stream reaches. NMFS recommends that these temporal barriers in the upper Yuba watershed be further investigated by qualified hydrologists and fish passage engineers to ascertain how increased flows or physical modifications might reduce or eliminate the passage impediments at these sites; thus leading to additional cost-effective alternatives for anadromous fish reintroduction plans in the upper Yuba watershed. Additionally, Our House Dam could be readily retrofitted with upstream and downstream fish passage facilities to gain significant anadromous fish habitat on the middle Yuba River (in conjunction with improved flow and temperature management).

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – 1‐5 Yuba River Fish Passage Project

This page left blank intentionally.

1‐6 – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service 2 Regulatory and Management Considerations

2 Regulatory and Management Considerations

There are several regulatory and management considerations which need to be accommodated in order to successfully implement an anadromous fish reintroduction plan for the upper Yuba River. Some of the fish passage plans discussed in this report involve additions and/or operations at the Daguerre Point Dam and Englebright Dam – facilities owned and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). These are Federal dams that do not require a license from FERC per se; but the three private hydroelectric facilities dependent on the Englebright Dam complex do require FERC operating licenses – namely the Narrows I, Narrows II, and Colgate powerhouses. These hydroelectric facilities are reliant on the head produced by Englebright Dam and the re- regulating capacity of Englebright Lake; thus they are subject to future fish passage prescriptions under Section 18 of the Federal Power Act. In addition, anadromous fish passage in the upper Yuba River tributaries may include: (1) developing facility modifications and operations at New Bullards Bar Dam and Our House Dam, (2) providing for juvenile collection and transport operations in the lakes or tributaries, (3) creating passable conditions at certain natural barriers, and (4) rehabilitating targeted stream reaches with specified flow and non-flow habitat restoration measures. This section briefly describes some of the other important regulatory and management considerations that will bear upon reintroduction of anadromous fish in the upper Yuba River.2 Hydropower Relicensing and the Endangered Species Act There are three large hydropower developments in the upper Yuba watershed that are contemporaneously undergoing relicensing with the FERC pursuant to the Federal Power Act:

• The Yuba-Bear Hydroelectric Project (P-2266) – 18 facility developments Licensee: Nevada Irrigation District License Expiration: 2013

• The Drum-Spaulding Hydroelectric Project (P-2310) – 29 facility developments Licensee: Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) License Expiration: 2013

2 This section provides only a cursory explanation of some of the regulatory issues connected with Yuba River hydropower relicensing under the Federal Power Act, and the ensuing ESA Section 7 consultations which FERC must undergo on any new license terms for each of the hydroelectric project licensees in the upper Yuba River. Other relevant state and Federal regulatory statutes also apply, but are not mentioned specifically in this document.

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – 2‐1 Yuba River Fish Passage Project

• The Yuba River Development hydroelectric project (P-2246) – 5 facility developments Licensee: Yuba County Water Agency (YCWA) License Expiration: 2016 The Yuba-Bear/Drum-Spaulding (YBDS) hydropower facilities are jointly undergoing relicensing under FERC’s Integrated Licensing Process. YBDS is currently in the ‘Consultation/Study Phase.’ The Yuba River Development Hydroelectric Project is not in the same relicensing cycle as YBDS, but it is close behind in scheduling terms and YCWA began its early relicensing activities in July 2009. Large portions of the YBDS project areas are on the Tahoe National Forest, and some lands are managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Therefore, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and BLM have authority to place mandatory conditions in the new licenses under the Federal Power Act (section 4(e)). To date, YCWA (licensee for Yuba River Project) has not been participating in the relicensing proceedings for YBDS. In 2009, NMFS approached the Licensees, other Resource Agencies, and the various Yuba River stakeholder groups with the idea of convening a “multi-party forum” to simultaneously address all relicensing efforts – as well as a number of associated additional issues- in a comprehensive, watershed level planning effort. A primary objective of this planning and negotiating forum is to develop a consensus-based, comprehensive watershed plan that involves anadromous fish reintroduction in the upper watershed above Englebright Dam. Such a comprehensive plan, developed through a collaborative, multi-stakeholder process, would ostensibly serve as a basis for a comprehensive hydropower settlement - producing new articles of long-term FERC licenses for each respective licensee in the basin, with the concomitant regulatory approval by the various regulatory agencies, and the agreement of other stakeholders. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Jurisdiction in the Yuba­Bear/Drum­Spaulding Hydropower Complex The YBDS hydropower facilities and operations of the upper Yuba River have been described as among the most complex, interrelated hydropower networks in existence. Adding further to the YBDS Projects’ complexity are several diversions for power production that also supply delivery systems for downstream consumptive uses. Some systems are owned by licensees and others are owned by non-licensees. For example, Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) receives approximately 115,000 acre-feet of water annually from the Drum-Spaulding Project facilities (water exported from the upper Yuba River). Both licensees have water delivery contracts that expire concurrently with the FERC licenses. Although it is abundantly clear that these facilities are all part of an interrelated and inter-dependent power generation and water distribution complex, FERC currently asserts jurisdiction only over the hydropower production aspects, and none over matters relating to water deliveries for consumptive uses. FERC’s scoping claims that reductions in stream flow were in most cases a function of consumptive water deliveries, suggesting a limited scope for future NEPA analysis. However, the interrelated downstream water diversions and supply networks of third parties (e.g. PCWA) affect flows in small Placer County streams containing ESA-listed fishes and ESA-designated

2‐2 – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service 2 Regulatory and Management Considerations

critical habitats.3 All of these interrelated and interdependent effects will need to be reconciled as to their effects on ESA-listed species during the Section 7 consultation phase immediately following FERC’s issuance of new hydropower licenses. For example, information in the public domain via the Draft Yuba Accord Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, Chapter 5 (YCWA and Reclamation 2007) states: "The upper basins of the Middle Yuba and South Yuba rivers have been extensively developed for hydroelectric power generation and consumptive uses by Nevada Irrigation District (NID) and PG&E. Total storage capacity of about 307 TAF on the Middle Yuba and South Yuba rivers and associated diversion facilities enable both NID and PG&E to export an average of approximately 410 TAF per year from the Yuba River Basin to the Bear River and American River basins. In addition, the South Feather Water and Power Agency exports an average of about 70 TAF per year from Slate Creek (a tributary to the North Yuba River) to the Feather River Basin. [These]…described operations can significantly reduce the water supply available to the lower Yuba River, particularly during dry and critical water years." NMFS contends that the magnitude and timing of these diversions by the YBDS hydropower complex results in significantly diminished stream flows and water temperature increases downstream in the natural channels of the upper Yuba drainage – namely through the Middle and South Yuba rivers to the lower Yuba River downstream of Englebright Dam. This alteration in the hydrograph constitutes indirect, interrelated, and interdependent effects to ESA-listed anadromous fish because much of the snowmelt and cold water runoff from higher elevations no longer flows downstream to reach the lower Yuba and Feather rivers. Ultimately, these complexities will be resolved following the issuance of any new FERC- issued licenses by either a multi-party agreement or the ensuing regulatory processes. In particular, FERC’s licensing decision must obtain a §401 water quality certification from the State Water Resources Control Board; satisfy any BLM or USFS Section 4(e) mandatory conditions, be consistent with the California Fish and Game Code, and comply with terms and conditions of the Section 7 consultation between FERC and NMFS, as required under the Federal ESA. The outcome of either the regulatory processes described here, or the consensus-based negotiations outlined above, may result in anadromous fish reintroduction as a condition of the new licenses for all three major hydropower licensees. Thus, the need arose for the preplanning of fish passage engineering options as presented in this report.4

3 These streams are in the vicinity of Auburn, CA, and are collectively referred to as the ‘West Placer Streams’ 4 Rick. Wantuck, NMFS Southwest Region Hydropower Program Supervisor, personal communication, September 2009.

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – 2‐3 Yuba River Fish Passage Project

The Lower Yuba River Fisheries Management Plan, State Water Board Hearings, and the Lower Yuba River Accord of 2007 YCWA currently operates the Yuba River Project to meet the terms of the Lower Yuba River Accord, a consensus-based, multi-party agreement reached to satisfy water usage demands while assuring a degree of protection for fishes and aquatic habitat in the lower Yuba River (downstream from Englebright Dam). Flows reach the lower Yuba River downstream from Englebright Dam either through the discharges of the Narrows I and II Powerhouses (PG&E and Yuba County hydro facilities, respectively) or over Englebright Dam (spill) during high winter or spring flows. As stated above, the upper Yuba River no longer contains anadromous salmon or steelhead because passage is blocked at Englebright Dam, but ESA-listed Chinook salmon and steelhead continue to occupy the lower Yuba River. The sufficiency of lower Yuba flows for salmon and steelhead is a contentious issue and has been for some time. DFG released a “Lower Yuba River Fisheries Management Plan” (1991) that proposed new instream flow requirements to improve lower Yuba River conditions. The flows were appreciably higher than those required by an earlier (1965) agreement between DFG and YCWA. After hearings and court actions, the State Water Board adopted new instream flow requirements in a 2001 Water Right Decision (D-1644), which was subsequently challenged in California Superior Court by both YCWA and environmental interests (South Yuba River Citizens League, Trout Unlimited, The Bay Institute, and Friends of the River). After several years of unsuccessful attempts to resolve the issues regarding flow needs below Englebright Dam, YCWA adopted a collaborative, interest- based negotiation process that resulted in the 2005 signing of Memorandum of Understandings between YCWA and 16 other parties. The Accord was executed in 2007 following successful environmental review, but no ESA Section 7 consultation occurred because the action was private and State initiated (not Federal, such as FERC or USACE). In 2008, the State Water Board approved the long-term amendments to YCWA's water-right permits necessary to continue implementation of the Accord. When a new FERC license is issued in 2016, the flow requirements of the Accord will require re-validation or modification.

2‐4 – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service 3 Fish Habitat

3 Fish Habitat

Existing habitat conditions for Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon and Central Valley steelhead are described for the South, Middle and North Yuba rivers based on the previous studies listed below. The availability of habitat in the South and Middle Yuba rivers are based on the assumption that flows and water temperatures will become more suitable following the FERC relicensing for the numerous hydroelectric facilities in the upper watersheds. The primary fish habitat parameters within each river are flows and passage barriers, all of which affect habitat suitability and the ability for fish migration. At the time of this report preparation, water temperature information for multiple years was not available for the three forks of the upper Yuba Rivers. As a result, no trend analysis, or discussion of fish habitat suitability with regards to water temperature was included in this report. Previous Studies for Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Previous studies on Chinook salmon and steelhead habitat in the Yuba River Watershed include the following:

• Yuba River juvenile Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, and juvenile Central Valley steelhead trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, life history survey, Annual Data Report 2003-2004, DFG.

• Yuba River juvenile Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, and juvenile Central Valley steelhead trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, life history survey, Annual Data Report 2004-2005, DFG.

• Upper Yuba River watershed Chinook salmon and steelhead habitat assessment, California Department of Water Resources. Prepared by the Upper Yuba River Studies Program Study Team. 2007.

• Upper Yuba River water temperature criteria for Chinook salmon and steelhead. Stillwater Sciences. 2006.

• Assessment of adult anadromous salmonid migration barriers and holding habitat in the Upper Yuba River. Prepared by David A. Vogel. 2006.

• Spawning habitat evaluation technical memorandum. Prepared by Neil Nikirk and Carl Mesick. 2006

• Middle and South Yuba rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) distribution and abundance dive counts. Prepared by Tom Payne and Associates. 2005.

• Yuba River temperature monitoring project, United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Prepared by Michael L. Deas. 1999.

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – 3‐1 Yuba River Fish Passage Project

• Proposed Yuba Accord Draft Environment Impact Report/Environment Impact Statement (EIR/EIS), Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord Modeling Technical Memorandum (Appendix D), Yuba County Water Agency. 2007.

• Potential for restoration of California stream native fish assemblages. Mark Gard. 2004.

• Setting priorities for native fish conservation: an example from the South Yuba River watershed. Mark Gard. 2004. Lower Yuba River Fisheries According to surveys conducted by DFG, Chinook salmon and steelhead migration in the lower Yuba River occurs year-round. Table 3-1 shows the periods during the year in which juvenile and adult Chinook salmon and steelhead have been observed migrating through the Lower Yuba River watershed.

Table 3-1. Fish Migration Periods in the Lower Yuba River Fish Species Life Stage Months Peak Months Spring-run Chinook Adult – Upstream March–late May mid-May– late May salmon1 migration Fall-run Chinook salmon Adult – Upstream mid-July – mid-October – migration mid-December beginning of November Late fall-run Chinook Adult – Upstream late December – late mid-January salmon migration February Chinook salmon Juvenile – Outmigration mid-November – June end of December – (spring-, fall-, and March and May 2 late-run) Steelhead 1 Adult – Upstream mid-September – Bimodal distribution with migration March first peak during mid-October and second peak during January – February Rainbow trout /Steelhead Juvenile – Outmigration Year-round April – July (O. mykiss) Source: Department of Fish and Game biologist Duane Massa and National Marine Fisheries Service biologist Brian Ellrott. Notes: 1 Species most likely to reach furthest upstream (Yoshiyama et.al 2005) 2 Period represents the combined juvenile outmigration for spring-run, fall-run, and late-run Chinook salmon because it is difficult to distinguish between the three species.

Adult migration for all Chinook salmon in the lower Yuba River watershed occurs in three different stages depending on the species/run, with a combined period of the entire year. Spring-run Chinook salmon typically migrate in early spring (March to late May), fall-run Chinook salmon from mid-July to mid-December, and late fall-run Chinook from late December to late February. It is difficult to distinguish between spring-, fall-, and late-run Chinook salmon juveniles during outmigration. Therefore, it is more accurate to refer to the outmigration period for all three species, which generally occurs from mid- November to June. Spring-run fish typically begin emergence in mid-November, fall-run begin in mid-December, and late fall-run, in mid-May. Fall-run Chinook salmon make up the majority of juveniles captured by DFG in the lower Yuba River compared to spring-

3‐2 – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service 3 Fish Habitat

and late-fall runs (DFG 2005, 2006). High outmigration numbers typically correspond with winter storm flows. The second modal peak in May is associated with increased flows from snowmelt runoff. Although the vast majority of juveniles emigrate as fry, there are still smolts, particularly spring-run, that typically migrate later in the season (April, May) than the fry. Adult steelhead migration occurs in two different stages: one in the fall (mid-September to November) and one in the spring (mid-November to March). Similar to Chinook salmon, it is also difficult to distinguish between resident rainbow trout and steelhead juveniles during outmigration. Therefore, the combined juvenile outmigration periods for rainbow trout and steelhead, together referred to as O. mykiss, is from October to the beginning of December, with a peak occurring from April to July. However, this peak period may not be entirely accurate due to the inability for DFG to sample during the winter season. A reconnaissance-level survey of the Yuba River at easily accessed locations was conducted by Stephanie Theis (MWH fisheries biologist) on May 23, 2009. General observations were made on the lower Yuba with respect to potential collection and transport locations, at two locations on the Middle Yuba River, and along the North Yuba upstream from New Bullards Bar, as it borders State Route (SR) 49 up to the confluence with Downie River. Table 3-2 summarizes the general impression of fish habitat at river locations visited during the reconnaissance visit. Additional observations and analyses were made by MWH staff during a field tour on January 6, 2009, and by using aerial photography, maps, and information gathered from published reports.

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – 3‐3 Yuba River Fish Passage Project

Table 3-2. Field Observations of the Yuba River Watershed River/River Site ID Location Observation Mile 1 Lower Yuba/ Parks Bar Bridge Possible location for juvenile collection if RM 17.8 downstream from collection and transport is used – easily Englebright Reservoir accessible. 2 Middle Yuba/ At confluence with Appears to have suitable fish habitat/diversity RM 4.9 Oregon Creek 3 North Yuba/ At Bridge 13-02 Substrate appears similar to the lower Yuba RM 23.7 River. Gravel bars at edge of river. 4 North Yuba/ Half mile upstream from Water temperature: 55°F RM 24.7 Bridge 13-02. Near Fiddle Creek Bridge 5 North Yuba/ Approximately1 mile Gravel bars provide good fish habitat. RM 25.7 upstream from Site 4 6 North Yuba/ Convict Flat (sign Appears to have suitable fish habitat/diversity RM unknown posted on road) 7 North Yuba/ Approximately 2 miles Temperature: 54°F RM unknown upstream from Convict Flat 8 North Yuba/ Side channel provide good fish habitat RM unknown 9 North Goodyear Creek Appears to have suitable fish habitat/diversity Yuba/RM 29 confluence (bridge) 10 North Yuba/ Downieville – Appears to have suitable fish habitat/diversity RM 37 Confluence with Downie Creek Note: Reconnaissance-level survey results conducted on May 23, 2009. Key: °F = degrees Fahrenheit RM = river mile

3‐4 – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service 3 Fish Habitat

South Yuba Fish Habitat The South Yuba River watershed has a drainage area of approximately 350 square miles (DWR 2007). The river flows into the upper Yuba River towards the upstream end of the Englebright Lake impoundment. NMFS has commissioned further habitat assessment studies of the South Yuba fish habitat potential to supplement information this report. Flows The headwaters of the South Yuba River begin at 9,000 feet in Placer County near Castle Peak and Donner Lake. The upper portion of the South Yuba watershed is primarily snow-melt driven and lower portion, rainwater-driven. South Yuba flows are greatly influenced by releases at Spaulding Dam, located at 4,994 feet mean sea level (msl). South Canyon Creek, contributes flows to the South Yuba approximately nine miles downstream from Lake Spaulding. Inflows to the basin are attributed to inputs to Lake Spaulding from the Middle Yuba River via the Bowman-Spaulding tunnel and inflows from South Canyon Creek. Flow from the South Yuba River is diverted into the Bear and American River basins via the Drum Canal and South Yuba Canal (FERC Project 2310). Barriers The South Yuba River has multiple upstream impediments to fish passage before it flows into Englebright Lake. The primary upstream impoundments are Nevada Irrigation District’s Yuba-Bear Project, and PG&E’s Drum-Spaulding Project. As shown in Table 3-3, there are 14 natural fish barriers between Lake Spaulding Dam and the river’s confluence with the Yuba River. Some of these barriers may be passable by anadromous salmonids under certain hydraulic conditions, or could be modified so as to improve fish passage conditions if such actions supported management goals and objectives. For example, according to Table 3-3, the first three “natural barriers” are all less than 10 feet in height, and could completely restore passage to approximately 35 miles of anadromous if remediated to provide better passage conditions. Further study is needed to assess fish passage barriers in the South Yuba River as they may relate to future fisheries management decisions.

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – 3‐5 Yuba River Fish Passage Project

Table 3-3. Fish Barriers in the South Yuba Location Barrier Type Feature Description (RM) Natural LFB Cascades/falls approximately 9 feet high 5.1 Natural LFB Boulder approximately 9.5 feet high 5.9 Natural LFB Approximately 8 feet high 19.6 Natural TB Two falls: lower fall (13 feet high), upper fall 35.4 (7.5 feet. high) Natural TB Approximately 17 feet high 36 Natural TB Cascades over bedrock (>10 feet high) 37.9 Natural TB Two falls: lower fall (15 feet high), upper fall 38.4 (10 feet high) Natural TB Greater than 15 feet high 39.4 Natural TB Falls and cascades over bedrock (> than 15 39.4 feet high) Natural TB Falls over 15 feet high 39.5 Natural TB Falls greater than 10 feet high 39.5 Natural TB Falls greater than 10 feet high 39.5 Natural TB Complex series of falls 15-20 feet high 39.6 Natural TB Greater than 10 feet high 39.8 Lake Spaulding Dam TB Dam Height: 275 feet 42.4 Source: Vogel 2006 (Appendix C in DWR 2007) Key: LFB = low-flow (less than 200 cubic feet per second) barrier TB = total barrier (low- and high-flow barrier)

3‐6 – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service 3 Fish Habitat

Middle Yuba Fish Habitat The Middle Yuba River watershed has a drainage area of approximately 210 square miles (DWR 2007). The Middle Yuba River joins the North Yuba River below New Bullards Bar Reservoir, approximately two miles downstream of New Bullards Bar Dam. NMFS has commissioned further habitat assessment studies of the Middle Fork Yuba fish habitat potential to supplement information in this report. Flows The Middle Yuba River watershed, including Oregon Creek, covers approximately 210 square miles, with elevations ranging from 1,441 feet msl to 4,455 feet msl. Flows in the Middle Yuba primarily originate from snow runoff and rainwater gathered at Jackson Meadows Reservoir in Sierra County. The largest tributary of the Middle Yuba River is Oregon Creek, which flows into the Middle Yuba River approximately 8.5 miles below Our House Dam. Grizzy Creek, a smaller tributary, joins the Middle Yuba River at approximately 3.2 miles downstream from Our House Dam. River flows vary greatly throughout the year due to the narrow, steep canyons along the river to Our House Dam, located southwest of Camptonville near the Sierra/Nevada County line. A portion of Middle Yuba River flows are diverted into the South Yuba River basin by the Yuba-Bear Project’s Milton-Bowman Tunnel and a portion of downstream flows are partially diverted to the Log Cabin Dam on Oregon Creek through the Lohman Ridge Tunnel at Our House Dam. Approximately 12 miles below Our House Dam, the Middle Yuba River joins the North Yuba River. Barriers The Middle Yuba has nine major fish barriers (three dams and eight natural barriers) between Jackson Meadows Dam and its confluence with the North Yuba (Table 3-4). Some of these barriers may be passable by anadromous salmonids under certain hydraulic conditions, or could be modified so as to improve fish passage conditions if such actions supported management goals and objectives. For example, while a temporal, low flow barrier exists at RM 0.4 and a total barrier (Our House Dam) exists at RM 12 exist, the next upstream low flow barriers begin at RM 32.7. With strategically-timed, higher flow releases from the hydropower projects upstream, it may be possible to pass anadromous fish a considerable distance in the Middle Yuba River – once passage at Our House Dam is established. Further study is needed to assess fish barriers in the Middle Yuba River as they may relate to future fisheries management decisions. However, it appears from Table 3-4 that there would be over 34 miles of available Middle Yuba river habitat if the first two barriers were made passable.

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – 3‐7 Yuba River Fish Passage Project

Table 3-4. Fish Barriers in the Middle Yuba Barrier Type Feature Description River Mile Natural LFB Two falls in series: lower falls (9 feet, upper falls, 6 0.4 feet) Our House Dam TB Dam height: 75 feet 12 Natural LFB Falls estimated at 8 to 10 feet high 32.7 Natural TB LFB at greater than 10 feet high, but high flow barrier 34.4 at large landslide Natural LFB Falls approximately 8 to 10 feet t high 36.8 Natural LFB Falls approximately 10 feet high 37.9 Natural LFB Falls approximately 10 feet high 38.9 Milton Diversion TB Dam height: 37 feet. 43.9 Dam Jackson Meadows TB Dam height: 195 feet. 45.9 Dam Source: Vogel 2006 (Appendix C in DWR 2007) Key: LFB = low-flow (less than 200 cubic feet per second) barrier TB = total barrier (low- and high-flow barrier)

3‐8 – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service 3 Fish Habitat

North Yuba Fish Habitat The North Yuba River watershed, comprising approximately 490 square miles above the Sierra foothills, contributes approximately 50 percent of the total natural river flow to the Yuba River system (DWR 2007). Comparatively little formal research has been conducted in the North Yuba River compared to the Middle and South Yuba rivers. However, there are no apparent fish passage impediments above the New Bullards Bar Reservoir, and fish habitat conditions along this reach of the river appear to be high quality. Fish habitat in the North Yuba River upstream from New Bullards Bar Reservoir has not been well-studied. However, based on observations of the North Yuba River (Table 3-2), the numerous gravel bars, natural flows, cold water temperatures, and riffles and pools, all provide very good fish habitat compared to other locations within the Yuba River watershed. NMFS has commissioned further habitat assessment studies of the North Fork Yuba fish habitat potential to supplement information in this report. Flows The North Yuba River watershed is predominantly snow-melt driven, with three major tributaries contributing flows:

• Canyon Creek, an ungaged tributary to the North Yuba River, with a watershed of approximately 61 square miles, flows into the North Yuba River

• Slate Creek flows into the North Yuba River approximately four miles below Canyon Creek5

• Deadwood Creek joins the North Yuba River approximately a half mile below Slate Creek The majority of flows are diverted through the Colgate Penstock to the Colgate Powerhouse, which provides flows into the Yuba River, approximately 1-mile upstream from Englebright Lake. A continual 5 cfs is released from New Bullards Bar Dam to the river, which provides minimal flows to Englebright Reservoir. However, 5 cfs is not enough to sustain a healthy anadromous salmonid population; therefore, increased cold water flows, released directly from the reservoir, are likely necessary to restore anadromous fish habitat in the reach between YCWA’s New Bullards Bar Dam and Colgate Powerhouse facilities if other suitable habitat exists in this section of the river. Barriers There are no major impairments on the North Yuba River above New Bullards Bar Reservoir that significantly affect the flow of the North Yuba River. Flow releases from New Bullards Bar Dam bypass the river through the New Colgate Tunnel return to the Colgate Powerhouse. As the only fish barrier along the North Yuba, the New Bullards Bar Dam is not equipped with fish passage facilities and currently is a complete barrier to fish passage (Table 3-5).

5 70,000 to 100,000 acre-feet annually diverted from Slate Creek, a tributary to North Yuba (see EIS for FERC Project No. 2088)

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – 3‐9 Yuba River Fish Passage Project

Table 3-5. Fish Barriers in the North Yuba Barrier Type Feature Description Location (RM) New Bullards Bar Dam TB Dam height: 635 feet 41.4 Key: RM = river mile TB = total barrier (low- and high-flow barrier) Potential Available Fish Habitat This section describes the potential fish habitat available if flow and water temperature requirements change in South and Middle Forks due to FERC relicensing. NMFS has commissioned further habitat assessment studies in the upper Yuba River watershed to add additional scientific knowledge for the benefit of salmon reintroduction planning and future implementation. South Yuba Surveys conducted by Nikirk and Mesick (2006) showed that the South Yuba River has sparsely distributed potential spawning sites between Bridgeport at RM 1 to Purdon Crossing (RM 12). Concentrations of potential sites increase around Edwards Crossing (RM 16), Humbug Creek (RM 20) and Missouri Bar (RM 24). Few potential spawning sites were identified upstream from the town of Washington (RM 29). Middle Yuba Nikirk and Mesick (2006) showed that most of the potential spawning sites in the Middle Yuba River occur upstream from Our House Dam (RM 12), and downstream from Oregon Creek. Few potential sites exist upstream from Tehama Ravine (RM 30). North Yuba Although not extensively studied, the North Yuba River upstream from New Bullards Bar Reservoir appears to have suitable habitat and water temperatures for Chinook salmon and steelhead populations. No potential spawning sites were identified in the North Yuba River downstream from New Bullards Bar Dam, but 13 potential sites were identified in the Upper Yuba River (downstream from the confluence between the North and Middle Yuba rivers) (Nikirk and Mesick 2006). However, habitat conditions below New Bullards Bar Dam have been affected by the presence of the dam, including the reduction of gravel recruitment to the system. Therefore, it is probable that habitat in this reach may be restored via gravel and flow supplementation, along with addition of natural in stream structure (e.g. large woody material and boulder clusters). During the May 2009 reconnaissance-level survey, the North Yuba upstream from New Bullards Bar Reservoir had flow, water temperatures and habitat diversity conditions that appear suitable for anadromous salmonids. In addition, potential natural sources of gravel introduction to the river were observed.6

6 Stephanie Theis, Supervising Fisheries Biologist, MWH, field notes for May 23, 2009.

3‐10 – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service 4 Possible Fish Passage Facilities

4 Possible Fish Passage Facilities

The main goal of this study is to identify and describe potential fish passage facilities for the reintroduction of spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead in the upper Yuba watershed. The following sections describe individual passage facilities and how these facilities might fit into a comprehensive fish passage program for the Yuba Basin. It is important to recognize that not all of the facilities described in Sections 4 through 7 will be necessary to successfully accomplish upstream and downstream passage of anadromous fish. Instead, this report presents a variety of different options and approaches, from which the best set of fish passage designs may be selected in order to accomplish specific management goals and objectives. Additionally, not all potential concepts or designs are included or fully evaluated in this report. Therefore, one should keep this in mind when considering the opinions of probable costs in Section 8 of this report. Program Issues Passage must be provided both upstream and downstream to develop a successful program. The first full blockage to upstream fish passage is Englebright Dam, currently preventing passage to the South, Middle and North Yuba rivers and their tributaries. The North Yuba River has a very large physical barrier in the New Bullards Bar Dam. The Middle Yuba has a physical barrier lower in the watershed, Our House Dam. The South Yuba River has no human-made physical barriers until reaching the upper watershed; but due to modern-era basin withdrawals and hydroelectric project storage and operations, the water temperatures in certain stream reaches may, at times, be too warm for anadromous fish. However, through the FERC relicensing process, improvements to hydroelectric project facilities and water management operations may reduce the water temperatures and provide more optimum year round flows. Should this occur, a fish reintroduction program could potentially use suitable habitats in any of these tributaries, either individually or in a combination of programs. Volitional passage systems are often preferred over collection and transport systems because they allow fish to move at will to access their natural habitats without any human handling or assistance. However, project costs for providing total volitional passage at high head dams can be more expensive than many collection and transport alternatives. Also, the degree of success for volitional systems may be diminished to some degree, if the adult upstream ladders or juvenile downstream bypass pipes are too long. These potential limitations would need to be studied in greater detail in order to make a determination about full volitional passage systems at Englebright Dam. Although it could be temporarily more stressful to migrating fish, collection and transport has a lower initial cost and provides more flexibility in that fish can be maintained in targeted reaches of the river. Due to its lower initial cost, collection and transport can be employed in an

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – 4‐1 Yuba River Fish Passage Project

interim, or pilot, program to test the viability of maintaining runs in certain reaches before implementing a permanent program. Possible Types and Locations of Fish Passage Facilities The type of program – volitional passage or collection and transport – will determine the location and type of facilities that are required. Table 4-1 lists the possible upstream adult passage facilities, and Table 4-2 lists the possible downstream passage facilities. The locations in the tables are listed from downstream to upstream. As mentioned above, not all potential designs are necessary to facilitate fish passage, and the descriptions below do not provide a comprehensive list of potential passage facilities. This report presents initial prospects for possible structures and/or methods to pass spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead into the upper Yuba River. Two additional options have been specifically identified for the Yuba River; however, these options will not be described in detail as they are beyond the scope of this fish passage engineering investigation. The first option is the complete removal of Englebright Dam, which has been suggested for many years. For this option, the dam would likely be removed in stages so that the sediment can be treated and released more slowly from behind the dam, minimizing adverse impacts downstream. Eventually, the dam would be removed to the point where unimpeded river flows pass at all times. The removal program would require years of preparatory work, including extensive environmental impact studies. The control and disposition of sediments captured behind Englebright Dam would need to be carefully assessed. Depending upon the quantity and quality of the impounded sediment, its release during a dam removal sequence could potentially produce negative effects to the downstream ecosystem until Englebright Reservoir is flushed out and a new equilibrium in the river is achieved, which may take many years. Special procedures may need to be developed to reclaim the gold and sequester the methyl-mercury resulting from the 19th century mining era. Removal of the dam would also require an evaluation of downstream flood impacts and redefinition of the floodplain. This option is not carried forward in this study because of these uncertainties, along with consideration of the more predictable costs and impacts of removing the facility, including total loss of hydropower at Narrows, impact on hydropower operation at Colgate (due to the forebay function of Englebright Reservoir), total loss of lake recreation, and impacts to downstream reaches by increased flows, changes in water temperature, and sediment transport. Assuming the dam removal alternative could gain broad-based support of multiple stakeholder groups, NMFS would promote further study of this option because it represents the best possible fish passage and watershed restoration scenario for anadromous fish.7

7 Personal Communication, Rick Wantuck, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009.

4‐2 – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service 4 Possible Fish Passage Facilities

Table 4-1. Potential Upstream Passage Facilities Location Structure Remarks Lower Yuba River Non-volitional passage. Build a holding pond and fish transfer station into the existing north shore ladder. There Collection and are suggestions/recommendations to remove Daguerre Daguerre Point Dam transport Point Dam or modify its fish passage facilities in the future, so this option should be considered with that possibility in mind Dam removal Volitional passage Ladder Volitional passage. A long ladder in difficult terrain. Ladder-notched Notching the dam and lowering the reservoir level could dam provide for a shorter volitional ladder Non-volitional passage. Could be automated. Transfer fish to Englebright Lake upstream of dam similar to a ladder. Could also possibly be used for juvenile Tramway downstream transport as well, in conjunction with screens or surface collection systems. A successful prototype exists at the Pelton-Round Butte project Collection and Non-volitional passage. Fish attraction and entrance Englebright Dam transport with same as ladder or tramway. Could be built with barrier at barrier at the Narrows II powerhouse located 0.2 mile downstream Narrows II of Englebright Dam. Powerhouse Non-volitional passage. Access to the south side of the Collection and river is difficult and slopes are steep. Collection at this transport near point will require a new small dam to direct fish to the Narrows I Narrows I outlet structure immediately downstream from Powerhouse Englebright Dam and new adjacent collection facility near the base of the dam. Semi-volitional passage. Existing dam geometry and Fish lock operations not conducive to a fish lock system. North Yuba River Non-volitional passage. Needs a barrier and use of Collection and Colgate Powerhouse Colgate water to collect fish for transfer fish upstream of transport New Bullards Bar Dam. Access to Colgate is difficult. Collection and Non-volitional passage. If flows out of New Bullards Bar transport Dam are sufficient and access is possible. New Bullards Bar Dam Volitional passage. Canyon geometry and high-head dam elevation are difficult for fish ladder implementation. High Fish ladder capital investment with a small opportunity for successful passage via the ladder. Middle Yuba River Volitional passage. Low height dam makes a fish ladder a Fish ladder practical option. Access is difficult for installation of a ladder. Our House Dam Non-volitional passage. Fish could be released from Collection and collection and transport operations originating at transport Daguerre or Englebright dams. If a volitional ladder will work, this may not be the most practical. South Yuba River Volitional passage from Englebright Lake or collection and transport from down river. Water temperature may be an South Yuba River No structure issue unless flows are managed to reduce temperature during certain seasons. Minor natural barriers could be modified to provide passage further upstream.

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – 4‐3 Yuba River Fish Passage Project

Table 4-2. Potential Downstream Passage Facilities Location Structure Remarks Lower Yuba River Passage would be over the dam. Possible modifications to Daguerre Point Dam None the spillway might be necessary to limit predation below dam. Fish screen and Volitional passage. A long bypass pipe or channel would be bypass necessary to pass fish downstream. Screen and Non-volitional passage. Fish would be passed from the collection and screens and through a bypass for holding and transfer to a transport tanker truck. Non-volitional passage. Fish would be brought into a floating Englebright Dam Floating fish screen and to a holding tank on the FSC or on shore. Surface The fish would then be transferred to a tanker truck, routed Collector (FSC) into a piped bypass, or onto the “2-way tramway system” for transport below Englebright Dam. Barrier, screen Non-volitional passage. A barrier would be placed on the and collection North Yuba River near its confluence with Englebright Lake. and transport Fish would be directed to holding for transport downstream. North Yuba River Non-volitional passage. Fish would be brought into a floating fish screen and to a holding tank on the FSC or on shore. Floating The fish would then be transferred to a tanker truck for Surface transport below Englebright, or into a piped bypass or Collector (FSC) tramway system for release in the restored reach or river below New Bullards Bar Dam. Non-volitional passage. A barrier would be placed on the New Bullards Bar Barrier, screen North Yuba River near the Slate Creek confluence. Fish Dam and collection would be directed to holding for transport downstream. This and transport would be required if no juvenile fish facilities are to be built at Englebright reservoir. Non-volitional passage. Fish would be passed from the Screen and screens and through a bypass for holding and transfer to a collection and tanker truck, or into an extended piped bypass or tramway transport system for release in the restored reach below New Bullards Bar Dam. Middle Yuba River Non-volitional passage. A barrier would be placed on the lower Middle Yuba River near its confluence with the North Barrier, screen Lower Middle Yuba Yuba. Fish would be directed to holding for transport and collection River downstream. This would be required if no juvenile fish and transport facilities are to be built at Englebright Lake and the Middle Yuba River below Our House Dam would be used for rearing. Fish screen Volitional passage. Lower dam height makes a bypass pipe over intake to the river downstream practical. Non-volitional passage. This would be a screen over the Our House Dam intake with the bypass directing the fish to a holding pond for Collection and transport downstream. This would be an option if the transport program called for collection and transport above Our House Dam. South Yuba River Volitional passage. To pass down the South Yuba no fish No structures structures are required. Lower South Yuba Non-volitional passage. A barrier would be placed on the River Barrier, screen lower South Yuba River near its confluence with the and collection Englebright Lake. Fish would be directed to holding for and transport transport downstream. This would be required if no juvenile fish facilities are to be built at Englebright Lake.

4‐4 – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service 4 Possible Fish Passage Facilities

The second option includes a vee notch in Englebright Dam that would allow for a shorter ladder. For this option, a gated outlet port was proposed to be constructed in the dam at elevation 430 feet as well as a notch down to a similar elevation. During migration periods, the outlet port would be opened to allow spill through the port that would keep the reservoir level low. A fish ladder would be built from the downstream channel up to the base of the vee notch, which would be 70 to 100 feet lower than the height of the existing dam. The benefits of this option would be to provide volitional upstream passage at a lower cost while maintaining some hydropower benefits. This option was not carried forward in any detail primarily because of funding limitations on the number of alternatives that could reasonably be investigated. It represents an approach similar to the full-scale volitional ladder concept, which is recommended for more detailed engineering studies to better determine its feasibility for the desired fish passage functionality. Should the dam notching idea gain support of key stakeholder groups, this option could be investigated in future feasibility-level engineering phases.

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – 4‐5 Yuba River Fish Passage Project

This page left blank intentionally.

4‐6 – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service 5 Interim Collection and Transport Program

5 Interim Collection and Transport Program

Regardless of which fish passage option is selected, an interim or pilot program would likely be established to determine the overall feasibility of the reintroduction of anadromous fish into the upper Yuba River watershed. Most importantly, this interim program would allow the resource agencies to monitor the success of a reintroduction program for spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead into the North, Middle and South Yuba rivers. Evaluations of successful spawning and rearing prior to any large scale construction activity are recommended to justify the actual cost and benefit of the passage facilities. Therefore, it is likely that a temporary collection and transport program would be established in the near term to set the state for more permanent facilities in the future. A collection and transport program, either temporary or permanent, would require a collection facility and truck transport of both adult and juvenile fish between the upper and lower Yuba rivers. Adult Collection and Transport There are two reasonable options for the broodstock that would be transported to the upper Yuba rivers: (1) Feather River Fish Hatchery spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead, and (2) Yuba River Chinook salmon and steelhead captured at Daguerre Point Dam. The level of construction for initial holding facilities at Daguerre Point Dam might not be to the level described in Section 6, but would need to be able to support sufficient numbers of fish to successfully evaluate reintroduction of fish above Englebright Dam. Transporting adults typically requires specialized equipment. Some systems use individual fish transport tubes made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe, approximately 3 feet long and 12 inches in diameter, and containing a flap door at both end of the tubes to allow for water flow. The fish transport tubes are often carried from the sorting and holding area, to and from the truck. These tubes may decrease the stress and mortality of the adult fish. Additional description of methodology is described in the Oroville FERC relicensing study report, SP-F15, Task 3 (DWR 2004). Tank trucks or flat bed trucks carrying portable tanks suitable for transporting adult salmonids would be required. These might have to be fitted with water chillers and oxygen supplementation. Transport routes for adults would begin at either Daguerre Point Dam or from the Feather River Fish Hatchery. For spring-run Chinook and/or steelhead collected from the Feather River Fish Hatchery and transported to the upper Yuba rivers, the seemingly least stressful, albeit longest, route would be to travel south on SR 70 to SR 20 towards Englebright. Similarly, capture of broodstock at Daguerre Point Dam would also require

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – 5‐1 Yuba River Fish Passage Project transport along SR 20 east towards Englebright. At that point, numerous potential routes exist, depending on where fish would be released. All release sites are based on ease of potential access. This study gives preliminary routes, but does not evaluate the ability of the trucks to pass these roads. It is likely that access roads to the river would have to be constructed. Options for release on the South Yuba River include:

• Near the confluence with Englebright Lake: SR 20 to Pleasant Valley Road; travel distance from SR 20 is approximately 6 miles

• Purdon Crossing at RM 12: SR 49 to North Bloomfield to Lake Vera Purdon Road, to Purdon Road; travel distance from SR 49 is approximately 8 miles

• Approximate RM 15: SR 20 to Harmony Ridge Road to Cooper Road to North Bloomfield/Graniteville Road; travel distance from SR 20 is approximately 12 miles

• Approximate RM 28: SR 20 to Washington Road, travel distance from SR 20 is approximately 4 miles Options for release on the Middle Yuba River include:

• Approximate RM 4: SR 49 to New School Road to either (1) New School Road West, or (2) Tobacco Road; travel distance from SR 49 is approximately 0.5 miles

• Approximate RM 7: SR 49 to Oak Tree Road to Tyler Foote Road to Sages Road to Salmon Mine Road to Badger Hill Road to Patterson Mine Road to Grizzly Creek Road; travel distance from SR 49 is approximately 10 miles

• Our House Dam at RM 12: SR 49 to Alleghaney Road to Ridge Road/Alleghaney Ridge Road to Our House Dam Road; travel distance from SR 49 is approximately 13 miles

• Approximate RM 14: SR 49 to Tyler Foote Road; travel distance from SR 49 is approximately 18 miles

• Confluence with Wolf Creek near RM 28: SR 49 to Tyler Foote Road to Cruzon Grade to Backbone Road to Moores Flat Road to Garman Bar Road to Plumbago Road; travel distance from SR 49 is approximately 30 miles Because SR 49 follows the North Yuba for most of the length of river, access to release sites in the North Yuba River would be in any location where the truck could safely and effectively reach the bank. At this time, complete mileage and travel times are not estimated.

5‐2 – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service 5 Interim Collection and Transport Program

Juvenile Collection and Transport There are multiple options for collecting the juvenile salmonids in the upper watershed. Plate 2 includes photographs of potential means of holding and collections found on other streams in California. A common method of juvenile fish collection is using rotary screw traps. A series of these could be set in the river, providing that flows and depths are suitable to capture a sufficient portion of juveniles as they move downstream. Once the fish are captured, they would be held for an unknown period of time; however, during an interim program, if facilities are temporary in nature, the holding time should be substantially reduced. Fish could be held on the trapping device or moved directly to holding ponds or tanks on shore. Plate 2 also includes photographs of portable holding and transport tanks used in Washington State to hold and transport sockeye and coho juveniles. If designed for it, these transport tanks can include oxygen tanks and cooler systems as well. Once the fish are ready to be moved, the tanks can be lifted via a crane on to a flatbed truck. The collection location would be determined following a study to identify the most accessible location for juvenile fish capture. Transport routes for juveniles would be the reverse of the adults, however, the release point of juveniles could occur at the Parks Bar Bridge on State Route (SR) 70, at Daguerre Point Dam, or at other locations identified by ease of access to the river’s edge. Releasing the fish may also require the use of a crane to move the tank from the truck into the river, where the fish can then be released. Alternatively, fish could be released through pipes directly into the stream. Predation at release sites is a problem that must be considered when selecting the release sites and scheduling releases. Changing the location of the release sites and selecting sites with suitable hydraulic characteristics is important.

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – 5‐3 Yuba River Fish Passage Project

This page left blank intentionally.

5‐4 – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service 6 Upstream Facilities

6 Upstream Facilities

This section introduces three potential designs for upstream passage of spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead adults. The options include volitional passage (ladder), semi-volitional passage (tram), and non-volitional passage (collection and transport). Other options not carried further in this report are identified in Table 4-1. There may be other design variations based on these three basic, upstream passage concepts that could be evaluated in the next stage of engineering feasibility design, but coverage of all possible design options is beyond the scope of this conceptual report. Englebright Dam is a reinforced concrete arch dam that is 1,142 feet long and 260 feet high. The dam impounds a reservoir with a storage capacity of 45,000 acre-feet and has a surface area of 815 acres at full pool. The dam was completed by the California Debris Commission in 1941 as a debris barrier to historic hydraulic mining in the Yuba Watershed and is now under the jurisdiction of USACE. Englebright Reservoir serves as the forebay for power generation for the Narrows I and Narrows II powerhouses. The reservoir is also used for recreation. Normal high water in the reservoir is elevation 530 feet and the normal low water elevation is 517 feet. Ladder flows and adequate fish exit options must be maintained over the typical 13-foot fluctuation of the reservoir surface elevation. The crest of the spillway is at elevation 527 feet. When the level in the reservoir is over this level, water spills over the top of the dam. Spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead are the target species for fish passage into the Upper Yuba River. The minimum target adult return of spring-run Chinook is 3,000 fish, although a maximum return of considerably more fish is not inconceivable based on preliminary surveys of potential habitat. For the purposes of this concept study, the initial engineering design criteria for facilities capacity is based on a theoretical peak annual run size of 40,000 fish. Englebright Dam Fish Ladder Englebright Dam is a complete barrier to migrating fish. Upstream passage for adult salmonids over the dam could immediately provide access to many miles of existing and potential habitat in the South, Middle, and North Yuba, particularly in combination with managed water releases and habitat restoration. A vertical-slot fish ladder is a proven technology that could provide volitional upstream passage over the dam. Vertical slot fish ladders have distinct vertical steps, formed by pools and specially shaped vertical orifices. They have been used to pass fish in a variety of situations including dams and natural barriers. The photo below shows a pool and two baffles with vertical slots in a typical vertical slot fish ladder. The flow is from right to left in the photo.

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – 6‐1 Yuba River Fish Passage Project

Aerial photo of a typical vertical slot fish ladder Facility Description The fish ladder would be a reinforced concrete structure, located on the north abutment of the dam, and would consist of a vertical slot ladder with a 1-foot drop in the water surface elevation between each pool. An entrance structure would be located adjacent to the Narrows II powerhouse (Plates 3 and 4). The ladder would have a 1-to- 1.25-foot wide vertical slot and a pool size of eight feet wide and 10 feet long. The slope of the ladder would be approximately 1:10 (Vertical:Horizontal). The ladder would be constructed from the entrance pool essentially following the existing access road. This provides better access for construction of the ladder on the steep hillside. The vertical distance between the tailwater and the minimum reservoir pool level is approximately 230 feet. As a result, the ladder would be approximately 2,300 feet long from the entrance structure up to the face of the dam and would have approximately 230 pools. Intermediate resting pools may be considered during subsequent design phases to allow upstream migrating adults opportunities to rest during transit through the fishway. This might add some additional length or area to the ladder’s footprint, but may help salmonids pass more successfully into Englebright Lake. The ladder would penetrate the dam face at an invert elevation of 510 feet. Since the reservoir operates over an elevation difference of 13 feet, a multi-level exit structure would be constructed in the reservoir at the right abutment to allow fish to exit the ladder at all operating pool levels. The fish ladder exit would be about 190-feet long extending upstream along the right bank above

6‐2 – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service 6 Upstream Facilities

the dam (Plate 4), and would consist of a ladder with 13 pools, each 14 feet long, and an exit channel along the east side of the ladder section. Exit gates would be located in each pool allowing fish to swim out of the ladder into the exit channel. The additional length of each pool is to accommodate the exit gate, which would normally be closed. The only exit gate to be opened would be at the upstream end of the ladder with sufficient depth for fish passage. An automated system would open and close the gates to achieve the proper configuration. The entrance structure would have multiple entrance gates, an entrance pool, and an auxiliary water supply to attract fish to the ladder entrance. The auxiliary water system (AWS) would deliver approximately 340 cfs to the ladder entrance pool, which represents 10 percent of the peak discharge flow from the Narrows II powerhouse. To provide the attraction flows, the Narrows II powerhouse would be modified to direct flows from the draft tube into the AWS. Two 72-inch steel pipelines would carry the flow to the fish ladder entrance structure. Modification of the powerhouse might be required and may require a temporary shutdown of the Narrows II powerhouse and hard rock boring to establish a pipeline connection from the draft tube to the fish ladder entrance chamber. The modification to the powerhouse would create about 2 feet of head to deliver the auxiliary water. The temperature of the water, especially in the summer, must be addressed during future analyses of this alternative. The ladder flow will be drawn from the surface of the reservoir and heated during its travel to the bottom of the ladder. The turbine flow/auxiliary water will be cooler since it is drawn from deeper in the reservoir. An automated temperature control system could be an element of the design. Design features may be needed to insulate the structure from excessive heat gain, and to supply evenly distributed cold water throughout the fishway. Construction of the ladder along the right bank would be challenging because the slope is extremely steep. The ladder would likely be excavated into the north bank next to the access road so that the road remains usable and can be used to support construction of the ladder. This may require cut and fill sections and a bridge to route the fish ladder over the top of the access road. Possible Pilot Facilities Pilot facilities could be built as a first phase of this alternative. Initial development would consist of construction of the entrance pool and AWS. In addition, a holding pond would be built to hold fish, and a hopper lift system would be installed to lift the fish into a transport truck. If a decision is made to provide volitional passage, the ladder and exit section would be completed; and the initial development could still serve as a fisheries science and monitoring station, or to provide additional flexibility for additional collection and transport operations into targeted areas of the upper watershed. A lower cost pilot program could be implemented with a fish tap at Daguerre Dam (see Collection and Transport section below).

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – 6‐3 Yuba River Fish Passage Project

Cost Estimate A conceptual-level cost estimate was made based on the drawings and descriptions contained in this document. The cost estimate should be considered Class 5, as designated by the Association of American Cost Engineers (AACE) (see Section 8). This estimate is primarily for comparative purposes and not intended to be used for economic analyses and financial planning. For the major items such as concrete, excavation, and backfill, quantities were estimated and unit prices were assigned based on recent bidding experience. The total estimated cost for the vertical slot fishway project was $50 million. This estimate includes: excavation and site preparation, fish ladder, entrance structure, auxiliary water supply, dam penetration, and exit structure in the reservoir. A provision of 20 percent was included for unlisted items as well as a 25 percent contingency and 30 percent for engineering, construction management, and permitting. Operations and Maintenance The fish ladder would provide virtually unrestricted volitional passage of adult salmonids throughout the migration seasons. It would operate automatically and require only routine maintenance. The trash racks in front of the exit structure gates would be regularly cleaned by an automated trash rake. The rake would dump debris into a bin that would need to be emptied periodically depending on the debris levels in the reservoir. Occasionally the structure may be dewatered to remove debris from within the pools or to remove sediment build-up. The entrance gates would also need to be inspected periodically for debris build-up. Englebright Dam Fish Tramway Upstream passage over Englebright Dam via a fish tramway (Plate 5) would provide semi-volitional fish passage. An AWS for the downstream fish entrance is assumed to be supplied by tapping the Narrows II penstock. The water supply for the upstream holding tank would require a pumping system and water intake in Englebright Lake adjacent to the Narrows II intake. A tramway facility for upstream passage was installed at Round Butte Dam on the Deschutes River near Madras in eastern Oregon. The tramway has operated successfully for upstream adult passage, although the early downstream fish passage facilities never worked properly and was abandoned. Facility Description The tramway consists of:

• A fish entrance structure consisting of an AWS and entrance pool • Holding ponds for adults entering the system • A crowder system for loading fish from the holding ponds into fish hoppers • A gantry and cable system for lifting fish hoppers at the sorting and holding facility

6‐4 – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service 6 Upstream Facilities

• 4 towers (assumed) for the tramway system to carry fish hoppers over the Englebright Dam • An elevated tramway motor and control facility (adjacent to reservoir) • Release holding ponds and water system for fish hopper transfer • Fish outfall channel/pipe for releasing fish to Englebright Lake An entrance and collection structure consisting of holding ponds would be constructed adjacent to the Narrows II powerhouse. The entrance structure would have multiple entrance gates, an entrance pool, and an auxiliary water supply to attract fish to the ladder entrance. The AWS would deliver approximately 340 cfs to the ladder entrance pool, which represents 10 percent of the peak discharge flow from the Narrows II powerhouse. To provide the attraction flows, the Narrows II powerhouse would be modified to direct flows from the draft tube into the AWS. Two 72-inch steel pipelines would carry the flow to the fish ladder entrance structure. Modification of the powerhouse would require a temporary shutdown of the Narrows II powerhouse and hard rock boring to establish a pipeline connection from the draft tube to the fish ladder entrance chamber. The modification to the powerhouse would create about two feet of head to deliver the auxiliary water. The entrance holding ponds would be equipped with a swing gate for sorting fish into two or three raceways as needed for sorting and hopper loading (Plate 6). The raceways would be approximately 50 feet long, 10 feet wide and 5 feet deep. A fish crowder would be used to guide fish into the hoppers for transport by aerial tramway. Cycle times and the number of hoppers in operation should be able to accommodate the maximum number of migrants. Since downstream pool water comes from the deep reservoir water via the Narrows II penstock and the upstream pool water would come from near surface water pumps on the reservoir, it is likely that the water supplied to the downstream holding pools would be colder than the water in the upstream holding pool. Depending on the temperature differential, it may be necessary to pump water from different levels into the upstream release pool to transition fish to the same water temperature as flows entering the holding at the base of the dam. This water temperature issue should be analyzed in the next phase of analysis. The release holding pool would be equipped with a fish crowder and gates to route fish to an outfall channel or pipeline. Fish would be released into Englebright Lake, where they would have the ability to migrate to the upper tributaries. The pipeline would also act as a recycle system for the holding pool water back to the reservoir. Note that the tramway for transporting adults upstream over Englebright Dam could also be used to move juveniles downstream of the dam. This would require modifying the downstream terminus for releasing juveniles at the base of the dam. Depending on the juvenile collection facility chosen the upstream end of the tramway would have to be moved and altered for collecting juveniles.

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – 6‐5 Yuba River Fish Passage Project

Possible Pilot Facilities Pilot facilities could be built as a first phase of this alternative. Initial development would consist of construction of the entrance pool and AWS. In addition, holding ponds would be built to hold fish, and a hopper lift system would be installed to lift the fish into a transport truck. Finally, the tramway would be constructed if selected as the preferred passage method. A lower cost pilot program could be implemented with a fish trap at Daguerre Dam (see the description for collection and transport, below). Cost Estimate A conceptual level cost estimate was made based on the drawings and descriptions contained in this document. The cost estimate should be considered Class 5, as designated by the AACE (see Section 8). This estimate is primarily for comparative purposes and not intended to be used for economic analyses and financial planning. For the major items such as concrete, excavation, and backfill, quantities were estimated and unit prices were assigned based on recent bidding experience. The total estimated cost for the fish tramway project was $20 million. This estimate includes the entrance structure, tramway facilities, auxiliary water supply, upstream acclimation facilities, and the outlet pipeline into the reservoir. A provision of 20 percent was included for unlisted items as well as a 25 percent contingency and 30 percent for engineering, construction management, and permitting. Operations and Maintenance An aerial tramway system could require 7-day operation during spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead peak migration seasons. The minimum operations and maintenance crew would be two operators downstream to load fish and one operator upstream for fish release into the reservoir. More operators would be required for any additional sorting and tagging operation prior to release. It is possible that the system could be automated; however, close monitoring would still be required. Electrical power would need to be supplied to the tramway motor, upstream holding pool pumping facilities, and the lift gantries on the upstream and downstream hopper hoists. Daguerre Point Dam Collection and Transport Daguerre Point Dam is a reinforced concrete, ogee-shaped weir that is 575-feet long and approximately 24-feet high (USACE 2003). The dam is located in the heart of the Yuba Gold Field and was constructed in the early 1900s to trap sediments from Yuba River mining operations. The dam has two existing fish ladders, one at each abutment. Collection and transport facilities could be added that would allow for capture of migrating adult anadromous fish from below Daguerre Point Dam for release into the South, Middle or North Yuba rivers. More detailed descriptions of potential routes and release/collection points are found in Section 5.

6‐6 – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service 6 Upstream Facilities

The river stage below Daguerre Point Dam at 6,000 cfs has been estimated as 108.0 feet (MWH 2009). The crest of the dam is about at approximately elevation 122.4 (NGVD 29). Normal high water in the reservoir is elevation 124.0 feet. The maximum water elevation difference in the reservoir is estimated to be 21 feet. Based on the potential number of fish identified earlier for potential passage, the size of the collection and transport facilities was developed for a theoretical peak run of 40,000 fish.8 Based on this peak return, and assuming that 5 percent of the total return travel through the ladder on the peak day in the season, the collection and transport facilities are sized for approximately 2,000 Chinook salmon and/or steelhead per day. Actual design numbers would be developed later from carrying capacity analyses of the reaches made available to fish upstream. NMFS has commissioned these further studies. Facility Description Previous studies by USACE have determined that the current fish ladders on both banks at Daguerre Point Dam are ineffective at assisting upstream passage of anadromous salmonids (USACE 2003). In addition, it is not cost effective to add holding ponds and other facilities to the current fish ladders. As a result, this study recommends that a new vertical slot fish ladder be constructed in addition to collection and transport facilities. Fish ladders currently exist along both the right and left banks at Daguerre Point Dam, but access to the right bank ladder is significantly easier due to the proximity of SR 20 and existing roads that provide access to a fish screen along the diversion canal. For this reason, a new vertical slot fish ladder would replace the existing right bank fish ladder. Similar to the existing fish ladder, the entrances to the new ladder would be located just downstream of the dam, but the new ladder would have three entrance gates to allow for flexibility in the control of attraction flows based on overflow conditions at the spillway (see Plates 7 and 8). The new ladder may have up to 21 steps in order to operate successfully over the entire year. Finally, the exit would be moved approximately 40 feet further away from the overflow spillway than the existing fish ladder in order to decrease the chance of upstream migrants from falling back over the dam. The new fish ladder would be supplied with auxiliary attraction water by means of two 72-inch diameter pipes. The purpose of the attraction water would be to increase the flow at the fish ladder entrance to provide greater attraction to the fishway entrance. The intakes for the auxiliary water supply would be located at the current diversion canal intake and would be covered with a trash rack to prevent adults from being drawn into the intake. The existing diversion canal intake culverts would be demolished and moved further along the right bank. The auxiliary water pipes would be buried beneath the new access road. Auxiliary water would be discharged into a stilling basin beneath the fish

8 The initial, theoretical peak run estimation considered the annual numbers of both spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead - in a reintroduction scenario that fully exploits the salmonid habitat potential of all three forks of the upper Yuba watershed, and assumes a natural peak to the salmonid population cycle due to periods of beneficial ocean conditions, combined with inland habitat improvements over time. NMFS has commissioned additional studies of upper Yuba River habitat carrying capacity to inform future engineering design decisions about fish passage facility capacities and operational requirements.

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – 6‐7 Yuba River Fish Passage Project

ladder then up-well through a floor diffuser into the fish ladder entrance pool and return to the river. Holding ponds would be constructed adjacent to one of the upper pools in the ladder (see Plate 8). Fish would be directed into the holding ponds by a swinging gate installed between the holding ponds and the fish ladder. When not in operation, the gate would remain closed and would act as the side wall of the fish ladder. When opened, the gate would cut off the upper pools of the ladder and guide fish into the holding ponds. Three holding ponds at 50-feet long, 10-feet wide, and 5 feet deep each would be required to support the maximum anticipated daily volume of 2,000 migrant fish. The quantity and dimensions of the holding areas may be changed based on the results of future analysis. A swinging gate would be installed at the upstream end of each holding pond to allow diversion of fish into each pond. A fish crowder would be used to guide fish into a hopper at one end of the pond. A monorail crane would then lift the hopper and place it onto a truck for transport to the end destination. The fish ladder and holding ponds would be accessed by a new road built along the berm separating the river and the diversion canal. To obtain the correct elevation for loading fish, the new road would be in a trench leading down to a loading area next to the holding ponds. Retaining walls would be required on each side of the trench and a wing wall would be added to the upstream end of the diversion canal. The road would connect to an upgraded surface on the right abutment of the dam. Trucks would drive up to the site from the south, load fish, and then drive out to the north along the top of the dam. Possible Pilot Facilities It might be desirable to evaluate collection and transport and fish reintroduction in an experimental collection and transport operation. This can be accomplished on the north side by building a small holding pond on the north side of the existing channel just downstream of the fish ladder exit. Flow could be diverted upstream in the channel, through the holding pond, and back to the channel. A picket guide would be placed in the channel to guide the fish into the holding pond. Fish trucks would back up to the holding pond, and the fish would be loaded into the trucks using a jib crane. Cost Estimate A conceptual level cost estimate was made based on the drawings and descriptions contained in this document. The cost estimate should be considered Class 5, as designated by the AACE (see Section 8). This estimate is primarily for comparative purposes and not intended to be used for economic analyses and financial planning. For the major items such as concrete, excavation, and backfill, quantities were estimated and unit prices were assigned based on recent bidding experience. The total estimated cost for the Daguerre Point Dam Collection and Transport Facility Project was $8.2 million, including the fish ladder, holding and evaluation facilities, and site access development. A provision of 20 percent was included for unlisted items as well as a 25 percent contingency and 30 percent for engineering, construction management, and permitting.

6‐8 – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service 6 Upstream Facilities

Operations and Maintenance Collection and transport of fish would have to be completed daily during the periods when spring-run Chinook and steelhead are present in the river. Daily operation may also be required during the fall to support a fall-run, although frequency may be less than once per day. The trip distance to Englebright Lake is approximately 15 miles, mostly along Highway 20. Access to Daguerre Point Dam and to the Englebright Lake, however, would include some travel along county or local roads. The estimated trip duration would be approximately 30 minutes each way. Additional loading and transfer operations would likely increase the typical trip duration for fish to 2.5-3 hours between holding and release. Potential routes are described in Section 5.

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – 6‐9 Yuba River Fish Passage Project

This page left blank intentionally.

6‐10 – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service 7 Downstream Facilities

7 Downstream Facilities

This section describes three potential designs to pass juvenile salmonids downstream from the upper Yuba River to the lower Yuba River downstream from Englebright Dam. There may be other design variations based on these three basic downstream passage concepts that could be evaluated in the next stage of engineering feasibility design, but coverage of all possible design options is beyond the scope of this conceptual report. Englebright Dam is a concrete arch dam that creates hydraulic head to operate two hydropower facilities immediately downstream - Narrows I and Narrows II. The intake for Narrows I is located on the south bank of the reservoir and the intake for Narrows II is on the north bank. Assuming upstream passage is provided by other alternatives, fish screening and collection facilities would need to be added. Volitional fish passage over the dam is difficult due to the height of the structure. In addition, the terrain downstream of the dam is extremely steep and, with the exception of the road leading to the powerhouse at the base of the dam, no road access to the Yuba River below the dam is available for several miles. Spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead are the target species for restoring a natural run in the upper Yuba River. The minimum target return is 3,000 adult spring-run Chinook, although an average maximum return of 10,000 to 20,000 adult fish is not inconceivable based on preliminary surveys of potential upstream habitat, with an estimated, theoretical peak run of 40,000 fish (both Chinook salmon and steelhead).9 Downstream migration is expected to occur from January to June with equal numbers of migrants expected each month. Based on the on the potential number of fish identified earlier for potential passage, and assuming that each female produces 4,200 eggs that have a 10 percent survival to smoltification, this would produce 8,400,000 juvenile migrants. If the peak month is estimated as 25 percent of the total run and the peak day as 20 percent of the maximum month, the peak day would have approximately 420,000 juvenile salmon passing through the facility. Assuming a mix of 60 percent fry and 40 percent yearling, the total weight of fish on the peak day would be approximately 4,440 pounds. Actual design numbers would be developed later based on carrying capacity analyses of the reaches made available to fish upstream. Steelhead would be expected at lower levels, and likely be covered by the numbers addressed for spring-run Chinook salmon. If the peak month is estimated as 25 percent of the total run and the peak day as 20 percent of the maximum month, the peak day would have approximately 210,000 juvenile salmon passing through the North Yuba facility, and 105,000 juvenile salmon passing through the Middle and South Yuba facilities. Actual design numbers would be developed later from carrying capacity analyses of the reaches made available to fish upstream.

9 Id.@ footnote 5

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – 7‐1 Yuba River Fish Passage Project

During the January to June migration period, the 95 percent exceedence level in the reservoir is lowest in April at 504 feet msl. The 5 percent exceedence level is approximately 530 feet for all months. Normal operating range of the reservoir is 517 to 522 feet. The spill level in the reservoir is 530 feet. The flow capacity at Narrows I Intake is 720 cfs, and the capacity at Narrows II Intake is 3,400 cfs. Each fish screen would be designed for the flow capacity using a fish screen approach velocity of 0.33 feet-per-second (fps). It is assumed that the intake would not be operated at capacity during times when the reservoir is less than 517 feet. Englebright Fish Screens and Bypass In order to collect the maximum number of downstream migrants in the reservoir, separate fish screening and collection facilities would be constructed at Narrows I intake and at Narrows II intake. Fish screening at each of the intakes would involve similar structures. Vertical plate, wedgewire fish screens (and associated juvenile bypass systems) are a proven technology, and have become a standardized design in the Pacific Northwest for the protection of juvenile salmonids at large water diversion facilities. The photo to the left shows an aerial view of the White River Fish Screens in Western Washington. This facility screens 2,000 cfs and has been operating successfully since 1996.

Facility Descriptions A description of the facilities and possible alternatives at each intake follows. Narrows I Fish screening at the Narrows I Intake can be accomplished by constructing a vertical- plate fish screen structure along the east bank at the bend in the shoreline near the parking lot about 400 feet upstream of the left abutment of the dam (Plate 9). The screen structure would be designed for the capacity flow of 720 cfs, and about 680 cfs would pass through the primary screens. The structure would have one “V” screen bay, and the screen panels would be 15 feet high and 10 feet wide with 8 panels on each side (Plate 10). The top of the screens would be set at the anticipated minimum operating

7‐2 – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service 7 Downstream Facilities

water surface elevation of 517 feet. Secondary screens would screen an additional 40 cfs to reduce the flow in the bypass pipe and entering the holding facility. It is assumed that the facility would not be operating at capacity at times when the reservoir is below 517 feet. Blank panels would extend above the screen, and the deck of the structure would be elevation 540 feet, to prevent overtopping during a large flood events. The fish screen structure would have a trash rack at the upstream end to prevent large debris from entering the structure. The trash rack would be cleaned from the deck by an automated trash rake and debris off-loaded to the shore. The total structure would be approximately 160-feet long by 40-feet wide. Significant excavation would be required to place the structure near the shore yet have the structure floor low enough to operate under all normal reservoir levels. The earth beneath the structure is assumed to be rock.

Collection and Transport Facilities Fish passing through the structure would be guided past the screens into a 2-feet wide bypass channel at the downstream end of the “V”. A headwall in the bypass channel would gradually descend from the ceiling and would increase velocity in the channel and capture fish in a 3-foot diameter, full-flow pipe. The pipe would carry fish away from the fish screen to holding ponds located nearby. The holding ponds would be constructed in the existing parking lot adjacent to the new fish screen. The holding ponds would be sized for the maximum anticipated daily volume of 420,000 juvenile fish. It is assumed that the average weight of the salmon fry is about 2 grams and a yearling salmon is 9 grams. The ponds would have a floor elevation of approximately 511 feet, which would require excavation of a trench about 40-feet deep. Water from the fish screen would enter into a forebay that is separated from the individual ponds by a swinging gate. Three holding ponds, each 30 feet long and 8 feet wide, would be sufficient to support the maximum anticipated daily volume of juvenile fish. The depth in the holding ponds would vary based in the water level in the reservoir. The minimum depth would be 4 feet and the maximum 10 feet during normal operating conditions. The side walls of the ponds would need to be approximately 30- feet high to avoid flooding the facility during spill events. A fish crowder would be used to move fish into a hopper at one end of the pond. An overhead crane would then lift the hopper and place it on a truck for transport to the destination release site below the dam.

Connection to Existing Intake Water passing through the screens would enter a 9-feet diameter intake pipe that would be excavated into the side of the reservoir to connect to the existing Narrows I intake structure just behind the existing intake. The invert of the intake pipe leaving the structure would be approximately 505 feet. The invert at the connection point would be approximately 435 feet. Some benching of the reservoir slope may be required to support the intake pipe. A tee connection would be added that allows the existing Narrows I Intake to be closed off by a valve or bulkhead. This would normally be closed but could be open in an emergency to allow powerhouse flow to bypass the screen structure.

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – 7‐3 Yuba River Fish Passage Project

Narrows II Fish screening at the Narrows II Intake would consists of another vertical-plate “V” screen structure located just upstream of the existing intake along the west bank of the reservoir. The screen structure would have a trash rack at the upstream end to prevent large debris from entering the structure. The screen structure would be designed for the powerhouse capacity flow of 3,400 cfs (see Plate 11). The structure would have two screen bays screening 1,700 cfs each, About 1,600 cfs would pass through the primary screens. The individual screen panel assemblies would each be 20-feet high and about 9- feet wide, with 15 panels on each side. Accounting for support piers, the primary screen area would have a total screen length of 175 feet. The total structure would be approximately 230-feet long by 86-feet wide. The top of the screens would be set at the anticipated minimum operating water surface elevation of 517 feet. Blank panels would extend above the screen to elevation 540, to prevent overtopping during a large flood event (see Plate 12). The structure would be excavated into the hillside, so that the base slab is founded on rock. Construction of this facility would require significant excavation due to the height of the structure and steepness of the terrain.

Collection and Transport Facilities Fish passing the screens would be guided into a 3-feet wide secondary screen area, which would withdraw an additional 100 cfs at the downstream end. In the secondary screen area, a headwall would gradually descend from the ceiling, increasing velocity to guide the fish in a 2-feet diameter, full-flow pipe. The pipes from both screen bays would combine and then carry fish onto shore, beneath the access road, and discharge them into a forebay for the holding ponds. The holding ponds would be excavated into the hillside on the north side of the existing road, with a floor elevation of approximately 511 feet. The holding ponds for the Narrows II Intake will be similar to the holding ponds described for the Narrows I Intake because the number of peak-day migrants is assumed to be the same.

Connection to Existing Intake Water passing through the screens would enter a 20-feet diameter intake pipe that connects to the existing Narrows II intake structure. The connection pipe would be supported along the sloping bank of the reservoir between the fish screen and the existing intake. Some trenching along the shore would be required. The existing Narrows II Intake would need to be closed off with a bulkhead so that the only water entering comes through the screen structure. Provisions would be made to remove the bulkhead to deliver water to the powerhouse in case the fish screen becomes inoperable. Other Bypass Alternatives At both facilities, volitional downstream passage could be accomplished by the addition of a bypass pipe to carry fish from each screen structure to the river below the dam. While this alternative might appear to be preferable from a biological perspective, the bypass pipe would have to be about 4000 feet long. The costs to construct this bypass pipe in the canyon downstream would be high. In this alternative, the bypass pipes from each fish screen would be combined so that only one pipe would be routed down to the

7‐4 – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service 7 Downstream Facilities

discharge location. To do so, the bypass pipe from the Narrows I fish screen would be routed across the reservoir by attaching it to the upstream face of Englebright Dam and connected with the Narrows II bypass pipe. The terrain along the dam’s northern abutment is very steep, and the bypass pipes would need to be bored through the abutment and combined in a new chamber located just downstream of the dam. The new chamber would be located along the existing access road leading down to the powerhouse. After combining, the bypass pipe could be bored through the mountain or mounted on the side of the canyon, approximately 4,000 feet down to a location along the Yuba River below the dam. The pipe material would be 3.5-feet diameter corrugated metal in order to increase the roughness and limit the required excavation for the pipe. A new access road would be constructed along the right bank of the Yuba River to access the bypass pipe and discharge facilities. An alternative to this option would be to replace the vertical–plate screen structure at Narrows I with cylindrical tee screens. The intake is already submerged approximately 70 feet below the low water level in the reservoir and the tee screens would be sized to minimize velocity and limit fish attraction. This assumes that all fish attracted to the Narrows I intake would find their way to the Narrows II fish screen structure for capture and delivery downstream. This would result in all fish being drawn through the Narrows II fish screen, and saving the costs of building two fish screens in the reservoir. It is unclear if using tee screens at Narrows I would be acceptable from a biological perspective. Cost Estimate A conceptual level cost estimate was made based on the drawings and descriptions contained in this document for vertical-plate fish screens at both the Narrows I and Narrows II intakes. Costs from other projects were used to estimate costs for the components the Narrows I and II structures (see Section 8). These estimates are primarily for comparative purposes and not intended to be used for economic analyses and financial planning. For the major items such as concrete, excavation, and backfill, quantities were estimated and unit prices were assigned based on recent bidding experience. The total cost to build the fish screens at both the Narrows I and Narrows II intakes is estimated to be $79 million. This includes a 20 percent provision for unlisted items, a 25 percent contingency for construction, and a 30 percent increase on top of the total construction cost to account for engineering, construction management and permitting. Operations and Maintenance Fish screens require regular maintenance to keep the trash racks clear of debris and to ensure the screen cleaners are working properly. Assuming that the design does not involve a juvenile bypass system extending below the dam, collection and transport of fish would have to be completed daily during the spring season when the spring-run Chinook salmon are present in the river. Daily operation may also be required at other

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – 7‐5 Yuba River Fish Passage Project

times of the year to support steelhead, although frequency may be less than that for spring-run Chinook salmon. Fish would either be hauled to just downstream of the dam or to numerous other locations downstream along the Yuba River. Travel from the holding ponds near Narrows I would be significantly longer than from Narrows II. From the Narrows I holding ponds, the nearest existing road with access to the river downstream of the dam is located approximately 7 miles away where Highway 20 crosses the river. The trip distance to this location is approximately 7 miles. A new access road would likely have to be built from Highway 20 down to the river edge. The total duration between pick up in the holding ponds and discharge into the river at this location would be approximately 2 to 2.5 hours. From the Narrows II holding facilities, fish could be transferred downstream to multiple locations. The nearest location would be directly below the dam, which can be accessed by the existing access road down to the powerhouse. The second closest location is via a small road that provides access to the river approximately 4 river miles downstream of the dam. This road would likely need to be upgraded to accommodate truck traffic, but it would provide a discharge location approximately 5 miles by road. Access to the Yuba River where Highway 20 crosses would be approximately 10 miles each way. Access at Daguerre Dam is approximately 13 miles each way. Englebright Floating Surface Collector A floating surface collector (FSC) consists of a floating fish screen structure moored in the reservoir. Water with migrating juveniles is drawn into the structure by pumps located behind fish screens. Fish travel past the screens into holding tanks located on the FSC. An FSC has been in operation at Puget Sound Energy’s Upper Baker Reservoir for roughly 2 years, operating at 10 percent of the intake flow. Fish capture efficiency and survival results have been very good. It is assumed the FSC at Englebright would be designed similarly and would have a flow capacity of 10 percent of the total flow at both powerhouses, which would be 410 cfs. Prospects for similar success at Englebright Lake appear to be very good because of the similarity between the hydrologic characteristics and the physical dimensions of both reservoirs. Note that a similar FSC facility could be employed at New Bullards Bar to capture downstream migrants entering that reservoir. Facility Descriptions The FSC’s screening facilities would consist of four main elements: (1) Guide Net, (2) Net Transition Structure (NTS), (3) FSC, (4) Holding Facilities and (5) Transport Facilities. The FSC would be placed near the Narrows II intake in order to use the high flow draw to the Narrows II intake to maximize attraction of fish into the FSC. The NTS and Guide Net are placed upstream of the FSC to guide fish into the structure and to exclude them from the intakes to the greatest extent practical. The Transport Facilities would be placed along the north shore adjacent to the FSC (Plates 13 and 14).

7‐6 – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service 7 Downstream Facilities

Guide Net The Guide Net is attached to the upstream end of the NTS and would extend upstream into the forebay to create a V-shaped barrier to guide fish into the FSC. The net would extend from the surface to the bottom of the reservoir and from the west shore to the northeast shore across the whole reservoir cross section. The Guide Net would be separated into two sections. The top section would be about 50-feet high, extending from water surface elevations of 480 feet to 530 feet, and would be supported by inflatable floats. Air hoses from the inflatable floats would connect to an air compressor located either on shore or the FSC. The air compressor and deflation valves would be used to adjust the elevation of the top of the Guide Net. As the top of the Guide Net de-ballasts, the net would fold in on itself to allow flood flows or boat traffic over the net. Below an elevation 480 feet, the Guide Net would be fixed in place and removed only for emergencies and scheduled maintenance. The Guide Net would be weighted along the bottom and fixed at the shore and NTS. Net Transition Structure The NTS is attached to the upstream end of the FSC and downstream end of the Guide Net. Its purpose is to provide a gradual physical and hydraulic transition from the vertical Guide Net to the defined inlet of the FSC. The NTS would extend down to the predominant depth of migrating fish and act to modify the initial approach conditions, remove flow discontinuities, and control acceleration and velocity leading to the primary screens of the FSC. For the purposes of this analysis the inlet to the NTS is a 70-feet wide by 50-feet deep rectangle. Floating Surface Collector The FSC would be a conventional vertical plate screen contained within a floating barge. Flow through the FSC would be induced by pumps. The screens would be designed to meet NMFS and DFG fish screening criteria. Design flow for the facility would be 410 cfs, approximately 10 percent of the combined, capacity flow at both intakes. The structure would be approximately 105 feet long by 50 feet wide. Primary and secondary screens would reduce flow in the channel from 410 cfs to approximately 30 cfs in the bypass channel. As flow is reduced, channel velocity is increased to a capture velocity of about 7 fps. Tertiary screens reduce the flow in the bypass channel to approximately 3 cfs to limit turbulence in the holding raceways. A pipe at the end of the bypass channel would carry fish to raceways at the end of the FSC. Fish Holding Facilities The flow into the raceways would fall over a weir about 12 to 15 inches so fish cannot swim back upstream. When a sufficient number of fish are present in a raceway, rail- mounted crowder would crowd the fish into a hopper. A monorail crane would then lift the hopper and take it to an area for evaluation and tagging or directly into a transport barge. When the evaluation is complete, the fish would be released into a pipe that would take them to a holding tank. The same monorail crane would then remove the holding tank and move it to a barge adjacent to the FSC. If evaluation is not necessary, fish in the hopper would be moved directly to the holding tank.

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – 7‐7 Yuba River Fish Passage Project

Transportation Facilities Transport Facilities consist of a transport barge, docking station on the FSC, docking station on shore, a jib crane on shore, transport trucks, and release facilities. The transport barge would normally dock on the downstream side of the FSC. After the holding tank is delivered to the barge, a cable-driven system would pull the barge to the docking station on the west shore. From there, a jib crane would lift the holding tank onto a transport truck. The transport truck would haul the fish downstream of the dam to a release point back into the lower Yuba River. Other Transport Alternatives In place of constructing holding and evaluation facilities on the FSC, these facilities could be built on shore and connected to the FSC by a pipe. Due to the 13-feet change in reservoir elevation during normal operation, the pipe connecting the shore facilities and the FSC would be flexible and constructed of a material, such as HDPE. The pipe would be connected to the end of the screen channel and water and fish would be routed, flowing full, to raceways on shore. Locating the holding and evaluation facilities on shore may result in some cost savings. In this system, raceways would be placed on the west shore near the FSC. The holding ponds would be excavated into the hillside on the north side of the existing access road to the Narrows II intake. They would have a floor elevation of approximately 511 feet. Water from the fish screen would enter into a forebay channel that is separated from the individual ponds by swinging gates, which can direct fish into any of the three ponds. Three holding ponds at 30 feet long, 8 feet wide would be sufficient to support the maximum anticipated daily volume of 420,000 downstream migrant fish. Because the intake pipe is hydraulically connected to the reservoir, the depth in the holding ponds would vary based in the water level in the reservoir. The minimum depth would be 4 feet and the maximum 10 feet during normal operating conditions. The side walls of the ponds would need to be approximately 30 feet high to avoid flooding the facility during spill events. This depth offer challenges to working the fish in the ponds. A fish crowder would guide fish into a hopper at one end of the pond, and a gantry crane would lift the hopper onto a truck for transport downstream. Volitional downstream passage could be accomplished by the addition of a bypass pipe to carry fish from the FSC and holding ponds and discharge them into the river below the dam. While this alternative might appear to be preferable from a biological perspective, the bypass pipe would have to be about 4,000 feet long. The bypass pipe from the FSC would be routed close to the holding ponds on the west shore. In the raceways on shore, the hopper would be replaced by a holding pond. The bottom of the pond would have a pipe outlet with a gate flush-mounted to the holding pond wall. The pipe out of the pond would join with the bypass pipe from the FSC near the raceways so that only one pipe would be routed down to the discharge location. This would allow fish to be evaluated on shore or passed directly downstream. The terrain along the dam’s right abutment is very steep, so the bypass pipes would need to be bored through the abutment. Downstream of the dam, the bypass pipe would be bored through the mountain or mounted on the side wall of the canyon. The bypass would be approximately 4,000 feet down to a release location along the Yuba River. The pipe material would be corrugated

7‐8 – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service 7 Downstream Facilities

metal in order to increase the roughness and limit the required excavation for the pipe. Some parts of the tunnel may be trenched into the hillside as opposed to tunnel bored. A new access road would be constructed along the right bank of the Yuba River to access the bypass pipe and discharge facilities. The tramway system described in Section 6 above could also be used to transport juveniles captured by the FSC. Fish would be crowded from the holding area into a hopper to be carried by the tramway to the base of the dam. Modifications to the upstream and downstream ends of the tramway would have to be made to accommodate the collection and return of both juveniles and adults at the reservoir and dam tailrace. Cost Estimate A conceptual level cost estimate was made based on the drawings and descriptions contained in this document. The cost estimate should be considered Class 5, as designated by the AACE (see Section 8). This estimate is primarily for comparative purposes and not intended to be used for economic analyses and financial planning. The total cost to build the FSC and its associated handling and transport facilities was estimated to be $50 million, primarily based on a similar project built in 2007 at Upper Baker Dam, near Concrete, WA. Although the Englebright project is approximately 20 percent smaller than the Upper Baker Dam FSC, cost escalation from 2007 until time of construction is projected to result in an increased overall cost. The cost estimate also includes a 25 percent contingency and 30 percent for engineering, construction management, and permitting. Operations and Maintenance Fish screen facilities require regular maintenance to keep the trash racks clear of debris and to assure the screen cleaners are working properly. Collection and transport of fish would have to be completed daily during the spring season when the spring-run Chinook salmon are present in the river. Daily operation may also be required at other times of the year to support steelhead. From the Narrows II holding facilities, fish could be transported downstream to multiple locations. The nearest would be directly below the dam, which can be accessed by the existing access road to the powerhouse. Further away, a small road exists that provides access to the river approximately 4 river miles downstream of the dam. The road would likely need to be upgraded to accommodate truck traffic, but it would provide a discharge location approximately 5 miles by road. Access to the Yuba River where Highway 20 crosses would be approximately 10 miles each way. Access all the way to Daguerre Dam is approximately 13 miles each way. Tributary Fish Screens and Barriers New Bullards Bar Dam and Englebright Dam are barriers for downstream migration of fish out of the tributaries. One option for providing passage is to collect downstream migrants from each of the tributaries and transport them to a release point downstream of the dams. To accomplish this, a fish barrier and fish screen would be built on each

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – 7‐9 Yuba River Fish Passage Project

tributary to collect migrating juveniles. All flows up to a design flow would be diverted at the barrier into fish screens. The fish would be directed from the fish screens into holding tanks for transport by truck to a downstream release point. Reaches within each tributary have been identified as possible locations to place a barrier where access is still provided to the majority of the upstream tributaries. In the North Yuba, the barrier and screen facility would preferably be placed below the Slate Creek confluence above New Bullards Bar Reservoir. In the Middle Yuba, a barrier and screen could be placed near its confluence with the North Yuba or at Our House Dam, and in the South Yuba, a barrier and screen could be placed near the confluence with Englebright Lake. Assumptions Downstream migrants would be present from October through July in the upper Yuba River watershed. The 5 percent and 95 percent exceedence flows typically are selected as design points for fish passage structures. However, the exceedence values selected for design depend on the goals of the fish reintroduction program and costs associated with the structure. The design exceedence flows for each of the main tributaries during the downstream migration period were selected to be the 5 percent exceedence flows except for the South Yuba (Table 7-1). The low flow design values for fish screens do not apply since the structures can operate down to negligible flow in the rivers.

Table 7-1. Design Exceedence Flow for the North, Middle and South Yuba Rivers North Yuba Middle Yuba South Yuba High Flow 5,000 cfs 2,000 cfs 4,000 cfs (5 percent Exceedence) (5 percent Exceedence) (15 percent Exceedence) Key: cfs = cubic feet per second

The sizing of the fish screen structure is based on a screen approach velocity of 0.33 fps and a 2 fps transport flow through the structure. Facility Descriptions Separate fish screening facilities and barriers could be constructed on each of the three tributaries. Fish screening and barriers at each of the locations would involve similar structures. A description of the facilities and possible alternatives at each location follows. Plate 15 shows a layout for the South Yuba River site; however the barrier and screen facilities would be similar at all locations. North Yuba River Preliminary investigation revealed three potential locations for a barrier and screen facility on the North Yuba River.

• Downstream of the confluence with Slate Creek, in the vicinity of Deadwood Creek Powerhouse, at the upstream end of New Bullard’s Bar Reservoir. This location is at the bottom of a deep and narrow canyon with no road access. The 2- megawatt Deadwood Creek powerhouse, owned by the Yuba County Water Agency, is accessible only by boat or hiking trail. Construction of a facility in

7‐10 – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service 7 Downstream Facilities

this location would be difficult and expensive. Operation would also be expensive and would probably require transport of the juvenile fish by boat.

• Approximately 4 miles upstream of the Slate Creek confluence at the end of Indian Valley Road. This location is the furthest downstream site, where there is vehicle access. The site appears to be fairly narrow, however, and would likely require a significant amount of excavation to construct the facility.

• Approximately 6 miles upstream of the Slate Creek confluence, immediately downstream of the State Highway 49 Bridge. This site would be most readily accessible during construction and operation, and would be the least costly to construct. The location selected would depend on the amount and quality of habitat above and below the locations. At all three locations, the basic arrangement of the facilities would be similar. The barrier would consist of an inflatable rubber weir attached to a concrete apron placed at riverbed level. The inflated weir would divert the river flow thru a vertical plate fish screen arranged in a single or double-“V” configuration. The screen structure would be designed for the 5 percent exceedence flow of 5,000 cfs. The screen panels would be 15-feet high by 10 feet wide with 25 panels on each side. The top of the screens would be set at the anticipated minimum water surface elevation behind the inflated weir. The water level in the screen structure would be controlled by the rubber dam and a fixed weir and gates downstream of the screens. This would provide a stable water surface elevation limiting the height of the screen structure. Blank panels would extend above the screen and to the deck of the structure. During large flood events the weir would be deflated to allow for greater hydraulic capacity and to prevent overtopping of the facility. The fish screen would have a trash rack at the upstream end to prevent large debris from entering and damaging the screening facility. The trash rack would be cleaned from the deck by an automated trash rake and debris off-loaded onto the shore. The total structure would be approximately 325-feet long and 95-feet wide. Significant excavation would be required to place the structure near the shore yet have the structure floor low enough to operate under all normal river levels. The earth beneath the structure is assumed to be rock at all locations. The operation of the screens would be similar to those discussed in Englebright Fish Screens and Bypass.

Collection and Transport Facilities Fish passing through the structure would be guided past the screens into a 2-feet wide bypass channel at the downstream end. A ramp in the bottom of the bypass channel would gradually rise from the floor and would increase velocity in the channel and capture fish in a 2-feet wide channel, which would carry fish to the holding facilities. Alternatively, the bypass could be a full flow pipe, similar to that described in Englebright Fish Screens and Bypass.

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – 7‐11 Yuba River Fish Passage Project

The holding ponds would be constructed adjacent to the new fish screen. The holding ponds would be sized for the estimated peak daily quantity of 210,000 juvenile fish. It is assumed that the average weight of the salmon fry is about 2 grams and a yearling salmon is 9 grams. Water from the fish screen would enter into a forebay that is separated from the individual ponds by a swinging gate. Three holding ponds at 20-feet long and 6-feet wide would be sufficient to support the maximum anticipated daily volume of juvenile fish. The minimum depth would be 4 feet. A fish crowder would be used to guide fish into a hopper at one end of the pond. An overhead crane would then be used to lift the hopper and load it onto a truck or boat for transport to the release destination. Middle Yuba River Preliminary investigation indicated four potential locations for a barrier and screen facility on the Middle Yuba.

• Near the confluence of the Middle Yuba River with the North Yuba River. This location is in a deep and narrow canyon with no current access.

• Approximately RM 1.5 at the confluence with Yellowjacket Creek. There appears to be a steep access road down to the river at this location.

• Approximately RM 3.5 near the SR 49 Bridge, off of Moonshine Road. This location would have the easiest access for construction and operation.

• At Our House Dam (RM 12.3) At all three locations, the basic arrangement of the facilities would be similar. The barrier would consist of an inflatable rubber weir attached to a concrete apron placed at riverbed level. The inflated weir would divert the river thru a vertical plate fish screen arranged in a single “V”. The screen structure would be designed for the 5 percent exceedence flow of 2,000 cfs. The screen panels would be 15-feet high and 10-feet wide with 20 panels on each side. The top of the screens would be set at the anticipated minimum water surface elevation behind the inflated weir. The water level in the screen structure would be controlled by the rubber dam and a fixed weir and gates downstream of the screens. This would provide a stable water surface elevation limiting the height of the screen structure. Blank panels would extend above the screen and to the deck of the structure. During large flood events the weir would be deflated to allow for greater hydraulic capacity and to prevent overtopping of the facility. The fish screen would have a trash rack at the upstream end to prevent large debris from entering the structure. The trash rack would be cleaned from the deck by an automated trash rake and debris off-loaded onto the shore. The total structure would be approximately 320-feet long by 70-feet wide. Significant excavation would be required to place the structure near the shore yet have the structure floor low enough to operate under all normal river levels. The earth beneath the structure is assumed to be rock at all locations.

7‐12 – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service 7 Downstream Facilities

Collection and Transport Facilities Fish passing through the structure would be guided past the screens into a 2-feet wide bypass channel at the downstream end. A ramp in the bottom of the bypass channel would gradually rise from the floor and would increase velocity in the channel and capture fish in a 2-feet wide channel, which would carry fish to the holding facilities. Alternatively, the bypass could be a full flow pipe, similar to that described under the Englebright Dam Fish Ladder section. The holding ponds would be constructed adjacent to the new fish screen. The holding ponds would be sized for the estimated peak daily quantity of approximately 105,000 juvenile fish. It is assumed that the average weight of the salmon fry is about 2 grams and a yearling salmon is 9 grams. Water from the fish screen would enter into a forebay that is separated from the individual ponds by a swinging gate. Three holding ponds at 12-feet long and 5-feet wide would be sufficient to support the maximum anticipated daily volume of 105,000 juvenile fish. The minimum depth would be 4 feet. A fish crowder would be used to guide fish into a hopper at one end of the pond. An overhead crane would then be used to lift the hopper and load it onto a truck for transport to the end destination. South Yuba River Preliminary investigation indicated a potential location for a barrier and screen facility on the South Yuba River at the inlet of the South Yuba River to Englebright Lake. The basic arrangement of the facilities would be similar to those described for the North Yuba and Middle Yuba rivers. The barrier would consist of an inflatable rubber weir attached to a concrete apron placed at riverbed level. The inflated weir would divert the river thru a vertical plate fish screen arranged in a double-“V” (Plate 15). The screen structure would be designed for the 20 percent exceedence flow of 4,000 cfs. The screen panels would be 15-feet high and 10-feet wide with 20 panels on each side. The top of the screens would be set at the anticipated minimum water surface elevation behind the inflated weir. The water level in the screen structure would be controlled by the rubber dam and a fixed weir and gates downstream of the screens. This would provide a stable water surface elevation limiting the height of the screen structure. Blank panels would extend above the screen and to the deck of the structure. During large flood events the weir would be deflated to allow for greater hydraulic capacity and to prevent overtopping of the facility. The fish screen would have a trash rack at the upstream end to prevent large debris from entering the structure. The trash rack would be cleaned from the deck by an automated trash rake and debris off-loaded onto the shore. The total structure would be approximately 320-feet long and 150-feet wide. Significant excavation would be required to place the structure near the shore yet have the structure floor low enough to operate under all normal river levels. The earth beneath the structure is assumed to be rock at all locations. Collection and transport facilities for the South Yuba River fish screen would be similar to the facilities described for the Middle Yuba River because the number of peak-day migrants are assumed to be the same.

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – 7‐13 Yuba River Fish Passage Project

Cost Estimate A conceptual level cost estimate was made based on the drawings and descriptions contained in this document for vertical-plate fish screens and barrier dams on the three tributaries. Costs from other projects were used to estimate costs for the components of the structures, barrier and fish screen. These estimates are primarily for comparative purposes and not intended to be used for economic analyses and financial planning. A fish screen was constructed along the White River in Washington in 1996. The screen had a maximum flow of 2,000 cfs and a total construction cost of $10.5 million. In 2000, an inflatable rubber dam was estimated for downstream passage at Cougar Dam in Oregon. The rubber dam was approximately 100 feet long by 10 feet high. Total construction cost was $1.2 million. The costs for these two projects were combined to estimate the cost of this project. Escalating these costs assuming a 5 percent cost escalation and a presumed construction year of 2012, and then adding 30 percent for engineering, construction management, and permitting, the total cost for the 2,000 cfs fish screen along the Middle Yuba is estimated to be $33 million (Table 7-2). Since several alternatives exist for each tributary and much additional information is required to size and locate the facilities, a range of costs (-50 percent to +100 percent) is provided instead of a detailed cost estimate.

Table 7-2. Estimated Costs for Construction of a Fish Screen in the North, Middle and South Yuba Rivers Design Flow Estimated Cost Cost Range River (cfs) ($millions) ($millions) North Yuba 5,000 $60 $30-120 Middle Yuba 2,000 $33 $17-66 South Yuba 4,000 $55 $28-110 Key: cfs = cubic feet per second Operations and Maintenance Fish screens require regular maintenance to keep the trash racks clear of debris and to assure the screen cleaners are working properly. Collection and transport of fish would have to be completed daily during the spring season when the spring-run Chinook salmon are present in the river. Daily operation may also be required at other times of the year to support steelhead, although frequency may be less than that for spring Chinook depending on management objectives. Fish would be hauled to numerous possible locations downstream of Englebright Dam along the Yuba River. The general path of travel from any of the fish screen locations would be to take SR 49 south to the connection with SR 20 in Nevada City. The fish transport trucks would be driven down SR 20 to the release point below Englebright Dam. A suitable location for release appears to exist at the point where SR 20 crosses the Yuba River. From the North Yuba River, the trip distance to this location is approximately 50 miles. The total duration between pick up in the holding ponds and discharge into the river would be approximately 2.5 to 3 hours. From the Middle Yuba River, the trip distance to this location is approximately 39 miles. The total duration

7‐14 – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service 7 Downstream Facilities between pick up in the holding ponds and discharge into the river would be approximately 2 to 2.5 hours. From the South Yuba River, the trip distance to this location is approximately 40 miles. The total duration between pick up in the holding ponds and discharge into the river would be approximately 2.5 to 3 hours.

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – 7‐15 Yuba River Fish Passage Project

This page left blank intentionally.

7‐16 – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service 8 Opinion of Probable Costs

8 Opinion of Probable Costs

The following Opinions of Probable Construction Cost (OPCC) have been prepared for construction of fish passage facilities on the Yuba River in California. These estimates are all Class 5 cost opinions as defined by AACE International. Class 5 estimates are typically prepared when engineering is 0 percent to 10 percent complete. Since these estimates are generally prepared based on very limited information, they have wide accuracy ranges. Expected accuracy ranges are from -20 percent to -50 percent on the low side and +30 percent to +100 percent on the high side, depending on the technological complexity of the project, appropriate reference information, and the inclusion of an appropriate contingency determination. Ranges could exceed those shown in unusual circumstances. Class 5 estimates are typically used for any number of business planning purposes, such as, but not limited to market studies, assessment of initial viability, evaluation of alternate schemes, project screening, project location studies, evaluation of resource needs and budgeting, or long-range capital planning. Virtually all Class 5 estimates use stochastic estimating methods such as cost curves, capacity factors, and other parametric and modeling techniques. For the fish passage alternatives, generalized quantities were determined where recent topographic information was available. Information was available for all of the upstream passage options and the Englebright fish screens downstream passage alternative. In most cases, the total quantities for major cost items were estimated by using a ratio to similar projects based on flow rates and structure size. Unit costs were based on recent bidding experience. The estimates included only major cost items; therefore, a 20 percent provision was included to account for unlisted items. Invariably, as designs continue into more detail, additional items of construction are necessary. Therefore, a 25 percent contingency for construction was included. Finally, a 30 percent increase from the total construction cost was added to account for engineering, construction management and permitting. For the Englebright FSC and the Tributary Fish Screens, quantities were not estimated due to the lack of available information. Costs for these alternatives were estimated stochastically by scaling the total costs of similar projects based on flow rates and estimated construction year. MWH has no control over costs of labor, materials, competitive bidding environments and procedures, unidentified field conditions, financial and/or market conditions, or any other factors likely to affect the OPCC of this project, all of which are and would unavoidably remain in a state of change, especially in light of the high volatility if the market attributable to Acts of God and other market events beyond the control of the parties. This OPCC is a "snapshot in time" and the reliability of this OPCC would degrade over time. MWH cannot and does not make any warranty, promise, guarantee or

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – 8‐1 Yuba River Fish Passage Project representation, either express or implied, that proposals, bids, project construction costs, or cost of O&M functions would not vary significantly from this good faith Class 5 OPCC. Table 8-1 below shows the opinion of probable construction cost and the wide range in possible costs as suggested by the AACE International guidelines.

Table 8-1. Opinion of Probable Costs for Fish Passage Alternatives in 2009 Dollars OPCC Wide Range Alternative -50 +100 ($Million) percent percent

Englebright Fish Ladder $50 $25 $100

Englebright Tramway $20 $10 $40

Upstream Daguerre Point Dam Collection and transport $8.2 $4.1 $16.4

Englebright Fish Screens $79 $40 $158

Englebright FSC $50 $25 $100

Tributary Fish Screens:

North Yuba River $60 $30 $120 Downstream Middle Yuba River $33 $17 $66

South Yuba River $55 $28 $110 Note: It is important to recognize that not all of the facilities described in Sections 4 through 6 will be necessary to successfully accomplish upstream and downstream passage of anadromous fish. Instead, this report presents a variety of options and approaches, from which the best set of fish passage designs may be selected in order to accomplish specific management goals and objectives.

8‐2 – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service 9 References

9 References

Bell, M. C., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fisheries Handbook of Engineering Requirements and Biological Criteria, 1986.

Bisson, P. A., R. E. Bilby, M. D. Bryant, C. A. Dollof, G. B. Grette, R. A. House, M. L. Murphy, K. V. Koski, and J. R. Sedell. 1987. Large woody debris in forested streams in the Pacific Northwest: past, present, and future. In Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. E. O. Salo and T. W. Cundy (Eds). Seattle, Washington, University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources: 143-190.

California Department of Fish and Game (DFG). Yuba River Juvenile Chinook Salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, and Juvenile Central Valley Steelhead Trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, Life History Survey, Annual Data Report 2003-2004.

California Department of Fish and Game (DFG). 1991. Lower Yuba River Fisheries Management Plan. Stream Evaluation Report No. 91-1. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game (DFG). Yuba River Juvenile Chinook Salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, and Juvenile Central Valley Steelhead Trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, Life History Survey, Annual Data Report 2004-2005.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2004. Evaluation of methods and devices used in the capture, sorting, holding, transport and release of fish. SP- F15, Task 3. Final Report.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2007. Upper Yuba River Watershed Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Assessment. Prepared by the Upper Yuba River Studies Program Study Team.

CALFISH, A California Cooperative Anadromous Fish and Habitat Data Program, http://www.calfish.org/IndependentDatasets/CDFGRedBluff/tabid/126/Default.as px.

Deas. M. L. 1999. Yuba River Temperature Monitoring Project. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Everett, R.A., Ruiz, G.M., 1993. Coarse woody debris as a refuge from predation in aquatic communities – an experimental test. Oecologia 93, 475–486.

Gard, M. 2004. Potential for restoration of a California stream native fish assemblage. California Fish and Game 90(1):29-35.

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – 9‐1 Yuba River Fish Passage Project

Gard, M. and P. Randall. 2004. Setting priorities for native fish conservation: an example from the South Yuba River watershed. California Fish and Game 90(1):1-12.

Gast, T., M. Allen, and S. Riley. 2005. Middle and South Yuba rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) distribution and abundance dive counts. Appendix G in DWR 2007 Upper Yuba River Watershed Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Assessment.

Gatton, Bob, CH2M-Hill. 2003. TM No. 6, Klamath Hydroelectric Project – J.C. Boyle Fish Passage Facilities, February 26, 2003.

Hartman, G. F., and T. G. Brown. 1987. Use of small, temporary, floodplain tributaries by juvenile salmonids in a west coast rainforest drainage basin, Carnation Creek, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 44:262- 270.

Jones and Stokes. 2005. 2004 Fall-run Chinook salmon spawning escapement in the Yuba River. May 2002. (J&S 00-402.) Sacramento, California. Prepared for Yuba County Water Agency, Marysville, California.

Lindley S.T., R.S. Schick, E. Mora, P.B. Adams, J.J. Anderson, S. Greene, C. Hanson, B.P. May, D.R. McEwan, R.B. MacFarlane, C. Swanson, and J.G. Williams. 2007. Framework for assessing viability of threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead in the Sacramento- San Joaquin Basin. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science Volume 5, Issue 1 (February 2007), Article 4. Available at: http://repositories.cdlib.org/jmie/sfews/vol5/iss1/art4

Lisle, T.E. 1986. Effects of woody debris on anadromous salmonid habitat, Prince of Wales Island, southeast Alaska. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 6: 538-550.

MWH. 2009. Feasibility Study for the South Diversion Fish Screen. Prepared for Yuba County Water Agency.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2007. NMFS-NOAA Northwest Region, Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009. Public Draft recovery plan for the Evolutionarily Significant Units of Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon and Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon and the distinct population segment of Central Valley steelhead. Southwest Regional Office, Sacramento, California.

Nikirk, N. and C. Mesick. 2006. Spawning habitat evaluation technical memorandum. Appendix D in DWR 2007 Upper Yuba River Watershed Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Assessment.

9‐2 – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service 9 References

Stillwater Sciences. 2006. Upper Yuba River water temperature criteria for Chinook salmon and steelhead. Stillwater Sciences. Appendix B in DWR 2007 Upper Yuba River Watershed Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Assessment.

Tom Payne and Associates. 2005. Middle and South Yuba rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) distribution and abundance dive counts. Appendix G in DWR 2007 Upper Yuba River Watershed Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Assessment.

Vogel. D. 2006. Assessment of adult anadromous salmonid migration barriers and holding habitat in the Upper Yuba River. Appendix C in DWR 2007 Upper Yuba River Watershed Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Assessment.

Rick Wantuck. Personal Communication. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region. Hydropower Program Supervisor, Santa Rosa, California. November 6, 2009.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Water Resources. 2003 “Daguerre Point Dam Fish Passage Improvement Project: Alternative Concepts Evaluation”. Prepared for Entrix, Inc., by Wood Rodgers, Inc., Draft.

Yoshiyama, R. M., E. R. Gerstung, F. W. Fisher, and P. B. Moyle. 2001. Historical and present distribution of Chinook salmon in the Central Valley. Pages 71-176 in R. Brown, ed. Contributions to the Biology of Central Valley Salmonids. California Department of Fish and Game. Fish Bulletin 179(1).

Yuba County Water Agency (YCWA) 2007. Proposed Yuba Accord Draft Environment Impact Report/ Environment Impact Statement (EIR/EIS), Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord Modeling Technical Memorandum (Appendix D).

Yuba County Water Agency and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 2007. Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord. Marysville, California.

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010 – 9‐3 Yuba River Fish Passage Project

This page left blank intentionally.

9‐4 – February 2010 National Marine Fisheries Service

Yuba River Fish Passage

Conceptual Engineering Project Options

Plates

Plate 1. Yuba River Watershed Plate 2. Photographs of Juvenile Fish Collection and Transport Options Plate 3 Englebright V-Slot Fish Ladder Conceptual Details Plate 4 Englebright V-Slot Fish Ladder Conceptual Details Plate 5 Englebright Tramway Conceptual Plan Plate 6 Englebright Tramway Conceptual Details Plate 7 Daguerre Point Dam Collection and Transport Plate 8 Daguerre Point Dam Collection and Transport Plate 9 Englebright Dam Fish Screens and Bypass General Plan Plate 10 Englebright Dam Fish Screens and Bypass Narrows I Intake Modifications Plate 11 Englebright Dam Fish Screens and Bypass Narrows II Intake Modifications Plate 12 Englebright Dam Fish Screens and Bypass Fish Screen Profiles Plate 13 Englebright Dam Floating Surface Collector General Plan Plate 14 Englebright Dam Floating Surface Collector 3-D Rendering Plate 15 South Yuba River Example Barrier and Screen General Plan

National Marine Fisheries Service February 2010

Yuba River Fish Passage

Conceptual Engineering Project Options

Plate 2 Photographs of Juvenile Fish Collection and Transport Options

This page left blank intentionally.

Downstream migrant traps in Freshwater Creek, Humboldt County. http://www.krisweb.com/krishumboldtbay/krisdb/photos/webbuilder/p2_86.htm

Inclined plane trap for downstream migrants in Freshwater Creek watershed, Humboldt County. http://www.krisweb.com/krishumboldtbay/krisdb/photos/webbuilder/p2_86.htm

Inclined plane trap for downstream migrants in Freshwater Creek watershed, Humboldt County. http://www.krisweb.com/krishumboldtbay/krisdb/photos/webbuilder/p2_86.htm

Rotary Screw Traps on the lower Stanislaus River at Caswell http://www.delta.dfg.ca.gov/srfg/photo_view.asp?code=CaswellScrew.jpg&offset=4

Barge holding facility

Barge holding facility

Holding and transport tank

Holding and transport tank