Information for January 10, 2006 draft – all new items are shown in bold, italic font that is colored blue.  All resolved issues have been moved down to the bottom of the document.  Resolved issues now have a designation of A, B, C etc.  Moving the resolved issues down to the bottom has resulted in some of the issue numbers changing (issue # 30 is now issue #25).  I have eliminated the use of three asterisks (***) to denote an issue that has changed since the last version. 

1.      The cost of implementing the Restoration Program increases as construction is delayed.

1.1.   Status as of January 10, 2006 - On August 3, 2005 the CBDA made a final recommendation to approve funding with conditions for up to 64 million dollars.  The Selection Panel received three letters from the general public during the 30-day public comment period of the Panel’s initial recommendation. All three letters were from landowners in the Battle Creek Watershed. The ERP Selection Panel believes the issues raised in the comment letters are more appropriately addressed in the project’s joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) and/or by the project lead agencies, including the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG).  The State Water Resources Control Board is the CEQA lead, and the US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) is the NEPA lead. These public comment letters are available for viewing on the California Bay-Delta Authority’s (CBDA) website at http://www.delta.dfg.ca.gov/erp/signature_battle_creek_dareview.asp.

The Selection Panel also received a letter from USBR, CDFG, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and NOAA Fisheries responding to our initial recommendations. The Panel appreciates this response to the initial recommendation and the agencies’ affirmation of a commitment to the project’s timely implementation and long-term management.  The ERP Selection Panel would like to reiterate three aspects of our Initial Recommendation.

First, we recommend that both the CBDA Ecosystem Restoration Program staff and Science Program staff assist with independent technical review of future project management documents, including the Battle Creek fish management strategy. 

Second, we urge the agencies to develop life-cycle models for winter-run and spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead before the construction phase of the project is completed. The Joint Battle Creek Review Panel (JBCRP) stated in its technical review that these models could be used “to demonstrate the degree of success of the Project” and “to explain what happened to the channels, habitats, thermal environments, and fish populations in Battle Creek.” These models should include a level of specificity that allows them to inform adaptive management of the target species on Battle Creek, as recognized in the agencies letter by their commitment to modify and expand developing models for use in Battle Creek. We agree with the JBCRP that the models would provide a critical framework for understanding the observed responses in Battle Creek and therefore would be more useful if developed before construction is completed.

Third, the Selection Panel believes that public workshops and meetings that bring together the State and Federal agencies, PG&E, the scientific community, and local stakeholders are necessary to ensure the success of restoration efforts. These public forums will also ensure that regular reports and information collected during project implementation are widely disseminated and that there is accountability by the agencies with a role during and after implementation of the Restoration Project. The project agencies should work with the CBDA ERP staff to schedule these forums at key times during project implementation.

1.2.  Status as of June 10, 2005 – A letter of support for the request for additional funds was sent from the GBCWG to California Bay-Delta Authority Director Patrick Wright.  Carissa Dunn was responsible for completing this letter.

1.3.  Outreach to any potential speedbumps landowners to see if there is anything that this group can do to help.  Angela – it would be to help Mary respond to some of the issues raised in response to the comments received.

1.4.   There is a 30 day review period once a decision is made by the selection committee (June 20th).  This group may be able to comment during this 30 day review either as individual entities or as the GBCWG.  Website:  http://www.delta.dfg.ca.gov/erp/signature_battle_creek_dareview.asp

1.5.    Annual meeting of the Battle Creek Watershed Conservancy on May 23rd.  During this BCWC meeting there were 51 people in attendance, 31 people voted (including proxies), all in favor of supporting the Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project.

1.6.  See Battle Creek Restoration Project March 2005 final revised Ecosystem Restoration Program PSP forms to provide documentation for cost increases.  Link: http://calwater.ca.gov/Programs/EcosystemRestoration/Ecosystem_BattleCreek.asp

2.      Screening of the Coleman NFH Intakes and modification of the Coleman NFH Barrier dam need to occur.

2.1.  Modification of barrier weir and fish ladders – Scott Hamelberg is the contact.  Status as of July 19, 2005 - From Green Sheet: USFWS anticipates that $6.5 million will be obligated for the project by Sept 2005.

Status as of June 10, 2005 - Current project requires $6.55 million amendment on top of $1.6 million that was secured in 2000 for a total of $8.1 million.  A NEPA document (draft EA) was completed and put out for review in 2004.  A CEQA document (IS/ER) is currently available for public comment on the CALFED website (GBCWG can comment on this doc--comment period closes June 3, 2005).   A BA was being prepared to submit to NOAA Fisheries--now it has been decided that an ASIP is required.  Timeline for ASIP completion is under development. Design team is meeting regularly a project design is at 50%.  Schedule - Construction contracts need to be awarded in early '06 for construction to begin in Jun 06.  Need mid year 2005 funding decision by CBDA to keep on schedule for construction. Project completion date = early 2008.

2.2.  Water Intake screening – Scott Hamelberg is the contact.  Status as of June 10, 2005 - Currently have verbal agreement from USBR to split cost of the screening of the Coleman NFH intakes.  USBR to provide funds under the RAXS program. Need to secure that other half of funding from CBDA.  $200,000 coming in 2006 from CVPIA for intake#1.  Considering using these funds for environmental documentation.  Ideally construction to begin in 2007 and continue through 2009.  Intake #1 needs rehabilitation. Intakes #2&#3 need screens.  Total project cost is estimated at $10 million.

3.      The two biological opinions (i.e. restoration program and Coleman NFH operations) are not completed.

3.1.  Battle Creek Restoration Project Biological Opinion.  Mike Tucker is the contact.  Status as of January 10, 2006 – The Biological Opinion was transmitted to USBR by NOAA Fisheries on June 22, 2005.  The BO can be downloaded from:

http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/sac/myweb8/webpages/biol_opinions.htm

Status as of June 10, 2005 - This BO has been through editorial/technical review and Sacramento section 7 coordinator review.  It is currently being revised in accordance with these reviewer’s edits and comments.  It has been suggested (and seems likely) that the Long Beach section 7 coordinator will wave review of this BO and that it will go directly to the NMFS Regional Director for final approval.  Once this BO has final approval from Long Beach and is ready for signature, it will be provided to Reclamation as a draft for review by Reclamation and whomever they wish to provide it to (the workgroup?).  Final revisions will then be made to the BO and it will be signed and issued to Reclamation.

On June 2, 2005 a draft of the USFWS Biological Opinion was sent out for review to the GBCWG by Mary Marshall.  On June 3, 2005 a draft of the incidental take portion of the NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinion was sent out for review to the GBCWG by Mike Tucker.

3.2.  Coleman NFH Biological Opinion.  Mike Tucker is the contact.  Status as of January 10, 2006 – The Coleman NFG BO is in final Sacramento Section 7 coordinator review (step (2) shown below).

Status as of June 10, 2005 - The BA was submitted June 2001 to NOAA Fisheries.  Shirley has been reviewing this document.  There is no estimated date of when this will be completed.  There is a legal requirement that the BO be issued in 135 days.  The existing BO is ongoing until a new BO is issued.  There is no real issues with the ongoing BO other than from a agency perspective of take.  From the GBCWG perspective it is important to know how the opinion of NOAA Fisheries.  Scott – this is an important issue because FWS made a BA and a lot of people were waiting for an opinion from NOAA fisheries on what impact operation of Coleman NFH has.  Has some impact on credibility of the Government with the stakeholders.

The latest draft of the Coleman NFH Biological Opinion has been submitted for initial editorial/technical review.  Remaining steps include: (1) completion of editorial/technical review and inclusion of edits; (2) completion of final Sacramento section 7 coordinator review and inclusion of edits; (3) completion of final Long Beach section 7 coordinator review and inclusion of edits; (4) and final approval and signing of biological opinion.

3.3.  PG&E Relicensing Process Biological Opinion.  Angela Risdon is the contact.

3.4.  Monitoring Plan Biological Opinion.  Mike Tucker is the contact.  Status as of January 10, 2006 – RESOLVED.   A Biological Opinion is not necessary for the Battle Creek Restoration Program monitoring plan.  NOAA Fisheries will handle the monitoring plan under section 10 or section 4D.

4.      The Restoration Program has proceeded with final design of facilities without obtaining permission from affected property owners.

4.1.  Mary Marshall is the contact.  Status as of January 10, 2006 – USBR has been meeting with property owners on a frequent basis to try to resolve outstanding issues.  Meetings have occurred in Mid-June 2005 as well as subsequent meetings in August 2005.

Status as of June 10, 2005 – There has been two previous Project Managers that have made numerous contacts with the private landowners.  USBR is working with PG&E to clearly define the property ownership and easements in the project area.  After the ownership determination with PG&E, USBR will be moving forward with discussions with Landowners affected by the Restoration Project.  GBCWG members should communicate any landowner issues that they become aware of to Mary Marshall.  The plan is to meet initially with the landowners in Mid June.  Final negotiations will occur after signing of the ROD.

5.      The risk of fish extinction increases with the passage of time.

5.1.  Mike Ward is the contact.  Status as of June 21, 2005 – If the Restoration Project is implemented in a timely fashion, concerns will be moderated. Further delays in the Project will increase risk. The GBCWWG letter to CBDA urged a timely decision to award additional funding to the Project. The initial recommendation was made on June 20, 2005, but a final decision still need to be made.  Link:  http://www.delta.dfg.ca.gov/erp/signature_battle_creek_dareview.asp

6.      There are unresolved conflicts between Upper Battle Creek stakeholders and Coleman NFH.

6.1.   Sharon Paquin-Gilmore and Scott Hamelberg are the contacts.  Status as of June 21, 2005 – As long as Coleman NFH exists in the same watershed, the watershed residents and landowners are likely to have concerns; however, these concerns should be captured in the CNFH Adaptive Management Planning process (See issue #10). BCWC is looking forward to addressing issues within the context of the CNFH-AMP. In light of this anticipated planning process, BCWC is not presently asking the GBCWWG to address each issue formally but does reserve the option to bring specific issues to the Working Group for review at a later date.

7.      Continuation of the Battle Creek Hydroelectric project license amendment (FERC# 1121) is important.

7.1.   Angela Risdon is the contact.  Status as of June 21, 2005 - PG&E prepared a draft license amendment in June 2003 for public comments.  Exhibit E of the license amendment is the Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project EIR/EIS.  PG&E has begun preparation of the final license amendment. 

8.      There is both uncertainty, and a lack of understanding, of how to gain stakeholder support of restoration activities.

8.1.   Sharon Paquin-Gilmore, Kerry Burke, and Angela Risdon are the contacts.  Status as of January 10, 2006 – During the GBCWG meeting on October 18, 2005, Rick Morat outlined to the group some ideas and thoughts concerning public outreach.  The GBCWG members approved that the public outreach supgroup continue working on a plan to improve public outreach for the Battle Creek Watershed.

Status as of July 19, 2005 - Ken Lentz took steps to clear the way for Rick Morrat’s participation to facilitate ideas and actions for outreach.  At BCWG’s next meeting Rick will facilitate a brainstorming session on ideas for greater public outreach, and the group will confirm who will participate on and chair the subcommittee.  The likely chair is Angela Risdon.  Ken Lentz said, to focus the brainstorming session, Rick will ask 1) what are the issues, 2) who is the audience, and 3) what do we want to change in the relationship? The subcommittee will then take the set of ideas and refine them into something that can be carried forward by the group.

Status as of July 1, 2005 – During the June 21, 2005 GBCWG meeting a subcommittee was formed to work on public outreach.  This subcommittee will start meeting soon to brainstorm ideas to increase public outreach.  This public outreach issue also dovetails with issue # 14 concerning processes and activities to resolve misconceptions.

Status as of June 21, 2005 – At the recent Annual Meeting (5/23/05), BCWC membership voted to support the Restoration Project as a result of progress made towards resolving Conservancy issues with the Project. Ongoing support is expected as long as BCWC issues continue to be addressed adequately; however, there are other stakeholders who may have other unresolved issues, such as Friends of the River, PCFFA, etc.

9.      The Winter Run Chinook Salmon feasibility study in Battle Creek has not been completed.

9.1.   Mike Berry is the contact.  Status as of January 10, 2006 – Mike Berry sent out an administrative draft of the Winter Run Chinook Salmon feasibility study in late December 2005.  The administrative draft incorporated comments received from the May 16, 2005 initial draft.

Status as of June 10, 2005 - The initial draft has been completed by CDFG staff and is currently being reviewed internally.  A draft was released through email to the working group on the May 16, 2005.  Comments to this initial draft need to be sent to Mike Berry.

10. The Coleman NFH Adaptive Management Plan has not been completed.

10.1.                   Kevin Niemela is the contact.  Status as of June 10, 2005 - In February, 2004 the California Bay-Delta Authority Science Program held a public meeting to report on the findings of a Science Panel Review of the effects of Coleman National Fish Hatchery (Coleman NFH) on the recovery of anadromous salmonids in the Battle Creek watershed.  The Panel concluded that the operation of the Coleman NFH may pose significant risk to the recovery of anadromous salmonids in Battle Creek.  A key tenet of the Panel's conclusion is that scientific uncertainties underlie all aspects of Battle Creek fisheries management, including interactions between the Restoration Project and the Coleman NFH.  In recognition of these uncertainties, the Panel recommended that adaptive management be used to guide the hatchery decision making process for those operations that may affect the restoration project.

In April 2004 the Restoration Project PMT developed a proposal to request CBDA funding for the development ($240,000) and implementation ($1,000,000) of an adaptive management plan for the Coleman NFH (Coleman AMP).  The Coleman AMP would be closely coordinated with the Restoration Project AMP and would lay out a strategy to monitor, study, and assess hatchery operations that may affect the achievement of goals of the Restoration Project.  A funding decision by CBDA CDFG is anticipated at the same time as that for the Restoration Project.

11. Substantial losses of juvenile salmonids occur as a result of the lack of proper screening of Orwick Diversion.

11.1.                   Mike Tucker is the contact.  Status as of June 10, 2005 – This has been a long standing issue and this diversion has been on the NMFS law enforcement “top 10 list” of potential take violators at unscreened or poorly screened diversions for some time.  There is also the more recent issue of the construction of a large rock weir that was built in Battle Creek to facilitate diversion of water into the Orwick ditch.  This structure was constructed without ESA compliance and with no incidental take authorization.

In conjunction with these issues there have been periodic efforts to acquire the water rights to this diversion for environmental purposes and shut the diversion down all together.  Efforts towards this goal have been made by BLM and DFG, and most recently by the Environmental Water Program under CALFED.

 NMFS law enforcement has recently initiated an ESA investigation.  Our special agents and engineers have been out at the site several times collecting evidence such as flow measurements and photographs of threatened steelhead entrained in the diversion.

12. Land and timber management activities in upper South Fork of Battle Creek could be contrary to restoration goals.

12.1.                   Melanie McFarland and Mike Ward are the contact.  Status as of July 17, 2005 - On lands administered by the Lassen National Forest (LNF), activities follow direction contained in an Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS).  This strategy was developed specifically to address the protection and restoration of anadromous fish-producing watersheds on national forest system lands within the LNF boundary (including upper Battle Creek).  

Formal Section 7 programmatic ESA consultation has been completed with NOAA Fisheries on the ACS as well as land management activities directed under the Forest Plan (2001 & 2004).  All ongoing and proposed activities are designed to be consistent with the strategy and, when applicable, undergo consultation with NOAA Fisheries.

In addition to current direction and regulations, specific actions that compliment the restoration project include efforts established under partnership between the Battle Creek Watershed Conservancy (BCWC) and the LNF.  One component of a recent CALFED grant awarded to the BCWC, is aimed at improving upper watershed conditions, for the benefit of the downstream anadromous fishery.  Specifically, actions will be implemented to reduce or eliminate sources of sediment (primarily associated with roads) on LNF lands in upper Battle Creek tributaries.

Status as of June 21, 2005 –

·                    Land and timber management activities throughout Battle Creek are conducted under existing rules and regulations.

·                    The BCWC Assessment of the Battle Creek Watershed (2001-2002) did not find strong evidence that land use is significantly affecting sediment delivery to the South Fork at the watershed scale.

·                    BCWC will soon be developing a monitoring plan that will augment the Watershed Assessment and will be designed to investigate the issue of timber management further.

13. The Fisheries Management Plan has not been completed.

13.1.                   Mike Berry is the Contact.  As of January 10, 2006 – The fishery management plan (strategy) has been on hold until completion of the winter run Chinook salmon feasibility analysis (previously discussed).  The winter run feasibility analysis will be completed in 2006 prior to construction of the Restoration Program in 2007.  Once the feasibility analysis has been completed, work will continue on the fish management strategy as a sub-committee of the Battle Creek working group. The Management strategy will be finished prior to the completion of the physical components of the restoration plan for Battle Creek.

14. Processes and activities to resolve misconceptions are not in place.

14.1.              Tricia Parker is the contact.  Status as of January 10, 2006 – This issue is linked to issue #8 because of similarities.

Status as of June 21, 2005 - The method to resolve misconceptions would be to participate in these processes and activities.  For example, the bimonthly public meetings of the Greater Battle Creek Working Group are available for anyone to participate in.  The purpose of these meetings is to share information so status updates are given on all the activities underway (e.g. the USFWS distributes written updates on all their Battle Creek activities, USBR gives an update on their activities and the local stakeholders group gives an update).  The people working on this project (federal, state and private biologists and managers) are also available by phone. Announcements regarding these public meetings are sent to local newspapers.  An issue tracking document is being developed to assist participants with maintaining easy access to the current status of the multiple activities that are underway.  Additional information about the activities that are in place to share information amongst interested parties is described in Chapter Six of the EIS/EIS "Related Projects".

In addition, several websites are available for additional information on ongoing activities.  The local watershed group has information on its website (http://www.battle-creek.net/ ), the USBR has information on their website (http://www.usbr.gov/mp/battlecreek/), and the USFWS has information on projects funded by the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program in Battle Ck on its website (http://www.delta.dfg.ca.gov/afrp/ ).

In summary, there are currently several ongoing avenues of communication available to anyone who is interested in activities in Battle Creek.

15. The comprehensive watershed planning process has not been completed.

15.1.                   Curtis Anderson is Peggy McNutt and Sharon Paquin-Gilmore are  the contacts.  Status as of June 10, 2005 – Jeff Phipps started this process a couple years ago, but the group stopped meeting.  Curtis will follow up with Jeff to get the current status.  This type is process is sometimes hired out to private consultants.

16. There are potential impacts to private businesses in the Battle Creek Watershed (e.g. Mt. Lassen Trout Farm, Rocky Springs Ranch, and Oasis Springs Lodge) as a result of the Restoration Project.

16.1.                   Mary Marshall and Kerry Burke are the contacts.  Status as of January 10, 2006 – The Restoration Project July 2003 Draft EIS/EIR, February 2005 Draft Supplemental EIS/Revised EIR, and July 2005 EIS/EIR discusses the impacts to the private businesses.  Public comments regarding this matter are incorporated into the Final EIS/EIR.will be responded to as part of Final EIS/EIR (which is planned to be completed in July 2005).  If compensation to the private businesses can not be accomplished under NEPA/CEQA laws, it may be possible to provide compensation through other federal and/or state authorities.    Mary is investigating methods for compensating these businesses outside the NEPA/CEQA process.  CDFG is coordinating with Phil Mackey regarding the mitigation associated with the Mount Lassen Trout Farms Willow Springs.  CDFG relayed a letter to Val Vaden (owner of Rocky Springs Ranch and Oasis Springs Lodge) in September 2005 which identifies the process associated with compensation for business losses.

17. There are misconceptions of the differences between the alternate actions in the Restoration Program EIR/EIS. (e.g. better understanding of the ramifications from the 8-dam alternative)

17.1.                   Mary Marshall is the contact.  Status as of January 10, 2006 - The Restoration Project Draft July 2003 EIS/EIR (in Chapter 3) provides a complete description of the project alternatives. The Restoration Project February 2005 Draft Supplemental EIS/Revised EIR and the July 2005 Final EIS/EIR (in Chapter 3) provides information on the 8 dam removal alternative and describes why it was eliminated from further consideration as a project alternative.

 18. There is not a common understanding of the relative value/importance of hatchery versus natural/wild fish.

18.1.                   Scott Ferris is the contact.  Status as of June 21, 2005 - This is a difficult problem because there two schools of thought in the scientific community and among some or our stake holders on this issue.  On one side there are those who apparently prefer to have completely wild salmon/steelhead populations that would sustain themselves solely by natural reproductions.  This would be accomplished by curtailing or eliminating hatchery production, restoring rivers to pre 1900 conditions by breaching dams, limiting water diversions and greatly reducing agricultural and forestry impacts on our western anadramous streams.

Others in the scientific community contend that society has shown no indication that it is willing to make the societal economic sacrifices that would be necessary to make the foregoing scenario a reality.  They believe that if we are to deal with the ever increasing urban and agricultural demands for more water and an exploding west coast human population, we need a scientifically and biologically sound blend of both wild and hatchery fish based on best known technology.

Hatcheries in the Pacific Northwest have been operating for more than 50 years and have generally been very successful in producing quality salmon and steelhead for sport and commercial harvest as well as helping compensate for steadily declining wild fish populations.  This group of fishery scientists are of the opinion that state of the art fish hatcheries are critical to maintaining future recreational, commercial and Treaty harvest obligations.  Like it or not, 60 to 80 percent of the salmon and steelhead that have been harvested in recent years in California, Oregon, and Washington originated in State, Federal and Tribal hatcheries.

Coleman NFH together with three other Sacramento River tributary hatcheries have in recent years, produced more than 60 percent of all commercial and sport caught salmon and steelhead in California.  The trickle down economic value of these fish arguably can range from 70 to more than 100 million dollars a year.  Based on projected human population growth and estimates during the next 25 years, it does not appear that wild/natural spawning fish will, now, or in the foreseeable future be able to support current harvest levels, let alone increased levels that are likely to occur with increased numbers of people.

To create a better common understanding of this issue the Resource Agencies and the scientific community must be up front with the general public regarding the realities of restoring wild/natural fish to a point where they could sustain current harvest rates with our strong hatchery support.  Remaining populations of wild/natural fish are important and should be protected and enhanced whenever possible…. However, hatchery fish are important also.  If we are to have salmon and steelhead for the public to catch now and in the future, we must have a delicate balance between hatchery operations and the wild/natural stocks.  All the while keeping in mind that many of the so called natural spawning stocks are probably of Coleman parentage.  In the case of Coleman NFH and the Battle Creek Restoration Project, the Resources Agencies should make clear to all parties that Coleman NFH has a congressional mandate to produce fish as mitigation for lost habitat, that it can and will meet its mitigation responsibilities to the best of its abilities without jeopardizing the success of the project.  A good adaptive management plan will be helpful in making sure all parties are working cooperatively together without the tail wagging the dog.

If in the work groups future deliberations we can all make greater efforts to work together and focus more of our attention on providing our wild/natural Battle Creek stock with the access and water quality they need, and less on Coleman’s operational production efforts, the completion of this project will become a reality.

19. Long term watershed condition monitoring is not occurring.

19.1.                   Mike Ward is the contact.  Status as of June 21, 2005 – The BCWC recently received a grant from SWRCB to develop a long term watershed condition monitoring plan. Further information will be forthcoming. The development process will start in summer 2005; invitations for participation will include members of the Working Group.

20. There is inconsistent implementation of agency policy.

20.1.                   The contact person for this issue is unclear.  Status as of June 10, 2005 - This issue has been raised during previous Battle Creek Working Group meetings by Serge Birk regarding discussions concerning passage of steelhead above the Coleman Fish Hatchery barrier weir.  Serge was not present during the issue identification meetings.  The GBCWG needs to spend additional time better identifying this issue.

21. The Lassen Lodge Hydro project plan could conflict with restoration of the watershed.

21.1.                   The contact for this issue has not been identified.

22. There is a potential for a degradation of the socio-economic condition of watershed.

22.1.                   Sharon Paquin-Gilmore is the contact for this issue.  Status as of June 21, 2005 – Socio-economic conditions in Battle Creek Watershed are largely outside of this group’s control; however, conditions can be influenced by the GBCWWG within certain forums including: implementation of the Restoration Project; management of public lands; and other agency actions.  This issue will never be fully resolved; the GBCWWG may be asked to consider specific items under this issue periodically as they arise in the future.

23. There are unknown implications from the interaction of natural- and hatchery-origin fish.

23.1.                   Jim Smith is the contact.  Status as of January 10, 2006 – This issue is linked to issue #18 and somewhat to issue #10.

Status as of June 21, 2005 – In recent years, a great deal of research has been conducted coast-wide into investigating the interactions between natural and hatchery-origin salmon and steelhead.  This research is usually looking at questions related to effects that are either ecological or genetic.  Examples of ecological effects include predation, competition/displacement and disease transfer.  Genetic effects would include hybridization and loss of diversity between populations, loss or gain of within population diversity, and overall fitness difference been hatchery and wild fish.   Although much research has been completed and has been used to modify hatchery practices, uncertainty still remains and research continues.  This issue is broader than the scope of the GBCWG but is still a concern as it relates to the operations at Coleman NFH and Battle Creek restoration.  As new research is completed, the results of those findings should be considered as they related to Coleman NFH.   The primary role of the GBCWG on these issues should be to monitor and support new and ongoing research, share new information as it becomes available, and understand how it may or may not relate to Coleman NFH and Battle Creek restoration.

24. Environmental compliance documents have not been completed.  (e.g. EIR/EIS, Winter Chinook Recovery Plan)

24.1.                   Mary Marshall and Mike Tucker are the contacts.  Status as of June 10, 2005 -

The Environmental Compliance Documents completed to date for the Restoration Project follow.  (These documents are located on http://www.usbr.gov/mp/battlecreek/documents.html)

NEPA/CEQA: Draft Supplemental EIS/Revised EIR- February 2005
Draft EIS/EIR - July 2003
(Note: Final EIS/EIR planned to be was completed in July 2005)

ESA: Draft Action Specific Implementation Plan - April 2004
(Note: NOAA Fisheries BO and FWS BO planned to be were completed in June 2005)
Adaptive Management: Draft Adaptive Management Plan - September 2001
Revised Draft Adaptive Management Plan - April 2004

NMFS’ CENTRAL VALLEY RECOVERY PLANNING PROCESS

Brief Overview of Process and History of CV TRT
The Southwest Region (SWR) of NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has engaged in the recovery planning process for all salmonid ESUs in California.  Modeled after the recovery planning framework developed by the Northwest Region (NWR) of NMFS, recovery planning areas (referred to as domains) are defined by ESU boundaries.  For the Central Valley (CV), the boundaries of the winter-run and spring-run Chinook salmon and CV steelhead ESUs define the CV recovery planning domain.  The foundation of this framework is based in the NOAA Technical Memorandum “Viable Salmonid Populations and the Recovery of Evolutionarily Significant Units”, June 2000.  This technical report supports the concept of four criteria or parameters (known as VSP criteria) to meet when attempting to recover listed salmonid populations: abundance, productivity, diversity, and spatial structure.  This report can be accessed at http://santacruz.nmfs.noaa.gov/ESA/salmonids/esa_docs/index.php.

The planning process is devised in two phases – technical (phase 1) and planning/implementation (phase 2); there is often overlap between the two phases, thus phase 2 does not have to wait for completion of phase 1 to initiate some of the early planning activities.  Phase 1 is initiated through the appointment of a technical recovery team (TRT).  Each TRT has been selected through a nomination and independent peer review process that seeks individuals with strong scientific backgrounds in salmonid biology, along with specialized experience related to the respective geographic domain.  Phase 2 is viewed as largely a policy/management exercise that calls upon the expertise of the TRT and is managed and directed by individual recovery coordinators in each domain.  Diane Windham is NMFS’ recovery coordinator for the CV recovery domain.  More information about the NWR’s recovery planning framework can be found on their website at http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/overview.htm.  Additional information regarding recovery planning in California, including domain-specific products produced and status review information can be found at http://santacruz.nmfs.noaa.gov/ESA/salmonids/trt/index.php.

With respect to winter-run Chinook salmon, which was federally listed in 1990 and reclassified as endangered in January 1994, the initial recovery planning process was initiated by NMFS prior to the development of the recovery planning framework described above and prior to the federal listings of spring-run Chinook salmon and CV steelhead. A recovery team was selected, who produced a draft recovery plan in August 1997.  CV steelhead was federally listed in March 1998, and spring-run Chinook salmon in September 1999, both as threatened.  During this time period, the phased recovery planning approach was drafted by the NWR in 1999, and updated in 2000.  As recovery plans were needed for all three Central Valley salmonid species, it was decided to include and update the draft winter-run recovery plan into one larger phased planning effort for all three listed species.

The CV TRT was appointed (after nominees’ applications were peer reviewed by an independent panel from the American Fisheries Society) in late 2002, and convened its first meeting in March 2003.  The CV TRT is chaired by Steve Lindley from NMFS’ Southwest Fisheries Science Center in Santa Cruz, CA.  The TRT typically meets monthly or bimonthly, depending on workload and availability (most members serve voluntarily or represent State or Federal agencies, so TRT responsibilities are in addition to their existing work demands).  The CV TRT is responsible for identification of independent populations of the listed CV salmonids, as well as development of population viability analyses, ESU viability analyses, identification of monitoring and research needs, and to provide guidance and review for phase 2 activities.  The TRT was first tasked with familiarizing themselves with the status of the three listed CV salmonids and their respective habitat and habitat requirements.  This has been challenging in a fairly data poor environment, especially with respect to CV steelhead. 

The CV TRT chair tasked the TRT with identification of independent populations of spring-run Chinook salmon.  This resulted in a report titled “Population structure of threatened and endangered Chinook salmon ESUs in California’s Central Valley basin”,  April 2004, available as a Technical Memorandum that can be found at http://santacruz.nmfs.noaa.gov/ESA/salmonids/trt/cv.php.

Current/Future Recovery Planning Activities
The TRT has drafted, is revising, and will soon produce a final report on identification of independent populations of CV steelhead.  Again, this has been a challenging effort due to the data poor environment regarding steelhead in California. 

The approaches to assess population viability and ESU viability are being drafted by the TRT chair and will be provided to the TRT for their review and comment in June and September 2005, respectively.  The documents will describe the population viability and ESU viability approaches that the TRT have determined are most appropriate for Central Valley salmonids.  Once revised and endorsed by the TRT, the documents will be published as  NOAA technical reports.

In addition, the TRT is currently drafting initial guidance for monitoring and research activities needed in the CV, including those proposed by the California Department of Fish and Game, CALFED, and others.  This guidance should be available by winter 2005.

All reports, technical memoranda, and other guidance documents are or will be available on the webpage cited above.

It is important to note that most members of the TRT have had little time to actually draft the documents being produced.  Instead, the TRT chair has produced most of the written materials and analyses after significant discussion and consideration of the data with the TRT.  The TRT chair then provides these drafts to the TRT for their review, comment, and revision.  This has influenced the pace of the technical phase to a large degree, but if able to maintain the schedule described above, all TRT phase 1 products should be completed by winter 2005.

The TRT will not be making specific recommendations; rather, they will refer to the existing population structures and identify areas or watersheds where recovery actions would contribute to meeting the VSP criteria.  For example, while the TRT has not specifically identified the Battle Creek restoration project, they concur with the objective of establishing at least an additional population of winter-run in order to meet VSP criteria.  This objective is also consistent with the draft winter-run Chinook salmon recovery plan which will be incorporated into the larger multi-species planning effort. 

Identification of specific actions or even specific geographic areas of opportunity for recovery actions will be a function of phase 2 of the recovery planning process, which is also underway at this time.  An initial step in starting this phase has been through our recent contributions to two reports to Congress; the Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund Report to Congress, and the NMFS’ Biennial Recovery Report to Congress, both of which track status and progress of NMFS’ recovery planning efforts.  These reports include overviews of the status of and threats to the three listed CV salmonid ESUs, identification of limiting factors, an assessment of conservation actions or measures that are in place or funded, and remaining priority actions that would contribute to and achieve recovery.  While the CV domain is included in the reporting for the Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund Report, it is not eligible to access these funds due to another CV funding source/planning and restoration effort (CALFED).  In both of these reporting efforts, NMFS has specifically identified the Battle Creek Restoration Project as a high priority action that would contribute to not only recovery of the three listed salmonid species, but would also help meet VSP criteria.  These reports, when finalized, can be accessed at http://nwr.noaa.gov. 

The CV narratives for the Reports to Congress establish a structure or outline upon which to build a recovery plan.  While expanding on this information, the CV recovery coordinator will also initiate an extensive and updated threats assessment for the three listed species.  These efforts are anticipated to get underway in summer 2005, which fits logically with activities of the TRT.  Phase 2, as it moves forward from the plan outline and threats assessment, will involve developing strategies and actions to ultimately meet VSP parameters, following the guidance provided in TRT written products, as well as consideration of ongoing conservation efforts throughout the CV that contribute to recovery, such as CALFED, AFRP, and CVPIA.  Stakeholder participation is a very important component for phase 2, and will go hand-in-hand with an extensive outreach effort.  Numerous workshops will be held to facilitate stakeholder involvement for the threats assessment and for developing recovery strategies, actions, and an implementation plan, as well as review of any phase 2 products. Members of the TRT are anticipated to continue involvement by advising on phase 2 efforts.  To continue progress and maintain consistency between domains, the recovery coordinators meet frequently to discuss and identify various approaches and strategies for phase 2 that best meet the needs of the respective domains.  We expect considerable progress to be made for both phase 1 and 2 over the next one to two years.

25. Information is provided to BCWG participants without adequate background information needed for making an informed decision on future action.

25.1.                   Sharon Paquin-Gilmore is the contact.  Status as of January 10, 2006 – This issue is linked to issue #8, and as a result of outreach efforts this issue will be resolved.

26. The natural and scenic qualities of the watershed could be degraded due to Restoration Program construction.

26.1.                   Sharon Paquin-Gilmore is the contact.  Status as of June 21, 2005 – BCWC recognizes that some natural qualities will be improved through watershed restoration; for example, the existence of a thriving salmon population and related improvements to the ecosystem.  On the other hand, the Conservancy also recognizes that scenic qualities could be degraded due to construction, such as the effects of construction on Oasis Springs resort and Rocky Springs Ranch.

A.     There is concern that, in the event a new genetic run (e.g. ESU-WR) of salmonids is created as a result of the Restoration Program, new regulations would be enacted by regulatory agencies.
A.1. Mike Tucker is the contact.
Status as of June 10, 2005 – RESOLVED.  With regards to the classification and treatment of restored populations of listed salmonids in Battle Creek, the concern has been voiced by various stakeholders that such a restored population (in particular, a winter-run Chinook salmon population) would somehow be classified as a separate species or ecologically significant unit (ESU) from the ESU that has already been designated in the Sacramento River.  This is not the case.  A restored population of winter-run Chinook salmon in Battle Creek would be classified as a sub-population of the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon ESU just as the various sub-populations if spring-run Chinook salmon (Deer Creek, Mill Creek, etc.) are considered parts of the whole Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon ESU.  Establishment of a new sub-population of winter-run Chinook salmon in Battle Creek could only improve the recovery prospects for the entire Sacramento River ESU.  Link to NOAA Fisheries letter – XXXX

DFG will be completing a sent a letter to the Battle Creek Watershed Conservancy around May 18, 2005 on XXX concerning their view of this issue.

B.    Passage strategies of steelhead trout above the Coleman Barrier Dam could negatively impact other salmonid species.
B.1. Scott Hamelberg is the contact.
Status as of June 10, 2005 - RESOLVED.
In 2004, in response to the recommendations of a CBDA Science Panel, the Resource Agencies issued a decision to discontinue releases of hatchery-origin steelhead above the Coleman NFH barrier weir.  USFWS will continue to collect information on this issue through Coleman NFH adaptive management, CBDA science panel recommendation, and the 2001 biological opinion.

C.    Fishing regulations may negatively impact the take of salmonids in the Battle Creek Watershed once an anadromous fishery is restored under the restoration program. 
C.1. Mike Berry is the contact.
As of June 10, 2005 – RESOLVED.
The fishing regulations in Battle Creek throughout the project reach are the same as all other anadromous waters in Shasta and Tehama counties.  They currently read: Open-Last Saturday in April through November 15 Only artificial lures with barbless hooks may be used.  Bag Limit  - 0.  These regulations will not change as a result of the restoration project.

D.    The fish stocking permit policies will change for certain areas in the Battle Creek Watershed where anadromous fish could be present.
D.1. Mike Berry is the contact.
As of June 10, 2005 – RESOLVED.
Currently DFG policy prohibits stocking fish in anadromous waters of the state.  The exception to this policy in Battle Creek is the operations at Oasis Springs Lodge.  They currently have a stocking permit that expires in 2006, but could be extended depending on the progress of the restoration project.  Once a project alternative is chosen (even if it is no project), fish passage on Battle creek will be provided and fish planting will cease. The number of native sport fish should increase substantially under any alternative that provides augmented flow and improved fish passage.

E.     Agency decisions are made without adequate stakeholder input.
E.1. This is an opinion.  The objectives of the GBCWG MOU address this issue.

F.     There is insufficient outreach and information sharing to the public.
F.1. This is an opinion.  The objectives of the GBCWG MOU address this issue.

G.    Restoration goals and the measurement of success are not adequately defined.
G.1. Harry Rectenwald is was the contact for this issue.
Status as of January 10, 2006 - RESOLVED
Status as of June 10, 2005 – The restoration goals and measure of success for the Restoration Project (Project), as defined as the 42 miles of anadromous habitat upstream of Coleman Powerhouse, is included in two documents part of the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Revised Environmental Impact Report (review period ended April 29).  The goal and success benchmarks for the Project are contained in the Adaptive Management Plan (Plan) at the finest level of detail available in the documentation package; and in the Action Specific Implementation Plan at a broader level of detail relating to goals for the Sacramento River system as a whole. The Plan underwent substantial review during the CalFed proposal process producing substantial revisions from the previous version circulated with the Draft EIS/R.

The Action Specific Implementation Plan is focused on how the Project relates to the CalFed Program’s blue print that establishes goals and measures of success fro the multiple species and ecological communities in the Sacramento River Valley.  One suggested way forward on this issue is to provide an overview of these revised documents focused on goals and measurement of success.