FERC/EIS-0225D 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 1 – Cover and Front Pages

South Feather Power Project 

FERC Project No. 2088-068, California 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street N.E. 

Washington, DC 20426 

Office of

Energy

Projects

November 2008

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
FERC/EIS-0225D 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

South Feather Power Project 

FERC Project No. 2088-068, California 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street N.E. 

Washington, DC 20426 

Office of

Energy

Projects

November 2008

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
FERC/EIS-0225D 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE 

South Feather Power Project—FERC Project No. 2088-068 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Office of Energy Projects 

Division of Hydropower Licensing 

888 First Street, N.E. 

Washington, DC 20426 

November 2008 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20426 

OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS 

To the Agency or Individual Addressed: 

Reference: Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Attached is the draft environmental impact statement (draft EIS) for the South 

Feather Power Project (Project No. 2088-068), located on the South Fork Feather River 

(SFFR), Lost Creek, and Slate Creek, in Butte, Yuba, and Plumas counties, California. 

This draft EIS document documents the view of governmental agencies, nongovernmental organizations, affected Indian tribes, the public, the license applicant, and 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff. It contains staff evaluations 

on the applicant’s proposal and alternatives for relicensing the South Feather Power 

Project. 

You are invited to file comments on the draft EIS. Any comments, conclusions, or 

recommendations that draw upon studies, reports, or other working papers should be 

supported by appropriate documentation. Your comments will be considered in staff’s 

preparation of the final EIS. 

Comments should be filed with Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street N.E., Washington, DC 20426. All comments 

must be filed by January 6, 2009 and should reference Project No. 2088-068. The 

Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and 

instructions at http://www.ferc.gov under the eLibrary link. 

Before the Commission makes a licensing decision, it will take into account all 

concerns relevant to the public interest. The draft EIS will be part of the record from 

which the Commission will make its decision. The draft EIS was sent to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency and made available to the public on or about 

November 7, 2008. 

Copies of the EIS are available for review in the Commission’s Public Reference 

Branch, Room 2A, located at 888 First Street, N.E., Washington DC. 20426. The EIS 

also may be viewed on the Internet at www.ferc.gov/ferris.htm. Please call (202) 502-

8222 for assistance. 

Attachment: Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
COVER SHEET 

a. Title: Relicensing the South Feather Power Project, FERC Project No. 

2088-068 

b. Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (draft EIS) 

c. Lead Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

d. Abstract: On March 26, 2007, the South Feather Water and Power Agency 

(South Feather) filed an application to relicense its 104-megawatt 

(MW) South Feather Power Project (P-2088-068). The South 

Feather Power Project is located on the South Fork Feather River 

(SFFR), Lost Creek, and Slate Creek, in Butte, Yuba, and Plumas 

counties, California. 

The project occupies 1,977.12 acres of federal lands administered 

by the Plumas National Forest and 10.57 acres of federal lands 

administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The project 

generates an average of about 498,972 megawatt-hours of energy 

annually. 

The staff’s recommendation is to relicense the project as proposed, 

with certain modifications, and additional measures recommended 

by the agencies. 

e. Contact: John Mudre 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Office of Energy Projects 

888 First Street, N.E. 

Washington, DC 20426 

(202) 502-8902 

f. Transmittal: This draft EIS prepared by the Commission’s staff on the 

hydroelectric license application filed by South Feather for the 

existing South Feather Power Project (FERC No. 2088) is being 

made available to the public on or about November 7, 2008, as 

required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.1

 

1

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, amended (Pub. L. 91-190. 42 U.S.C. 

4321-4347, January 1, 1970, as amended by Pub. L. 94-52, July 3, 1975, Pub. L. 94-83, 

August 9, 1975, and Pub. L. 97-258, §4(b), September 13, 1982). 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
FOREWORD 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), pursuant to the 

Federal Power Act (FPA)2

 and the U.S. Department of Energy Organization Act3 is 

authorized to issue licenses for up to 50 years for the construction and operation of nonfederal hydroelectric development subject to its jurisdiction, on the necessary conditions: 

that the project adopted...shall be such as in the judgment of the 

Commission will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for 

improving or developing a waterway or waterways for the use or 

benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, for the improvement and 

utilization of water-power development, for the adequate protection, 

mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related 

spawning grounds and habitat), and for other beneficial public uses, 

including irrigation, flood control, water supply, and recreational and 

other purposes referred to in Section 4(e)...4

The Commission may require such other conditions not inconsistent with the FPA 

as may be found necessary to provide for the various public interests to be served by the 

project.5

 Compliance with such conditions during the licensing period is required. The 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure allow any person objecting to a licensee’s 

compliance or noncompliance with such conditions to file a complaint noting the basis 

for such objection for the Commission’s consideration.6

 

2

16 U.S.C. §791(a)-825r, as amended by the Electric Consumers Protection Act of 

1986, Public Law 99-495 (1986) and the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486 

(1992). 

3

Public Law 95-91, 91 Stat. 556 (1977). 

4

16 U.S.C. §803(a). 

5

16 U.S.C. §803(g). 

6

18 C.F.R. §385.206 (1987). 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
FERC/EIS-0225D 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Table of Contents

South Feather Power Project 

FERC Project No. 2088-068, California 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street N.E. 

Washington, DC 20426 

Office of

Energy

Projects

November 2008

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
v 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

COVER SHEET .................................................................................................................iii

FOREWORD...................................................................................................................... iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... v

LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................iix

LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................. xi

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................... xv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................xvii

1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................1-1

1.1 APPLICATION..........................................................................................1-1

1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER...............................1-1

1.2.1 Purpose of Action.........................................................................1-1

1.2.2 Need for Power.............................................................................1-3

1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ......................1-3

1.3.1 Federal Power Act ........................................................................1-3

1.3.1.1 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions................................1-3

1.3.1.2 Section 4(e) Conditions ...............................................1-4

1.3.1.3 Alternative Conditions under the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 .............................................................................1-5

1.3.1.4 Section 10(j) Recommendations..................................1-5

1.3.2 Clean Water Act ...........................................................................1-5

1.3.3 Endangered Species Act...............................................................1-5

1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act ....................................................1-6

1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act...............................................1-6

1.3.6 California Environmental Quality Act .........................................1-6

1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND CONSULTATION............................................1-8

1.4.1 Scoping .........................................................................................1-8

1.4.2 Interventions.................................................................................1-9

1.4.3 Comments on License Application ............................................1-10

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES..................................................2-1

2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE.................................................................2-1

2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities.............................................................2-1

2.1.2 Existing Project Operation ...........................................................2-9

2.1.3 Existing Environmental Measures..............................................2-10

2.2 APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL...................................................................2-11

2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities .........................................................2-11

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
vi 

2.2.2 Project Safety..............................................................................2-11

2.2.3 Proposed Project Operation........................................................2-11

2.2.4 Proposed Environmental Measures ............................................2-11

2.2.5 Modifications to the Applicant’s Proposal—Mandatory 

Conditions ..................................................................................2-15

2.2.5.1 Water Quality Certification .......................................2-15

2.2.5.2 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions..............................2-15

2.2.5.3 Section 4(e) Federal Land Management Conditions .2-15

2.2.5.4 Alternative 4(e) Conditions Pursuant to the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 .....................................................2-18

2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE .........................................................................2-18

2.4 Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions............................2-22

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM 

FURTHER ANALYSIS...........................................................................2-23

2.4.1 Issuing a Non-Power License.....................................................2-23

2.4.2 Federal Government Takeover of the Project ............................2-23

2.4.3 Project Retirement......................................................................2-23

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS........................................................................3-1

3.1 GENERAL SETTING................................................................................3-1

3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS ...............................3-2

3.2.1 Geographic Scope.........................................................................3-2

3.2.2 Temporal Scope............................................................................3-2

3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES ......................3-3

3.3.1 Geology and Soils.........................................................................3-3

3.3.1.1 Affected Environment..................................................3-3

3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects .................................................3-5

3.3.2 Aquatic Resources......................................................................3-10

3.3.2.1 Affected Environment................................................3-10

3.3.2.2 Environmental Effects ...............................................3-35

3.3.2.3 Cumulative Effects ....................................................3-95

3.3.3 Terrestrial Resources..................................................................3-96

3.3.3.1 Affected Environment................................................3-96

3.3.3.2 Environmental Effects .............................................3-101

3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species........................................3-129

3.3.4.1 Affected Environment..............................................3-129

3.3.4.2 Environmental Effects .............................................3-130

3.3.5 Recreation Resources ...............................................................3-130

3.3.5.1 Affected Environment..............................................3-130

3.3.5.2 Environmental Effects .............................................3-149

3.3.6 Cultural Resources....................................................................3-164

3.3.6.1 Affected Environment..............................................3-164

3.3.6.2 Environmental Effects .............................................3-174

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
vii 

3.3.7 Land Use and Aesthetic Resources ..........................................3-176

3.3.7.1 Affected Environment..............................................3-176

3.3.7.2 Environmental Effects .............................................3-182

3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE.............................................................3-188

4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS .......................................................................4-1

4.1 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE PROJECTS ...............4-1

4.1.1 Economic Assumptions................................................................4-1

4.1.2 Current Annual Costs and Future Capital Costs under the Noaction Alternative .........................................................................4-2

4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES.....................................................4-3

4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES .........................................4-6

4.3.1 Cost of Environmental Measures for the South Feather Power 

Project...........................................................................................4-6

4.3.2 Effect of Environmental Measures on Energy Generation ..........4-8

5.0 STAFF’S CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................5-1

5.1 COMPARISON OF EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION AND 

ALTERNATIVES......................................................................................5-1

5.2 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED 

ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................................5-4

5.2.1 Discussion of Key Issues............................................................5-11

5.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS................................................5-36

5.4 SUMMARY OF SECTION 10(J) RECOMMENDATIONS AND 4(E) 

CONDITIONS..........................................................................................5-36

5.4.1 Recommendations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.....................5-36

5.4.2 Forest Service 4(e) Conditions ...................................................5-43

5.5 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS...........................5-49

6.0 LITERATURE CITED..........................................................................................6-1

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS .........................................................................................7-1

8.0 LIST OF RECIPIENTS.........................................................................................8-1

APPENDIX A— SOUTH FEATHER POWER PROJECT MITIGATION AND 

MONITORING SUMMARY..........................................................................................A-1 

APPENDIX B— CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS OF MEASURES FOR THE 

SOUTH FORK POWER PROJECT ............................................................................... B-1 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
viii 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
ix 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1-1. South Feather Power Project, location map ...............................................1-2

Figure 2-1. South Feather Power Project, system map.................................................2-2

Figure 3-1. Median daily reservoir storage for South Fork Power Project 

reservoirs, 1973 through 2001..................................................................3-13

Figure 3-2. Little Grass Valley reservoir water surface elevations for 1973 

through 2000.............................................................................................3-14

Figure 3-3. Sly Creek reservoir water surface elevations for 1973 through 2000......3-15

Figure 3-4. Seasonal temperature trends by river mile in Lost Creek in 2004 ...........3-61

Figure 3-5. Seasonal temperature trends by river mile in Lost Creek in 2005. ..........3-62

Figure 3-6. Modeled water temperatures in the Forbestown reach on June 25 

under a range of release flows..................................................................3-64

Figure 3-7. Simulated water surface elevations in Little Grass Valley reservoir 

from 1973 to 2000 under current operation, Forest Service’s 4(e) 

prescribed minimum flows, and South Feather’s alternative 4(e) 

proposed flows .........................................................................................3-65

Figure 3-8. Simulated surface area of Little Grass Valley reservoir from 1973 to 

2000 under current operation, Forest Service’s 4(e) prescribed 

minimum flows, and South Feather’s alternative 4(e) proposed flows ...3-67

Figure 3-9. Oroville Facilities flow diagram ..............................................................3-75

Figure 3-10. Daily average, maximum, and minimum water temperatures (°C) 

collected at Kelly Ridge powerhouse in 2007..........................................3-78

Figure 3-11. Daily average temperatures (°C) collected at locations from the inlet 

of Miners Ranch conduit downstream through Kelly Ridge 

powerhouse in 2007..................................................................................3-79

Figure 3-12. Mean daily water temperatures measured in 2005 in the Little Grass 

Valley dam reach and temperature preference ranges identified by 

Cal Fish & Game......................................................................................3-89

Figure 3-13. Recreation sites at Little Grass Valley reservoir recreation area ...........3-132

Figure 3-14. Recreation sites at Sly Creek reservoir recreation area..........................3-136

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
x 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
xi 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1-1. Major statutory and regulatory requirements for the South Feather 

Power Project .............................................................................................1-4

Table 3-1. Reservoir and diversion pool characteristics............................................3-12

Table 3-2. Estimated unregulated streamflows below Little Grass Valley dam at 

USGS gage no. 11395030. .......................................................................3-16

Table 3-3. Regulated streamflows below Little Grass Valley dam at USGS gage 

no. 11395030............................................................................................3-17

Table 3-4. Estimated unregulated streamflows below Slate Creek diversion dam 

at USGS gage no. 11443300. ...................................................................3-18

Table 3-5. Regulated streamflows below Slate Creek diversion dam at USGS 

gage ..........................................................................................................3-19

Table 3-6. Estimated unregulated streamflows below Lost Creek dam at gage........3-20

Table 3-7. Regulated streamflows below Lost Creek dam at gage ...........................3-21

Table 3-8. Water quality objectives to support designated uses in SFFR in the 

project area ...............................................................................................3-24

Table 3-9. Fish species documented in the South Feather Power Project 

reservoirs ..................................................................................................3-30

Table 3-10. Minimum flows proposed, specified, or recommended for the Little 

Grass Valley dam reach............................................................................3-37

Table 3-11. Minimum flows proposed, specified, or recommended for South 

Fork diversion dam reach.........................................................................3-38

Table 3-12. Minimum flows proposed, specified, or recommended for Slate 

Creek diversion dam reach.......................................................................3-39

Table 3-13. Minimum flows proposed, specified, or recommended for 

Forbestown diversion dam reach..............................................................3-40

Table 3-14. Minimum flows proposed, specified, or recommended for Lost 

Creek dam reach.......................................................................................3-41

Table 3-15. Minimum flows proposed by South Feather in its final license 

application, showing flows that were adjusted (in parentheses) to 

reflect operational and hydrological constraints or to smooth out 

minor variations........................................................................................3-44

Table 3-16. Percent of maximum WUA for adult rainbow trout under five flow 

regimes in the Little Grass Valley dam reach ..........................................3-50

Table 3-17. Percent of maximum WUA for adult rainbow trout under five flow 

regimes in the South Fork diversion dam reach.......................................3-51

Table 3-18. Percent of maximum WUA for adult rainbow trout under five flow 

regimes in the Slate Creek diversion dam reach ......................................3-52

Table 3-19. Percent of maximum WUA for adult rainbow trout under five flow 

regimes in the Forbestown diversion dam reach......................................3-53

Table 3-20. Percent of maximum WUA for adult rainbow trout under five flow 

regimes in the Lost Creek dam reach .......................................................3-54

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
xii 

Table 3-21. Percent of unregulated WUA for FS 4(e) and South Feather’s 

alternative 4(e) flows in the Little Grass Valley dam reach.....................3-56

Table 3-22. Percent of unregulated WUA for FS 4(e) and South Feather’s 

alternative 4(e) flows in the South Fork diversion dam reach .................3-57

Table 3-23. Percent of unregulated WUA for FS 4(e) and South Feather’s 

alternative 4(e) flows in the Forbestown diversion dam reach ................3-58

Table 3-24. Percent of maximum WUA for adult trout provided by FS 4(e) and 

South Feather’s alternative 4(e) flows for the Lost Creek dam reach......3-59

Table 3-25. Percent of maximum WUA for trout spawning provided by FS 4(e) 

and South Feather’s alternative 4(e) flows for the Lost Creek dam 

reach .........................................................................................................3-60

Table 3-26. Comparison of Little Grass Valley drawdown from normal full pool 

(feet) for current operation, Cal Fish & Game’s 10(j) minimum 

flows, Forest Service’s 4(e) minimum flows, and South Feather’s 

alternative 4(e) minimum flows (adopted into staff alternative), in 

below normal water years.........................................................................3-69

Table 3-27. Comparison of Little Grass Valley drawdown from normal full pool 

(feet) for current operation, Cal Fish & Game’s 10(j) minimum 

flows, Forest Service’s 4(e) minimum flows, and South Feather’s 

alternative 4(e) minimum flows (adopted into staff alternative), in 

dry water years .........................................................................................3-69

Table 3-28. Maximum temperature (°F) of water to be released from the Kelly 

Ridge powerhouse recommended by DWR, Cal Fish & Game, 

NMFS, and SWC/MWD ..........................................................................3-77

Table 3-29. Trout biomass in the SFFR reaches with comparisons to the SFFR 

reference reach .........................................................................................3-83

Table 3-30. Hardhead population data summary from the SFFR above Ponderosa 

reservoir (SFFR 2.1) in 1993, 2004, and 2005.........................................3-84

Table 3-31. Trout biomass in the Lost Creek dam reach with comparisons to the 

Lost Creek reference site..........................................................................3-87

Table 3-32. Field-mapped riparian vegetation types at eight intensive study sites 

and at the Slate Creek diversion dam impoundment, based on the 

Potter (2003) classification.....................................................................3-113

Table 3-33. Summary of incidental observations of non-native species 

designated as noxious weeds..................................................................3-115

Table 3-34. Summary of special-status plant occurrences located in 2004...............3-120

Table 3-35. Special-status wildlife species with documented occurrences in the 

project area .............................................................................................3-122

Table 3-36. Roosting and foraging behavior summary of special-status bat 

species potentially occurring in the study area.......................................3-127

Table 3-37. Recreation facilities at the Little Grass Valley reservoir recreation 

area .........................................................................................................3-133

Table 3-38. Recreation facilities at the Sly Creek reservoir recreation area .............3-137

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
xiii 

Table 3-39. 2005 Peak season day-use estimates in recreation days for the dayuse facilities at Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoir 

recreation areas.......................................................................................3-139

Table 3-40. Annual use and capacities at campgrounds............................................3-140

Table 3-41. Average, minimum, and maximum vehicles at one time observed by 

day type for day-use facilities at Little Grass Valley reservoir 

recreation area, summer 2005 ................................................................3-141

Table 3-42. Average, minimum, and maximum vehicles at one time observed by 

day type for day-use facilities at Sly Creek reservoir recreation area, 

summer 2005 ..........................................................................................3-142

Table 3-43. Whitewater boating runs on the North and Middle forks of the 

Feather River, as identified by Holbeck and Stanley, 1998...................3-144

Table 3-44. Whitewater boating runs on the North Fork of the Yuba River, as 

identified by Holbeck and Stanley, 1998 ...............................................3-146

Table 3-45. Boatable and optimum flow ranges for project reaches.........................3-147

Table 3-46. Incidence and period of Upper Pancake Bay inundation (5,040 

through 5,045.5 feet msl): Below normal and dry water years.............3-160

Table 3-47. Archaeological and historical resources within the South Feather 

Power Project APE.................................................................................3-168

Table 3-48. Land ownership within the project boundary.........................................3-177

Table 3-49. Plumas National Forest management goals as described in the 

Plumas National Forest LRMP. .............................................................3-177

Table 4-1. Staff assumptions for economic analysis of the South Feather Power 

Project.........................................................................................................4-1

Table 4-2. Summary of current annual costs and future costs under the noaction alternative for the South Feather Power Project..............................4-2

Table 4-3. Summary of annual net benefits for the no-action, proposed action, 

staff alternative, and staff alternative with mandatory conditions for 

the South Feather Power Project ................................................................4-4

Table 4-4. Summary of annualized capital and O&M costs for measures 

included in the proposed action and proposed action with staff 

modifications for the South Feather Power Project ...................................4-7

Table 4-5. Summary of the effect of environmental measures on energy for the 

no-action, proposed action, staff alternative, and staff alternative 

with mandatory conditions for the South Feather Power Project ..............4-9

Table 5-1. Analysis of fish and wildlife agency section 10(j) recommendations 

for the South Feather Power Project. .......................................................5-37

Table 5-2. Forest Service preliminary 4(e) conditions for the South Feather 

Power Project ...........................................................................................5-44

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
xiv 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
xv 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

APE area of potential effects 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

oC degrees Celsius 

Cal Fish & Game California Department of Fish and Game 

CCC Criterion Continuous Concentrations 

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act 

cfs cubic feet per second 

Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Cal-IPC California Invasive Plant Council 

CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database 

CTR California Toxics Rule 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

DO dissolved oxygen 

DWR California Department of Water Resources 

EIR environmental impact report 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

oF degrees Fahrenheit 

feet msl feet above mean sea level 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

FPA Federal Power Act 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

FYLF foothill yellow-legged frog 

HPMP Heritage (Historic) Properties Management Plan 

kV kilovolt 

kVA kilovolt-ampere 

LWD large woody debris 

MAF million acre feet 

MGD million gallons per day 

MW megawatt 

MWh megawatt-hours 

National Register National Register of Historic Places 

NERC North American Electricity Reliability Corporation 

NMFS U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service 

OHV off-highway vehicle 

PAC protected activity center 

South Feather South Feather Water and Power Agency 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
xvi 

SFFR South Fork Feather River 

Water Board State Water Resources Control Board 

WECC Western Electricity Coordinating Council 

WUA weighted usable area 

SWC/MWD State Water Contractors and Metropolitan Water District 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
FERC/EIS-0225D 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Executive Summary

South Feather Power Project 

FERC Project No. 2088-068, California 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street N.E. 

Washington, DC 20426 

Office of

Energy

Projects

November 2008

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
xvii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The South Feather Water and Power Agency (South Feather) proposes to continue 

to operate its existing 104-megawatt South Feather Power Project (project) located on the 

South Fork Feather River (SFFR), Lost Creek, and Slate Creek, in Butte, Yuba, and 

Plumas counties, California. The project occupies 1,977.12 acres of federal lands 

administered by the Plumas National Forest and 10.57 acres of federal lands administered 

by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 

Proposed Action 

The project is a water supply/power project composed of four hydroelectric 

developments: Sly Creek, Woodleaf, Forbestown, and Kelly Ridge, and it is described in 

more detail in section 2.2. South Feather proposes no capacity or operating changes, but 

does propose measures for the protection and enhancement of environmental resources 

including increased minimum flows, measures to improve aquatic habitat and protect 

sensitive species, and measures to maintain and enhance existing recreation opportunities 

and provide new whitewater boating opportunities. 

Alternatives Considered 

This draft EIS analyzes the effects of continued project operation and recommends 

conditions for a new license for the project. In addition to South Feather’s proposal, we 

consider three alternatives: (1) staff alternative; (2) staff alternative with mandatory 

conditions; and (3) no action—continued operation with no changes. 

Staff Alternative

Under the staff alternative, the project would be operated as proposed by South 

Feather, but would include additional measures including: 

• increased minimum flows; 

• ramping rates to protect fish and foothill yellow-legged frogs (FYLF); 

• FYLF surveys; 

• funding for operation of gages to measure streamflows; 

• real-time monitoring of water temperatures to support the California 

Department of Water Resources efforts protect anadromous fishes 

downstream of Oroville dam; 

• annual consultation with resource and management agencies to facilitate 

adaptive management; 

• implementing the Historic Properties Management Plan with staff’s 

additional measures; and 

• development and implementation of plans for fuel treatment, road 

management and aesthetics. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
xviii 

We include all but two of the section 4(e) measures specified by the Forest Service 

in the staff alternative: Condition No. 18.1, minimum instream flows, and Condition No. 

19.2 (parts 2 through 4), FYLF studies. In each case we recommend alternative measures 

that we conclude will provide substantial protection and enhancement of these resources. 

Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions

Under the staff alternative with mandatory conditions, the minimum flows 

specified by the Forest Service would replace the minimum flows that we recommend. 

In addition, the licensee would conduct studies of project effects on FYLF, including 

population modeling, a population viability analysis, 2-D habitat modeling, and 

monitoring of changes in geomorphology and riparian encroachment. 

Public Involvement and Areas of Concern 

Before filing its license application, South Feather conducted pre-filing 

consultation. The intent of the Commission’s pre-filing process is to initiate public 

involvement early in the project planning process and to encourage citizens, 

governmental entities, tribes, and other interested parties to identify and resolve issues 

before an application is formally filed with the Commission. After the application was 

filed, we conducted scoping to determine which issues and alternatives should be 

addressed. A scoping document was distributed to interested parties on May 17, 2007. 

Scoping meetings were held in Oroville, California, on June 13, and 14, 2007. On 

February 14, 2008, we requested conditions and recommendations in response to the 

notice of ready for environmental analysis. 

The primary issues associated with relicensing the project are appropriate 

minimum flows in project-affected reaches, measures to enhance habitat for FYLF, 

effects of any new minimum flow regime on reservoir-based recreation, and potential 

effects of project operation on water temperatures and anadromous fish downstream of 

Oroville dam. 

Project Effects 

The South Feather Power Project impounds two sections of the SFFR and one 

section of Lost Creek, and alters flows in the SFFR and in Lost Creek via seasonal water 

storage in two reservoirs and diversion of flows to generate power at four powerhouses. 

In addition, diversion of water from Slate Creek into Sly Creek reservoir reduces flows in 

the North Yuba River downstream of the Slate Creek confluence, and increases flows in 

the Feather River downstream of the project. 

Geology and Soils—Under South Feather’s proposal: (1) large woody debris 

would be passed downstream of the Little Grass Valley, Sly Creek, and Lost Creek 

reservoirs, enhancing downstream aquatic habitat; (2) supplemental stream flows would 

continue to be passed into Lost Creek to cleanse accumulated fine sediment from 

spawning gravels, reduce encroachment of riparian vegetation and enhance geomorphic 

characteristics in Lost Creek; and (3) sediment pass-through measures at the Slate Creek 

diversion would restore sediment transport processes and improve the reliability of 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
xix 

minimum flow releases and diversion operations by preventing sediment accumulation 

upstream of the dam. 

With our modifications to South Feather’s proposal and under the staff alternative 

with mandatory conditions, development and implementation of soil erosion control and 

revegetation plans during construction of any facilities would ensure that native species 

revegetate disturbed areas and would minimize the potential that adverse effects from 

erosion or sediment deposition would occur. 

Aquatic Resources—Under South Feather’s proposal: (1) minimum instream 

flows in project-affected reaches would be increased to benefit trout and other aquatic 

biota, but would cause a minor reduction in water levels in Little Grass Valley reservoir; 

(2) streamflows and habitat for trout in Slate Creek would be enhanced during critical 

high temperature periods; (3) a wild trout supplementation program would enhance trout 

populations in reaches where recruitment does not meet fisheries objectives; (4) fish and 

invertebrate populations would be monitored to assess trends and guide adaptive 

management under the new project operating regimes. 

With our modifications to South Feather’s proposal: (1) minimum instream flows 

and trout habitat in project-affected reaches would be further enhanced, but would cause 

a slight additional reduction in water levels in Little Grass Valley reservoir; (2) ramping 

rates would be implemented to reduce stranding mortality of trout and invertebrates; (3) 

streamflow measurement capabilities would be ensured for the term of the license; and 

(4) real-time flow and water temperature information would be provided to DWR to 

assist it with meeting water temperature objectives to protect anadromous fish 

downstream of Lake Oroville. 

Under the staff alternative with mandatory conditions, the amount of physical trout 

habitat in project-affected reaches would be slightly enhanced as a result of higher 

minimum instream flows, but water temperatures would become less suitable (colder than 

optimal) for trout spawning and rearing in the reaches downstream of Little Grass Valley 

and Lost Creek dams, and for hardhead in the Forbestown bypassed reach. Similarly, 

higher summer flow releases required downstream of Little Grass Valley and Lost Creek 

dams would likely reduce invertebrate diversity and production due to the influence of 

coldwater outflows and increased thermal stability. In addition, higher minimum flows 

would cause a greater reduction in water levels in Little Grass Valley reservoir, which 

would cause some minor adverse effects on reservoir fish habitat.

Terrestrial Resources—Under South Feather’s proposal, annual training of 

employees, consultation with the Forest Service, and vegetation and invasive weed 

management plans would further the protection of sensitive areas and species and help to 

control the spread of noxious weeds; controllable pulse flows that could adversely affect 

FYLF would be avoided; and the effectiveness of wildlife crossings and escape facilities 

would be maintained through design consultation with Cal Fish & Game when they are 

replaced or retrofitted. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
xx 

With our modifications to South Feather’s proposal, ramping rates developed to 

protect FYLF would minimize adverse effects on reproduction and FYLF surveys would 

allow the effects of operation on FYLF to be monitored and the need for any additional 

studies or measures to be identified and implemented, and South Feather would be 

required to maintain all wildlife crossings and escape facilities that are necessary to 

protect wildlife. 

Under the staff alternative with mandatory conditions, the higher flows specified 

by the Forest Service in the South Fork diversion dam and Forbestown diversion dam 

reaches would likely reduce habitat suitability for FYLF by reducing water temperatures 

below levels required for breeding and by providing less stable flows. Additional studies 

specified by the Forest Service, including habitat, population, and viability models; and 

physiological studies related to water temperature would increase biological knowledge 

on the species and could enhance conservation efforts for FYLF. 

Threatened and Endangered Species—although no threatened or endangered 

species are known to or are likely to occur in the project area, the presence of the valley 

elderberry longhorn beetle and the California red-legged frog can not be ruled out. 

Therefore we conclude that the alternatives considered in this EIS may affect, but are 

unlikely to adversely affect these threatened and endangered species. 

Recreation—Under South Feather’s proposal, South Feather would be 

responsible for the following measures to maintain and enhance recreational 

opportunities: (1) operation and maintenance of recreational facilities; (2) rehabilitation 

of existing recreational facilities; (3) construction of a new multi-use trail below Little 

Grass Valley dam to improve access to the SFFR for recreational boating and angling; (4) 

management of reservoir levels to facilitate recreational use while achieving project 

purposes; (5) provision of whitewater boating flows in the Little Grass Valley dam reach 

during the fall in all water years; (6) provision of whitewater boating flows in the spring 

in Above Normal and Wet water years in the South Fork diversion dam and Forbestown 

diversion dam reaches; (7) provision of flow information for whitewater boating to the 

public; and (8) maintenance and enhancement of public safety by installation of safety 

buoys each year in Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoirs. 

With our modifications to South Feather’s proposal, higher minimum flow 

releases would cause some adverse effects on reservoir recreation by increasing the 

drawdown of Little Grass Valley reservoir, and would reduce the amount of water that is 

available for whitewater releases. 

Under the staff alternative with mandatory conditions, the adverse effects of 

drawdown on reservoir recreation would be increased, and the amount of water available 

for whitewater releases would be further reduced.

Cultural Resources—Under South Feather’s proposal, cultural resources would 

be protected under provisions specified in the Historic Properties Management Plan 

included in South Feather’s license application. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
xxi 

With our modifications to South Feather’s proposal, additional measures included 

in the Historic Properties Management Plan would provide a higher level of assurance 

that important cultural resources are adequately protected. 

Land Use and Aesthetics Resources—Under South Feather’s proposal, public 

safety would be maintained and enhanced by developing and implementing a fire 

prevention, response and investigation plan. 

With our modifications to South Feather’s proposal, fire risk would be further 

reduced by developing and implementing a fuel treatment/vegetation management plan, 

road management would be improved throughout the project vicinity, and aesthetics 

would be protected and improved by implementing a visual management plan that would 

bring project facilities into compliance with land resource management plan direction. 

General—With our modifications to South Feather’s proposal, annual 

consultation with the management agencies would assist with interpretation of 

monitoring results and adaptive management. 

Under the no-action alternative, environmental conditions would remain the same, 

and there would not be any enhancement of environmental resources. 

Conclusions 

Based on our analysis, we recommend licensing the project as proposed by South 

Feather, with some staff modifications and additional measures. The recommended staff 

modifications include or are based in part on recommendations made by the federal and 

state resource agencies that have an interest in the resources that may be affected by 

continued project operation. The additional measures include enhanced minimum flows 

in project bypassed reaches, development of ramping rates and additional monitoring to 

determine and address project effects on FYLF populations, and provision of flow and 

water temperature information to DWR to help it maintain suitable water temperatures 

for downstream anadromous fish. 

In section 4.1 of the EIS, we estimate the annual net benefits of operating and 

maintaining the project under the three alternatives identified above. Our analysis shows 

that the annual net benefit would be $27,095,100 for the proposed action; $25,912,200 

for the staff alternative; $25,281,100 for the staff alternative with mandatory conditions; 

and $28,403,000 for the no-action alternative. 

We choose the staff alternative as the preferred alternative because: (1) the project 

would provide a dependable source of electrical energy for the region (476,833 

megawatt-hours annually); (2) the project may save the equivalent amount of fossilfueled generation and capacity, thereby continuing to help conserve non-renewable 

energy resources and reduce atmospheric pollution; (3) the recommended environmental 

measures proposed by South Feather, as modified by staff, would adequately protect and 

enhance environmental resources affected by the project. The overall benefits of the staff 

alternative would be worth the cost of the proposed and recommended environmental 

measures. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
xxii 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
FERC/EIS-0225D 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 1 - Introduction

South Feather Power Project 

FERC Project No. 2088-068, California 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street N.E. 

Washington, DC 20426 

Office of

Energy

Projects

November 2008

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
1-1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 APPLICATION 

On March 26, 2007, the South Feather Water and Power Agency (South Feather; 

formerly the Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District) filed an application to relicense its 

104-megawatt (MW) South Feather Power Project (P-2088-068) with the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission). The South Feather Power Project is a 

water supply/power project located on the South Fork Feather River (SFFR), Lost Creek, 

and Slate Creek, in Butte, Yuba, and Plumas counties, California (figure 1-1). The 

project occupies 1,977.12 acres of federal lands administered by the Plumas National 

Forest and 10.57 acres of federal lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM). The project generates an average of about 498,972 megawatt-hours 

(MWh) of energy annually. In addition, using project facilities for water storage and 

delivery, South Feather is able to provide irrigation water to a service area of more than 

49,000 acres and domestic water to about 6,500 households. South Feather proposes no 

new capacity and no new construction. 

1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER 

1.2.1 Purpose of Action 

The Commission must decide whether to issue a license to South Feather for the 

project and what conditions should be placed in any license issued. In deciding whether 

to issue a license for a hydroelectric project, the Commission must determine that the 

project will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a 

waterway. In addition to the power and developmental purposes for which licenses are 

issued (e.g., flood control, irrigation, and water supply), the Commission must give equal 

consideration to the purposes of energy conservation; the protection, mitigation, and 

enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat); the 

protection of recreational opportunities; and the preservation of other aspects of 

environmental quality. 

Issuing a new license for the South Feather Power Project would allow South 

Feather to continue to generate electricity at the project for the term of a new license, 

making electric power from a renewable resource available to its customers. Relicensing 

the project also would allow South Feather to continue to provide irrigation and domestic 

water to the local community. 

This draft environmental impact statement (EIS) assesses the effects associated 

with operation of the proposed project, alternatives to the proposed project, and makes 

recommendations to the Commission on whether to issue a new license, and if so, 

recommends terms and conditions to become a part of any license issued. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
Figure 1-1. South Feather Power Project, location map. (Source: South Feather, 2007) 

1-2 
1-3 

In this draft EIS we assess the environmental and economic effects of continuing 

to operate the project: (1) as proposed by South Feather; (2) as proposed by South 

Feather with our recommended measures (the staff alternative); and (3) under the staff 

alternative with mandatory conditions. We also consider the effects of the no-action 

alternative. Important issues that are addressed include minimum flows in the bypassed 

reaches, effects of project operation on water temperatures downstream of the project, 

effects of flow ramping on foothill yellow-legged frog (FYLF) populations, recreational 

flows, water levels in Little Grass Valley reservoir, and the maintenance and renovation 

of recreational facilities. 

1.2.2 Need for Power 

The project is located in the California-Mexico Power area of the Western 

Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC). According to the North American Electricity 

Reliability Corporation (NERC, 2007) which forecasts electrical supply and demand 

nationally and regionally, peak demands and annual energy requirements for the 

California-Mexico Area are projected to grow at annual compound rates of 2.2 percent 

and 2.4 percent, respectively, from 2004 to 2013. NERC forecasts resources capacity 

margins will range between 22.8 percent and 39.4 percent of firm peak demand during 

the 10-year forecast period, including estimated new capacity additions. The project 

could continue to meet part of the existing load requirements within a system in need of 

resources. 

We conclude that power from the South Feather Power Project could help meet a 

need for power in the WECC region in both the short- and long-term. The project 

provides low-cost power that may displace non-renewable, fossil-fired generation and 

contributes to a diversified generation mix. Displacing the operation of fossil-fueled 

facilities avoids some power plant emissions and creates an environmental benefit. 

1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

The license for the South Feather Power Project is subject to numerous 

requirements under the Federal Power Act (FPA) and other applicable statutes. Major 

regulatory and statutory requirements are summarized in table 1-1 and described below. 

1.3.1 Federal Power Act 

1.3.1.1 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions 

Section 18 of the FPA states that the Commission is to require construction, 

operation, and maintenance by a licensee of such fishways as may be prescribed by the 

secretaries of Commerce or the Interior. By letter filed April 14, 2008, the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) requested that a reservation of authority to prescribe 

fishways be included in any project license for the South Feather Power Project. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
1-4 

Table 1-1. Major statutory and regulatory requirements for the South Feather Power 

Project. 

Requirement Agency Status 

Section 18 of the FPA 

(fishway prescriptions) 

NMFS On April 11, 2008, NMFS stated it 

reserved its authority to prescribe 

fishways 

Section 4(e) of the FPA 

(land management 

conditions) 

Forest Service The Forest Service provided preliminary 

conditions on April 14, 2008, and revised 

several conditions on May 13, 2008 

Section 10(j) of the FPA Cal Fish & 

Game and 

NMFS 

On April 14, 2008, Cal Fish & Game and 

NMFS provided section10(j) 

recommendations 

Clean Water Act—water 

quality certification 

State Water 

Resources 

Control Board 

Application for certification filed with 

Water Board on May 16, 2008. 

Certification due by May 15, 2009 

Endangered Species Act 

Consultation 

FWS This draft EIS will be sent to the FWS as 

our Biological Assessment of the 

proposed licensing on listed species. We 

will seek concurrence with our 

conclusions presented herein. 

Coastal Zone 

Management Act 

Consistency 

California 

Coastal 

Commission 

Relicensing the project would not 

influence resources in the designated 

coastal zone and we will seek 

concurrence from the California Coastal 

Commission 

1.3.1.2 Section 4(e) Conditions 

Section 4(e) of the FPA provides that any license issued by the Commission for a 

project within a federal reservation shall be subject to and contain such conditions as the 

Secretary of the responsible federal land management agency deems necessary for the 

adequate protection and use of the reservation. The Forest Service provided preliminary 

conditions on April 14, 2008, for the South Feather Power Project. The Forest Service 

revised three of its preliminary conditions, in whole or in part, on May 13, 2008. These 

conditions are described under section 2.3.1, Modifications to Applicant’s Proposal—

Mandatory Conditions, summarized in table 5-2, analyzed in the appropriate resource 

sections of section 3, and discussed in section 5, Staff Conclusions. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
1-5 

1.3.1.3 Alternative Conditions under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides parties to this licensing proceeding the 

opportunity to propose alternatives to preliminary conditions and to request trial-type 

hearings regarding issues of material fact that support the preliminary conditions 

developed under FPA section 4(e). South Feather proposed two alternative 4(e) 

conditions, which we discuss in the appropriate resource analysis sections of this EIS and 

in section 2.3.1.4. We discuss our conclusions in section 5, Staff Conclusions. No party 

to this proceeding has requested trial-type hearings. 

1.3.1.4 Section 10(j) Recommendations 

Under section 10(j) of the FPA, each hydroelectric license issued by the 

Commission must include conditions based on recommendations provided by federal and 

state fish and wildlife agencies for the protection, mitigation, or enhancement of fish and 

wildlife resources affected by the project, unless it determines that they are inconsistent 

with the purposes and requirements of the FPA or other applicable law. Before rejecting 

or modifying an agency recommendation, the Commission is required to attempt to 

resolve any such inconsistency with the agency, giving due weight to the 

recommendations, expertise, and statutory responsibilities of such agency. 

On April 14, 2008, the California Department of Fish and Game (Cal Fish & 

Game) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) filed recommendations under 

section 10(j) for the South Feather Power Project. These recommendations are 

summarized in table 5-1, analyzed in the appropriate resource sections in section 3, and 

discussed in section 5.4.1. Interior filed a letter on April 14, 2008, stating that it had no 

comments to offer in response to the REA notice. 

1.3.2 Clean Water Act 

Under Section 401of the Clean Water Act (CWA), a license applicant must obtain 

certification from the appropriate state pollution control agency verifying compliance 

with the CWA. South Feather filed its application for water quality certification with the 

State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) on May 16, 2008. By letter dated 

June 10. 2008, the Water Board acknowledged receipt of the application on May 16, 

2008. Consequently, action on the application is due by May 16, 2009. 

1.3.3 Endangered Species Act 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to ensure 

that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or 

threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical 

habitat of such species. Two federally listed as threatened species have the potential to 

occur in the project vicinity: the valley elderberry longhorn beetle and the California redlegged frog. Our analyses of project effects on threatened and endangered species are 

presented in section 3.3.4, Threatened and Endangered Species, and our 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
1-6 

recommendations in section 5.2, Comprehensive Development and Recommended 

Alternative. 

We conclude that relicensing of the South Feather Power Project, as described 

under the staff alternative with mandatory conditions, may affect, but would be unlikely 

to adversely affect, the valley elderberry longhorn beetle and the California red-legged 

frog. This draft EIS will be sent to the FWS as our Biological Assessment of the 

proposed licensing on listed species. We will seek concurrence with our conclusions 

presented herein. 

1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act 

Under section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 16 

U.S.C. §1456(3)(A), the Commission cannot issue a license for a project within or 

affecting a state’s coastal zone unless the state CZMA agency concurs with the license 

applicant's certification of consistency with the state’s CZMA program, or the agency’s 

concurrence is conclusively presumed by its failure to act within 180 days of its receipt of 

the applicant’s certification. 

The South Feather Power Project is not located within the state-designated CZMA, 

which extends from a few blocks to 5 miles inland from the sea 

(www.ceres.ca.gov/coastal.com), and relicensing the project would not affect California’s 

coastal resources. Therefore the project is not subject to California coastal zone program 

review and no consistency certification is needed. We will seek the concurrence of the 

California Coastal Commission with our determination. 

1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act 

Section 106 requires that every federal agency “take into account” how each of its 

undertakings could affect historic properties. Historic properties are districts, sites, 

buildings, structures, traditional cultural properties, and objects significant in American 

history, architecture, engineering, and culture that are eligible for inclusion in the 

National Register of Historic Places (National Register). 

To meet the requirements of section 106, the Commission intends to execute a 

Programmatic Agreement for the protection of historic properties from the effects of the 

operation of the South Feather Power Project. The terms of the Programmatic Agreement 

would ensure that South Feather addresses and treats all historic properties identified 

within the project’s area of potential effects (APE) through the finalization of the existing 

draft Historic Properties Management Plan. 

1.3.6 California Environmental Quality Act 

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is the California counterpart to 

the National Environmental Policy Act. CEQA went into effect in 1970 for the purpose 

of monitoring land development in California through a permitting process. This statute, 

enacted to protect the health of the environment from current and future development, 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
1-7 

requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their 

actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. CEQA applies to all 

discretionary activities proposed to be undertaken or approved by California state and 

local government agencies. As a local governmental agency, South Feather is the lead 

agency for CEQA and the Water Board, which must act on South Feather’s request for a 

water quality certificate for the project (see section 1.3.2, Clean Water Act), is a 

responsible state permitting agency under CEQA. 

Under CEQA, an environmental impact report (EIR) is prepared when the public 

agency finds substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the 

environment. An EIR is the public document used to analyze the significant 

environmental effects of a proposed project, to identify alternatives, and to disclose 

possible ways to reduce or avoid the possible environmental damage. CEQA guidelines 

state that when federal review of a project is also required, state agencies are encouraged 

to integrate the two processes to the fullest extent possible, which may include a joint 

EIS/EIR. While this document is not a joint EIS/EIR, South Feather has the opportunity 

to use this document, as appropriate, to satisfy its responsibilities under CEQA, as does 

the Water Board. As such, we invite South Feather’s and the Water Board’s comments 

on this EIS as they may pertain to the agencies’ use of the final EIS for CEQA purposes. 

One element needed in an EIR, but not required by the National Environmental 

Policy Act, is a discussion of a program for monitoring or reporting on mitigation 

measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval. The monitoring or 

reporting program must ensure compliance with mitigation measures during project 

implementation. The program may also provide information on the effectiveness of 

mitigation measures. Although discussion of the mitigation reporting or monitoring 

program can be deferred until the final environmental impact report or, in some cases, 

after project approval, it is often included in the draft environmental impact report to 

obtain public review and comment. 

In section 3 of this EIS, Environmental Analysis, we describe each potential 

environmental resource impact, our analysis of each recommended mitigation measure, 

and our conclusion with respect to the effectiveness of each measure in addressing the 

impact. In section 5.2, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, we 

list the mitigation measures and monitoring and reporting requirements we recommend 

for inclusion in any license issued for the South Feather Power Project. Additionally, any 

conditions of a water quality certificate that may be issued for this project will become an 

enforceable part of any license issued for this project. To specifically address CEQA 

requirements with respect to mitigation monitoring, appendix A, South Feather Power 

Project Mitigation and Monitoring Summary, identifies each potentially significant 

impact of relicensing the South Feather Power Project, lists the project changes or 

mitigation measures that are recommended for inclusion in a new license to avoid or 

reduce the impact, and describes the monitoring and reporting measures South Feather 

would undertake to ensure the project changes and mitigation measures are implemented 

as intended. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
1-8 

Another analysis required under CEQA but not required in an EIS is a description 

of any growth-inducing effects caused by the project. For this relicensing, the higher 

minimum instream flows would translate to less annual power generation of the project. 

A net reduction in power generation would not facilitate population growth or remove an 

obstacle to growth. There are no changes proposed for the water supply aspect of the 

project, therefore, the water supply component of the proposed project would not 

facilitate population growth or remove an obstacle to growth. 

1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND CONSULTATION 

The Commission’s regulations (18 CFR §16.8) require that applicants consult with 

appropriate resource agencies, tribes, and other entities before filing an application for a 

license. This consultation is the first step in complying with the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, 

and other federal statutes. Pre-filing consultation must be complete and documented 

according to the Commission’s regulations. 

1.4.1 Scoping 

Under the Commission’s regulations, issuing a licensing decision for any project 

first requires preparation of either an environmental assessment or an EIS, in accordance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The preparation of an 

environmental assessment or EIS is supported by a scoping process to ensure the 

identification and analysis of all pertinent issues. We issued a notice of intent to prepare 

an EIS on May 17, 2007. 

On May 17, 2007, the Commission issued Scoping Document 1 to enable resource 

agencies, Native American tribes, and other interested parties to more effectively 

participate in and contribute to the scoping process. In Scoping Document 1, we 

requested clarification of preliminary issues concerning the South Feather Power Project 

and identification of any new issues that needed to be addressed in the environmental 

document. 

We held two public scoping meetings regarding the project, on June 13 and 14, 

2007, in Oroville, California. The scoping meetings and site visit were noticed in a local 

newspaper and the Federal Register. Based on completion of sign-in sheets at the 

scoping meetings, 9 individuals (exclusive of Commission staff), attended the June 13 

evening scoping meeting and 11 individuals (exclusive of Commission staff), attended 

the June 14 morning scoping meeting. In addition, a site visit of the project area was 

conducted on June 12 and 13, 2007, and was attended by several of the individuals who 

also attended one or both of the scoping meetings.

We requested that written comments regarding the project be filed with the 

Commission by July 16, 2007. In addition to the oral comments received during the 

scoping meetings, we received written scoping comments from the following entities: 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
1-9 

Commenting Entities Date Filed 

California State Water Resources Control Board July 16, 2007 

California Department of Fish and Game and the 

U.S. Forest Service (jointly) 

July 16, 2007 

California Department of Water Resources July 16, 2007 

O’Rourke’s Outdoor Adventures July 16, 2007 

Roger and Nancy Bailey January 31, 2008 

Based on our review of the application and of comments from agencies, interested 

parties, and the public, on February 14, 2008, we issued Scoping Document 2, which 

addressed comments received on Scoping Document 1. 

1.4.2 Interventions 

On May 16, 2007, the Commission issued a public notice accepting the application 

and soliciting motions to intervene. This notice set a 60-day period during which 

interventions could be filed, ending July 16, 2007. In response, the following entities 

filed motions to intervene in this proceeding. 

Entity Date of Filing 

California State Water Resources Control Board July 3, 2007 

State Water Contractors and Metropolitan Water 

District of Southern California 

July 3, 2007 

California Department of Fish and Game July 13, 2007 

County of Plumas and Plumas County Flood 

Control and Conservation District 

July 14, 2007 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service 

July 16, 2007 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service July 16, 2007 

California Department of Water Resources July 16, 2007 

Yuba County Water Agency September 29, 2007a

a

 Late intervention granted by Commission notice issued September 9, 2008. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
1-10 

1.4.3 Comments on License Application 

On February 14, 2008, the Commission issued a Ready for Environmental 

Analysis Notice and requested comments, recommendations, and terms and conditions 

(subject to sections 10(j) and 18 of the FPA) with a filing deadline of April 14, 2008. 

The following entities filed comments, terms, conditions, prescriptions, or 

recommendations. 

Entity Date of Filing 

Dennis D. Diver Associates et al. March 31, 2008 

California Department of Water Resources April 11, 2008 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service 

April 14, 2008 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service April 14, 2008 

May 13, 2008 – filed three 

revised 4(e) conditions 

(revised in whole or in part)

California Department of Fish and Game April 14, 2008 

Yuba County Water Agency April 14, 2008 

U.S. Department of the Interior April 14, 2008 

State Water Contractors and Metropolitan Water 

District 

April 14, 2008 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
FERC/EIS-0225D 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

South Feather Power Project 

FERC Project No. 2088-068, California 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street N.E. 

Washington, DC 20426 

Office of

Energy

Projects

November 2008

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
2-1 

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Under the no-action alternative, the South Feather Power Project would continue 

to operate under the terms and conditions of the existing license, and no new 

environmental protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures would be implemented. 

We use this alternative to establish baseline environmental conditions for comparison 

with other alternatives. 

2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities 

The South Feather Power Project is a water supply/power project constructed in 

the late 1950s/early 1960s. The project is composed of four developments: Sly Creek, 

Woodleaf, Forbestown, and Kelly Ridge, each of which is described below. The project 

can store about 172,000 acre-feet of water (gross storage) and has generated an average 

of about 514.1 gigawatt-hours of power annually for the past 20 years, since the 

addition of Sly Creek powerhouse. The locations of the various facilities are presented 

in figure 2-1. 

Sly Creek Development 

Sly Creek development generation facilities include: 

• Little Grass Valley dam - a 210-foot-high, 840-foot-long, rock-filled dam 

on the SFFR with a crest elevation of 5,052 feet msl and with a 180-footlong spillway controlled by two, 14-foot-high by 40-foot-long steel radial 

gates that forms a 89,804 acre-feet storage reservoir covering 1,650 acres 

at a maximum water surface (flood level) elevation of 5,047 feet msl. 

Little Grass Valley dam reduces flows in the 9.1-mile-long Little Grass 

Valley dam reach, which terminates at the normal high water line of the 

South Fork diversion impoundment; 

• South Fork diversion dam - a 60-foot-high, 167-foot-long, concrete 

overflow arch dam on the SFFR with a crest elevation of 3,557 to 3,559 

feet msl and with four uncontrolled overflow spillway sections that forms 

an 87 acre-feet diversion impoundment covering about 9 acres at a normal 

maximum water surface elevation of 3,557 feet msl; 

• South Fork diversion tunnel - a 2.7-mile-long, 11-foot-diameter concrete 

lined and unlined horseshoe unpressurized tunnel controlled by two, 6-

foot-high by 4-foot-long electric hoist slide gates that diverts up to 600 

cubic feet per second (cfs) of water from the South Fork diversion dam to 

Sly Creek reservoir. This diversion reduces flows in the 9.4-mile-long 

South Fork diversion dam reach, which ends at its confluence with Lost 

Creek; 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
2-2 

Figure 2-1. South Feather Power Project, system map (sheet 1 of 3). (Source: South Feather, 2007, as 
2-3 

Figure 2-1. South Feather Power Project, system map (sheet 2 of 3). (Source: South Feather, 2007, as 
2-4 

Figure 2-1. South Feather Power Project, system map (sheet 3 of 3). (Source: South Feather, 2007, as 
2-5 

• Slate Creek diversion dam - a 62-foot-high, 223.5-foot-long, concrete 

overflow arch dam on Slate Creek (a tributary of the North Yuba River) 

with a crest elevation of 3,552 to 3,554 feet msl and with three 

uncontrolled overflow spillway sections that forms a negligible diversion 

impoundment due to sediment accumulation; 

• Slate Creek diversion tunnel - a 2.5-mile-long, 11-foot-diameter, concrete 

lined and unlined horseshoe unpressurized tunnel controlled by two, 8-

foot-high by 6-foot-long manual slide gates that diverts up to a maximum 

flow capacity of 848 cfs of water (though water rights limit flows to 600 

cfs and at times flows are limited to 500 cfs due to high water elevation in 

the receiving reservoir) from the Slate Creek diversion dam (Yuba River 

basin) to Sly Creek reservoir (Feather River basin); 

• Sly Creek dam - a 289-foot-high, 1,200-foot-long, zoned earth-filled dam 

on Lost Creek with a crest elevation of 3,536 feet msl and with a 649-

foot-long spillway controlled by one, 16-foot-high by 54-foot-long steel 

radial gate that forms a 64,338 acre-feet storage reservoir covering 619 

acres at a maximum water surface (flood level) elevation of 3,531 feet msl 

with the spill gates closed; 

• Sly Creek penstock - a 1,100-foot-long, 90-inch-inside-diameter, steel 

penstock enclosed in the former outlet tunnel that delivers water to Sly 

Creek powerhouse; 

• Sly Creek powerhouse - a semi-outdoor, reinforced concrete, above 

ground powerhouse that releases water to Lost Creek reservoir and that 

contains one reaction turbine rated at 13.2 MW directly connected to a 

13,500-kilovolt-ampere (kVA) generator; 

• Sly Creek powerhouse switchyard - a switchyard adjacent to the Sly Creek 

powerhouse that contains one 16,000-kVA transformer; 

Power generated at Sly Creek powerhouse is delivered from the switchyard to the 

grid via Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s 115-kV Sly Creek Tap and WoodleafKanaka Junction transmission line (FERC Project No. 2281). 

Sly Creek development recreation facilities (for location, see figure 3-13) 

include: 

• Little Grass Valley reservoir recreation facility - the Little Grass Valley 

reservoir recreation facility includes Little Beaver, Red Feather, Running 

Deer, Horse Cam campground p, Wyandotte, Peninsula Tent, Black Rock 

Tent, Black Rock RV, and Tooms RV campgrounds; Black Rock, Tooms, 

and Maidu boat launch areas; Pancake Beach and Blue Water Beach dayuse areas; Maidu Amphitheater; and Little Grass Valley dam ADAaccessible fishing trail at Little Grass Valley reservoir; and 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
2-6 

• Sly Creek reservoir recreation facility - the Sly Creek recreation facility 

includes two campgrounds (Strawberry and Sly Creek), Strawberry cartop boat launch, Mooreville boat ramp and Mooreville day-use area on Sly 

Creek reservoir. 

The Sly Creek development does not include any roads except for the portions of 

the roads within the project boundary that cross Little Grass Valley dam (FS Road 

22N94) and Sly Creek dam (FS Road 21N16). 

Woodleaf Development 

The Woodleaf development includes: 

• Lost Creek dam - a 122-foot-high, 486-foot-long, concrete overflow arch 

dam on the Lost Creek with a crest elevation of 3,279.05 feet msl and with 

a 251-foot-wide spillway controlled by 4-foot-high by 8-foot-long 

flashboards that forms a 5,361 acre-feet storage reservoir covering 137 

acres at a normal maximum water surface elevation of 3,283 feet msl with 

the flashboards installed; 

• Woodleaf power tunnel - a 3.5-mile-long, 12-foot-diameter, concrete lined 

and unlined horseshoe pressurized tunnel controlled by one 6-foot-high by 

12-foot-long electric hoist slide gate that diverts up to 620 cfs of water 

from Lost Creek reservoir to the Woodleaf penstock. This diversion 

reduces flows in the 3.9-mile-long Lost Creek dam reach, which 

terminates at Lost Creek’s confluence with the South Fork Feather River; 

• Woodleaf penstock - a 3,519-foot-long, 97-inch reducing to 78-inchinside-diameter, exposed steel penstock that delivers water to Woodleaf 

powerhouse; 

• Woodleaf powerhouse - a semi-outdoor, reinforced concrete, above 

ground powerhouse that releases water to the Forbestown diversion dam 

impoundment on the SFFR and that contains one 6-jet vertical shaft 

impulse Pelton turbine rated at 60 MW directly connected to a 65,500-

kVA generator; and 

• Woodleaf powerhouse switchyard - a switchyard adjacent to the Woodleaf 

powerhouse that contains one 70,000-kVA transformer. 

Power generated at Woodleaf powerhouse is delivered from the switchyard to the 

grid via Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s 115-kilovolt (kV) Woodleaf-Kanaka 

Junction transmission line. The Woodleaf development does not include any recreation 

facilities or roads. 

Forbestown Development 

The Forbestown development includes: 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
2-7 

• Forbestown diversion dam - a 80-foot-high, 256-foot-long, concrete 

overflow arch dam on the SFFR with a crest elevation of 1,783 feet msl 

and with five 46-foot-wide uncontrolled overflow spillway sections with a 

combined width of approximately 240 feet that forms a 352 acre-foot 

diversion impoundment covering about 12 acres at a normal maximum 

water surface elevation of 1,783 feet msl; 

• Forbestown power tunnel - a 18,388-foot-long, 12.5-foot by 11-footdiameter, concrete lined and unlined horseshoe pressurized tunnel that 

diverts up to 660 cfs of water from the Forbestown diversion 

impoundment to the Forbestown penstock. The tunnel reduces flows in 

the 5.5-mile-long Forbestown diversion dam reach of the South Fork 

Feather River; 

• Forbestown penstock - a 1,487-foot-long, 97-inch reducing to 83-inchinside-diameter exposed steel penstock that delivers water to Forbestown 

powerhouse; 

• Forbestown powerhouse - a semi-outdoor reinforced concrete aboveground powerhouse that releases water to Ponderosa reservoir on the 

SFFR and that contains one vertical reaction Francis turbine rated at 41 

MW directly connected to a 40,500-kVA generator; and 

• Forbestown powerhouse switchyard - a switchyard adjacent to the 

Forbestown powerhouse that contains one 35,200-kVA transformer. 

Power generated at Forbestown powerhouse is delivered from the switchyard to 

the grid via Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s 115-kV Woodleaf-Kanaka Junction 

transmission line. 

The Forbestown development does not include any recreation facilities or roads. 

Kelly Ridge Development 

The Kelly Ridge development includes: 

• Ponderosa dam - a 160-foot-high, 650-foot-long, earth-filled dam with a 

crest elevation of 985 feet msl and with a 352-foot-long spillway7

controlled by two 7 foot 7.5-inch-high by 51 feet-long steel gates that 

forms a 4,178 acre-feet storage reservoir covering 103 acres at a normal 

maximum water surface elevation of 960 feet msl; 

 

7

Spill flows from Ponderosa dam discharge into the 3.6 million acre-foot Lake 

Oroville, part of DWR’s Feather River Project (also known as the Oroville Project), 

FERC Project No. 2100. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
2-8 

• Ponderosa diversion tunnel - a 516-foot-long, 10-foot by 9-foot-diameter 

concrete lined and unlined horseshoe unpressurized tunnel controlled by 

one 6-foot-high by 8-foot-long hydraulic gate that diverts up to 300 cfs of 

water from Ponderosa reservoir to Miners Ranch conduit; 

• Miners Ranch canal (also known as Miners Ranch conduit) - a 6.1-milelong, 10-foot-wide concrete or gunite-lined canal and concrete or bench 

flume that includes two siphon sections across the McCabe and Powell 

creek sections of Lake Oroville and that diverts water from the Ponderosa 

diversion tunnel to the Miners Ranch tunnel; 

• Miners Ranch tunnel - a 4.5-mile-long, 10-foot by 9-foot-diameter, 

concrete lined horseshoe un-pressurized tunnel that diverts up to 300 cfs 

of water from the Miners Ranch conduit to Miners Ranch reservoir; 

• Miners Ranch dam - a 55-foot-high, 1,650-foot-long, earth-filled offstream dam with a crest elevation of 895 feet msl and with an 1,175-footlong uncontrolled spillway that forms a 896 acre-foot storage reservoir 

covering 48 acres at a normal maximum water surface elevation of 890 

feet msl; 

• Kelly Ridge power tunnel - a 1.3-mile-long, 9-foot by 8-foot-diameter, 

pressurized tunnel controlled by one 4-foot-high by 8-foot-long fixed 

wheel gate that diverts up to 260 cfs of water from Miners Ranch reservoir 

to Kelly Ridge penstock; 

• Kelly Ridge penstock - a 1.1-mile-long 69-inch reducing to 57-inch-insidediameter, exposed steel penstock that delivers water to Kelly Ridge 

powerhouse; 

• Kelly Ridge powerhouse - a semi-outdoor reinforced concrete above 

ground powerhouse that releases water to DWR’s Thermalito diversion 

pool just downstream of Oroville dam and its Hyatt powerhouse (FERC 

No. 2100) and that contains one vertical reaction Francis turbine rated at 

13 MW directly connected to a 11,000-kVA generator; and 

• Kelly Ridge powerhouse switchyard - a switchyard adjacent to the Kelly 

Ridge powerhouse that contains one 11,000-kVA transformer. 

Power generated at the Kelly Ridge powerhouse is delivered from the switchyard 

to the grid via Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s 60-kV Kelly Ridge-Elgin Junction 

transmission line. 

The Kelly Ridge development does not include any recreation facilities or roads. 

Existing Project Boundary 

The existing project boundary, consisting of lands necessary for the safe 

operation and maintenance of the project and other purposes, such as recreation, 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
2-9 

shoreline control, and protection of environmental resources, encompasses 

approximately 3,838.8 acres of land in Plumas, Butte and Yuba counties, California. 

The current project boundary encloses the project facilities associated with the 

four developments (Sly Creek, Woodleaf, Forbestown, and Kelly Ridge) along the 

South Fork Feather River and Slate Creek, a tributary to the North Yuba River, and 

lands within the Plumas National Forest. The project boundary generally only 

encompasses project facilities including dams and diversions, impoundments, water 

conveyances and associated structures, access roads and trails, transmission, 

communication and control lines, powerhouses, gaging stations, and helicopter landing 

sites used for access to project structures. The project boundary includes land adjacent 

to project features; the width of these zones varies depending on the feature. 

Approximately 51.2 percent of the land (1,977.12 acres) within the project 

boundary is owned by the United States and is managed by the Forest Service as part of 

the Plumas National Forest and another 10.57 acres is United States-owned land 

managed by the BLM. About 2.2 percent of the land in the project boundary is stateowned land adjoining Lake Oroville. The licensee owns 38.9 percent of the land within 

the project boundary, and does not propose any modifications to the current project 

boundary. 

2.1.2 Existing Project Operation 

Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoirs are large storage reservoirs that are 

operated to capture rain and snowmelt during the spring, and are slowly drawn down 

through summer and fall releasing water for power generation, irrigation, and 

consumptive purposes. The Lost Creek, Forbestown, Ponderosa, and Miners Ranch 

reservoirs contain less storage capacity and are operated as re-regulating reservoirs: 

these reservoirs do not have an annual refill or draw down cycle. Due to the small size 

of Slate Creek and the South Fork diversion dam impoundments, storage-capacity curve 

data do not exist for these two minor impoundments and South Feather maintains only 

periodic water surface records at these locations. 

The Kelly Ridge powerhouse is operated as a base loaded plant. The Woodleaf 

and Forbestown powerhouses are operated in tandem with one another as base loaded 

plants with some peaking capacity. Sly Creek powerhouse is operated in tandem with 

Woodleaf and Forbestown, but due to its relatively small output does not provide 

peaking capacity. 

South Feather is permitted under California Division of Safety of Dams to store 

171,986 acre-feet of runoff from the watersheds of the SFFR and the North Yuba River 

in six reservoirs: Little Grass Valley, Sly Creek, Lost Creek, Forbestown, Ponderosa, 

and Miners Ranch. Prior to the South Feather Power Project, South Feather’s average 

annual diversion for irrigation and domestic purposes was 29,000 acre-feet. South 

Feather has the contractual rights to 3,720 acre-feet of water through the Forbestown 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
2-10 

ditch and 29,439 acre-feet through Miners Ranch reservoir for consumptive purposes. 

However, South Feather’s contract with Pacific Gas and Electric Company requires 

payment by South Feather for water diverted in excess of these quantities for 

consumptive purposes. The current contract with Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

also provides Yuba County Water District with 3,700 acre-feet (April 15 to October 15) 

from the Forbestown ditch, 4,500 acre-feet (April 15 to November 1) from Miners 

Ranch reservoir, and 10,500 acre-feet (November 1 to April 15) at Miners Ranch 

reservoir. However, a May 2005 contract, which supplants and supersedes previous 

contracts between South Feather and Yuba County Water District, allows Yuba County 

Water District to consume up to 23,700 acre-feet from the project, subject to 

compensation for lost power value. 

2.1.3 Existing Environmental Measures 

The current license for the project includes the following minimum flow 

requirements: 

• Little Grass Valley dam reach: 10 cfs from May 1 to October 31; 5 cfs 

November 1 to April 30 in Normal and Wet water years; and 5 cfs at all times in 

Dry years.8

 

• South Fork diversion dam reach: 10 cfs from May 1 to October 31; 5 cfs 

November 1 to April 30 in Normal and Wet water years; and 5 cfs at all times in 

Dry years. 

• Slate Creek diversion dam reach: 10 cfs year-round or natural inflow, whichever 

is less. 

• Forbestown diversion dam reach: 10 cfs from May 1 through October 31; 5 cfs 

November through April 30; and 5 cfs at all times in Dry water years. 

• Lost Creek dam reach: 8 cfs from April 1 through October 31 and 5 cfs from 

November 1 through March 31. 

The current license for the project also provides that a flow of at least 390 cfs be 

provided for a period of 24 hours or longer in Lost Creek at least once every 4 years to 

minimize fine sediment accumulation in Lost Creek downstream of Lost Creek dam. 

South Feather maintains bridges and escape ramps to allow wildlife to cross and 

minimize wildlife mortality at the Miners Reach canal. 

South Feather maintains two developed recreation areas. The Little Grass Valley 

reservoir recreation area has nine campgrounds, three boat ramps, two day-use areas, 

 

8

Dry years are defined as 50 percent or less of average annual discharge of South 

Fork Feather River (117,000 acre-feet). 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
2-11 

and three trails. The Sly Creek reservoir recreation area includes two campgrounds, two 

boat ramps/launches, and a day-use area. 

2.2 APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL 

2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities 

South Feather does not propose any changes to generation facilities or other 

major project features, or to the project boundary. South Feather does propose to 

construct a multi-use trail below Little Grass Valley dam, to replace or rehabilitate all 

existing recreational facilities, and provide for new facilities as user demand increases. 

2.2.2 Project Safety 

The South Feather Power Project has been operating for more than 49 years 

under the existing license during which time Commission staff have conducted 

operational inspections focusing on the continued safety of the structures, identification 

of unauthorized modifications, efficiency and safety of operation, compliance with the 

terms of the license, and proper maintenance. In addition, the project has been 

inspected and evaluated every 5 years by an independent consultant, and a consultant’s 

safety report has been filed for Commission review. As part of the relicensing process, 

the Commission staff would evaluate the adequacy of the proposed project facilities 

under a new license. 

2.2.3 Proposed Project Operation 

Future operation will be generally consistent with existing operation. A 

significant change in future operation is related to minimum flow releases, as described 

below (measure 39). South Feather proposes to maintain water levels in Little Grass 

Valley reservoir to no lower than elevation 5,023 feet msl through September 15 to 

facilitate the use of boat launch facilities (measure 49), release recreational flows below 

Little Grass Valley dam, South Fork diversion dam, and the Forbestown diversion dam 

(measures 50, 51 and 52), and to provide supplemental stream flows in Lost Creek to 

minimize sediment accumulation in Lost Creek (measure 57). 

2.2.4 Proposed Environmental Measures 

In its new license application, South Feather proposed the following additional 

protection and enhancement measures: 

General 

• Conduct annual employee awareness training to familiarize staff with 

special-status, aquatic, wildlife, and plant species, including noxious 

weeds/non-native invasive plants, as well as sensitive locations including 

protected activity centers (PACs), potential erosion areas, and cultural 

sites to allow avoidance/minimization of impacts. (Measure 33) 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
2-12 

• Consult with the Forest Service annually to coordinate Project and Forest 

Service activities. (Measure 34) 

Geology and Soils 

• Return large woody debris to the stream below Little Grass Valley and 

Lost Creek dams. (Measure 56) 

• Provide supplemental streamflows in Lost Creek for geomorphic 

purposes. Where facility modifications are needed to release the proposed 

flows, complete such modifications as soon as reasonably practicable, but 

within 3 years. In the interim, make a good faith effort to release the 

proposed flows within the capabilities of the existing facilities. (Measure 

57) 

• Continue Slate Creek sediment pass-through program. File report, 

including recommendations, with Commission within 2 years of license 

issuance. (Measure 58) 

Aquatic Resources 

• Determine water year type annually and apply to appropriate minimum 

flow release schedule and other measures that are dependent on water year 

type. (Measure 36) 

• Install and maintain a gaging station, monitor water temperature, and 

cease diversions at Slate Creek diversion dam when mean daily water 

temperature reaches 20 degrees Celsius (oC) to protect downstream cold 

freshwater habitat. (Measure 37) 

• Implement a minimum flow release schedule for the Little Grass Valley 

dam, South Fork diversion dam, Forbestown diversion dam, Lost Creek 

dam, and Slate Creek diversion dam reaches. Where facility 

modifications are needed to release the proposed flows, complete such 

modifications as soon as reasonably practicable, but within 3 years. In the 

interim, make a good faith effort to release the proposed flows within the 

capabilities of the existing facilities. (Measure 39) 

Terrestrial Resources 

• Annually review with the Forest Service the list of species within the 

project area that are formally proposed for listing or are listed under 

federal or state endangered species acts or are Forest Service Sensitive, 

Watch List, or Management Indicator Species. If an added species has the 

potential to be adversely affected by the project, prepare a study plan to 

reasonably assess the effects of the project on the species, recommend 

reasonable resource management measures, and provide an 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
2-13 

implementation schedule, where appropriate. Annually consult with 

Forest Service regarding planned operation and maintenance projects on 

National Forest System lands and Forest Service activities that might 

affect the project. (Measure 35) 

• Except for the Little Grass Valley dam reach, as part of normal operation 

and maintenance activities, avoid high flow releases from project dams 

associated with sediment pass-through, valve exercises, or supplemental 

flow releases for channel maintenance or recreational purposes during 

critical periods for foothill yellow-legged frog (roughly April 15 - October 

31, annually). (Measure 40) 

• Prepare, file, and implement a vegetation and invasive weed management 

plan. (Measure 41) 

• Retain a qualified bat exclusion contractor when replacing or retrofitting 

any bat exclusion devices. Maintain all bat exclusion devices in proper 

functioning condition. (Measure 42) 

• Consult with Cal Fish & Game prior to replacing or retrofitting Miners 

Ranch conduit wildlife bridge crossings and deer escape facilities. 

(Measure 43) 

Recreational Resources 

• Develop and implement a master plan to replace/rehabilitate existing 

recreational facilities, including modification and adaptation to meet the 

changing needs of the recreating public and physical environment. For the 

Little River Grass Valley reservoir recreation area, the facility master plan 

would be filed with the Commission within 1 year of license issuance. For 

the Sly Creek reservoir recreation area, the facility site master plan would 

be filed with the Commission within 3 years of license issuance. Obtain 

Forest Service approval of all plans before filing these plans with the 

Commission. The plan would include a description of the pertinent 

management objectives for the site, existing conditions survey, a schedule 

for completion, a statement of responsibility, and a statement of operation 

and maintenance. (Measure 45, as modified October 8 and October 12, 

2007) 

• Develop a Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoir recreation area 

routine maintenance and operating plan. Provide a draft of the plan to the 

Forest Service for a 60-day review period, and file the final plan, 

including evidence of consultation, with the Commission within 6 months 

of license issuance. Implement the plan following Commission approval. 

(Measure 46, as modified October 8, 2007) 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
2-14 

• Monitor recreation, file 6-year recreation report and provide for additional 

in-kind recreation facilities when demand exceeds supply. (Measure 47) 

• Survey users, prepare user survey report, and provide out-of-kind 

recreation facilities if warranted by increased demand. (Measure 48) 

• Maintain Little Grass Valley reservoir at a usable elevation for boat 

launches through September 15. (Measure 49) 

• Provide supplemental streamflow in Little Grass Valley dam reach for 

recreational boating after September 15 of each year. Where facility 

modifications are needed to release the proposed flows, complete such 

modifications as soon as reasonably practicable, but within 3 years. In the 

interim, make a good faith effort to release the proposed flows within the 

capabilities of the existing facilities. (Measure 50) 

• Provide supplemental streamflow in South Fork diversion dam reach in 

spring in Above Normal and Wet water years (see measure 36) for 

recreational boating. Make a good faith effort to provide public 

notification of the flow. Where facility modifications are needed to 

release the proposed flows, complete such modifications as soon as 

reasonably practicable, but within 3 years. In the interim, make a good 

faith effort to release the proposed flows within the capabilities of the 

existing facilities. (Measure 51) 

• Provide supplemental flow in Forbestown diversion dam reach in spring 

in Above Normal and Wet water years (see measure 36) for recreational 

boating. Make a good faith effort to provide public notification of the 

flow. Where facility modifications are needed to release the proposed 

flows, complete such modifications as soon as reasonably practicable, but 

within 3 years. In the interim, make a good faith effort to release the 

proposed flows within the capabilities of the existing facilities. (Measure 

52) 

• Make streamflow information available to the public. (Measure 53) 

• Seasonally install and maintain public safety buoys. (Measure 54) 

Cultural Resources 

• Upon issuance of license, implement the Historic Properties Management 

Plan included in the license application. (Measure 44) 

Land Use 

• Develop and implement a hazardous materials management plan to reduce 

the potential effects of hazardous materials spills. (Measure 38) 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
2-15 

• Prepare, file and implement a fire prevention and response plan, including 

fuels treatment/vegetation management, prevention, emergency response 

preparedness, reporting, fire control/extinguishing. (Measure 55) 

2.2.5 Modifications to the Applicant’s Proposal—Mandatory Conditions 

The following mandatory conditions have been provided or will be provided and, 

if provided, are evaluated in this document. 

2.2.5.1 Water Quality Certification 

Under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), a license applicant must 

obtain certification from the appropriate state pollution control agency verifying 

compliance with the CWA. On May 16, 2008, South Feather filed an application for 

water quality certification with the Water Board. The Water Board documented receipt 

of the request for water quality certification on May 16, 2008, and agency action is due 

by May 16, 2009. 

2.2.5.2 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions 

Section 18 of the FPA states that the Commission is to require construction, 

maintenance, and operation by a licensee of such fishways as the secretaries of 

Commerce and Interior may prescribe. In its April 14, 2008, filing, the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reserved its authority to prescribe fishways project 

for the South Feather Power Project. 

2.2.5.3 Section 4(e) Federal Land Management Conditions 

Section 4(e) of the FPA provides that any license issued by the Commission for a 

project within a federal reservation shall be subject to and contain such conditions as the 

Secretary of the responsible federal land management agency deems necessary for 

adequate protection and use of the reservation. The South Feather Power Project 

occupies 1,977.1 acres of federal lands administered by the Plumas National Forest and 

10.6 acres of federal lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 

In an April 14, 2008, filing with the Commission, the Forest Service submitted 

preliminary terms and conditions pursuant to section 4(e) of the FPA, including 17 

standard Forest Service Conditions and 11 project-specific resource protection 

conditions. On May 13, 2008, the Forest Service revised three of the specific conditions 

in whole or in part.9

 

 

9

In its May 29, 2008, reply comments on recommended terms and conditions, 

South Feather stated that it fully supports the revised 4(e) conditions, and we consider 

them as part of the applicant’s proposal. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
2-16 

Of the Forest Service’s 28 preliminary conditions, we consider the 17 standard 

conditions (condition nos. 1 through 17) to be administrative or legal in nature and not 

specific environmental measures. With the exception of Condition No. 3, Consultation, 

we do not analyze these conditions in this EIS. We analyze conditions that we consider 

to be environmental measures in section 3, and we summarize our analysis of these 

measures in section 5.4.2, Forest Service 4(e) Conditions. 

The preliminary and revised preliminary 4(e) conditions filed by the Forest 

Service that we analyze in this document are: 

• Consult with the Forest Service on measures needed to ensure protection 

and utilization of the National Forest resources affected by the project. 

[revised Condition No. 3] 

• Maintain minimum streamflows in project reaches specified in tables A-1 

through A-5 of their filing. The minimum instantaneous 15-minute 

streamflow must be at least 80 percent of the prescribed mean daily flow 

for those minimum streamflows less than or equal to 10 cfs and at least 

90% of the prescribed mean daily flow for those minimum streamflows 

required to be greater than 10 cfs. [Condition No.18, part 1] 

• Determine the water year type for minimum flow compliance based on the 

DWR Bulletin 120 water year forecast except for the months of October 

through January, which should be based on the Department of Water 

Resources’ Full Natural Flow record for the Feather River at Oroville. 

The water year types are defined as follows: Wet = greater than or equal 

to 7.1 MAF; Above Normal = greater than or equal to 4.0 MAF but less 

than 7.1 MAF; Below Normal = greater than 2.4 MAF or equal to but less 

than 4.0 MAF; and Dry = less than or equal to 2.4 MAF. [revised 

Condition No. 18, part 2] 

• Develop an operating plan to manage drought conditions when they occur. 

[revised Condition No. 18, part 3] 

• Operate, maintain, and modify (if necessary) gages needed to determine 

river stage and minimum streamflows. [Condition No. 18, part 4] 

• Develop and implement ramping rates that meet Forest Service targets for 

water velocity and stage changes to protect FYLF egg masses and 

tadpoles. [revised Condition No. 18, part 5] 

• Develop and implement a wild fish supplementation program to enhance 

fisheries in the South Fork Feather River, Slate Creek, and in Sly Creek 

and Lost Creek reservoirs. [revised Condition No. 18, part 6] 

• Develop and implement a fish population monitoring plan at eight of the 

locations previously established during the relicensing. [revised 

Condition No. 19, part 1] 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
2-17 

• Develop a FYLF monitoring plan including annual monitoring of FYLF 

adult, tadpole, and egg mass numbers for the first 10 years after 

relicensing, and every 5 years thereafter for the remainder of the license. 

[Condition No. 19, part 2.1] 

• Develop a FYLF population model, a population viability model, a 2-D 

habitat model, a temperature monitoring protocol, and a geomorphology 

and riparian encroachment monitoring protocol. [Condition No. 19, part 

2.2 through 2.4] 

• Treat and monitor selected areas between the South Fork diversion dam 

and Ponderosa reservoir to reduce riparian encroachment. [Condition No. 

19, part 3] 

• Develop and implement a benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring plan for 

affected bypassed reaches to be conducted in the same years as fish 

population monitoring, unless an alternative monitoring schedule is 

agreed upon with the agencies. [revised Condition No. 19, part 4] 

• Prepare a recreation facility master plan and site plans to include 

provisions to hold annual coordination meetings, to ensure consistency 

with other management plans, for re-vegetation measures for disturbed 

vegetation, for improvement of interpretive signage and kiosks, and to 

explore opportunities to extend paved or native trails to increase 

pedestrian connectivity. [Condition No. 20, part 1 and 2] 

• Prepare, file and implement a fire prevention, response and investigation 

plan, including fuels treatment/vegetation management, prevention, 

emergency response preparedness, reporting, fire control/extinguishing. 

[Condition No. 21] 

• Develop and implement a fuel treatment/vegetation management plan. 

[Condition No. 22] 

• Develop and implement a Heritage Properties Management Plan (HPMP), 

approved by the Forest Service, for the purpose of protecting and 

interpreting heritage resources. [Condition No. 23] 

• Annually review the current list of special status plant and wildlife species 

and implement a study on effects of the project on any newly added 

species if suitable habitat for the species is likely to occur on National 

Forest System lands and identify and implement resource measures where 

appropriate. [Condition No. 24] 

• Prepare a Biological Evaluation before taking actions that may affect 

Forest Service special status species on National Forest System lands, 

update and implement the Bald Eagle Management Plan, and develop and 

implement a bat management plan. [Condition No. 25] 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
2-18 

• Prepare and implement an invasive weed management plan to address 

both aquatic and terrestrial invasive weeds within the project boundary 

and adjacent to project features directly affecting National Forest System 

lands including, roads, and distribution and transmission lines. [Condition 

No. 26] 

• Develop and implement a visual management plan within 60 days prior to 

any ground-disturbing activity on National Forest System lands. 

[Condition No. 27] 

• Develop and implement a road management plan after Forest Service 

approval of the plan. [Condition No. 28] 

2.2.5.4 Alternative 4(e) Conditions Pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) provides parties to this licensing 

proceeding the opportunity to propose alternatives to preliminary mandatory conditions. 

On May 14, 2008, South Feather filed alternatives to two of the Forest Service’s 4(e) 

conditions: 

• Condition No. 18, part one (minimum streamflows); and 

• Condition No. 19, part 2 (FYLF monitoring plan). 

We evaluate both these alternative 4(e) measures in sections 3 and 5 of this EIS. 

2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE 

After evaluating South Feather’s proposal and recommendations from resource 

agencies and other interested parties, we compiled a set of environmental measures that 

we consider appropriate for addressing the resource issues raised in this proceeding, 

calling this the staff alternative. The staff alternative includes some measures included 

in South Feather’s proposal as well as NMFS’ reservation of authority to prescribe 

fishways under section 18 and some of the Forest Service’s section 4(e) and South 

Feather’s alternative section 4(e) conditions, section 10(j) recommendations, section 

10(a) recommendations, and measures developed by the staff. 

The staff alternative incorporates South Feather’s proposed environmental 

measures (see section 2.2.3), as modified by staff: 

General 

• Measure 34 – modified to include annual consultation regarding the 

status of measure implementation, the results of monitoring studies, 

discussion of both routine and non-routine maintenance, foreseeable 

changes in project facilities, review of any necessary revisions or 

modification of plans included in the project license, and discussion of 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
2-19 

any measures needed to protect sensitive species or changes to existing 

management plans. Also modified to require that FWS, Cal Fish & 

Game, and the Water Board be afforded the opportunity to participate in 

the consultation meeting and included in the distribution of all monitoring 

reports and correspondence relating to the meeting, and that 

recommendations by these agencies be included in the record of the 

meeting. 

Aquatic Resources 

• Measure 36 – water year type to be determined using the methodology 

described in Forest Service’s revised Condition No.18, part 2. 

• Measure 39 – replaced by the minimum flow regime described in tables 3-

10 to 3-14 under South Feather’s alternative to Forest Service Condition 

No. 18, part 1. 

Terrestrial Resources 

• Measure 41 – the invasive weed management plan is modified to: (1) 

address both aquatic and terrestrial invasive weeds; (2) include protocols 

for locating, monitoring, and controlling weed populations; (3) include a 

public education program and facilities for public use to reduce the spread 

of aquatic weed species; and (4) provide information on noxious weed 

populations in a data format compatible with the Forest Service GIS 

database (per Forest Service Condition No. 26). 

• Measure 43 - modified to include maintenance and operation of all 

devices and measures necessary for the protection of wildlife along the 

Miners Ranch conduit deemed necessary by Cal Fish & Game and FWS 

(per Cal Fish & Game Condition No. 9). 

Recreational Resources 

• Measure 47 – modified to require filing of the recreational use survey 

report every 12 years. 

• Measure 49 – modified to specify that the restriction to maintain water 

levels in Little Grass Valley reservoir above elevation 5,023 feet msl 

applies only from May 21 through September 15, and does not apply in 

drought years if the reservoir does not fill to elevation 5,023 feet msl. 

• Measure 51 – modified to discontinue supplemental streamflows in the 

South Fork diversion dam reach if water temperature rises to 12.0°C or 

higher. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
2-20 

• Measure 52 – modified to discontinue supplemental streamflows in the 

Forbestown diversion dam reach if water temperature rises to 12.0°C or 

higher. 

Cultural Resources 

• Measure 44 – modified to include Commission staff measures in addition 

to implementation of the HPMP in consultation with the SHPO, Forest 

Service, participating Tribes, and the Commission. [Forest Service 

Condition No. 23] 

In addition to the foregoing measures proposed by South Feather, the staff 

alternative also includes the following additional measures identified by staff based on 

agency, tribal, and non-governmental organization recommendations and our analysis: 

Aquatic Resources 

• Implement a maximum ramping rate of 0.5 foot per hour when making 

any controlled increases or decreases in flow releases into the Little Grass 

Valley dam, South Fork diversion dam, Lost Creek dam, and the 

Woodleaf diversion dam reaches. 

• Operate, maintain, and modify (if necessary) gages needed to determine 

river stage and minimum streamflows downstream of Little Grass Valley 

dam, South Fork diversion dam, Forbestown diversion dam, Lost Creek 

dam, and Slate Creek diversion dam reaches. [Forest Service Condition 

No. 18, part 4 and Cal Fish & Game recommendation No. 7, part 6] 

• Develop an operating plan to manage drought conditions when they occur. 

[Forest Service Condition No. 18, part 3] 

• Develop and implement a plan, in consultation with Cal Fish & Game, 

NMFS and DWR to monitor the effects of flow releases on water 

temperatures in the Little Grass Valley dam, South Fork diversion dam, 

Lost Creek dam, and the Woodleaf diversion dam reaches, and to provide 

real-time information on the temperature of water discharged from the 

Kelly Ridge powerhouse. [Staff-developed measure] 

• Develop and implement a wild fish supplementation program to augment 

fish populations, when warranted, in the South Fork Feather River, Slate 

Creek, and in Sly Creek and Lost Creek reservoirs. [Forest Service 

revised Condition No. 18, part 6] 

• Develop and implement a fish population monitoring plan in affected 

project reaches to monitor fish species composition and relative 

abundance, including data on species size/age distributions and condition 

factors at eight of the locations previously established during the 

relicensing. Surveys would be conducted in two successive years and 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
2-21 

begin in the fifth full year after implementation of new license 

streamflows or at a frequency jointly agreed to by the agencies. [Forest 

Service revised Condition No. 19, part 1] 

• Develop and implement a benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring plan 

affected project to be conducted in the same years as fish population 

monitoring, unless an alternative monitoring schedule is agreed upon with 

the agencies. [Forest Service revised Condition No. 19, part 3] 

• Reserve NMFS authority to prescribe fishways. [NMFS section 18] 

Terrestrial Resources 

• Monitor selected areas between the South Fork diversion dam and 

Ponderosa reservoir for riparian encroachment, and treat if warranted 

based on FYLF monitoring results. [Forest Service Condition No. 19, part 

3, and Cal Fish & Game Condition No. 7, part 3] 

• Prepare a Biological Evaluation before taking actions that may affect 

Forest Service special status species on National Forest System lands, 

update and implement the Bald Eagle Management Plan, and develop and 

implement a bat management plan. [Forest Service Condition No. 25] 

• Conduct surveys for FYLF over the full length of the South Fork Feather 

River/Lost Creek reach, Forbestown diversion dam reach, and the Slate 

Creek diversion dam reaches in years 1-5 and every 10 years thereafter, 

supplemented by representative surveys in years 6-10 and every 10 years 

thereafter, to assess effectiveness of measures implemented to protect 

FYLF. [Staff-developed measure] 

Recreational Resources 

• Incorporate several additional measures specified by the Forest Service for 

the facility master plans, including: 

- provisions in the master plan for the annual coordination meeting 

to review the status of the implementation of the master plan; 

- provisions to ensure consistency with other management plans, 

including measures associated with potential effects of the 

proposed recreation rehabilitation on cultural resources within the 

project; 

- incorporation of provisions for re-vegetation measures for 

disturbed vegetation associated with the proposed rehabilitation 

and enhancement measures at the recreation sites as part of the 

facility master plans; and 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
2-22 

- provisions to improve interpretive signage and kiosks, if needed, as 

part of the individual site plans. [Forest Service Condition No. 20, 

part 1 and 2] 

Land Management and Aesthetics 

• Develop and implement a fuel treatment/vegetation management plan as 

part of South Feather’s fire prevention and response plan. File the plan 

with the Commission within 1 year of license issuance. [Forest Service 

Condition No. 22] 

• Develop and implement a road management plan for roads needed for 

project purposes and access. File with the Commission within 1 year of 

license issuance a road management plan after Forest Service approval of 

the plan. [Forest Service Condition No. 28] 

• Develop and implement a visual management plan within 60 days prior to 

any ground-disturbing activity on National Forest System lands. [Forest 

Service Condition No. 27] 

2.4 Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions 

The Forest Service specified two preliminary 4(e) conditions (described in 

section 2.2.5, Modifications to Applicant’s Proposal—Mandatory Conditions) which we 

do not include in the staff alternative: (1) maintain minimum streamflows in project 

reaches specified for each reach by the Forest Service; and (2) develop a FYLF 

monitoring plan (including annual monitoring of FYLF adult, tadpole, and egg mass 

numbers for the first 10 years after relicensing followed with similar surveys every 5 

years for the remainder of the license), a population model, a population viability 

model, a 2-D habitat model, a temperature monitoring protocol, and a geomorphology 

and riparian encroachment monitoring protocol. 

We recognize that the Commission is required to include valid section 4(e) 

conditions in any license issued for the project. The staff alternative with mandatory 

conditions includes staff-recommended measures along with the mandatory conditions 

that we did not include in the staff alternative: (1) the Forest Service’s specified 

minimum flow regime and (2) the Forest Service’s FYLF monitoring plan. 

Incorporation of these mandatory conditions into a new license would cause us to 

modify or eliminate some of the environmental measures that we include in the staff 

alternative. The minimum flows specified by the Forest Service would replace the 

minimum flows that we recommend (South Feather’s alternative 4(e) flows), and the 

FYLF monitoring plan specified by the Forest Service would replace the staffdeveloped monitoring plan that we recommend. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
2-23 

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER 

ANALYSIS 

2.4.1 Issuing a Non-Power License 

A non-power license is a temporary license that the Commission terminates 

when it determines that another governmental agency will assume regulatory authority 

and supervision over the lands and facilities covered by the license. At this point, no 

agency has suggested a willingness or ability to do so. No party has sought a nonpower license, and we have no basis for concluding that the project should no longer be 

used to produce power. Thus, we do not consider a non-power license a realistic 

alternative to relicensing in this circumstance. 

2.4.2 Federal Government Takeover of the Project 

We do not consider federal takeover to be a reasonable alternative. Federal 

takeover and operation of the project would require Congressional approval. Although 

that fact alone would not preclude further consideration of this alternative, there is no 

evidence to indicate that federal takeover should be recommended to Congress. No 

party has suggested federal takeover would be appropriate, and no federal agency has 

expressed an interest in operating the project. 

2.4.3 Project Retirement 

Retiring the project would require denying South Feather’s license application 

and require the surrender and termination of the existing license with any necessary 

conditions. The project would no longer be authorized to generate power. Retiring the 

project would involve significant cost, would forego an average annual production of 

477,125 MWh of clean, renewable energy, and would foreclose any opportunity to add 

environmental enhancements to the existing South Feather Power Project. For these 

reasons, we do not consider project retirement to be a reasonable alternative. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
2-24 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
FERC/EIS-0225D 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 3 – Environmental Analysis

South Feather Power Project 

FERC Project No. 2088-068, California 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street N.E. 

Washington, DC 20426 

Office of

Energy

Projects

November 2008

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-1 

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

In this section, we first describe the general environmental setting in the project 

vicinity and any environmental resources that could be cumulatively affected by 

relicensing the South Feather Power Project. Then, we address each affected 

environmental resource. For each resource, we first describe the affected environment—

the existing condition and the baseline against which to measure the effects of the 

proposed project and any alternative actions—and then the environmental effects of the 

proposed project, including the proposed measures discussed in section 2.2.3. Unless 

otherwise identified, the source of our information is the license application for the 

project (South Feather, 2007). We provide citations for information obtained from 

subsequent filings related to the project. 

3.1 GENERAL SETTING 

The project is located in the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range in northern California 

within Butte, Plumas, and Yuba counties and the Plumas National Forest. The project 

area originates at Little Grass Valley reservoir and occupies the South Fork Feather River 

canyon to its confluence with Lake Oroville. The project area also includes Lost Creek 

from Sly Creek reservoir to the confluence with the South Fork Feather River, and Slate 

Creek, a tributary to the North Yuba River from Slate Creek diversion dam to the 

confluence with the North Yuba River. The maximum elevation of the project area is 

about 5,047 feet msl, the normal maximum water surface elevation of Little Grass Valley 

reservoir. In general, the area surrounding the project can be characterized as primitive, 

except at the lowest elevations, which is rural. 

The project area experiences mild, dry summers and cool winters with significant 

snowfall in the higher elevations (above 4,000 feet msl) and extensive rain in the lower 

elevations. Since January 1935, the National Weather Service has maintained a 

monitoring station (Number 048606) about 0.5 mile southeast of the community of 

Strawberry Valley, just south of Sly Creek and Lost Creek reservoirs. The station is at an 

elevation of 3,808 feet msl, which is above the mid elevation of the project area. July air 

temperatures at Strawberry Valley range from an average maximum high of 84.3 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F) to an average minimum low of 52.1°F. The average maximum 

temperature for January is 48.5°F while the average minimum temperature is 29.5°F. 

The annual average maximum and minimum temperatures for Strawberry Valley are 

64.7°F and 39.3°F, respectively. Annual mean total precipitation at Strawberry Valley is 

82.25 inches, most (67.5 percent) of which falls as snow from December through March. 

The summer months only produce three percent of the total annual average 

precipitation. Spring and fall bring the remaining 29.5 percent of the precipitation to the 

area. Wind flow is generally moderate and from the west, causing air to rise as it passes 

over the Sierra Nevada. 

The project lies in the northern portion of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. 

The Sierra Nevada lies almost entirely within California, extending into Nevada only 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-2 

along the eastern shore of Lake Tahoe. More than 400 miles long and 60 to 80 miles 

wide, the Sierra Nevada is the longest continuous mountain range in the contiguous 

United States. The northernmost point is located a few miles south of Mt. Lassen, the 

southernmost peak of the Cascade Range. The southern terminus of the Sierra Nevada is 

Tehachapi Pass. The Sierra Nevada is a massive, northwesterly trending tilted fault block 

with asymmetric flanks. 

Drainage of the western slope is predominantly westward by numerous rivers. 

The western slope of the Plumas National Forest drains southwesterly almost entirely into 

the Feather River. To the north of the Feather River drainage, on which the project is 

located, is the Lassen National Forest, which contains numerous smaller watersheds that 

drain directly into the Sacramento River. The Yuba River is the first major drainage to 

the south. The headwaters of these rivers, like those of the Feather River, are from 

snowpack in the glacially carved terrain. 

3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS 

According to the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for 

implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (50 CFR §1508.7), an action may 

cause cumulative impacts on the environment if its impacts overlap in space or time with 

the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of 

what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from 

individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time, 

including hydropower and other land and water development activities. 

Based on information in the license applications, agency comments, other filings 

related to the project, and preliminary staff analysis, we identified the following resources 

that have the potential to be cumulatively affected by the continued operation of the 

South Feather Power Project, in combination with other activities: water quality, water 

quantity, and aquatic resources. 

3.2.1 Geographic Scope 

The geographic scope of the analysis defines the physical limits or boundaries of 

the proposed action’s effects on the resources. Because the proposed action would affect 

resources differently, the geographic scope for each resource may vary. For most 

fisheries and water resources, the geographic scope would extend from the headwaters of 

the South Fork Feather River, Lost Creek, and Slate Creek to the point downstream 

where the SFFR flows into Lake Oroville. 

3.2.2 Temporal Scope 

The temporal scope of our cumulative analysis in the EIS will include past, 

present, and future actions and their possible cumulative effects on each resource. Based 

on the license term, the temporal scope will look 30 to 50 years into the future, 

concentrating on the effect on the resources from reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-3 

The historical discussion will, by necessity, be limited to the amount of available 

information for each resource. 

3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

3.3.1 Geology and Soils 

3.3.1.1 Affected Environment 

Geologic Setting 

The South Feather Power Project is located on the western slopes of the Sierra 

Nevada Mountain Range in northern California. The entire Sierra Nevada Mountain 

Range is about 400 miles long and runs south-southeast to north-northwest in the eastern 

portion of the state. Following a tilted fault block, the mountain range is experiencing 

uplifting along its eastern slopes; the average angle of the eastern slopes is about 25 

degrees. This steep angle and uplift comes from sporadic seismic activity that has been 

building the mountain peaks to as high as 14,000 feet for the past 200 million years. Low 

levels of seismic activity currently continue in the watershed region along the main fault 

block and various smaller faults throughout the mountain range, and recent notable 

earthquakes have been centered in the Oroville area near the western portion of the SFFR 

watershed. 

In contrast, the western slopes have an average angle of only 2 degrees, due to 

erosion and sediment transport from runoff traveling away from the fault block during the 

same period of time. Pleistocene-age glaciers carved deep canyons in the slopes, creating 

paths for waterways to travel westward. Multiple rivers and watersheds stem from 

snowpack in the higher mountain areas all along the western side of the mountain range, 

including the SFFR watershed. In this watershed, the average depth of the canyons that 

carry snowpack runoff is 1,000 feet. 

Before uplifting in the area began, sedimentary depositions were the primary type 

of rock in the area. These rocks now exist as roof pendants in the region, consisting of 

quartzite, schist, marble, and other metamorphic rocks. The dominant underlying types 

of rock now include quartz monzonite, granite, and granodiorite. In the SFFR watershed, 

exfoliating massive granite exists as bedrock and is frequently exposed in the canyons 

and reservoir basins. The deep canyons and streambeds are also characterized by 

weathered bedrock as rock fragments, boulders, and cobble. Outside of the canyons and 

reservoir shorelines, terrain is generally broad and gently sloping with mostly tree 

vegetation. As flow travels westward through the project area, the terrain flattens 

significantly after passing Lake Oroville, where the watershed enters the relatively wide 

open Sacramento Valley. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-4 

Reservoir Shorelines 

The majority of reservoir shorelines in the watershed are composed of bedrock, 

sand, and rock fragments up to the high-water surface elevations of the reservoirs. Water 

lines are visible along bedrock shorelines in many of the reservoirs when water levels are 

lowered, reflecting the various stages of operation in the reservoirs. Above the highwater line, tree vegetation dominates the shorelines and the landscape, much of which is 

evergreen. Similar vegetation also exists on rock outcroppings that form small islands in 

some of the reservoirs. 

Miners Ranch reservoir differs in character from the other reservoirs; it is located 

closer to the wide open Sacramento Valley. Its shorelines are flatter and are 

characterized above the high-water surface elevation by shrub or grassy vegetation in an 

arid landscape. Substrate within the reservoir includes silt deposition and algae, in 

contrast to the rocky substrate generally found elsewhere in the watershed. 

Reservoirs throughout the watershed are generally not considered to be at risk of 

shoreline erosion, because they are made up of bedrock and/or have gently sloping 

shorelines. A shoreline erosion study was conducted in 2004, because South Feather and 

the Forest Service identified sensitive reservoir resources that might be affected by 

shoreline erosion in Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoirs. At the conclusion of 

the shoreline erosion study, all parties agreed that shoreline erosion was negligible, the 

potential for future erosion was small, and the specific resources of concern were not at 

risk due to shoreline stability and/or setback from the high-water shoreline. In a few 

isolated areas throughout the project, trees have fallen into the reservoirs to indicate that 

root structures may have been undermined, but these occurrences are infrequent. 

Shorelines are considered stable on all of the operating reservoirs. Residences exist along 

some of the shorelines, particularly in more gently-sloping areas, and unpaved roads and 

trails also run alongside the reservoirs in some areas. These unprotected areas have the 

potential to contribute sediment from surface erosion, although their surface area is 

negligible in comparison to the size of the watershed. 

Alluvial deposits have accumulated in the reservoirs since operation began. These 

deposits are limited to deeper areas of the pools and are particularly concentrated near the 

dams and occasionally at inflow areas. South Feather studies show that all project 

reservoirs trap sediment at a denudation rate of less than 1 millimeter per year. Little 

Grass Valley reservoir accumulates the most sediment volume since it is the farthest 

upstream reservoir in the watershed, has one of the largest drainage areas, and has no 

upstream dams. 

Mass wasting has occurred in limited areas associated with the project, such as 

areas where fill was placed or project features altered the path of runoff. For example, 

concentrated flow at the base of Lost Creek dam has caused a gully to develop and 

contribute sediment to the channels and reservoirs within the watershed. Mass wasting 

areas are also apparent that are not a result of project features. Some of the activity of 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-5 

these features is suspended and some is active; however, mass wasting generally 

contributes more sediment to project waterways than surface erosion. 

Project Reaches 

Upstream of Ponderosa reservoir, stream channels in the project are generally 

carved into steep canyons that reach average depths of 1,000 feet and are frequently 

characterized by exposed bedrock. Peak streamflows, which typically occur from 

snowfall runoff, continue to carve the streambeds into bedrock, and channel substrate 

generally consists of gravel, boulders, bedrock, and various sizes of rock fragments. 

Channel gradients are also relatively steep, up to 10 percent in some localized areas. The 

steep gradients create fast-moving flow with waterfalls occurring in places, especially in 

tributaries that enter the reaches within the canyons or groundwater that emanates from 

canyon walls. Pooling does occur in some areas where boulders or fallen rocks have 

altered the course of the waterway, or where average gradient in a local area is as low as 

1 percent. 

The reaches upstream of Ponderosa reservoir are virtually all transport reaches, as 

channel substrate and gradient generally do not facilitate sediment deposition. Alluvial 

deposition does occur in the few areas where pools are present, and although sandbars are 

rare, vegetation encroaches where sandbars form or where streambanks are not as steep 

and sediment has accumulated. This is particularly true at diversion dams, where 

deposition and the resulting vegetative growth significantly change channel 

characteristics immediately upstream of the dams. Woody debris is also present and 

collects where stream gradients become flatter or obstructions prevent it from being 

transported further down the reaches. South Feather has studied large woody debris 

(LWD) and found that it only influences channel morphology in localized areas within 

the project. 

Downstream of Ponderosa reservoir, channel gradients are flatter as streamflow 

enters the human-made Miners Ranch tunnel and canal. The concrete-lined canal does 

not generally exhibit natural geomorphic changes, but does sustain some variable 

sediment deposition in the channel area as water flow changes with operation. 

3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects 

Continued operation of the South Feather Power Project could affect geology and 

soils in the watershed by affecting streamflow, sediment transport, and geomorphic 

characteristics of the stream channel. Because South Feather does not propose any 

changes in project operation that would have a substantial effect on geology and soils in 

the watershed, the proposed license measures are limited to addressing issues that have 

been observed during project operation in the current term of the license. Observed 

issues include erosion from bare surfaces, rockfalls, and mass wasting; reservoir 

sedimentation, effects on sediment supply, yield, and trapping; transport and trapping of 

LWD; impacts of fine sediment deposition in Lost Creek; and the trapping and passage of 

accumulated sediment at the Slate Creek diversion dam. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-6 

Continued operation of the project may influence the rate of erosion in the 

watershed and the trapping of sediment in project reservoirs. However, studies have 

shown that the few areas undergoing various forms of erosion are not substantial, and are 

not considered at risk during the term of a proposed new license. The accumulation of 

sediment in reservoirs since operation began is also considered unsubstantial, and is not 

expected to accelerate during the term of a proposed new license. Therefore, South 

Feather has not proposed any measures with regard to effects of project operation on 

erosion or reservoir sedimentation. South Feather proposes measures to address LWD, 

the accumulation of fine sediment in Lost Creek, measures to pass sediment through the 

Slate Creek diversion, and erosion and sediment control measures that are needed during 

construction of proposed recreational facilities. 

Large Woody Debris 

Much of the steep and confined channel network in the project area offers limited 

opportunity for LWD retention and associated long-term sediment storage within the 

bankfull channel perimeter. However, LWD may be retained locally in relatively lower 

gradient channel reaches that have reduced wood and sediment transport capacities or 

where valley and/or channel width narrows. In these locations, LWD may play a 

relatively important role in creating and maintaining aquatic habitat diversity. 

LWD accumulates in project reservoirs during high flow events, and South 

Feather generally removes and burns LWD after flood events or when it affects project 

resources. Because LWD can benefit fish habitat, South Feather proposes to make a 

reasonable effort to annually return LWD that collects in the Little Grass Valley and Sly 

Creek reservoirs to the river below those structures. South Feather would allow large 

wood to pass through the Little Grass Valley, Sly Creek, and Lost Creek dam spillways 

during spill periods. If spills are not adequate to pass the large wood and South Feather 

collects the large wood from Little Grass Valley, Sly Creek, and Lost Creek reservoirs, it 

would consult with the Forest Service concerning alternative means and a schedule to 

return the large wood to the river. 

Our Analysis 

LWD contributes to productive aquatic ecosystems, and is an important 

component in the formation of complex aquatic habitat units and channel maintenance. 

LWD creates high flow velocity breaks and provides cover from predators, including 

trout. The velocity breaks created by LWD also retain and sort substrate to create gravel 

bars and spawning habitat for salmonids. 

Although much of the steep and confined channel network in the project area 

offers limited opportunity for LWD retention, LWD may be retained locally in relatively 

lower gradient channel reaches that have reduced wood and sediment transport capacities 

or where valley and/or channel width narrows. Compared to reference reaches upstream 

of the impoundments, the number of LWD pieces per mile was considerably lower in the 

reaches downstream of Little Grass Valley dam on the SFFR and below Sly Creek dam 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-7 

on Lost Creek. Passing LWD that accumulates in the Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek 

reservoirs to downstream reaches would increase the abundance of LWD in these reaches 

and provide a substantial benefit to trout habitat in areas where LWD is retained within 

the active stream channel. 

Several factors suggest that the Slate Creek diversion dam does not reduce the 

abundance of LWD downstream of the diversion, including similar LWD size 

distributions observed in the reservoir and downstream study sites, indicating that LWD 

is effectively transported over the diversion dam during high flows, and the existence of a 

relatively large downstream source area capable of supplying LWD to the channel. 

Lost Creek Geomorphic Flows 

Lack of seasonal high flow events may contribute to the accumulation of fine 

sediment in spawning gravels, which may adversely affect trout spawning and incubation 

success and contribute to the encroachment of riparian vegetation into the stream 

channel. Sediment that originates from upstream watershed surface erosion, rockfalls, 

and mass wasting is generally retained behind structures, and sediment that originates in 

areas between structures is typically transported downstream in the channel reaches. Lost 

Creek, however, is a response reach that retains fine sediment that originates below Lost 

Creek dam, and this sediment may affect aquatic habitat. 

To address these resource issues, South Feather proposes to provide supplemental 

streamflows to Lost Creek of at least 390 cfs for a continuous period of 24 hours, at least 

once every 4 water years. Supplemental streamflows would consist of controlled or 

uncontrolled spill over Lost Creek dam that would flush the reach of fine sediment. 

Our Analysis 

South Feather commissioned a study of Lost Creek in 1991 to evaluate the 

presence of fine sediment deposits and the flow levels necessary to mobilize streambed 

materials. The Forest Service identified specific objectives for high flows in the reach, 

and the current FERC license stipulates that minimum flow requirements be determined 

by conducting an instream flow study. The Forest Service identified two key objectives: 

(1) providing high flows to cleanse accumulated fine sediment from spawning gravels 

and (2) reducing the encroachment of riparian vegetation resulting from the accumulation 

of fine sediment. 

The study concluded that supplemental streamflows would benefit habitat 

conditions in the reach and satisfy the Forest Service’s objectives, so the existing license 

was amended to include flow releases. As a result, the current project license stipulates 

that flushing flows be released from Lost Creek dam at least once every 4 years. The 

flushing flows would be between 390 and 740 cfs, so that sediment fines are removed but 

gravel and cobble, that serve as spawning habitat, are mobilized only so far as to help 

displace accumulated fines. Larger flows might displace streambed material used for 

spawning. Study of the reach indicated that the fines were mobilized when the dam 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-8 

spilled at least 390 cfs for at least 15 hours. South Feather proposes to continue flushing 

flows in Lost Creek by spilling flows of at least 390 cfs for 24 hours at least once every 4 

years. Continuing periodic flushing would serve to enhance geomorphic characteristics 

in Lost Creek and protect aquatic habitat. 

Sediment Pass-Through at Slate Creek 

Accumulation of sediment upstream of the Slate Creek diversion dam interferes 

with operation of the low-level outlet used to release minimum instream flows, affects the 

operation of the diversion tunnel, and impedes the transport of spawning gravel into the 

reach downstream of the diversion. There are no dams upstream of the Slate Creek 

diversion that would affect sediment transport, so this diversion is particularly susceptible 

to accumulation of sediment. During the current license term, the Slate Creek diversion 

dam was identified as a project structure where sediment collected to such a degree that 

operations and environmental conditions were adversely affected. Allowing sediment to 

continue to collect at this structure would exacerbate those effects during the next license 

term. 

South Feather is currently testing alternative methods of operation to facilitate the 

passage of sediment past the dam, and within 2 years of license issuance, proposes to file 

a report with the Commission that would describe the results of ongoing testing. A draft 

of the report would be provided to the Forest Service, the Corps, SWRCB, Cal Fish & 

Game, and any other appropriate resource agencies. The report would describe the 

objectives and results of the testing and proposed measures that would be implemented as 

part of the license, following approval by the Commission. 

Our Analysis 

Until 1986, Slate Creek diversion dam was operated to allow sediment to pass 

through a low-level outlet during high flows. This manner of operation maintained 

sediment transport processes and prevented accumulated sediment from affecting the 

operation of the minimum flow release and diversion structures. Past hydraulic mining 

upstream of the dam, and the breach of the upstream St. Louis debris dam in the 1950s, 

contributed to high delivery rates of aggraded sediment from the upstream reaches. The 

St. Louis debris dam is located about 1 mile upstream of Slate Creek diversion on land 

owned by the Forest Service. 

Sediment pass-through activities were suspended from 1986 to 2002 because of 

resource agency concerns about effects on water quality from toxins that may have 

collected in the accumulated sediment. To determine if toxins had collected, sediment 

samples were evaluated for hazardous material content in various studies from 1994 to 

2005. None of the studies identified hazardous concentrations of heavy metals, including 

mercury. Water quality was also studied upstream and downstream of the diversion, and 

hazardous levels of heavy metals or inorganic contaminants were not found, nor did the 

studies find low levels of dissolved oxygen or high turbidity. After a water quality 

monitoring plan was approved by regulatory agencies, South Feather attempted to resume 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-9 

sediment pass-through activities in 2002 under specific flow conditions, but it was 

unsuccessful because of the armored sediment pile that had built up against the outlet’s 

trashrack during the years in which sediment pass-through activities were suspended. 

In 2005, 500 cubic yards of the accumulated sediment pile was removed by 

manual excavation. South Feather again attempted to resume sediment pass-through in 

2006. Sediment was successfully passed through the structure, but testing was suspended 

because of concerns about abrasion damage to the diversion’s outlet works. South 

Feather is currently testing new procedures to allow accumulated sediment to pass 

through Slate Creek diversion dam more frequently and in smaller volumes, and to time 

sediment pass-through to occur on the ascending limb of the hydrograph during storm 

events, so that both coarse and fine materials can be carried into the downstream reaches 

and enhance aquatic habitat. SWRCB reviewed these procedures and authorized an 

amended 401 water quality certificate on January 4, 2007, so that South Feather could 

test the new approach. 

South Feather’s proposal to file a report 2 years after new license issuance would 

allow the Commission to review the results of the current sediment pass-through efforts 

resumed in 2007. By then, it is expected that the new procedures would have been tested 

and the results documented, and any modifications would be proposed to the 

Commission. Continuing sediment pass-through and refining successful procedures 

would enhance downstream habitat by restoring sediment transport processes, and would 

improve the reliability of minimum flow releases and diversion operations by preventing 

further accumulation upstream of the dam. 

Erosion and Sediment Control 

Surface erosion and sediment runoff associated with construction activities could 

release sediment into project waterways and adversely affect environmental resources. 

South Feather proposes construction, including replacement or rehabilitation of project 

recreational facilities, which could lead to stream sedimentation, increased turbidity, and 

geomorphic effects if proper erosion and sediment control measures are not implemented 

as part of construction. 

To minimize soil erosion and dust, and to protect water quality and minimize 

turbidity in streams and reservoirs, the Forest Service’s Condition No. 8 would require 

South Feather to implement a soil erosion control and revegetation plan during 

construction of any facilities. South Feather would develop the plan for approval by the 

Forest Service, and then file it with the Commission at least 60 days before any 

construction disturbance or non-routine maintenance begins. 

A complete plan would include drawings and descriptions of site conditions, 

proposed erosion and sediment control measures, proposed revegetation with native 

species, and a proposed monitoring and maintenance schedule. Appropriate control 

measures could include silt fence, sedimentation ponds, straw bales, diversion dikes or 

swales, and energy-dissipation structures. Proper implementation would prevent soils 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-10 

from exiting the construction area and entering undisturbed areas. Each site would be 

stabilized when construction is complete, and proper post-construction monitoring would 

ensure that native species revegetate disturbed areas and that sediment does not mobilize 

via rills, wasting, or other means. 

Our Analysis 

Designing and implementing an appropriate erosion and sediment control plan for 

construction activities would prevent the release of disturbed sediment into waterways, 

and therefore would prevent effects on water quality. Proper revegetation and postconstruction monitoring would ensure that disturbed areas are restored with native 

species, and that gullying or other forms of erosion do not occur as a result of 

construction disturbance. 

Although no measures are proposed to address reservoir sedimentation and the 

few areas of surface erosion (including mass wasting and rockfalls), studies, site visits, 

and discussions conclude that these issues do not present significant risk during the term 

of the proposed license. Alluvial sediments are likely to continue to be deposited in 

project reservoirs, and some erosion is likely to continue in a small number of areas. 

However, we conclude that reservoir sedimentation and erosion throughout the project do 

not require measures to be taken to prevent adverse effects on environmental resources, 

and no unavoidable adverse effects would result from proposed project operation. 

3.3.2 Aquatic Resources 

3.3.2.1 Affected Environment 

3.3.2.1.1 Water Quantity 

Water Storage and Hydrology 

The South Feather Power Project includes two major storage reservoirs and six 

smaller reservoirs and diversion pools with little or no seasonal storage capacity. Key 

characteristics of the five project reservoirs, including surface area, length, width, depth, 

fluctuation, and releases, are described below. 

Little Grass Valley reservoir has a maximum surface area of 1,650 acres at full 

pool, is 3.45 miles long, has a maximum width of 4,611 feet, and a maximum depth of 

about 179 feet near the dam. In a typical year the reservoir surface elevation fluctuates 

by about 31 feet. Water is normally released into the SFFR via three low-level outlets 

and the dam spillway. 

Sly Creek reservoir has a surface area of 619 acres at full pool, is about 2.52 miles 

long, has a maximum width of about 1,918 feet, and a maximum depth of about 241 feet 

near the dam. The reservoir shoreline is about 12.2 miles long. In a typical year, the 

reservoir water surface elevation fluctuates by about 102.5 feet. Water is normally 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-11 

released into Lost Creek reservoir through the Sly Creek powerhouse or via the pressure 

relief valve that bypasses the powerhouse. 

Lost Creek reservoir has a maximum a surface area of 137 acres at full pool, is 

about 1.46 miles long, has a maximum width of about 1,118 feet, and a maximum depth 

of about 99.5 feet near the dam. The reservoir shoreline length is about 5.75 miles. In a 

normal year, the reservoir water surface elevation fluctuates by about 14.6 feet. Water is 

normally released into Lost Creek through three low-level outlets or to the Woodleaf 

powerhouse on the SFFR through the Woodleaf power tunnel. 

Ponderosa reservoir has a surface area of 103 acres at full pool, is about 1.7 miles 

long, has a maximum width of about 727 feet, and a maximum depth of about 130 feet 

near the dam. The reservoir shoreline is about 4.1 miles long. In a typical year, the 

reservoir water surface elevation fluctuates by about 11.5 feet. Water is conveyed from 

Ponderosa dam to the Miners Ranch reservoir via the Miners Ranch conduit; spills at the 

dam, when they occur, pass into Lake Oroville. There is also one low-level outlet that 

can be used to make releases into Lake Oroville. 

Miners Ranch reservoir, which is located off-stream, has a surface area of 48 acres 

at full pool, is about 0.5 mile long, has a maximum width of about 932 feet, and a 

maximum depth of about 50 feet near the dam. The reservoir shoreline is about 1.8 miles 

long. In a typical normal water year,10 the reservoir water surface elevation fluctuates by 

about 9.0 feet. Water is normally released into Bangor canal through the Miners Ranch 

dam low-level outlet, to the Miners Ranch treatment plant through a set of pumps, and to 

Kelly Ridge powerhouse through the Kelly Ridge power canal and tunnel. 

Table 3-1 shows physical characteristics of each reservoir and diversion pool, and 

figure 3-1 shows seasonal trends in water storage in the major storage reservoirs. Figures 

3-2 and 3-3 show annual variations in water levels at the two storage reservoirs, Little 

Grass Valley and Sly Creek, respectively. Tables 3-2 through 3-7 provide regulated and 

unregulated flow statistics for each of the four bypassed reaches. By removing the 

effects of changes in storage within the reservoirs, the unregulated flow statistics show an 

approximation of the inflows to each reservoir. 

 

10Water year types (from water year DWR estimate of total unimpaired runoff type 

in the Feather River at Oroville in acre-feet) are defined as: Dry: less than or equal to 

2,400,000; Below Normal: greater than 2,400,000 and less than 4,000,000; Above 

Normal: greater than or equal to 4,000,000 and less than Normal 7,100,000; and Wet: 

greater than or equal to 7,100,000. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-12 

Table 3-1. Reservoir and diversion pool characteristics. (Source: South Feather, 

2007) 

Elevation (feet) Storage capacity (acre-feet) 

Dam 

Normal 

Maximum 

(msl) 

Normal 

Minimum 

(msl) Difference

Normal 

Maximum

Normal 

Minimum Difference

Little Grass 

Valley 

reservoir 

5,046 4,935.6 110.4 89,800 90 89,710 

South Fork 

diversion pool 

3,557 3,540.5 16.5 87 0 87 

Slate Creek 

diversion pool 

3,552 3,535 17 0a

 0 0 

Sly Creek 

reservoir 

3,527 3,377 150 64,338 5,678 58,660 

Lost Creek 

reservoir 

3,283 3,270 13 5,361 3,692 1669 

Forbestown 

diversion pool 

1,783 1,763 20 352 239 113 

Ponderosa 

reservoir 

960 947 13 4,177 2,534 1643 

Miners Ranch 

reservoir 

890 878 12 896 15 881 

a The Slate Creek diversion pool originally had a storage capacity of 643 acre-feet, but 

the impoundment’s current storage capacity is negligible due to sedimentation. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-13

Figure 3-1. Median daily reservoir storage for South Fork Power Project reservoirs, 1973 through 200

Feather, 2007) 
 3-14 

Figure 3-2. Little Grass Valley reservoir water surface elevations for 1973 through 

2000. (Source: South Feather, 2007) 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-15 

Figure 3-3. Sly Creek reservoir water surface elevations for 1973 through 2000. 

(Source: South Feather, 2007) 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-16

Table 3-2. Estimated unregulated streamflows below Little Grass Valley dam at USGS gage no. 1139

Staff, based on flow data from license application for water years 1973 to 2001) 

Statistic Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April May June July August Mean 13 65 109 168 182 220 224 251 107 20 7 Max. 524 2743 4319 7590 6680 3947 1593 2482 958 241 30 Min. 3 2 2 4 6 7 9 15 3 2 2 90% Exc. 

3 5 8 11 19 61 97 41 11 6 4 

80% Exc. 

4 6 11 17 31 84 130 65 15 7 4 

50% Exc. 

6 10 26 58 87 140 200 208 37 12 6 

20% Exc. 

11 49 116 205 218 261 308 410 156 23 9 

10% Exc. 

19 139 260 385 348 431 360 512 315 37 12 
3-17

Table 3-3. Regulated streamflows below Little Grass Valley dam at USGS gage no. 11395030. (Sou

flow data from license application for water years 1973 to 2001)

Statistic Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April May June July August 

Mean 100.1 89.2 71.3 86.3 103.6 114.7 91.1 133.8 103.9 109.0 124.9 Max. 484.0 1580.0 3510.0 5420.0 5200.0 1670.0 1040.0 2930.0 760.0 484.0 568.0 Min. 4.2 2.2 2.2 1.9 1.9 1.8 3.2 2.5 3.9 3.2 3.2 90% Exc. 

8.7 4.2 4.4 5.0 4.8 6.4 7.3 9.5 6.6 6.3 8.5 

80% Exc. 

13.0 5.3 6.4 7.6 7.2 9.2 8.5 12.0 9.3 11.0 13.0 

50% Exc. 

81.0 55.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 21.0 20.0 29.0 54.0 101.0 117.0 

20% Exc. 

175.0 167.0 129.0 164.0 182.0 199.0 208.0 230.0 167.0 199.0 205.0 

10% Exc. 

198.0 223.0 236.0 216.0 244.2 261.0 254.0 353.0 307.0 236.0 240.2 
3-18

Table 3-4. Estimated unregulated streamflows below Slate Creek diversion dam at USGS gage no. 11

Staff, based on flow data from license application for water years 1973 to 2001)

Statistic Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April May June July Augu

Mean 24 123 209 328 371 462 390 370 152 36 14 Max. 1000 5232 7720 12100 10583 5466 5486 4734 984 400 58 Min. 5 5 5 7 11 18 18 28 6 4 3 90% Exc. 

6 10 15 21 35 127 144 63 20 11 7 

80% Exc. 

8 11 22 33 61 175 192 100 28 13 8 

50% Exc. 

11 20 49 107 180 309 331 284 66 22 12 

20% Exc. 

20 93 221 396 442 553 543 601 226 43 18 

10% Exc. 

36 264 500 759 779 866 669 802 425 70 22 
3-19

Table 3-5. Regulated streamflows below Slate Creek diversion dam at USGS gage no. 11443300. (S

on flow data from license application for water years 1973 to 2001) 

Statistic Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April May June July AuguMean 15 62 132 196 220 245 183 165 42 12 11 Max. 668 4650 7710 12100 10500 5370 5350 3890 984 36 33 Min. 5 5 1 6 1 4 7 6 6 3 3 90% Exc. 

6 8 9 9 9 10 11 10 10 9 7 

80% Exc. 

8 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 10 8 

50% Exc. 

10 11 11 12 12 19 13 12 11 11 11 

20% Exc. 

13 15 19 169 236 362 410 341 16 12 13 

10% Exc. 

16 54 261 455 502 615 567 572 33 16 14 
3-20

Table 3-6. Estimated unregulated streamflows below Lost Creek dam at gage no. 11396000. (Source

flow data from license application for water years 1973 to 2001) 

Statistic Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April May June July AuguMean 12 48 89 139 158 193 137 97 45 17 8 Max. 247 1271 3751 5879 3856 2259 1666 862 202 120 30 Min. 3 3 3 4 6 9 9 9 4 2 2 90% Exc. 

4 6 9 12 19 42 35 29 12 7 4 

80% Exc. 

5 7 12 18 30 73 53 37 16 8 5 

50% Exc. 

7 11 26 55 90 144 121 71 33 13 7 

20% Exc. 

11 49 100 190 203 250 196 150 70 24 11 

10% Exc. 

18 113 190 316 341 365 253 208 97 34 13 
3-21

Table 3-7. Regulated streamflows below Lost Creek dam at gage no. 11396000. (Source: Staff, base

license application for water years 1973 to 2001) 

Statistic Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April May June July AuguMean 4 3 48 52 96 103 57 43 45 4 4 Max. 100 44 2650 4490 3300 2250 1410 1530 954 170 15 Min. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90% Exc. 

1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

80% Exc. 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

50% Exc. 

2 3 3 4 4 4 6 5 5 5 5 

20% Exc. 

5 4 5 6 20 189 9 9 8 6 6 

10% Exc. 

8 6 6 74 316 351 293 86 10 9 9 
 3-22 

Consumptive Use 

South Feather’s Miners Ranch water treatment plant, located on the northwest side 

of Miners Ranch reservoir, was constructed and placed into service in 1981. It draws 

water directly from the Miners Ranch reservoir immediately upstream from the inlet to 

the Kelly Ridge tunnel. Average annual withdrawals total 5,768 acre-feet, with the 

months of May through September constituting the peak delivery season. The Miners 

Ranch treatment plant has the capacity to deliver 14.5 million gallons per day (MGD), 

about 22.4 cfs. The average daily demand is 5.3 MGD (about 8.2 cfs). 

South Feather’s Bangor canal, a non-project feature receiving water from Miners 

Ranch reservoir, serves irrigation water along the canal and the Bangor water treatment 

plant. This facility has an average daily demand of 0.018 MGD (about 0.03 cfs). With 

the addition of water supplied to irrigators, annual consumptive use on the Bangor canal 

averages 8,813 acre-feet. 

South Feather’s Palermo canal, a non-project feature, distributes an average of 

7,340 acre-feet to customers from Oroville dam at a maximum rate of 40 cfs. The canal 

uses inflows from Sucker Run Creek and spilled flows from Ponderosa dam. 

Yuba County Water District operates the Forbestown water treatment plant, which 

receives water from the project’s Woodleaf power tunnel, delivered via South Feather’s 

Forbestown ditch, a non-project feature. Yuba County Water District has a contractual 

right to request delivery of up to 3,700 acre-feet of water annually into the Forbestown 

ditch for its irrigation customers and for the Forbestown water treatment plant, and 

additional quantities of water can be taken into the Forbestown ditch, up to 15,500 acrefeet per calendar year, subject to reimbursement to the project for foregone power 

generation revenues. 

3.3.2.1.2 Water Quality 

Like many other headwater streams of the Sierra Nevada, tributaries of the SFFR 

generally have excellent water quality. Below Little Grass Valley reservoir, the SFFR 

gains water as it flows downstream and is joined by Bear, Lost, and Oroleve creeks 

before flowing into Ponderosa reservoir. With the possible exception of legacy 

contamination from historic gold mining activities, contaminants responsible for lower 

water quality are generally associated with agricultural activities and residential areas that 

primarily occur outside the project area and in lower elevation areas. 

Water Quality Standards 

The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) adopted 

a basin plan in 1994, which was revised in 1998 and 2001, for the Sacramento River and 

its tributaries. The basin plan formally designates existing and potential beneficial uses 

and water quality objectives. No modification to the basin plan has been specifically 

developed for the South Fork Feather River within the project area. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-23 

Because the SFFR and Lost Creek in the project vicinity are not specifically 

addressed within the current basin plan, South Feather contacted CVRWQCB to 

determine what beneficial uses applied to the project area. CVRWQCB replied by letter 

on October 25, 2006, stating that the beneficial uses applied to the Feather River from the 

Fish Barrier dam to the Sacramento River are appropriate to apply to the SFFR. In its 

letter, CVRWQCB designated 10 existing and potential beneficial uses: municipal and 

domestic supply, agricultural supply, hydropower generation, water contact recreation, 

non-contact water recreation, cold freshwater habitat, warm freshwater habitat, migration 

of aquatic organisms, spawning, and wildlife habitat. Table 3-8 lists water quality 

objectives specified in the basin plan to protect these beneficial uses. 

No sections of the SFFR, Lost Creek, or Slate Creek in the vicinity of the project 

are included on the most recent California 303(d) list and Total Maximum Daily Load 

(TMDL) priority schedule. 

Monitoring studies conducted by South Feather found minor exceedances of water 

quality objectives for several constituents, but no adverse effects on beneficial uses. The 

observed exceedances are summarized as follows. 

Chemical Constituents. With the exception of one unexpectedly high arsenic 

value in the Slate Creek diversion dam reach, human health based criteria were not 

exceeded during 2004. Low levels of other inorganic and trace metal constituents in 

samples collected throughout the study area demonstrate generally high water quality 

typical of many snow-melt fed river systems of the Sierra Nevada. 

Dissolved Oxygen. Periods of hypoxia occur seasonally in the deeper portions of 

Little Grass Valley, Ponderosa, and Lost Creek reservoirs. However, metalimnetic, 

epilimnetic and downstream dissolved oxygen levels remained above the 7 mg/L 

standard at all times, and the observed periods of anoxia in deeper portions of these 

reservoirs had no apparent effect on beneficial uses. 

Tastes and Odor. Periods of anoxia in project reservoirs may be associated with 

releases of taste and odor compounds such as iron and manganese. Iron and manganese 

exceeded secondary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) upstream of Ponderosa 

reservoir and downstream of the Slate Creek diversion dam in August 2004. Sampling 

showed iron concentrations up to three times higher in the hypolimnion than in the 

epilimnion of Ponderosa reservoir, suggesting that anoxic conditions in Ponderosa 

reservoir may alter oxidation/reduction conditions sufficiently to affect downstream 

levels of these constituents. However, given no history of taste and odor complaints from 

municipal water users, these effects appear to be minor. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-24 

Table 3-8. Water quality objectives to support designated uses in SFFR in the project 

area. (Source: CVRWQCB, 1998) 

Water Quality 

Objective Description 

Bacteria In terms of fecal coliform. Less than a geometric average of 200 

per 100 mL water on five samples collected in any 30-day period 

and less than 400 per 100 mL on 10 percent of all samples taken in 

a 30-day period. 

Biostimulatory 

Substances 

Water shall not contain biostimulatory substances that promote 

aquatic growth in concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely 

affect beneficial uses. 

Chemical 

Constituents 

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations 

that adversely affect beneficial uses. Specific trace element levels 

are given for certain surface waters, none of which include the 

waters in the vicinity of the Project. Electrical conductivity (at 

25°C) shall not exceed 150 micromhos/cm (90 percentile) in wellmixed waters of the Feather River from the Fish Barrier dam at 

Oroville to Sacramento River. Other limits for organic, inorganic 

and trace metals are provided for surface waters that are designated 

for domestic or municipal water supply. In addition, waters 

designated for municipal or domestic use must comply with 

portions of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulation. 

Color Water shall be free of discoloration that causes a nuisance or 

adversely affects beneficial uses. 

Dissolved oxygen Monthly median of the average daily dissolved oxygen 

concentration shall not fall below 85 percent of saturation in the 

main water mass, and the 95 percent concentration shall not fall 

below 75 percent of saturation. Minimum level of 7 mg/L. 

Specific dissolved oxygen water quality objectives below Oroville 

dam are 8.0 mg/L from September 1 to May 31, for Feather River 

from Fish Barrier Dam at Oroville to Honcut Creek (surface water 

body #40). When natural conditions lower dissolved oxygen below 

this level, the concentrations shall be maintained at or above 95 

percent of saturation. 

Floating Material Water shall not contain floating material in amounts that cause a 

nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-25 

Water Quality 

Objective Description 

Oil and Grease Water shall not contain oils, greases, waxes or other material in 

concentrations that cause a nuisance, result in visible film or 

coating on the surface of the water or on objects in the water, or 

otherwise adversely affect beneficial uses. 

pH The pH of surface waters will remain between 6.5 to 8.5, and cause 

changes of less than 0.5 in receiving water bodies. 

Pesticides Waters shall not contain pesticides or a combination of pesticides in 

concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. Other limits 

established as well. 

Radioactivity Radionuclides shall not be present in concentrations that are 

harmful to human, plant, animal or aquatic life nor that result in the 

accumulation of radionuclides in the food web to an extent that 

presents a hazard to human, plant, animal or aquatic life. 

Sediment The suspended sediment load and suspended-sediment discharge 

rate of surface waters shall not be altered in such a manner as to 

cause a nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. 

Settleable Material Waters shall not contain substances in concentrations that result in 

the deposition of material that causes a nuisance or adversely 

affects beneficial uses. 

Suspended 

Material 

Waters shall not contain suspended material in concentrations that 

cause a nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. 

Tastes and Odor Water shall not contain taste- or odor-producing substances in 

concentrations that impart undesirable tastes and odors to domestic 

or municipal water supplies or to fish flesh or other edible products 

of aquatic origin, or that cause nuisance, or otherwise adversely 

affect beneficial uses. 

Temperature The natural receiving water temperature of interstate waters shall 

not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of 

the Regional Water Quality Control Board that such alteration in 

temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses. Increases in 

water temperatures must be less than 2.8°C above natural 

receiving-water temperature. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-26 

Water Quality 

Objective Description 

Toxicity All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in 

concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in 

human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this 

objective will be determined by analysis indicator organisms, 

species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, and 

biotoxicity tests as specified by the Regional Water Quality Control 

Board. 

Turbidity In terms of changes in turbidity (NTU) in the receiving water body: 

where natural turbidity is 0 to 5 NTUs, increases shall not exceed 1 

NTU; where 5 to 50 NTUs, increases shall not exceed 20 percent; 

where 50 to 100 NTUs, increases shall not exceed 10 NTUs; and 

where natural turbidity is greater than 100 NTUs, increase shall not 

exceed 10 percent. 

Toxicity. In addition to an unexpectedly high arsenic level found in Slate Creek 

during an October 2004 storm event, the low levels of alkalinity and hardness found 

throughout the study area act to increase the toxicity of other trace metals, including lead; 

concentrations of which were slightly in excess of California Toxics Rule (CTR) criteria 

in Sly Creek and Little Grass Valley reservoirs. Lead was also found above the detection 

limit and Criterion Continuous Concentrations (CCC) criteria in Little Grass Valley 

reservoir following a storm event in October 2004, with measured levels at downstream 

locations in the Little Grass Valley, South Fork diversion dam, and SFFR/Lost Creek 

reaches above CCC criteria, but below the laboratory detection limit. With the exception 

of one additional sample in excess of CTR 1-hour criteria for silver at the Forbestown 

diversion dam in August 2004, low levels of other inorganic and trace metal constituents 

in samples collected throughout the study area do not exceed CTR criteria and are 

consistent with the generally high water quality typical of snow-melt fed river systems of 

the Sierra Nevada. Although results indicate that consistent low-level exceedances of 

lead criteria occur in Sly Creek reservoir and potential associations with stormwater 

runoff at other locations, no connection to project O&M is evident. 

Water Temperature. Because the basin plan does not provide a numerical 

temperature water quality objective other than limitation of warming to less than 5°F 

(2.8°C) that is applicable to hydroelectric project relicensing, South Feather assumed that 

the cold freshwater habitat beneficial use was considered to be supported if the mean 

daily water temperature remained below 20°C, which is generally considered to be near 

the upper limit of the optimal temperature range for rainbow trout. Moyle (2002) states 

that the optimal temperatures for growth of rainbow trout are around 15 to 18°C, and 

Behnke (1992) reports that other fish species may gain a competitive advantage over 

trout as water temperatures approach 21°C. Although warmwater fish typical of 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-27 

transition zone or Sierran foothill fish assemblages (e.g., Sacramento pikeminnow, 

sucker, and hardhead) can abide warmer waters (25 to >30°C), these species are fairly 

tolerant of a wide temperature range and can experience optimum growth temperatures 

that overlap with those of more typical coldwater fish (e.g., trout). Most streams in 

which hardhead occur have summer temperatures in excess of 20°C, and optimal 

temperatures appear to be between 17 and 28°C (Moyle, 2002). As the basin plan does 

not put forth numerical limits for the warm freshwater habitat beneficial use, the presence 

of warmwater tolerant species (e.g., hardhead) was used to determine whether the basin 

plan’s warmwater beneficial use designation could be appropriately applied to a given 

reach or subreach. 

Cold supporting reaches. Daily mean water temperatures in the Little Grass 

Valley dam reach did not exceed 20°C at any time. Although the South Fork diversion 

dam reach did exceed the 20°C threshold at the most downstream site, exceedances were 

rare and the maximum daily mean water temperature was not far above the 20°C 

threshold. Similarly, although the two sites in the SFFR/Lost Creek reach had mean daily 

water temperatures that exceeded 20°C for a combined total of 6, 13, and 9 days in July 

2004, 2005, and 2006, respectively, the maximum daily mean water temperature 

measured was only 21.5°C. In the Lost Creek dam reach, only one daily mean water 

temperature measured higher than 20°C over the 2004 to 2006 study period (20.3°C) in 

July 2005, just upstream of the confluence with the SFFR. Because of the short duration 

of temperatures in excess of 20°C, these reaches were considered supportive of basin plan 

designated beneficial uses related to cold freshwater habitat. 

Warm supporting reaches. Exceedances of 20°C mean daily water temperature 

objectives occurred in June through August in each year of monitoring throughout the 

length of the Forbestown diversion dam reach below the migration barrier waterfall at 

SFFR RM 3. However, the observed temperature exceedances are not necessarily an 

indication of project-related impairments. The Forbestown diversion dam reach is 

located at elevations 981 to 1,703 feet msl, corresponding to the lower Sierra Nevada 

foothills transition zone. The typical historic (unregulated) hydrograph of the Sierra 

Nevada Range was snowmelt driven, with mid- to late summer months in the foothills 

transition zone supporting low flows and warmer water temperatures. Without the 

influence of cold hypolimnetic releases from Little Grass Valley, Sly Creek, and Lost 

Creek reservoirs, the Forbestown diversion dam reach most likely did not provide water 

temperatures at or below 20°C in this reach during the mid to late summer. 

Non-supporting reaches. Over the entire Slate Creek diversion dam reach, 

exceedances of 20°C mean daily water temperatures occurred from June through 

September. Review of Slate Creek diversion flows over the 29 years of record indicate 

that diversions are typically discontinued by mid-June in Dry water year types, prior to 

increases in water temperatures above the 20°C threshold. However, in Normal and Wet 

water year types Slate Creek diversions can continue into July, when upstream water 

temperatures are higher. Although the Slate Creek diversions are typically discontinued 

or much reduced during time periods when water temperatures exceed the 20°C 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-28 

threshold, project operation may have some effect on summer water temperatures 

immediately below the Slate Creek diversion dam and on support of designated cold 

freshwater habitat. In the lower portion of the reach, water temperatures in July are likely 

to exceed 20°C threshold regardless of project operation. 

3.3.2.1.3 Aquatic Biota 

Streams and reservoirs in the project area support fisheries for rainbow, brown, 

and brook trout, and a transitional warmwater fish assemblage in the lower elevation 

portions of the project area. In this section we describe the aquatic habitats and aquatic 

biota within project-area waters. 

Special Status Aquatic Species 

Three special-status fishes may occur within the project area. Rainbow and brown 

trout are Forest Service Management Indicator Species, and the hardhead is a California 

Species of Concern and a Forest Service Sensitive Species. Three federally listed 

salmonid species (winter-run Chinook salmon (endangered), Central Valley spring-run 

Chinook salmon (threatened), and Central Valley steelhead (threatened) occurred in the 

project area prior to the construction of the DWR’s Oroville dam and the Oroville 

Project’s fish barrier dam, located about 5 miles downstream of Oroville dam. 

Coastal rainbow trout are the trout species native to most west-side watersheds, 

and were historically found below an elevation of 4,900 feet, but have been introduced 

throughout the western Sierra Nevada including most of the project area. Rainbow trout 

spawn in the spring, although the specific spawning time is influenced by factors such as 

the genetic strain of the fish, water temperature, and period of daylight. Spawning 

usually occurs in gravel riffles or gravel pockets of small streams. Females excavate a 

nest, or “redd,” in the gravel and, after spawning, cover the eggs with gravel. After 

hatching, the fry remain in the gravels until their yolk sacs are absorbed. The fry then 

venture into open water, feeding on plankton and aquatic macroinvertebrates. As they 

mature, they begin to feed on aquatic and terrestrial insects, and large trout also feed on 

fish and crayfish. 

Brown trout are an introduced species in California, and occur mainly in low- to 

mid-elevation ranges. Brown trout spawn in the fall, although the specific spawning time 

is influenced by factors such as the genetic strain of the fish, water temperature, and 

period of daylight. Spawning usually occurs in gravel riffles or gravel pockets of small 

streams. Despite differences in timing, the spawning and rearing characteristics of brown 

trout are similar to rainbow trout. Brown trout can be found in tributaries, rivers, lakes, 

and reservoirs. Adults generally remain near the bottom of pools, while juveniles can be 

found in riffles as well as in pools. Brown trout prefer temperatures below 20°C, and 

have high growth rates at water temperatures between 12 and 20°C (Moyle, 2002). 

Brown trout compete with other trout species for resources. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-29 

Hardhead are a large, native minnow that is generally found in undisturbed areas 

of larger low- to middle-elevation streams (elevation between 30 to 4,760 feet in the 

Sacramento and San Joaquin watersheds). Its range extends from the Kern River in the 

south to the Pit River in the north. Hardhead inhabit areas that have clear, deep pools 

with sandy, gravel/boulder substrates and slow water velocities (less than 0.05 

feet/second). Hardhead co-occur with Sacramento pikeminnow and usually with 

Sacramento suckers, and tend to be absent from streams where introduced species, 

especially centrarchids, predominate. Hardhead have been identified in Ponderosa 

reservoir through fish population surveys and in the SFFR immediately above Ponderosa 

reservoir. Adults spawn and juveniles rear in the Forbestown bypassed reach, but they 

have not been documented upstream of the fish migration barrier 1.8 miles upstream of 

Ponderosa reservoir. 

Chinook salmon (both fall- and spring-run) were historically abundant in the 

Feather River watershed prior to the start of construction of Oroville dam in 1961. 

Winter-run Chinook salmon were not known to occur in the Feather River watershed. 

Fall-run Chinook salmon were less abundant and less widely distributed than the springrun, and spawned primarily in the mainstem river. Spring-run Chinook salmon ascended 

all four branches of the Feather River (West Branch, North Fork, Middle Fork, and South 

Fork) above Oroville, with the longest migrations up the North Fork. Spring-run 

Chinook salmon migrations up the SFFR were limited by low summer flows caused by 

water diversions at the Forbestown and Palermo canals. Yoshiyama et al. (2001) states: 

“Before the diversions of the stream, spring-run salmon may have ascended to the 

vicinity of Forbestown, near the present upper limit of the South Fork arm of Lake 

Oroville.” However, the historic distribution of anadromous fish in the SFFR may have 

been extended by a fish ladder and impoundment at Enterprise dam (prior to filling of 

Lake Oroville), which could have provided access for anadromous fishes as far upstream 

as the natural barriers documented by Chandler (1952). This estimate is corroborated by 

observation of an anadromous fish (steelhead or salmon) in the SFFR about 1 mile 

downstream of Carlysle Mine, near the current Ponderosa dam (Chandler, 1952). 

Prior to construction of Oroville dam, Cal Fish & Game surveyed the SFFR in 

connection with its recommendations regarding construction of the South Feather Power 

Project (Chandler, 1952). The purpose of the survey was to establish the upstream extent 

of anadromous fish use. A pedestrian survey of the reach identified two barriers: a low 

flow barrier (cascade with an 8 foot drop) about 1.1 miles upstream of Ponderosa 

reservoir’s current normal maximum water surface elevation, and a main barrier about 

2.05 miles upstream of Ponderosa reservoir’s normal maximum water surface elevation. 

The main barrier was reported as “about 15 feet high” with a deep pool at the base. 

Chandler noted that heavy mining occurred throughout the SFFR and patches of gravel 

were uncommon, particularly between Ponderosa reservoir and the lower migration 

barrier. Based on available spawning habitat, Cal Fish & Game personnel estimated that 

approximately 26 spawning pairs of salmon could be accommodated below and 130 pairs 

could be accommodated above the lower barrier (Chandler, 1952). 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-30 

Benthic Macroinvertebrates 

During sampling conducted at three locations in SFFR during fall 1986, a total of 

43 invertebrate groups and subgroups of six different taxa were identified (most often to 

genus). Insects comprised 39 of 43 groups, with typical mountain stream insects such as 

mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, and midges dominant. Other invertebrates included 

oligochaetes, nematodes, crustaceans, and gastropods. Invertebrate densities were 27 to 

283 organisms per square-foot. The diversity and densities of invertebrates were similar 

in all SFFR sample sections and were slightly lower than in less developed streams, but 

are not atypical for a developed Sierra Nevada stream like the SFFR. South Feather did 

not find the two special-status aquatic macroinvertebrates that have a potential to occur in 

the project area (the amphibious and golden-horned caddisflies, both federal species of 

concern). Neither of these species has been documented to occur in the project area. 

Reservoir Fish 

In total, 16 different species (not including trout hybrids) have been documented 

in project reservoirs (table 3-9). During sampling conducted in the fall of 2004, South 

Feather observed 12 species in the reservoirs, including three species (California roach, 

carp, and speckled dace) that had not been previously documented. Four species 

(channel catfish, golden shiner, hitch, and tui chub) that were observed in project 

reservoirs historically were not observed during the 2004 surveys. 

Table 3-9. Fish species documented in the South Feather Power Project reservoirs. a 

Species 

Little Grass Valley 

Reservoir 

Ponderosa 

Reservoir 

Sly Creek 

Reservoir 

Lost Creek 

Reservoir 

Brown bullhead ●○ 

Brown trout ●○ ●○ ●○ ●○

California roach ○ ○

Carp ○

Channel catfish ● ● 

Golden shiner ● ● 

Green sunfish ●○ 

Hardhead ●○ 

Hitch ● 

Kokanee ○ ● 

Rainbow trout ●○ ● ●○ ●○

Sacramento 

pikeminnow 

●○ 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-31 

Species 

Little Grass Valley 

Reservoir 

Ponderosa 

Reservoir 

Sly Creek 

Reservoir 

Lost Creek 

Reservoir 

Sacramento sucker ●○ 

Smallmouth bass ○ ●○ 

Speckled dace ○ 

Trout hybrids ● ● 

Tui chub ● 

a ● Species documented during 2004 surveys. 

○ Species documented historically. 

Little Grass Valley Reservoir. Historically, brown trout, rainbow trout, brown 

bullhead, and golden shiner have been documented in Little Grass Valley reservoir. 

Species captured in 2004 that had not been previously documented included kokanee and 

smallmouth bass. Rainbow trout and brown trout were the more abundant species, 

representing 54 percent of the total catch. Both species were distributed evenly around 

the reservoir and were captured in both shallow and deeper waters (from near-surface, to 

100-foot depth). Brown bullhead was captured almost entirely within two nets along the 

north shore of the reservoir and within approximately 1 mile of the SFFR inflow. 

Smallmouth bass were captured almost entirely along the north shore of the reservoir 

within 1 mile of the Black Rock Creek and the SFFR inflows. All trout, kokanee, and 

smallmouth bass captured were adults. Brown bullhead was the only species captured as 

both juveniles and adults. 

Sly Creek Reservoir. Historically, brown trout, channel catfish, golden shiner, 

green sunfish, hitch, kokanee, rainbow trout, and tui chub have been documented in the 

reservoir. In 2004, brown trout, green sunfish, and rainbow trout were again captured. In 

addition, California roach and speckled dace were also documented in the reservoir. 

Historical reports of channel catfish, golden shiner, hitch, kokanee, and tui chub in Sly 

Creek reservoir were not confirmed by the capture of any of those species in the 2004 

survey. California roach was the most abundant species, representing 72 percent of the 

total catch followed by brown trout which represented 12 percent of the captured fish. 

California roach and green sunfish were evenly distributed in shallow waters around the 

reservoir. Brown trout and rainbow trout were evenly distributed in both shallow and 

deeper waters around the reservoir (from near surface to 100-foot depths). Only a single 

speckled dace was captured in 2004. All brown trout and speckled dace captured and the 

majority of rainbow trout captured were adults. California roach were captured as both 

juveniles and adults and green sunfish were captured only as juveniles. 

Lost Creek Reservoir. Brown trout and rainbow trout were historically 

documented in the reservoir. In addition to those species, California roach and carp were 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-32 

captured in the reservoir during the 2004 surveys. California roach was the most 

abundant species, representing 79 percent of the fish captured, followed by brown trout. 

Rainbow trout and California roach were captured only in shallow water habitats. Brown 

trout were evenly distributed around the reservoir in both deep and shallow waters (from 

near-surface to 50-foot depths). Brown trout and carp were all captured as adults. 

Rainbow trout and California roach were captured as both juveniles and adults. 

Ponderosa reservoir. Fish species that occur in Ponderosa reservoir include 

brown trout, rainbow trout, channel catfish, hardhead, Sacramento pikeminnow, 

Sacramento sucker, and smallmouth bass. During sampling in 1998 and 2001, 

Sacramento sucker was the dominant species captured followed by Sacramento 

pikeminnow, hardhead, brown trout, and smallmouth bass. In September 2004, 

Sacramento sucker was the dominant species, followed by hardhead. Hardhead, 

Sacramento pikeminnow, and smallmouth bass were distributed throughout the reservoir 

in both shallow and deeper waters. Only one brown trout was captured in the reservoir. 

With the exception of brown trout, both juveniles and adults of all species were captured. 

Miners Ranch Reservoir. South Feather states that it is unaware of any aquatic 

surveys in this reservoir, but expects fish populations to be similar to those in Ponderosa 

reservoir because of the hydrologic connection between the two reservoirs via Miners 

Ranch conduit. Fish species expected to occur include rainbow trout, brown trout, 

channel catfish, hardhead, Sacramento pikeminnow, Sacramento sucker, and smallmouth 

bass. Because the reservoir provides domestic water supply, it is closed to fishing. 

Stream Fish Populations 

During 2004-2006 surveys, South Feather looked at all project reaches and 

reference reaches with similar habitat characteristics selected for comparison of fish 

populations. During the 2004 to 2006 surveys, nine species were identified, including 

three (kokanee, smallmouth bass, and hitch) that were not previously documented. 

Rainbow and brown trout were the dominant species throughout most of the study area, 

and many sites within the study area were composed exclusively of trout. Trout were the 

only species observed in the upper reaches of the SFFR and in Lost Creek. Between the 

rainbow and brown trout populations, the dominant species has fluctuated over time 

throughout the study area. 

There is a natural upstream migration barrier about 1.8 miles upstream of 

Ponderosa reservoir that prevents many transitional and warmwater species from moving 

above this location. Below this barrier, the species composition expands to include more 

transitional zone species (including hardhead, Sacramento sucker, and Sacramento 

pikeminnow), several of which are presumed to migrate upstream from Ponderosa 

reservoir. The species composition in Slate Creek follows a similar pattern, with the fish 

composition in the upper elevations of Slate Creek includes rainbow trout and speckled 

dace, whereas the lower section of Slate Creek includes transition zone species as well as 

one warmwater species (smallmouth bass). The lower section of Slate Creek also 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-33 

contains migratory species from New Bullards Bar reservoir (including transition zone 

species and kokanee) which could migrate up to a natural upstream migration barrier 

located approximately 4.6 miles upstream of the North Yuba River confluence. 

The species distribution pattern observed in the project area follows the 

temperature regime of the study area. Trout generally dominated in most of the reaches, 

while transitional warmwater species dominated in the warmer downstream, lower 

elevation reaches. Water temperature at all sampling locations followed an overall 

seasonal pattern of generally rising temperatures from March through July, and generally 

decreasing temperatures from August through October. Between March and September 

2004, mean daily water temperatures increased from a range of 5 to 8°C at upper 

elevation sites to a range of 17 to 21°C at lower elevations. The mean daily temperature 

in the Lost Creek dam reach also increased downstream with the maximum daily 

temperature of 19.0°C recorded near the SFFR confluence in July. The species 

composition in Lost Creek was exclusively trout, with historical records including 

speckled dace and California roach. Within the Forbestown diversion dam reach water 

temperatures as high as 24.5°C were recorded just above Ponderosa reservoir, and this 

section of stream was composed primarily of transitional zone species such as hardhead 

and Sacramento pikeminnow. The mean daily temperature in the Slate Creek diversion 

dam reach reached a maximum mean daily temperature of 22.1°C in July near the lower 

end of the reach, and this lower section supports transitional zone species as well as warm 

water fish. 

SFFR – Trout Dominated Sites. The fish species composition in the SFFR was 

exclusively trout in the upper watershed, changing to transitional zone species (e.g., 

hardhead and Sacramento pikeminnow) in the lowermost portion of the river above 

Ponderosa reservoir. Trout-dominated reaches in the SFFR include the Little Grass 

Valley dam reach, the South Fork diversion dam reach, and the SFFR/Lost Creek reach. 

The Little Grass Valley dam reach extends 9.1 miles from the base of Little Grass 

Valley dam at elevation 4,842 feet msl, to the maximum water surface elevation of the 

South Fork diversion dam impoundment at elevation 3,557 feet msl. The reach has an 

average gradient of 2.7 percent. Boulder and cobble are the dominant substrate types, 

and South Feather’s habitat surveys indicated that spawning gravel is available in 

moderate amounts, occurring primarily in the middle portion of the reach. The 

abundance of LWD was estimated at 30 pieces per mile, with most of the larger pieces 

occurring in the lower and middle sections of the reach. One permanent fish migration 

barrier exists in the middle of the reach. 

The South Fork diversion dam reach extends 9.4 miles from the base of the South 

Fork diversion dam at elevation 3,499 feet msl to the confluence with Lost Creek at 

elevation 1,952 feet msl. The reach has an average gradient of 3.1 percent, boulder and 

cobble were the dominant substrate, and South Feather found that spawning gravel was 

less available in this reach than in any other reach in the study area. Most of the gravel 

occurred within the lower half of the reach. The majority of fish cover was provided by 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-34 

boulders. Ground mapping indicated a LWD frequency of 24.5 pieces per mile, with the 

majority of the larger pieces observed in the middle portion of the reach. One potential 

barrier to fish migration was identified in the lower section of the reach 

The SFFR/Lost Creek reach extends 1.0 mile from the Lost Creek confluence at an 

elevation of 1,952 feet msl to Forbestown reservoir at an elevation of 1,783 feet msl. The 

reach has an average gradient of 3.2 percent, is highly confined with boulder and bedrock 

bank substrate, and the majority of the reach was confined and shallow. Spawning gravel 

and fish cover analyses were not conducted for this short reach. LWD was observed at 

approximately two pieces per mile through aerial videography, although this method 

typically underestimates LWD frequency compared to ground mapping. No permanent 

fish barriers were observed during aerial videography mapping. 

The average trout biomass from 1993 to 2006 in the SFFR at trout dominated sites 

ranged from 27 to 90 pounds per acre, and the average number of catchable trout per mile 

ranged from 55 to 1,536 trout per mile. All sites in the four project reaches in the SFFR 

(Little Grass Valley dam, South Fork diversion dam, SFFR/Lost Creek, and Forbestown 

diversion dam) supported trout populations with a higher average trout biomass and 

density of catchable trout than other populations found in stream sections of similar size 

in the Sierra Nevada Mountains (24 pounds per acre observed by Gerstung, 1973). 

Forbestown Diversion Dam Reach. The Forbestown diversion dam reach is the 

5.5-mile-long section of the SFFR from the base of the Forbestown diversion dam at 

elevation 1,703 feet msl to the normal high water line of Ponderosa reservoir at elevation 

961feet msl. The reach has an average gradient of 2.6 percent. More than half of the 114 

pools surveyed in the reach were greater than 4 feet deep, and the dominant substrate 

types were boulder and bedrock. There was 190 square feet per mile of suitable 

spawning gravel, which was distributed throughout the reach in small patches. The 

majority of fish cover was provided by boulders; LWD was observed at a frequency of 12 

pieces per mile during ground mapping. The larger pieces of LWD were evenly 

distributed with pieces observed throughout the reach. Cascades formed three permanent 

barriers to upstream fish migration in this reach. All three cascades occurred in the lower 

half of the reach, with the lowermost barrier occurring 1.8 miles upstream from 

Ponderosa reservoir. 

Fish populations in the Forbestown diversion dam reach included transitional zone 

species (Sacramento pikeminnow, hardhead, and Sacramento sucker), hitch, and both 

rainbow and brown trout. Sacramento pikeminnow, hardhead, and Sacramento sucker 

were typically the numerically dominant species, and composition varied between years. 

Slate Creek Diversion Dam Reach. Slate Creek diversion dam reach extends 9.1 

miles from the base of the Slate Creek diversion at elevation 3,492 feet msl to the 

confluence with the North Yuba River at an elevation of 1,975 feet msl. Slate Creek has 

an average gradient of 3.3 percent, and boulder is the dominant substrate type. South 

Feather estimated that this reach contained 316 square feet of spawning gravel per mile, 

occurring primarily in the lower end of the reach. Most of the reach was shallow and 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-35 

confined with bedrock and gravel bank substrates. Cover suitable for fish was absent 

from most of the reach, and no significant quantities of LWD were mapped via aerial or 

ground mapping. The larger pieces of LWD that were mapped using aerial video were 

distributed evenly throughout the reach. The aerial video mapping identified two 

cascades that are potential barriers to fish migration. 

The fish species composition in Slate Creek consisted of rainbow trout and 

speckled dace in the upper watershed, changing to transitional zone (e.g., Sacramento 

pikeminnow) and warmwater species (e.g., smallmouth bass) in the lowest section of the 

river near the North Yuba River confluence. Average trout biomass from 1993 to 2005, 

at trout-dominated sites ranged from 24 to 28 pounds per acre, and the average number of 

catchable trout ranged from 248 to 304 trout per mile. 

Lost Creek Dam Reach. The Lost Creek dam reach is the 3.9-mile-long section of 

Lost Creek extending from the base of Lost Creek dam at elevation 3,170 feet msl to its 

confluence with the SFFR at elevation 1,952 feet msl. The river has an average gradient 

of 5.8 percent, and boulder and bedrock were the dominant substrates. The abundance of 

spawning gravel was estimated at 255 square feet per mile. Fish cover was not present in 

most of the reach, and LWD was documented at 5.7 pieces per mile. Two barriers to 

upstream fish migration were identified from ground mapping, with a third barrier 

identified elsewhere in the reach from the aerial video. 

Fish sampling indicated that the fish population in Lost Creek is exclusively trout. 

The average trout biomass from 1993 to 2005 ranged from 12 to 38 pounds per acre. 

Overall, the age class distribution of trout in the Lost Creek reference reach included 

moderate recruitment of YOY and a consistent low abundance of 1+ and 2+ age groups 

with few older age classes (3+ and older). Downstream of Lost Creek dam, there was a 

higher recruitment of YOY trout, yet still a low abundance of 1+ and 2+ age fish and 

fewer older age classes (3+ and older). The age class composition varied by year, 

showing lower recruitment in 1996 and 2005, and a high recruitment in 1999. 

3.3.2.2 Environmental Effects 

Minimum Flows 

Flow regulation at Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoirs and diversion of 

water to the project powerhouses affect aquatic biota and recreational opportunities in 

five riverine reaches. These reaches are the Little Grass Valley dam, South Fork 

diversion dam, and Forbestown diversion dam reaches of the SFFR, Slate Creek below 

the Slate Creek diversion, and Lost Creek below Lost Creek reservoir. 

In its final license application, South Feather proposed a minimum flow regime for 

each of the project reaches that varies by month for four water year types. In all cases the 

proposed flows are equal to or greater than the flows that are required in the current 

project license (tables 3-10 through 3-14). 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-36 

Cal Fish & Game filed a 10(j) recommendation and the Forest Service filed a 

preliminary 4(e) condition specifying seasonal flow regimes for each water year type for 

each reach. South Feather also filed an alternative 4(e) condition specifying minimum 

flows that were in many cases consistent with the Forest Service’s 4(e) flows, and in most 

other cases were intermediate between the flows proposed in the license application and 

the Forest Service’s 4(e) flows. All five of these flow regimes, including those included 

in the existing license, are provided in tables 3-10 through 3-14. South Feather’s 

proposed flows shown in these tables represent the mean daily flow. South Feather 

proposes that the instantaneous flow releases be allowed to deviate below the specified 

minimum flow releases by up to 10 percent or 3 cfs, whichever is less. The Forest 

Service specifies that the instantaneous flow be at lease 80 percent of the specified mean 

daily flow for minimum flows less than or equal to 10 cfs, and at least 90 percent of the 

specified mean daily flow for minimum flows greater than 10 cfs. Cal Fish & Game did 

not state whether any short-term deviations would be allowed from the minimum flows 

identified in their 10(j) recommendation. 

Cal Fish & Game also filed a 10(j) recommendation that water surface elevations 

at Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoirs be maintained as high as possible to 

protect beneficial uses of the reservoirs, while recognizing the need for protection of 

ecological resources, power production, and consumptive water supply. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-37

Table 3-10. Minimum flows proposed, specified, or recommended for the Little Grass Valley dam reac

Release from Little Grass Valley Dam (cfs) 

 Wet Above Normal Below Normal 

Month 

SF 

FLA 

SF alt 

4e FS 4e

DFG 

10j 

SF 

FLA 

SF alt 

4e FS 4e

DFG 

10j 

SF 

FLA 

SF alt 

4e FS 4e

DFG 

10j 

SF 

FLA 

October 10 15 19 10 10 10 10 10 10 6 November 10 15 19 10 10 10 10 10 10 6 

December 10 15 19 10 15 19 10 10 10 6 January 10 15 19 10 15 19 10 10 10 6 February 10 15 19 10 15 19 10 10 10 6 March 10 15 19 10 15 19 10 10 19 12 April 1-7 10 46 46 same 40 24 53 same 40 36 53 same 20 

April 8-14 10 73 73 as 40 24 53 as 40 36 53 as 20 

April 15-22 10 99 99 FS 40 24 53 FS 40 36 53 FS 20 

April 23-30 10 126 126 40 24 53 40 36 53 20 

May 1-15 10 126 126 40 48 126 40 15 70 24 May 16-31 10 126 126 40 36 53 40 15 70 24 June 10 36 53 18 24 53 18 10 36 6 July 10 15 19 10 15 15 10 10 15 6 August 10 15 19 10 10 10 10 10 10 6 September 10 15 19 10 10 10 10 10 10 6 

Notes: Shaded values are consistent with flows specified in the Forest Service’s preliminary 4(e) condition. 

The release requirement for the current license is 10 cfs from May 1 to October 31; 5 cfs November 1 to April 30 in Norma

and 5 cfs at all times in Dry years. Dry years are defined as 50 percent or less of average annual discharge of South Fo

(117,000 acre-feet). 
3-38

Table 3-11. Minimum flows proposed, specified, or recommended for South Fork diversion dam reach

Release from South Fork Diversion Dam (cfs) 

Wet Above Normal Below Normal 

Month 

SF 

FLA 

SF alt 

4e FS 4e 

DFG 

10j SF FLA

SF alt 

4e FS 4e

DFG 

10j 

SF 

FLA 

SF alt 

4e 

FS 

4e 

DFG 

10j 

SF 

FLA 

October 15 19 19 24 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 November 15 19 19 24 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 

December 15 19 19 24 10 19 19 24 10 10 10 10 5 January 15 19 19 24 10 19 19 24 10 10 10 10 5 February 15 19 19 24 10 19 19 24 10 10 10 10 5 March 15 19 19 24 20 19 19 24 10 19 19 24 12 

April 1-7 45 46 46 52 45 36 53 58 40 36 53 58 20 April 8-14 45 73 73 80 45 36 53 58 40 36 53 58 20 April 15-16 45 99 99 108 45 36 53 58 40 36 53 58 20 April 17-22 45 126 99 108 45 36 53 58 40 36 53 58 20 April 23-30 45 126 126 137 45 36 53 58 40 36 53 58 20 May 1-15 27 126 126 137 45 73 126 137 40 28 70 89 20 May 16-31 27 126 126 137 45 53 53 58 40 28 70 89 20 June 27 53 53 58 25 35 53 58 18 20 36 41 5 July 15 19 19 24 15 15 15 15 10 15 15 15 5 

August 15 19 19 24 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 September 15 19 19 24 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 

Notes: Shaded values are consistent with flows specified in the Forest Service’s preliminary 4(e) condition. 

The release requirement for the current license is 10 cfs from May 1 to October 31; 5 cfs Nov 1 to April 30 in Normal and 

cfs at all times in Dry years. Dry years are defined as 50 percent or less of average annual discharge of the South Fork 

acre-feet). 
3-39

Table 3-12. Minimum flows proposed, specified, or recommended for Slate Creek diversion dam reach

Release from Slate Creek Diversion Dam (cfs) 

Wet Above Normal Below Normal 

Month

SF 

FLA 

SF alt 

4e FS 4e 

DFG 

10j 

SF 

FLA 

SF alt 

4e FS 4e

DFG 

10j 

SF 

FLA 

SF alt 

4e FS 4e DFG 10j

SF 

FLA 

S

October 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 November 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 

December 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 January 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 February 10 10 10 same 10 10 10 same 10 10 10 same 10 

March 10 49a 49a as 10 49a 49a as 10 49a 49a as 10 

April 10 32 32 FS 10 32 32 FS 10 32 32 FS 10 

May 10 32 32 10 32 32 20 32 32 12 

June 10 10 10 25 10 10 25 10 10 10 July 30 10 10 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 August 18 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 September 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 

a The Forest Service states 49 cfs or outlet capacity, whichever is less. DFG does not include capacity 

Notes: Shaded values are consistent with flows specified in the Forest Service’s preliminary 4(e) conditThe release requirement for the current license is 10 cfs year-round or natural inflow, whichever is less. 
3-40

Table 3-13. Minimum flows proposed, specified, or recommended for Forbestown diversion dam reach

Release from Forbestown Diversion Dam (cfs) 

 Wet Above Normal Below Normal 

Month 

SF 

FLA 

SF 

alt 4e 

FS 

4e 

DFG 

10j 

SF 

FLA 

SF 

alt 

4e 

FS 

4e 

DFG 

10j 

SF 

FLA 

SF 

alt 

4e 

FS 

4e 

DFG 

10j 

SF 

FLA 

October 20 19 19 24 18 10 10 24 10 10 10 10 5 November 20 19 19 24 18 10 10 24 10 10 10 10 5 

December 5 19 19 24 5 19 19 24 5 10 10 10 5 January 5 19 19 24 5 19 19 24 5 10 10 10 5 February 5 19 19 24 5 19 19 24 5 10 10 10 5 March 5 19 19 24 5 19 19 24 5 19 19 24 5 

April 1-7 5 46 46 52 10 36 53 68 5 36 53 58 5 April 8-14 5 73 73 80 10 36 53 68 5 36 53 58 5 April 15-22 5 99 99 108 10 36 53 68 5 36 53 58 5 April 23-30 5 126 126 138 10 36 53 68 5 36 53 58 5 May 1-15 10 126 126 138 10 73 126 138 28 28 70 68 5 May 16-31 10 126 126 138 10 53 53 58 28 28 70 68 5 June 10 53 53 58 10 35 53 58 28 20 36 41 5 July 24 19 19 30 25 15 15 30 18 15 15 24 5 August 24 19 19 24 18 10 10 24 12 10 10 13 5 September 20 19 19 24 18 10 10 24 10 10 10 10 5 

Notes: Shaded values are consistent with flows specified in the Forest Service’s preliminary 4(e) conditThe release requirement for the current license is 10 cfs from May 1 through October 31; 5 cfs Novembe

and 5 cfs at all times in Dry water years. Dry years are defined as 50 percent or less of average annu

South Fork Feather River (117,000 acre-feet). 
3-41

Table 3-14. Minimum flows proposed, specified, or recommended for Lost Creek dam reach. (Source

Release from Lost Creek Reservoir Dam (cfs) 

Wet Above Normal Below Normal 

Month 

SF 

FLA 

SF 

alt 

4e 

FS 

4e 

DFG 

10j 

SF 

FLA 

SF 

alt 

4e 

FS 

4e 

DFG 

10j 

SF 

FLA 

SF 

alt 

4e 

FS 

4e 

DFG 

10j 

SF 

FLA 

October 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 November 5 8 8 5 8 8 8 5 8 8 8 5 December 5 8 8 5 8 8 8 5 8 8 8 5 January 5 8 8 5 8 8 8 5 8 8 8 5 February 5 20 35 same 5 20 28 35 5 16 20 28 5 March 5 45 75 as 5 45 60 75 5 40 45 55 5 April 8 30 35 FS 8 30 33 35 8 25 30 33 8 May 8 20 30 8 20 25 30 8 20 20 25 8 June 8 16 20 8 16 18 20 8 12 16 18 8 July 8 8 10 8 8 9 10 8 8 8 10 8 August 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 September 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 

Notes: Shaded values are consistent with flows specified in the Forest Service’s preliminary 4(e) conditThe release requirement for the current license is 8 cfs from April 1 through October 31 and 5 cfs from N

March 31. 
 3-42 

Our Analysis 

To develop the flows proposed in their license application, South Feather 

used a process that included establishing a target habitat value based on fish 

population studies, determining an initial flow to achieve the target habitat value 

based on habitat time series analysis,11 and refining the flow proposal as necessary 

based on the results of other studies. The process involved the following steps: 

1. Evaluating the health of the trout population in each reach to 

determine whether the population meets certain criteria to be 

classified as being “healthy” or “robust.” A healthy trout population 

was defined as having (1) average biomass levels at or above 

regional and watershed reference levels; (2) appropriate age class 

distributions indicating reproductive success; (3) average condition 

factors near 1.00; (4) appropriate species composition for the 

elevation and thermal regime of the area; and (5) no indication of 

project-related limiting factors. A robust trout population was 

defined as meeting the healthy criteria, and also having long-term 

average trout biomass levels greater than 20 percent above regional 

and watershed reference levels. 

2. In reaches where trout populations were considered to be robust, 

South Feather developed an initial minimum flow regime based on a 

habitat time series analysis with a goal of maintaining 100 percent of 

the habitat available under current operation, and at least 70 percent 

of the synthesized unregulated12 habitat for Below Normal, Above 

Normal, and Wet water year types for all trout life stages during the 

primary fish reproduction, activity, and growth season (April 

through November). South Feather developed an initial minimum 

flow regime during the cold winter period (December through 

March) with a goal of maintaining 100 percent of the habitat 

available under current operation, and at least 60 percent of the 

synthesized unregulated habitat for all water years, months, and life 

stages. 

3. In reaches where trout populations are healthy, South Feather 

developed an initial minimum flow regime based on the habitat time 

series analysis with a goal of maintaining 100 percent of the habitat 

 

11A habitat time-series analysis compares the availability of physical habitat 

over time using the FWS physical habitat simulation model model. 

12We used the term “unregulated habitat” to represent the amount of habitat 

that would occur without the influence of South Feather Power Project operations. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-43 

available under current operation year-round, and at least 75 percent 

of the synthesized unregulated habitat for Below Normal, Above 

Normal, and Wet water year types and all life stages in the spring 

through fall (April through November) and 60 percent during the 

cold winter period (December through March). 

4. Where trout populations were not healthy and/or indicated 

potentially significant effects of continued project O&M, South 

Feather developed an initial minimum flow regime based on the 

habitat time series analysis with a goal of maintaining 100 percent of 

the habitat available under current operation, and at least 80 percent 

of the synthesized unregulated habitat for April through November 

of Below Normal, Above Normal, and Wet water year types, and 60 

percent of synthesized unregulated habitat for December through 

March. 

5. In Dry water year types, South Feather developed an initial 

minimum flow regime based on the habitat time series analysis with 

a goal of maintaining 100 percent of the habitat available under 

current operation year-round, and at least 60 percent of the 

synthesized unregulated habitat year-round for all life stages. 

6. After developing the initial flow regime as described in steps 1 

through 5 above, South Feather determined whether any water 

quality issues (e.g., fine sediment deposition, excessive algae 

growth, toxicity concerns) occur in the reach that could be addressed 

by changes in the base flow regime. 

7. South Feather then assessed whether the results of the aquatic 

bioassessment study13 indicate problems in the reach with aquatic 

ecosystem health that may be flow-related. 

8. South Feather then considered whether water temperature in the 

reach is suitable for the management of special-status species. 

9. South Feather then assessed whether the flow regime developed 

through step 8 would be appropriate for FYLF breeding and rearing. 

10.Finally, South Feather made minor refinements to the initial flow 

regime in order to address the following issues: (1) limited access to 

project facilities in the winter, which necessitates minimal flow 

 

13The aquatic bioassessment study was designed to test the hypothesis that 

continued project O&M would affect the aquatic ecosystem and habitat in project 

reaches as reflected by the distribution and composition of the benthic 

macroinvertebrate community in riffle habitat. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-44 

adjustment during that period; (2) limiting minor or frequent 

monthly changes in minimum flows when they are unlikely to be 

biologically significant, and would unnecessarily increase the 

operational cost and complication of minimum flow compliance; (3) 

maintaining hydrologic feasibility (i.e., ensuring adequate flow 

volume from upstream reaches is available for minimum flows in 

downstream reaches); and (4) generally smoothing the minimum 

flow hydrograph to eliminate small flow variations that are likely a 

statistical artifact of the hydrologic record used in the habitat time 

series model. 

The final flow regime developed through this process and proposed by 

South Feather in its license application is shown in table 3-15, which also indicates 

the basis for any final refinements that were made to reflect the operational and 

hydrologic constraints or to smooth out minor variations that were considered 

statistical artifacts of the analysis (step 10, described above). As noted in this 

table, the flows proposed for Lost Creek were selected to be consistent with flows 

specified by the Commission in a 1997 order, which were based on an instream 

flow study conducted in 1992. 

Table 3-15. Minimum flows proposed by South Feather in its final license 

application, showing flows that were adjusted (in parentheses) to 

reflect operational and hydrological constraints or to smooth out 

minor variations. (Source: South Feather, 2007) 

Month 

Dry 

Year 

Below 

Normal 

Year 

Above 

Normal 

Year 

Wet 

Year Notes 

Little Grass Valley Dam Reach 

May 24 40(34) 40(18) 10 Initial Below Normal and Above 

Normal flows increased to meet 

downstream flow requirements 

June 6(5) 18(10) 18 10 Initial Dry Year flow increased to 

be consistent with winter flows. 

Initial Below Normal flow 

increased to meet downstream 

flow requirements 

July 6(5) 10 10 Initial Dry Year flow increased to 

be consistent with winter flows 

August 6(5) 10 10 10 Initial Dry Year flow increased to 

be consistent with winter flows 

September 6(5) 10 10 10 Initial Dry Year flow increased to 

be consistent with winter flows 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-45 

Month 

Dry 

Year 

Below 

Normal 

Year 

Above 

Normal 

Year 

Wet 

Year Notes 

October 6(5) 10 10 10 Initial Dry Year flow increased to 

be consistent with winter flows 

November 6(5) 10(5) 10 10(5) Initial Dry Year flow increased to 

be consistent with winter flows; 

initial Below Normal and Wet 

Year flows increased to meet 

downstream flow requirements 

December 6 10(5) 10 10(5) Initial Below Normal and Wet 

Year flows increased to meet 

downstream flow requirements 

and accommodate winter access 

constraints 

January 6(5) 10(5) 10 10(5) Initial Dry, Below Normal, and 

Wet Year flows increased and 

made equal to adjacent months 

due to winter operational 

constraints and downstream flow 

requirements 

February 6(5) 10(5) 10 10(5) Initial Dry, Below Normal, and 

Wet Year flows increased and 

made equal to adjacent months 

due to winter operational 

constraints and downstream flow 

requirements 

March 12(5) 10(5) 10 10(5) Initial Dry, Below Normal, and 

Wet Year flows increased and 

made equal to adjacent months 

due to winter operational 

constraints and downstream flow 

requirements 

April 20(5) 40(5) 40(18) 10(5) Initial flows increased to meet 

downstream flow requirements 

South Fork Diversion Dam Reach 

May 20 40 45 27 

June 5 18 25 27 

July 5 10 15 27(23) Initial Wet Year flow increased to 

be consistent with earlier summer 

flows 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-46 

Month 

Dry 

Year 

Below 

Normal 

Year 

Above 

Normal 

Year 

Wet 

Year Notes 

August 5 10 10 15(10) Initial Wet Year flow increased to 

be consistent with subsequent 

winter flows 

September 5 10 10 15(10) Initial Wet Year flow increased to 

be consistent with subsequent 

winter flows 

October 5 10 10 15(10) Initial Wet Year flow increased to 

be consistent with subsequent 

winter flows 

November 5 10(15) 10(12) 15 Initial Below Normal and Above 

Normal Year flows reduced and 

made equal to adjacent months 

due to winter access constraints 

December 5(10) 10 10 15 Initial Dry Year flow reduced and 

made equal to adjacent months 

due to winter access constraints 

January 5 10 10 15 

February 5(12) 10(5) 10(15) 15(5) Initial Wet Year and Below 

Normal Year flows increased, and 

Below Normal Year and Dry Year 

flow decreased, to be consistent 

with earlier winter flows and 

accommodate winter access 

constraints 

March 12 10(15) 20 15(5) Initial Wet Year flows increased, 

and Below Normal Year flow 

decreased, to be consistent with 

earlier winter flows 

April 20 40 45 45(42) Initial Wet Year flow increased to 

be consistent with Above Normal 

Year 

Forbestown Diversion Dam Reach 

May 5 28(22) 10 10 Initial Below Normal Year flow 

increased to be consistent with 

following month 

June 5 28 10 10 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-47 

Month 

Dry 

Year 

Below 

Normal 

Year 

Above 

Normal 

Year 

Wet 

Year Notes 

July 5 18 25 24 Wet Year flow of 24 cfs based on 

IWUA targets and water 

temperature for hardhead 

August 5 12 18 24 Wet Year flow of 24 cfs based on 

IWUA targets and water 

temperature for hardhead 

September 5 10 18(15) 20 Initial Above Normal Year flow 

increased to be consistent with 

August flows 

October 5 10 18(10) 20 Initial Above Normal Year flow 

increased to be consistent with 

August flows 

November 5 10(17) 18(16) 20(10) Initial Above Normal Year flow 

increased to be consistent with 

August flows; initial Below 

Normal Year flow reduced and 

Wet Year flow increased to be 

consistent with adjacent months 

December 5 5 5 5 

January 5 5 5 5 

February 5 5 5 5 

March 5 5 5 5 

April 5 5 10(8) 5 Initial Above Normal Year flow 

increased to be consistent with 

remainder of spring flows 

Lost Creek Dam Reach 

May 8 8 8 8 

June 8 8 8 8 

July 8 8 8 8 

August 8 8 8 8 

September 8 8 8 8 

October 8 8 8 8 

November 5 5 5 5 

December 5 5 5 5 

Consistent with recent FERCmandated Lost Creek flow regime 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-48 

Month 

Dry 

Year 

Below 

Normal 

Year 

Above 

Normal 

Year 

Wet 

Year Notes 

January 5 5 5 5 

February 5 5 5 5 

March 5 5 5 5 

April 8 8 8 8 

Slate Creek Diversion Dam Reach

May 12a

 20 10a 10a 

June 10a 25a 25a(26) 10a Above Normal Year flow reduced 

to be consistent with Below 

Normal Year 

July 10a 10a(12) 20a 30 Below Normal Year flow reduced 

to be consistent with remainder of 

summer 

August 10a 10a 10a 18a 

September 10a 10a 10a 10a 

October 10a

 10a 10a 10a 

November 10a 10a(15) 10a(12) 10a Below Normal Year and Above 

Normal Year flows reduced to be 

consistent with surrounding 

months 

December 10a

 10a 10a 10a 

January 10a 10a 10a 10a 

February 10a

 10a 10a 10a 

March 10a

 10a 10a 10a 

April 10a

 10a 10a 10a Above Normal Year flow reduced 

to be consistent with other year 

types 

a

 The stipulated numeric flow, or natural inflow to the impoundment, whichever 

is less. 

South Feather’s approach to developing the seasonal flow regimes 

proposed in the final license application ensured that its proposed flows would, at 

minimum, maintain at least 100 percent of the trout habitat that is available under 

current operation and 70 percent of unregulated habitat in each month for each 

water year type, while taking into account the needs of special status aquatic 

species. The more stringent criteria of 75 percent and 80 percent of unregulated 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-49 

habitat that were applied to reaches where trout populations were not considered to 

be robust would provide additional enhancement in reaches where trout 

populations have the greatest potential to benefit from increases in streamflow. 

Based on observations that most salmonids are inactive and move into sheltered 

areas when winter water temperatures drop below roughly 5 to 8°C (Bjornn and 

Reiser, 1991), the less stringent criteria (60 percent of unregulated habitat) applied 

by South Feather during the winter months should not limit trout populations. 

The minimum mean daily flows specified by the Forest Service, shown in 

tables 3-10 through 3-14, are generally similar to or higher than South Feather’s 

proposed flows during the fall and winter months, but are generally higher than 

South Feather’s proposed flows during the spring and summer in most reaches. 

The process that Forest Service used to develop its flow regimes appears to be 

somewhat more qualitative than the approach used by South Feather, and its filing 

does not provide a specific justification or methodology used to determine the 

flows specified for each reach, month, and water year type. Differences in the 

approach used by the Forest Service include the use of a wetted perimeter 

approach to determine minimum streamflows during the summer months in most 

reaches, attempting to achieve to 100 percent of the maximum WUA for rainbow 

trout spawning and rearing habitat in the spring and summer, and not taking 

accretion flows that occur over the length of each reach into account. The Forest 

Service 4(e) condition also requires that the minimum instantaneous streamflow be 

at least 80 percent of the specified mean daily flow. 

Flows recommended by Cal Fish & Game (see tables 3-10 through 3-14) 

are the same as the Forest Service-specified flows in the Little Grass Valley reach 

and in Slate Creek, and are generally similar to the Forest Service-specified flows 

during the fall and winter at the other reaches. In its filing, Cal Fish & Game 

indicated its intent to provide a detailed justification statement to support its 

recommendations, but this justification statement has not been filed with the 

Commission as of the time that this document was prepared. 

South Feather filed two alternative 4(e) conditions, including an alternative 

to the minimum flows specified by the Forest Service (shown in tables 3-10 

through 3-14). The alternative 4(e) flows are in most cases higher than the flows 

proposed in South Feather’s license application, and in many months and water 

year types are the same as the Forest Service-specified flows. 

We focus our evaluation of the effects of these alternative flow regimes on 

habitat for adult rainbow trout, because habitat availability for this lifestage during 

low flows in summer limits trout population size in most streams. Studies 

conducted by South Feather assessed the effects of a range of flows in each reach 

using the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology, which provides a metric of 

habitat availability known as Weighted Useable Area (WUA). Tables 3-16 

through 3-20 show the amount of adult rainbow trout habitat that would be 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-50

Table 3-16. Percent of maximum WUA for adult rainbow trout under five flow regimes in the Little G

reach. (Source: Staff) 

Percent of maximum WUA – adult rainbow trout 

 Wet Above Normal Below Normal 

Month 

SF 

FLA 

SF alt 

4e FS 4e

DFG 

10j 

SF 

FLA

SF alt 

4e FS 4e

DFG 

10j 

SF 

FLA 

SF alt 

4e FS 4e

DFG 

10j 

SF 

FLA 

October 22 31 38 38 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 15 November 22 31 38 38 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 15 December 22 31 38 38 22 31 38 38 22 22 22 22 15 January 22 31 38 38 22 31 38 38 22 22 22 22 15 February 22 31 38 38 22 31 38 38 22 22 22 22 15 March 22 31 38 38 22 31 38 38 22 22 38 38 26 April 1-7 22 73 73 73 66 46 79 79 66 61 79 79 40 April 8-14 22 93 93 93 66 46 79 79 66 61 79 79 40 April 15-22 22 99 99 99 66 46 79 79 66 61 79 79 40 April 23-30 22 100 100 100 66 46 79 79 66 61 79 79 40 May 1-15 22 100 100 100 66 75 100 100 66 31 92 92 46 May 16-31 22 100 100 100 66 61 79 79 66 31 92 92 46 June 22 61 79 79 36 46 79 79 36 22 61 61 15 July 22 31 38 38 22 31 31 31 22 22 31 31 15 August 22 31 38 38 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 15 September 22 31 38 38 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 15 Note: Shaded values indicate that flows are consistent with flows specified in the Forest Service’s prelim

condition. 
3-51

Table 3-17. Percent of maximum WUA for adult rainbow trout under five flow regimes in the South F

reach. (Source: Staff) 

Percent of maximum WUA – adult rainbow trout 

Wet Above Normal Below Normal 

Month 

SF 

FLA 

SF 

alt 4e FS 4e 

DFG 

10j 

SF 

FLA 

SF 

alt 4e

FS 

4e 

DFG 

10j 

SF 

FLA 

SF 

alt 4e

FS 

4e 

DFG 

10j 

SF 

FLA 

October 50 58 58 65 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 26 November 50 58 58 65 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 26 

December 50 58 58 65 39 58 58 65 39 39 39 39 26 January 50 58 58 65 39 58 58 65 39 39 39 39 26 February 50 58 58 65 39 58 58 65 39 39 39 39 26 March 50 58 58 65 51 58 58 65 39 58 58 65 44 

April 1-7 84 84 84 87 84 77 88 90 80 77 88 65 59 April 8-14 84 96 96 99 84 77 88 90 80 77 88 65 59 April 15-16 84 100a 100a 100a 84 77 88 90 80 77 88 65 59 April 17-22 84 100a 100a 100a 84 77 88 90 80 77 88 65 59 April 23-30 84 100a 100a 100a 84 77 88 90 80 77 88 65 59 May 1-15 69 100a 100a 100a 84 96 100a 100a 80 70 95 100 59 May 16-31 69 100a 100a 100a 84 88 88 90 80 70 95 100 59 June 69 88 88 90 66 76 88 90 56 59 77 81 26 July 50 58 58 65 50 50 50 50 39 50 50 50 26 

August 50 58 58 65 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 September 50 58 58 65 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 

Note: Shaded values indicate that flows are consistent with flows specified in the Forest Service’s preliminary 4(e) conditia Extrapolated from maximum flow modeled (90 cfs). 
3-52

Table 3-18. Percent of maximum WUA for adult rainbow trout under five flow regimes in the Slate Cr

reach. (Source: Staff) 

Percent of maximum WUA – adult rainbow trout 

Wet Above Normal Below Normal 

Month

SF 

FLA 

SF 

alt 

4e 

FS 

4e 

DFG 

10j 

SF 

FLA 

SF 

alt 

4e 

FS 

4e 

DFG 

10j 

SF 

FLA 

SF 

alt 

4e 

FS 

4e 

DFG 

10j 

SF 

FLA 

October 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 November 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 December 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 January 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 February 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 March 34 80 80 80 34 80 80 80 34 80 80 80 34 April 34 67 67 67 34 67 67 67 34 67 67 67 34 May 34 67 67 67 34 67 67 67 50 67 67 67 37 June 34 34 34 34 58 34 34 34 58 34 34 34 34 July 65 34 34 34 50 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 August 47 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 September 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 Note: Shaded values indicate that flows are consistent with flows specified in the Forest Service’s preliminary 4(e) conditi
3-53

Table 3-19. Percent of maximum WUA for adult rainbow trout under five flow regimes in the Forbesto

reach. (Source: Staff) 

Percent of maximum WUA – adult rainbow trout

 Wet Above Normal Below Normal 

Month 

SF 

FLA 

SF alt 

4e 

FS 

4e 

DFG 

10j 

SF 

FLA 

SF 

alt 

4e 

FS 

4e 

DFG 

10j 

SF 

FLA 

SF 

alt 

4e 

FS 

4e 

DFG 

10j 

SF 

FLA 

October 60 58 58 66 57 42 42 66 42 42 42 42 29 November 60 58 58 66 57 42 42 66 42 42 42 42 29 December 29 58 58 66 29 58 58 66 29 42 42 42 29 January 29 58 58 66 29 58 58 66 29 42 42 42 29 February 29 58 58 66 29 58 58 66 29 42 42 42 29 March 29 58 58 66 29 58 58 66 29 58 58 66 29 April 1-7 29 84 84 87 42 78 88 93 29 78 88 90 29 April 8-14 29 94 94 96 42 78 88 93 29 78 88 90 29 April 15-22 29 99 99 99 42 78 88 93 29 78 88 90 29 April 23-30 29 100 100 100 42 78 88 93 29 78 88 90 29 May 1-15 42 100 100 100 42 74 100 100 71 71 94 93 29 May 16-31 42 100 100 100 42 88 88 90 71 71 94 93 29 June 42 88 88 90 42 77 88 90 71 60 78 81 29 July 66 58 58 73 67 52 52 73 57 52 52 66 29 August 66 58 58 66 57 42 42 66 46 42 42 48 29 September 60 58 58 66 57 42 42 66 42 42 42 42 29 Note: Shaded values indicate that flows are consistent with flows specified in the Forest Service’s preliminary 4(e) conditi
3-54

Table 3-20. Percent of maximum WUA for adult rainbow trout under five flow regimes in the Lost Cr

(Source: Staff) 

Percent of maximum WUA – adult rainbow trout 

Wet Above Normal Below Normal 

Month 

SF 

FLA 

SF 

alt 

4e 

FS 

4e 

DFG 

10j 

SF 

FLA 

SF 

alt 

4e 

FS 

4e 

DFG 

10j 

SF 

FLA 

SF 

alt 

4e 

FS 

4e 

DFG 

10j 

SF 

FLA 

October 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 

November 16 27 27 27 16 27 27 27 16 27 27 27 16 December 16 27 27 27 16 27 27 27 16 27 27 27 16 January 16 27 27 27 16 27 27 27 16 27 27 27 16 February 16 58 80 80 16 58 71 80 16 49 58 71 16 March 16 89 100 100 16 89 97 100 16 85 89 95 16 April 27 74 80 80 27 74 77 80 27 66 74 77 27 May 27 58 74 74 27 58 66 74 27 58 58 66 27 June 27 49 58 58 27 49 54 58 27 38 49 54 27 July 27 27 34 34 27 27 30 34 27 27 34 34 27 August 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 September 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 Note: Shaded values indicate that flows are consistent with flows specified in the Forest Service’s preliminary 4(e) conditi
 3-55 

available under each flow proposal, expressed as the percentage of the maximum WUA 

value that was simulated over the entire range of flows that was modeled. This analysis 

indicates that in all five reaches, the higher flows included in South Feather’s alternative 

4(e) condition typically provide substantial increases in the amount of habitat for adult 

rainbow trout compared to the flows that were proposed in the license application, while 

habitat gains for the higher flows specified by the Forest Service and recommended by 

Cal Fish & Game generally provide only minor additional increases in habitat. 

South Feather’s filing of its alternative 4(e) condition included an evaluation of the 

effects of the Forest Service preliminary 4(e) flows and of their alternative 4(e) flows on 

rainbow trout WUA compared to unregulated flows in each of the three South Feather 

reaches (tables 3-21 through 3-23). The results indicate that both sets of flows result in 

substantial increases in WUA over unregulated conditions for juvenile, adult and 

spawning trout in the Little Grass Valley dam reach, for spawning in the South Fork 

diversion dam reach, and for fry, juvenile and spawning trout in the Forbestown diversion 

dam reach. For other lifestages, both flow regimes provide WUA levels that are between 

80 and 100 percent of the WUA that would occur under unregulated flow conditions. 

Differences in the amount of WUA provided under the two flow regimes are relatively 

small, with the alternative 4(e) flows providing slightly more WUA for fry and somewhat 

less WUA for juvenile, adult and spawning lifestages (tables 3-21 through 3-23). 

South Feather’s analysis of WUA provided in the Lost Creek reach was based on 

an earlier instream flow study, and the results are presented as the percentage of 

maximum WUA over the full range of modeled flows. When WUA was averaged over 

the 9 months that were simulated, South Feather’s alternative 4(e) flows provide from 0 

to 8 percent more WUA for adult trout than the Forest Service 4(e) flows in dry and wet 

years, respectively (table 3-24). When only flows during the summer (June to 

September) period are included in the average, the alternative 4(e) flows provided from 0 

to 3 percent less WUA for adult trout than the 4(e) flows (table 3-24). For trout 

spawning, South Feather’s alternative 4(e) flows provide between 12 and 36 percent 

more WUA than the Forest Service 4(e) flows in wet and dry water years, respectively 

(table 3-25). 

In its filing of its alternative 4(e) conditions, South Feather noted that the higher 

flows specified by the Forest Service during the spring months in Lost Creek would 

depress water temperatures below optimal levels for rainbow trout and for FYLF 

breeding. Temperature monitoring conducted by South Feather in 2004 and 2005 

indicate that water temperatures directly below Lost Creek dam did not rise to levels 

within the 9 to 14°C range identified by the Forest Service as being optimal for rainbow 

trout spawning until May in both years (figures 3-4 and 3-5). 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-56 

Table 3-21. Percent of unregulated WUA for FS 4(e) and South Feather’s alternative 

4(e) flows in the Little Grass Valley dam reach. (Source: South Feather, 

2008a) 

Percent of trout WUA with unregulated flows 

Flow Proposal 

Water Year 

Type Fry Juvenile Adult Spawning 

Dry 103 157 246 137 

Below 

Normal 98 137 214 118 

Above 

Normal 96 129 184 130 

Wet 97 123 162 142 

FS 4(e) 

Mean 98.5 136.6 201.6 131.7 

Dry 106 149 236 125 

Below 

Normal 100 133 209 110 

Above 

Normal 98 126 181 126 

Wet 98 122 162 138 

SF alternative 

4(e) 

Mean 100.3 132.4 196.8 124.6 

Difference Mean 1.8 -4.2 -4.8 -7.1 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-57 

Table 3-22. Percent of unregulated WUA for FS 4(e) and South Feather’s alternative 

4(e) flows in the South Fork diversion dam reach. (Source: South Feather, 

2008a) 

Percent of trout WUA with unregulated flows 

Flow Proposal 

Water Year 

Type Fry Juvenile Adult Spawning 

Dry 98 100 93 132 

Below 

Normal 98 92 79 128 

Above 

Normal 98 91 75 160 

Wet 95 95 79 284 

FS 4(e) 

Mean 97.1 94.6 81.7 175.9 

Dry 100 97 86 123 

Below 

Normal 98 91 77 125 

Above 

Normal 97 91 76 161 

Wet 95 96 81 269 

SF alternative 

4(e) 

Mean 97.6 93.7 80.2 169.6 

Difference Mean 0.4 -1.0 -1.5 -6.3 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-58 

Table 3-23. Percent of unregulated WUA for FS 4(e) and South Feather’s alternative 

4(e) flows in the Forbestown diversion dam reach. (Source: South Feather, 

2008a) 

Percent of trout WUA with unregulated flows 

Flow Proposal 

Water Year 

Type Fry Juvenile Adult Spawning 

Dry 142 121 83 125 

Below 

Normal 154 148 84 185 

Above 

Normal 157 151 82 218 

Wet 163 244 91 350 

FS 4(e) 

Mean 154.1 166.1 84.9 219.4 

Dry 150 118 79 117 

Below 

Normal 163 146 80 175 

Above 

Normal 163 152 80 217 

Wet 163 244 91 350 

South Feather 

alternative 4(e) 

Mean 159.7 165.1 82.8 214.7 

Difference Mean 5.6 -1.0 -2.1 -4.7 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-59 

Table 3-24. Percent of maximum WUA for adult trout provided by FS 4(e) and South 

Feather’s alternative 4(e) flows for the Lost Creek dam reach. (Source: 

South Feather, 2008a) 

Percent of maximum WUA by Water Year Type 

Flow 

Proposal Month Dry 

Below 

Normal 

Above 

Normal Wet 

January 27 27 27 27 

February 38 49 58 58 

March 74 85 89 89 

April 58 66 74 74 

May 44 58 58 58 

June 38 38 49 49 

July 27 27 27 27 

August 27 27 27 27 

December 27 27 27 27 

Average 40 45 48 48 

FS 4(e)

Monthly Average 

of June-October 29 31 33 34 

January 27 27 27 27 

February 38 58 66 80 

March 74 89 97 100 

April 58 74 74 80 

May 44 58 66 74 

June 38 49 54 58 

July 27 27 30 34 

August 27 27 27 27 

December 27 27 27 27 

Average 40 48 52 56 

South 

Feather 

alternative 

4(e)

Monthly Average 

of June-October 29 29 31 31 

Average 0 3 4 8 

Difference Monthly Average 

of June-October 0 -2 -2 -3 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-60 

Table 3-25. Percent of maximum WUA for trout spawning provided by FS 4(e) and 

South Feather’s alternative 4(e) flows for the Lost Creek dam reach. 

(Source: South Feather, 2008a) 

Percent of maximum WUA by Water Year Type

Flow Proposal Month Dry 

Below 

Normal 

Above 

Normal Wet 

March 74 89 97 100 

April 58 74 74 80 

May 44 58 66 74 FS 4(e)

Average 58 74 79 84 

March 100 97 94 94 

April 95 99 100 100 

May 86 95 95 95 

South Feather 

alternative 4(e)

Average 94 97 96 96 

Difference Average 36 23 17 12 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-61

Figure 3-4. Seasonal temperature trends by river mile in Lost Creek in 2004. (Source: South Feather, 
3-62

Figure 3-5. Seasonal temperature trends by river mile in Lost Creek in 2005. (Source: South Feather, 
 3-63 

Similarly, water temperatures directly downstream of the dam did not rise above 

the 12°C threshold required for FYLF breeding in any month during 2004, and did not 

rise about 12°C until August in 2005 and never rose above this level at this location in 

2004. Because higher flows would reduce the extent of warming that occurs as water 

passes downstream through the reach, it is likely that the higher flows specified by the 

Forest Service would delay the attainment of water temperatures suitable for rainbow 

trout spawning and for FYLF breeding, especially in the lower part of the reach. In 

addition, South Feather’s analysis indicates that the alternative 4(e) flows in Lost Creek 

would provide more WUA for spawning rainbow trout (94 to 96 percent of maximum) 

compared to the Forest Service-specified flow condition (58 to 84 percent of maximum) 

during the key spawning period of March through May. 

South Feather also noted that the higher flows specified by the Forest Service in 

the South Fork diversion dam and Forbestown reaches would likely reduce habitat 

suitability for FYLF by reducing water temperatures and providing less stable flows, and 

have the potential to adversely affect FYLF, a Forest Service sensitive species. 

Temperature modeling conducted by South Feather in the Forbestown reach (figure 3-6) 

also indicated that the higher flows specified by the Forest Service in this reach could 

reduce the length of the reach that is suitable for hardhead, which prefer summer water 

temperatures in excess of 20°C (Moyle, 2002). Similarly, higher summer flow releases 

required downstream of each of the project’s larger storage reservoirs under the Forest 

Service-specified flows would likely extend the length of the reaches below each 

reservoir where invertebrate diversity and production is reduced by the influence of 

coldwater outflows and increased thermal stability. This would likely have an adverse 

effect on trout production in the reaches downstream of Little Grass Valley and Lost 

Creek reservoirs. 

The higher minimum flows specified by the Forest Service for the reach below 

Little Grass Valley dam would cause Little Grass Valley reservoir to be drawn down to 

lower levels in the summer and to not fill to as high a level as currently occurs, 

particularly during Below Normal and Dry water years. Figure 3-7 shows simulated 

water levels under current operation, Forest Service-specified flows, and South Feather’s 

alternative 4(e) flows based on hydrology from 1973 through 2000. Similar effects on 

reservoir surface area are also apparent, as figure 3-8 shows. These reduced water levels 

and surface area could cause some adverse effects on bald eagle foraging and on reservoir 

recreation, as discussed in sections 3.3.3, Terrestrial Resources, and 3.3.6, Recreation 

Resources). The average drawdown from full pool in Below Normal and Dry water years 

under each flow regime are summarized in tables 3-26 and 3-27, respectively. Minimum 

flows recommended by Cal Fish & Game for the Little Grass Valley dam reach are 

identical to the flows specified by the Forest Service, and would likely have an identical 

effect on water levels in Little Grass Valley reservoir. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-64 

Figure 3-6. Modeled water temperatures in the Forbestown reach on June 25 under a 

range of release flows. (Source: South Feather, 2007) 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-65

Figure 3-7. Simulated water surface elevations in Little Grass Valley reservoir from 1973 to 2000 und

Forest Service’s 4(e) prescribed minimum flows, and South Feather’s alternative 4(e) propof 2) (Source: South Feather, 2008) 
3-66

Figure 3-7. Simulated water surface elevations in Little Grass Valley reservoir from 1973 to 2000 

operation, Forest Service’s 4(e) prescribed minimum flows, and South Feather’s alternflows. (page 2 of 2) (Source: South Feather, 2008) 
3-67

Figure 3-8. Simulated surface area of Little Grass Valley reservoir from 1973 to 2000 under current op

Service’s 4(e) prescribed minimum flows, and South Feather’s alternative 4(e) proposed fl(Source: South Feather, 2008) 
3-68

Figure 3-8. Simulated surface area of Little Grass Valley reservoir from 1973 to 2000 under current op

Service’s 4(e) prescribed minimum flows, and South Feather’s alternative 4(e) proposed fl(Source: South Feather, 2008, South Feather May 14, 2008, EPAct filing) 
 3-69

Table 3-26. Comparison of Little Grass Valley drawdown from normal full pool (feet) 

for current operation, Cal Fish & Game’s 10(j) minimum flows, Forest 

Service’s 4(e) minimum flows, and South Feather’s alternative 4(e) 

minimum flows (adopted into staff alternative), in below normal water 

years. (Source: South Feather, 2008b, May 29, 2008, reply comments) 

Month 

No-action 

Alternative

South 

Feather’s 

Alternative 

Condition 

Forest Service’s 

Preliminary 

4(e) Condition 

No. 18, Part 1 

Cal Fish & 

Game’s 

10(j) Rec. 1 

May 31 (Memorial Day) -2.5 -3.3 -5.5 -5.5 

July 4 (Independence 

Day) -6.4 -6.4 -8.0 -8.0 

August 1 -12.3 -12.3 -12.3 -12.3 

September 1 (Labor 

Day) -19.3 -19.3 -19.3 -19.3 

September 15 -23.0 -23.2 -23.2 -23.2 

Table 3-27. Comparison of Little Grass Valley drawdown from normal full pool (feet) 

for current operation, Cal Fish & Game’s 10(j) minimum flows, Forest 

Service’s 4(e) minimum flows, and South Feather’s alternative 4(e) 

minimum flows (adopted into staff alternative), in dry water years. 

(Source: South Feather, 2008b, May 29, 2008, reply comments) 

Month 

No-action 

Alternative

South 

Feather’s 

Alternative 

Condition 

Forest Service’s 

Preliminary 

4(e) Condition 

No. 18, Part 1 

Cal Fish & 

Game’s 

10(j) Rec. 1 

May 31 (Memorial Day) -8.9 -12.9 -16.6 -16.8 

July 4 (Independence 

Day) -10.3 -13.3 -17.0 -17.2 

August 1 -14.4 -15.5 -18.8 -18.9 

September 1 (Labor 

Day) -20.5 -21.1 -22.2 -12.3 

September 15 -23.7 -24.5 -25.2 -25.2 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-70

Ramping Rates 

Rapid changes in streamflow have the potential to strand and kill young fish and 

macroinvertebrates (Bradford et al., 1995; Hunter, 1992; Huntington, 2004), and may 

also cause adverse effects on amphibians including FYLF. Because each of the 

powerhouses discharge into reservoirs or diversion pools, peaking operation of the South 

Feather Power Project does not cause flows or water levels in riverine reaches to 

fluctuate. However, upramping and downramping would occur occasionally when spill 

flows end and when flow releases proposed for geomorphic purposes and to support 

whitewater recreation are implemented. 

South Feather does not propose to implement any ramping rates except when 

geomorphic flow releases are made into Lost Creek (see section 3.3.1, Geology and 

Soils), when South Feather intends to make a good faith effort to ramp up to the 

supplemental streamflow at a rate of no more than 400 percent of the previous mean daily 

streamflow as measured at USGS gage no. 11396000, and to ramp down from the 

supplemental streamflow at a rate of no more than 50 percent of the previous mean daily 

streamflow as measured at USGS gage no. 11396000. These ramp rates are consistent 

with the 1997 license order that revised minimum flow requirements in Lost Creek. 

Cal Fish & Game filed a 10(j) recommendation that would require ramping rates 

to be limited to 0.5 foot per hour during increase and decreases in flow to minimize the 

potential for causing stranding of fish. 

Our Analysis 

South Feather did not conduct any analyses of the potential for fish stranding to 

occur in the project reaches. However, because each of the powerhouses discharge into 

reservoirs or forebays, the riverine sections within the project area are not subject to daily 

flow fluctuations caused by load following operations. There is, however, some potential 

for fish stranding at times when flows are reduced when spill flows end and when 

proposed flow releases to provide whitewater boating opportunities or geomorphic flows 

come to an end. In these cases, implementing the 0.5 feet/hr ramping rate recommended 

by Cal Fish & Game would help to limit the potential for stranding of fish and 

macroinvertebrates. Although ramping rates as low as 0.2 feet/hour are frequently 

recommended in riverine reaches at many hydroelectric projects, the potential for fish 

stranding at the project is limited by the low frequency of flow changes in the riverine 

reaches affected by project operation and the relatively high gradient and confined 

channel present in many of the reaches. 

Flow Monitoring, Determination of Water Year Type, and Water 

Management during Extended Drought Conditions 

South Feather proposes to monitor compliance with minimum flows using existing 

USGS flow gages in each reach. On the SFFR, these are USGS flow gage no. 11395030 

for the Little Grass Valley dam reach, USGS flow gage no. 11395200 for the South Fork 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-71

diversion dam reach, and USGS flow gage no. 11396200 for the Forbestown diversion 

dam reach. On Lost and Slate creeks, these are USGS flow gage no. 11396000 for the 

Lost Creek dam reach and USGS flow gage no. 11413300 for the Slate Creek diversion 

dam reach. 

Cal Fish & Game filed a 10(j) recommendation and the Forest Service filed an 

identical preliminary 4(e) condition specifying that South Feather operate and maintain 

existing gages, under USGS supervision, that are needed to determine the river stage and 

minimum streamflow below Little Grass Valley dam, South Fork diversion dam, 

Forbestown diversion dam, Lost Creek dam, and Slate Creek diversion dam. The 

condition also specifies that any modification of these gage facilities that may be 

necessary to measure the new minimum streamflow releases be completed within 3 years 

after issuance of a new license, that flows be documented in publicly available and 

readily accessible formats, that flow data be subject to QA/QC review by South Feather 

before it is made available to USGS for review and publication on the internet. The 

condition further specifies that the flow values (generally 15-minute recordings) used to 

construct the 24-hour average flows be made available to the resource agencies upon 

request. 

The Forest Service also filed preliminary 4(e) conditions specifying the 

methodology that would be followed to determine the water year type that would guide 

the implementation of minimum flows, and to consult with stakeholders to develop an 

operating plan to manage flows during drought conditions. Forest Service filed revised 

4(e) conditions that superseded each of these measures, and South Feather indicated in its 

reply comments that it did not object to either of these revised measures, which we now 

consider to be part of South Feather’s licensing proposal. 

To determine water type, the revised 4(e) condition specifies that South Feather 

use the forecast of unimpaired runoff in the Feather River at Oroville that is provided in 

DWR Bulletin 120 report each month from February through May. A wet water year 

would be defined as having a forecast greater than or equal to 7.1 million acre feet 

(MAF), an Above Normal water year would be defined as having a forecast greater than 

or equal 4.0 MAF, but less than 7.1 MAF, a Below Normal water year would be defined 

as having a forecast greater than 2.4 MAF14 or equal to but less than 4.0 MAF, and a Dry 

water year would be defined as having a forecast less than or equal to 2.4 MAF. 

 

14The wording of the revised 4(e) condition as filed defines a Below Normal water 

year as “greater than 2.4 MAF or equal to but less than 4.0 MAF” and an Above Normal 

water year as “greater than or equal to 4.0 MAF but less than 7.1 MAF” which is unclear 

as to whether 4.0 MAF would be considered to be a Below Normal or an Above Normal 

water year. We have assumed that the intent was to define the Below Normal year as 

being “greater than 2.4 MAF but less than 4.0 MAF.” 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-72

Each February through May, South Feather would determine the water year type 

based on the Bulletin 120 water year forecast and would operate for the month based on 

that forecast. The May forecast would be used to establish the final water year type for 

the remaining months of the water year. South Feather would provide notice to the 

Forest Service, the Commission, and other interested governmental agencies of the final 

water year type determination within 30 days of making the determination. The water 

year types from February through April would apply from the 15th day of the month in 

which DWR issues Bulletin 120 to the 14th day of the next month. From May 15 to 

October 14, the water year would be based on DWR’s Bulletin 120 issued in May. From 

October 15 through February 14, the water year type would be based on DWR’s Full 

Natural Flow record issued in October. 

To address the potential need to modify operation during drought conditions, the 

revised Forest Service 4(e) condition specifies that by March 15 of the second or 

subsequent Dry water year, South Feather would notify the Forest Service and other 

interested governmental agencies of South Feather’s drought concerns. By May 1 of the 

same year South Feather would consult with representatives from the Forest Service and 

other interested governmental agencies to discuss operational plans to manage the 

drought conditions. If the parties specified above agree on a revised operational plan, 

South Feather may begin implementing the revised operational plan as soon as it files 

documentation of the agreement with the Commission. If unanimous agreement is not 

reached, South Feather would submit the revised proposed plan that incorporates as many 

agency issues as possible to the Commission, as well as both assenting and dissenting 

comments, request expedited approval, and implement the proposed plan until directed 

otherwise by the Commission. 

Our Analysis 

Funding the continued operation and maintenance of the USGS gages in each of 

the affected reaches, including any modifications that may be required to accurately 

measure minimum flows or ramping rates that are included in a new license, would help 

to ensure that these gages remain functional and can be used to effectively monitor 

compliance with flow-related measures included in the license. Funding the operation of 

the gages also would help to ensure that flow data continues to be available to other water 

users in the basin and to the general public. Provision of flow data recorded at 15-minute 

intervals to the agencies upon request would help to verify compliance with any 

instantaneous flows and ramping rates that are included in the license. 

Specifying the methodology for determining water year type would be an essential 

requirement for determining compliance with minimum flows under the new license, and 

the methodology specified by the Forest Service and agreed to by South Feather would 

fulfill this requirement. 

Identifying the specific procedures that would be followed if deviation from 

license conditions is needed during drought conditions will expedite water management 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-73

decisions that may be needed to protect beneficial uses including water diversions for 

municipal and agricultural uses. The approach specified by the Forest Service provides 

an efficient approach to allow needed changes in project operation to occur in a manner 

that would allow the Commission to promptly address any agency concerns that were not 

fully addressed in the proposed temporary operating plan. 

Yuba River Reopener 

Diversion of water from Slate Creek reduces the volume of water that is 

contributed to the North Yuba River via Slate Creek. The Yuba County Water Authority 

operates the Yuba River Development Project (FERC No. 2246), which is associated 

with New Bullards Bar reservoir on the North Yuba River and Englebright Lake on the 

Yuba River. The Yuba County Water Agency recommends that the Commission reserve 

authority to require South Feather to make reasonable provisions for modifying project 

facilities or operation as necessary to mitigate or avoid cumulative effects identified in 

any environmental analysis of the Yuba River Development Project. They indicate that 

this reservation would be applicable in the context of any relicensing or license 

amendment proceeding involving the downstream Yuba River Development Project.15

Our Analysis 

We include analysis in this document of the cumulative effects of relicensing the 

South Feather Power Project on water resources, including the effects of measures that 

would reduce the project’s contribution to cumulative effects on water resources in the 

Yuba River basin. Under the National Environmental Policy Act, it would be appropriate 

to analyze and address any cumulative effects that may be associated with future changes 

in the operation of the Yuba River Development Project in the proceeding that addresses 

the effects of those changes in operation of the Yuba River Development Project 

Water Temperatures Downstream of Kelly Ridge Powerhouse 

The Kelly Ridge powerhouse discharges into the Thermalito diversion pool, part 

of the Oroville Project, just downstream of the tailrace of the Oroville Project’s Hyatt 

powerhouse. The combined flow from these powerhouses (up to 255 cfs from the Kelly 

Ridge powerhouse and up to about 16,000 cfs from the Hyatt powerhouse) proceeds 

downstream to the Oroville Project’s Thermalito diversion dam, where DWR can either 

(1) pump the water back up into Lake Oroville, using the Hyatt powerhouse’s reversible 

turbines; (2) pass the water through the Thermalito diversion dam powerhouse into the 

Oroville Project’s low flow channel; (3) divert the water through the Oroville Project’s 

Thermalito power canal into Thermalito forebay from where it flows through the 

Thermalito powerhouse and into the Thermalito afterbay, from where it can be (a) 

pumped back into Lake Oroville through the Thermalito and Hyatt powerhouses; (b) 

 

15The license for the Yuba River Development Project expires on March 31, 2016. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-74

released into the Feather River downstream of the afterbay (known as the high flow 

channel); or (c) diverted directly into the Sutter Butte canal, Western lateral, Richvale 

canal, and Western canal. Cal Fish & Game withdraws about 110 cfs at the Thermalito 

diversion dam for use at the Feather River Fish Hatchery, located along the low flow 

channel (figure 3-9). 

The Feather River Fish Hatchery, a project facility of the DWR’s Oroville Project 

(FERC No. 2100) was constructed during the construction of the Oroville Project as 

mitigation for Oroville dam’s blocking of anadromous fishes to spawning areas upstream 

of the dam site and for the project’s impacts on flow regime and water temperature.16 

The hatchery is operated by Cal Fish & Game in conjunction with DWR and spawns 

about 9,000 to 18,000 salmon and 2,000 steelhead annually, producing 8 million fall-run 

Chinook salmon, 5 million spring-run Chinook salmon, and 400,000 steelhead (NMFS 

2004, cited in FERC, 2007). 

Generation flows from the Kelly Ridge powerhouse can influence water 

temperatures in the Thermalito diversion pool and, to a lesser degree, points downstream, 

including the Feather River Hatchery intake. This influence is greatest when the Hyatt 

powerhouse is shut down, intermediate at normal summer Hyatt powerhouse releases of 

4,000 – 8,000 cfs, and likely negligible at flows of 10,000 cfs and above, as the 

proportion of total flow contributed by the Kelly Ridge powerhouse decreases. The 

difference in water temperature between Kelly Ridge powerhouse flows and Hyatt 

powerhouse flows is greatest during the summer and is due to the fact that Kelly Ridge 

flows originate as warm surface withdrawals from Miners Ranch reservoir, while Hyatt 

flows come from a deep, cool water intake in Lake Oroville. 

Other aspects of Oroville Project operation besides Hyatt powerhouse flows can 

influence the effects that Kelly Ridge powerhouse generation flows have on downstream 

water temperatures. DWR has the ability to regulate the temperature of water released 

from Lake Oroville using the existing multi-level intake structure at the Hyatt pumpgenerating plant, which is capable of withdrawing water from a wide range of depths. 

Cold water can also be released through the river outlet at the dam, which draws water at 

a depth between 90 and 350 feet, depending on the reservoir elevation. Pumpback 

operation at Hyatt and Thermalito powerhouses and the surface elevation of Lake 

Oroville can also affect downstream water temperatures. South Feather does not have the 

capability to adjust the temperature of its releases at the Kelly Ridge powerhouse. 

 

16Mean monthly flows through the low flow channel are now 5 to 38 percent lower 

than pre-dam levels, and total flow is presently lower than historical levels during 

February through June, but higher July through January. Mean monthly water 

temperatures in the low flow channel are 2 to 14°F cooler during May through October 

and 2° to 7°F warmer during November through April (Sommer et al., 1983). 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-75

Figure 3-9. Oroville Facilities flow diagram. (Source: DWR, 2005) 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-76

Under the Oroville Relicensing Settlement Agreement (SA), DWR committed to 

meet certain water temperature targets at Robinson Riffle in the Low Flow Channel and 

at the Feather River Fish Hatchery. Meeting temperature requirements sometimes 

dictates the timing of pumping and generation operations at the DWR’s Oroville 

Facilities (DWR, 2005), both historically and under the SA. 

To ensure the Oroville Project would consistently meet the proposed flow and 

temperature objectives contained in the Settlement Agreement, DWR proposed to study 

the feasibility of making structural modifications, which, at a minimum, would include 

one of the following: (1) Palermo canal improvements, (2) Hyatt intake extensions, (3) 

replacement of the river valves with valves specifically designed to incrementally control 

water releases, (4) construction of a diversion canal around or through the Thermalito 

afterbay, and (5) construction of an alternative outlet to the Thermalito afterbay. DWR 

has committed to implementing one or more facility modifications or other actions that 

the feasibility study suggests are most effective in terms of meeting low and high flow 

temperatures. Before physically modifying the facility, DWR would perform a 

comprehensive reconnaissance study, in consultation with resource agencies, and prepare 

both a feasibility report and an implementation plan for modifying the facility to improve 

temperature conditions in the low flow and high flow channels and allow DWR to meet 

other water resource obligations (e.g., anadromous fish needs, flood control, recreational 

needs, water deliveries). The study plan, feasibility report, and implementation plan as 

well as documentation of consultation would be filed with the Commission within 3 years 

of license issuance. During the interim period, DWR would attempt to meet the 

temperature objectives at the fish hatchery through either (or in combination) releases 

from the river outlet at the base of Oroville dam, eliminating pump-back operations, or 

removing stoplogs at the Hyatt intake structure (FERC, 1997). 

Because, under some conditions, generation at the Kelly Ridge powerhouse can 

influence downstream water temperatures and can complicate DWR’s ability to meet the 

SA water temperature targets, several agencies proposed recommendations pertaining to 

downstream water temperatures in this proceeding. 

DWR, NMFS, and the State Water Contractors and Metropolitan Water District 

(SWC/MWD) recommend that South Feather be required to curtail or cease power 

generation at the Kelly Ridge powerhouse when the temperature of water released from 

the powerhouse exceed specified values (table 3-28). SWC/MWD recommends that 

discharges be limited to 100 cfs when these temperatures are exceeded, while DWR and 

NMFS recommend that no water be discharged from the powerhouse. Cal Fish & Game 

recommends that South Feather take all reasonable actions including curtailing releases 

from the powerhouse to conform with temperatures specified in the Oroville SA, which 

includes the Cal Fish & Game temperatures shown in table 3-28 and also attainment of 

the following maximum temperatures in the low flow channel downstream of the Hyatt 

powerhouse: 56°F from January through April, 56 to 63°F for May 1-15, 63°F from May 

16 through August 31, 63 to 58°F from September 1-8, 58°F from September 9-30, and 

56°F from October 1 to December 31. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-77

Table 3-28. Maximum temperature (°F) of water to be released from the Kelly Ridge 

powerhouse recommended by DWR, Cal Fish & Game, NMFS, and 

SWC/MWD. (Source: Staff) 

Date 

DWR, Cal Fish & 

Game NMFS SWC/MWD 

September 1 – 30 56 58 59 

October 1 – May 15 55 56 58 

May 16 – 31 59 63 62 

June 1 – 15 60 63 63 

June 16 – August 15 64 63 67 

August 16 - 31 62 63 65 

Our Analysis 

South Feather monitored water temperature at several locations in the summers of 

2005 – 2007. During 2007, water temperature was monitored at the following locations 

(listed upstream to downstream): (1) Miners Ranch conduit inlet below Ponderosa dam 

(MRC 6.2); (2) Miners Ranch tunnel inlet (MRC 0.0); (3) Miners Ranch reservoir inlet 

(MRR); 4) Miners Ranch water treatment plant laboratory; and (5) Kelly Ridge 

powerhouse. Mean daily water temperature at Kelly Ridge powerhouse ranged from 

13.0°C on April 22 to about 22.3°C on August 31 (sampling dates April 1 – September 

16, 2007) (figure 3-10). The monitoring also showed that water temperature increases 

from the inlet to Miners Ranch reservoir to Kelly Ridge powerhouse ranged from about 

1.0° to about 3.0°C (figure 3-11). The greatest differences occurred in the months of July 

and August, suggesting that these increases are likely due to seasonal heating of water as 

it resides in Miners Ranch reservoir. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-78

Figure 3-10. Daily average, maximum, and minimum water temperatures (°C) collected 

at Kelly Ridge powerhouse in 2007. (Source: South Feather, 2008a) 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-79

Note: MRC 6.2 = entrance to Miners Ranch conduit; MRC 0.0 = downstream end of Miners Ranch 

conduit; MRR = inlet to Miners Ranch reservoir; MRWTP = Miners Ranch water treatment plan; 

and KRPH = Kelly Ridge powerhouse. 

Figure 3-11. Daily average temperatures (°C) collected at locations from the inlet of 

Miners Ranch conduit downstream through Kelly Ridge powerhouse in 

2007. (Source: South Feather, 2008a) 

Although the maximum quantity of water contributed to the Thermalito diversion 

pool from the Kelly Ridge powerhouse is small in comparison to the maximum flows 

from the Hyatt powerhouse (285 cfs versus up to 16,000 cfs, respectively), the projects 

are not always operated at maximum flow, and, in fact, depending on water year, among 

other factors, Hyatt powerhouse is shut down during the evening and early morning 

hours.17 Shutdown of the Kelly Ridge powerhouse during periods when the temperature 

of powerhouse outflows is high and Hyatt powerhouse releases are low, as has been done 

in the past, would be one method to help DWR’s meet downstream temperature 

objectives and would forestall the need for DWR to make additional cool water releases 

to meet temperature targets. Excess water not passed through the Kelly Ridge 

powerhouse may need to be passed into Lake Oroville from Ponderosa reservoir, 

depending on inflow to Ponderosa reservoir, its elevation at the start of the shutdown, and 

 

17DWR letter to the Commission dated February 11, 2008. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-80

the magnitude of consumptive deliveries from Miners Ranch reservoir. This water would 

then be available to DWR for generation and/or consumptive water supply 

Periodic shutdown of the Kelly Ridge powerhouse at critical times may also assist 

DWR with meeting its temperature objectives during the interim before DWR identifies 

and implements the structural modifications to improve temperature control discussed 

above. Improving compliance with the temperature objectives identified in the Oroville 

SA could benefit anadromous fish by reducing the potential for stress and mortality of 

adult broodstock, eggs, or juvenile salmon and steelhead caused by exposure to high 

water temperatures. 

However, shutting down or reducing flows through the Kelly Ridge powerhouse 

may result in increased warming of Miners Ranch reservoir, which may exacerbate 

downstream temperature problems when generation resumes at Kelly Ridge powerhouse. 

It appears that another alternative to reducing Kelly Ridge outflow temperature could be 

to increase Kelly Ridge powerhouse releases. This would decrease residence time in 

Miners Ranch reservoir, which would reduce reservoir water heating and hence the 

temperature of Kelly Ridge powerhouse releases. Operation of Kelly Ridge powerhouse 

at a continuous 255 cfs would deplete 506 acre-feet of the total maximum storage of 

Miners Ranch reservoir of 896 acre-feet in a 24-hour period. Continuing South Feather’s 

average historical deliveries for consumptive deliveries would remove an additional 40 

acre-feet per day, further decreasing residence time and reducing Miners Ranch reservoir 

temperatures during the summer. Increasing Kelly Ridge powerhouse flows in this 

manner would, however, negatively impact other resources, particularly lake levels. 

Regardless, however, of any actions South Feather may take to reduce the 

temperature of Kelly Ridge powerhouse releases, it is ultimately the operation of the 

Oroville Project that will determine whether any such reductions will be conveyed to 

DWR’s downstream compliance points and ultimately provide a benefit for anadromous 

fishes. 

As discussed in the next section, making real-time information on Kelly Ridge 

powerhouse flows and water temperatures available to DWR could help DWR to manage 

its operations to comply with its temperature objectives more efficiently, and may 

identify time periods when ceasing operations at the Kelly Ridge powerhouse may be the 

best option for meeting the temperature needs of anadromous fish at the Feather River 

Hatchery and barrier dam. 

Water Temperature Monitoring 

South Feather proposes to install and maintain a continuous water temperature 

monitor at the USGS gage downstream of the Slate Creek diversion dam and, to enhance 

the ability of Slate Creek to support trout, to cease diversions from Slate Creek whenever 

the mean daily water temperature is greater than 20°C for three consecutive days between 

June 1 and September 15. South Feather also proposes to install continuous temperature 

monitors in the downstream ends of the South Feather diversion dam and Forbestown 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-81

reaches to provide information needed to ensure that whitewater flow releases do not 

occur during the FYLF breeding season. South Feather also monitors water temperatures 

at the Miners Ranch water treatment facility. 

Cal Fish & Game recommends that South Feather monitor water temperatures in 

the SFFR immediately above the fish passage barrier in the Forbestown reach to 

demonstrate whether the recommended flows in the Forbestown reach are adequate to 

reduce temperatures to below 20°C. Cal Fish & Game also recommends that South 

Feather install and maintain continuous water temperature monitors at RM 8.9 on Slate 

Creek, at RM 28.3 on the Little Grass Valley dam reach of the SFFR, at RMs 8.1 and 9.1 

on the South Fork diversion dam reach, and at the Kelly Ridge powerhouse. The 

monitors would be used to record water temperatures at one-hour intervals from May 1 

through September 15 annually, and the data would be provided to Cal Fish & Game and 

other interested agencies in a technical report within 6 months following completion of 

each sampling effort. 

NMFS recommends that South Feather maintain a temperature monitoring station 

in Miners Ranch reservoir at the Kelly Ridge intake and provide temperature data at 15-

minute intervals in a format that is available to the public. 

Our Analysis 

Water temperature data collected from the proposed monitoring site on Slate 

Creek would provide information that would be needed to implement South Feather’s 

proposed flow regime for Slate Creek, which includes shutdown when daily average 

water temperatures exceed 20°C for three consecutive days. Ceasing diversion under 

these conditions would benefit trout populations in Slate Creek downstream of the 

diversion, and would ensure the project has no adverse effects on the beneficial use of 

supporting coldwater aquatic life. 

South Feather’s proposal to monitor water temperatures at the downstream ends of 

the South Feather diversion dam and Forbestown reaches would provide information that 

would help to ensure that the release of whitewater boating flows do not adversely affect 

FYLF breeding. NMFS’ proposal to monitor water temperatures at the Kelly Ridge 

powerhouse would help to identify time periods when project operations may be 

adversely affecting water temperatures downstream of the powerhouse. The temperature 

data, along with flow information would assist DWR and South Feather in coordinating 

their projects’ operation to meet DWR’s obligation to achieve the temperature objectives 

specified under the Oroville SA, while meeting system needs concerning the quantity and 

timing of hydroelectric generation and consumptive water supply. 

Cal Fish & Game’s proposal to monitor water temperature data at five additional 

locations and to provide annual technical reports summarizing monitoring results would 

help to document any changes in water temperatures that occur under the minimum flow 

regimes that are implemented in a new license. However, we note that the water 

temperature and fish population monitoring studies conducted by South Feather and filed 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-82

with its license application indicate that the existing minimum flow releases under the 

current license support healthy trout populations, as indicated by biomass levels that are 

generally comparable to or greater than the reference sites and other streams of 

comparable size in the region, and that these populations would be enhanced if instream 

flows are increased in the next license. 

Daily mean water temperatures in the Little Grass Valley dam reach did not 

exceed 20°C at any time. Although water temperatures measured in the South Fork 

diversion dam reach did at times exceed 20°C in the lower end of the reach, exceedances 

were rare and the maximum daily mean water temperature was not far above the 20°C 

threshold. The average biomass of trout in the reach (table 3-29) exceeded the biomass 

found at the upstream reference reach and also the average biomass of 24 pounds per acre 

reported by Gerstung (1973) for streams of similar size (having average widths of 26 to 

40 feet) in the region. Although the average trout biomass in the Forbestown reach was 

slightly below the mean biomass in the reference site (table 3-29), this site may be better 

described as a warmwater site, because it supports substantial populations of hardhead 

(table 3-30), a Forest Service species of concern. The average biomass in Lost Creek 

directly below the dam was lower than in the reference site (table 3-31), but the next site 

about 1 mile downstream had a biomass substantially higher than that of the reference 

site and of the average biomass reported by Gerstung (1973). Because each of the SFFR 

and Lost Creek reaches support healthy trout populations and this support would be 

improved with increased minimum flows, we see little benefit in conducting additional 

water temperature monitoring in these reaches. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-83

Table 3-29. Trout biomass in the SFFR reaches with comparisons to the SFFR 

reference reach. (Source: South Feather, 2007) 

Trout Biomass (lbs/acre) 

Trout Biomass 

(lbs/acre) 

Site 

Description 

Site 

Name 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2006 

No. 

Year

s 

Site 

Mean 

Ref. 

Site 

Mean 

P 

Value

SFFR Reference Reach 

Above 

Little 

Grass 

Valley 

Reservoir 

SFFR 

32.9 – 21 42 46 21 16 5 29 – – 

Little Grass Valley Dam Reach 

At Bear 

Creek 

Confluence 

SFFR 

24.4 

39 36 31 43 28 – 5 36 29 0.73 

Above 

South Fork 

Diversion 

SFFR 

19.2 

116 34 83 120 94 82 6 90 29 0.01 

Reach Average 77 35 57 81 61 – – 63 29 0.03

South Fork Diversion Dam Reach 

Below 

South 

Fork 

Diversion 

SFFR 

18.4 

40 22 43 48 62 48 6 43 29 0.16 

South Fork Feather River/Lost Creek Reach 

Above 

Forbestown 

Diversion 

SFFR 

8.2 35 15 44 25 37 – 5 31 29 0.81 

Forbestown Diversion Dam Reach 

Below 

Forbestown 

Diversion 

SFFR 

7.2 47 21 35 17 14 – 5 27 29 0.18 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-84

Table 3-30. Hardhead population data summary from the SFFR above Ponderosa reservoir (SFFR 2.1) 

2005. (Source: South Feather, 2007) 

Year 

Site/ 

Segment 

Site 

Length 

(ft) 

Site 

Aver 

age 

Width 

(ft) 

Site 

Area 

(sq ft) 

Removal 

Pattern 

Captured 

Biomass 

(g) 

Biomass 

(lbs/ac) 

Biomass 

95% CI 

ALL AGE CLASSES 

1993 Upper 201.0 26.4 5,306.4 24, 9, 7 472.1 9.8 +/-2.1  Lower a a a 6, 0, 0 78.0 b b  Site b b b 30, 9, 7 550.1 b b 2004 Upper 184.5 46.7 8,616.2 31, 18, 11 81.9 1.2 +/-0.3  Lower 113.0 44.3 5,005.9 19, 9, 6 72.4 1.7 +/-0.5  Site 297.5 45.6 13,572.4 50, 27, 17 154.3 1.4 +/-0.3 2005 Upper 176.0 57.3 10,084.8 87, 73, 16 257.3 2.9 +/-0.3  Lower 108.2 45.6 4,933.9 215, 52, 40 247.3 5.1 +/-0.2  Site 284.2 51.9 14,750.0 302, 125, 

56 

504.6 3.6 +/-0.1 

YOUNG-OF-YEAR(<80 mm)

1993 Upper 201.0 26.4 5,306.4 3, 0, 1 11.5 0.2 +/-0.1  Lower a a a 1, 0, 0 0.6 b b 
3-85

Year 

Site/ 

Segment 

Site 

Length 

(ft) 

Site 

Aver 

age 

Width 

(ft) 

Site 

Area 

(sq ft) 

Removal 

Pattern 

Captured 

Biomass 

(g) 

Biomass 

(lbs/ac) 

Biomass 

95% CI 

 Site b b b 4, 0, 1 12.1 b b 2004 Upper 184.5 46.7 8,616.2 28, 17, 9 52.7 0.7 +/-0.2  Lower 113.0 44.3 5,005.9 14, 9, 5 20.3 0.5 +/-0.2  Site 297.5 45.6 13,572.4 42, 26, 14 73.0 0.6 +/-0.2 2005 Upper 176.0 57.3 10,084.8 74, 62,13 55.3 0.6 +/-0.1  Lower 108.2 45.6 4,933.9 207, 47, 35 111.6 2.3 +/-0.1  Site 284.2 51.9 14,750.0 281, 109, 

48 

166.9 1.2 +/-0.0 

JUVENILE (80 – 160 mm)

1993 Upper 201.0 26.4 5,306.4 20, 7, 5 326.4 6.6 +/-1.3  Lower a a a 4, 0, 0 55.7 b b  Site b b b 24, 7, 5 382.1 b b 2004 Upper 184.5 46.7 8,616.2 3, 1, 2 29.2 0.6 +/-1.6  Lower 113.0 44.3 5,005.9 5, 0, 1 52.1 1.0 +/-0.2  Site 297.5 45.6 13,572.4 8, 1, 3 81.3 0.7 +/-0.3 2005 Upper 176.0 57.3 10,084.8 13, 11, 3 202.0 2.3 +/-0.8 
3-86

Year 

Site/ 

Segment 

Site 

Length 

(ft) 

Site 

Aver 

age 

Width 

(ft) 

Site 

Area 

(sq ft) 

Removal 

Pattern 

Captured 

Biomass 

(g) 

Biomass 

(lbs/ac) 

Biomass 

95% CI 

 Lower 108.2 45.6 4,933.9 8, 5, 5 135.7 5.0 +/-7.7  Site 284.2 51.9 14,750.0 21, 16, 8 337.7 3.0 +/-1.3 

ADULT (>160 mm)

1993 Upper 201.0 26.4 5,306.4 1, 2, 1 134.2 2.43c +/-3.03c  Lower a a a 1, 0, 0 21.7 b b  Site b b b 2, 2, 1 155.9 b b 2004 Upper 184.5 46.7 8,616.2 0, 0, 0 0.0 0.0 +/- -  Lower 113.0 44.3 5,005.9 0, 0, 0 0.0 0.0 +/- -  Site 297.5 45.6 13,572.4 0, 0, 0 0.0 0.0 +/- - 2005 Upper 176.0 57.3 10,084.8 0, 0, 0 0.0 0.0 +/- -  Lower 108.2 45.6 4,933.9 0, 0, 0 0.0 0.0 +/- - 

 Site 284.2 51.9 14,750.0 0, 0, 0 0.0 0.0 +/- - 

a No data available. b Unable to calculate. c Calculated by max-likelihood. 
 3-87

Table 3-31. Trout biomass in the Lost Creek dam reach with comparisons to the Lost 

Creek reference site. (Source: South Feather, 2007) 

Trout Biomass (lbs/acre) 

Trout Biomass 

(lbs/acre) 

Site 

Description 

Site 

Name 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2006

No. 

Years 

Site 

Mean 

Ref. 

Site 

Mean

P 

Value

Lost Creek Reference Reach 

Above Sly 

Creek 

reservoir 

LC 

10.2 – 17 21 51 40 – 4 32 – – 

Lost Creek Dam Reach 

Near the 

stream 

ford 

LC 

3.1 15 4 13 17 12 – 5 12 32 0.04 

About 1 

mile below 

Lost Creek 

dam 

LC 

2.3 64 32 40 35 21 – 5 38 32 0.99 

Reach Average 40 18 26 26 16 – – 25 32 0.29 

We do, however, find that it would be beneficial to design a temperature 

monitoring program that would provide real-time information to DWR on the amount and 

temperature of water being released at the Kelly Ridge powerhouse or that would be 

released if operation of the powerhouse was resumed after a period of shutdown. This 

information could assist DWR in evaluating and implementing its options for maintaining 

water temperatures at the Feather River fish hatchery and fish barrier dam specified in the 

Oroville SA. These options could include shutdown of the Kelly Ridge powerhouse with 

release of “excess” water into Lake Oroville from Ponderosa dam, as mutually agreed to 

with South Feather. It would likely be beneficial for South Feather to consult with DWR 

to determine the most appropriate location for the temperature monitoring data to be 

collected. We note that collection of water temperature data at the Kelly Ridge intake as 

recommended by NMFS may be a suitable monitoring location when diversions are 

occurring, but may not be the most suitable monitoring location at times when the Kelly 

Ridge powerhouse is not operating, because the temperature near the intake could change 

substantially after diversion is resumed. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-88

Selective Withdrawal 

Flows released from Little Grass Valley reservoir are drawn from deep in the 

reservoir, resulting in cool water temperatures in the SFFR downstream from the 

reservoir. Cal Fish & Game recommends that South Feather develop and implement a 

plan to allow water to be selectively withdrawn from the entire water column in Little 

Grass Valley reservoir so that the water temperature of release flows can be more closely 

matched to the optimum temperatures for trout. 

Our Analysis 

Water temperature in Little Grass Valley reach remains cold all year due to the 

low level release from Little Grass Valley reservoir. Cal Fish & Game has expressed 

concern that water temperatures in this reach are below optimum for rainbow trout 

growth, and that low temperatures may delay spawning, slow egg development, and 

result in lower overwinter survival, because trout would not attain as large a size. Figure 

3-12 shows water temperatures measured in 2005 at three locations in the Little Grass 

Valley reach in relation to temperature preference ranges identified by Cal Fish & Game. 

Although the temperature data shown in figure 3-12 indicate that water 

temperatures in the Little Grass Valley dam reach are below the optimum range for 

growth of rainbow trout, we note that rainbow trout are known to occur over a very wide 

range of temperature conditions (Moyle, 2002; Behnke, 1992), and that fish population 

sampling conducted by South Feather indicates that trout populations downstream from 

Little Grass Valley reservoir are in very good condition. The average biomass of trout at 

both sampling sites in the Little Grass Valley dam reach, and at the sampling sites in the 

South Fork diversion dam and Lost Creek reaches (all of which are affected by release 

temperatures from Little Grass Valley reservoir) exceeded the biomass found at the 

upstream reference reach and also the average biomass of 24 pounds per acre reported by 

Gerstung (1973) for streams of similar size in the region (see table 3-24). These data 

indicate that the low temperature of water released from Little Grass Valley reservoir is 

not having a substantial adverse effect on trout populations in downstream reaches. We 

also note that releasing warmer water from Little Grass Valley reservoir would contribute 

to high water temperatures further downstream in the Forbestown reach of the SFFR, and 

could adversely affect trout populations in this reach. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-89

Figure 3-12. Mean daily water temperatures measured in 2005 in the Little Grass Valley 

dam reach and temperature preference ranges identified by Cal Fish & 

Game. (Source: Cal Fish & Game, 2008) 

Fish Entrainment 

Entrainment of fish into hydroelectric intakes typically causes injury or mortality 

to a portion of the fish that are entrained, with mortality rates tending to be lower for 

smaller fish and higher for turbines that operate under higher levels of head, with higher 

rotational speeds, and with smaller passageways (Cook et al., 1997; Franke et al., 1997; 

Winchell et al., 2000). South Feather evaluated the potential for fish entrainment in its 

license application, and concluded that effects of the project on trout populations were 

likely to be minor, and did not propose any measures to reduce or mitigate for fish 

entrainment. 

Forest Service filed a preliminary 4(e) condition that would require South Feather 

to conduct statistically valid empirical studies to determine the amount of fish 

entrainment losses in the Woodleaf power tunnel intake and the effects of any fish losses 

on fish populations in the project area including Slate Creek and the SFFR, and to 

develop and implement a plan to mitigate for any losses. Forest Service subsequently 

revised its 4(e) condition to eliminate the fish entrainment studies, but included a 

requirement that South Feather develop and implement a wild fish supplementation 

program to mitigate for lost fish resources in the SFFR, in Slate Creek, and in Sly Creek 

and Lost Creek reservoirs. The plan would be developed in consultation with the Forest 

Service and other state and federal agencies that have regulatory authority, and would 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-90

include the following elements: (1) the numbers of wild fish to be planted annually; (2) 

protocols for the capture and rearing of wild fish brood stock; (3) methods for spawning 

wild fish brood stock and incubation of eggs; (4) timing of planting wild stock that are 

free of diseases from the hatchery; and (5) placement locations of young-of-the-year wild 

fish planting. The basis for determining the amount of fish to be planted would be 

determined by reviewing age class distributions of rainbow trout in the Little Grass 

Valley reservoir and the upper Slate Creek diversion dam reach, and estimating the 

numbers of fry needed to enhance rainbow trout production toward density and biomass 

level observed in streams surrounding the project area. In its reply comments, South 

Feather stated that it supports each of the revised 4(e) conditions, including the wild fish 

supplementation program. 

Cal Fish & Game recommends that South Feather develop and implement a plan 

to screen the diversions at South Fork diversion dam, Slate Creek diversion dam, and the 

Woodleaf powerhouse intake in Lost Creek dam with fish screens acceptable to Cal Fish 

& Game and in accordance with their screening criteria. 

Our Analysis 

South Feather developed and implemented a study in consultation with the 

agencies to assess the potential for entrainment losses to affect fish populations in the 

project area. The study focused on rainbow and brown trout, and included a literature 

review, review of the likelihood of entrainment based on the physical characteristics of 

each intake, and assessment of trout populations upstream and downstream of each 

intake. 

The results of South Feather’s literature review and analysis indicate that 

entrainment potential at the Sly Creek reservoir power tunnel intake is probably low due 

to the depth of the intake, which is submerged by a minimum of 84 feet when the 

reservoir is drawn down to its minimum surface elevation. South Feather’s review of 

existing studies indicated that juvenile and adult rainbow and brown trout tend to reside 

the upper levels of reservoirs, and would have relatively little risk of exposure to 

entrainment at such a deep intake. 

The top of the intake to the power tunnel in Lost Creek reservoir (which leads to 

the Woodleaf powerhouse) is submerged at a minimum depth of 25 feet, but the 

trashracks extend to an elevation that is 6 feet above the water surface when the reservoir 

is at minimum pool. The maximum average velocity at the racks (at the maximum flow 

rate of 625 cfs with the reservoir at minimum pool) is 1.12 feet per second, excluding the 

top 6 feet of the racks, which are 15 feet wide by 43 feet tall. The relatively low velocity 

at the trashrack probably limits the potential for fish entrainment at this intake. 

The Forbestown power tunnel intake may have a greater potential to entrain fish 

than the intakes in Sly Creek and Lost Creek reservoirs, because the intake is located 

closer to the surface of the diversion pool and the average approach velocity at the 

trashrack is relatively high (5.5 feet/second at the maximum flow of 660 cfs). However, 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-91

the relatively high average biomass of trout in the SFFR/Lost Creek reach upstream of 

the Forbestown diversion, which was higher than the upstream reference reach and the 

average biomass for similar-sized streams in the region reported by Gerstung (1973), 

indicate that entrainment rates are not having a substantial adverse effect on the trout 

population upstream of the diversion. South Feather reports that the total trout density, 

total trout biomass, and total catchable trout upstream of the diversion are comparable to 

and slightly exceed the corresponding values downstream of the diversion. 

Construction of effective fish screening facilities at each diversion as 

recommended by Cal Fish & Game would reduce entrainment mortality, and would 

likely provide some benefit to trout populations. However, construction of an effective 

screening facility at Slate Creek is probably not feasible given the stream’s high sediment 

load, which has filled in the diversion pool. 

Implementing the wild fish supplementation program specified by the Forest 

Service would serve to augment fish populations in any reaches where recruitment is 

inadequate to meet the habitat’s carrying capacity. Using population assessment data to 

guide the stocking program would ensure that stocking effort is directed to reaches where 

it would provide the most benefit to trout populations. 

Fish Monitoring 

The Forest Service filed revised 4(e) conditions specifying that, within 1 year after 

license issuance, South Feather develop a plan a plan to monitor fish populations in 

affected bypassed reaches, in consultation with the Forest Service and other interested 

governmental agencies. South Feather indicated in its reply comments that it fully 

supports all of the Forest Service revised 4(e) conditions, including the fish monitoring 

plan. 

The plan specified by the Forest Service would involve: 

• Use of the same sampling methods to sample eight of the locations 

previously established during the relicensing surveys. 

• Collection of data on species size/age distributions and condition factors. 

• Physical measurements and observations of stream conditions. 

• Fish surveys would be conducted in two successive years and begin in the 

fifth full year after implementation of new license streamflows. Fish 

surveys would be conducted in years 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, 18, 23, 24, and 29 in 

each survey reach or at a frequency jointly agreed to by the agencies. If 

sampling is scheduled in years with high peak flows, the survey may be 

postponed by 2 years to avoid confounding effects of high peak flows on 

fish recruitment and populations. Subsequent years of sampling and timing 

would be jointly agreed to by the agencies listed above. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-92

• When scheduling sampling site selection or field data collections, South 

Feather would notify the agencies at least 30 days in advance to provide the 

opportunity to participate or observe. If field conditions or operational 

situations preclude a 30-day notification, South Feather would provide 

notice as far in advance as feasible. 

• South Feather would provide the results of fish monitoring to the agencies 

in a technical report at an annual consultation meeting following 

completion of each sampling effort. In addition to describing the results, 

the report would compare the results with those of previous surveys, and 

discuss implications of the results of benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring 

regarding trends in fish abundances. 

Cal Fish & Game recommends a fish monitoring plan that is identical to the Forest 

Service plan, except that no provision is made to postpone sampling in years with high 

peak flows and that fish sampling would occur at all 11 of the sites established in the 

sampling plan that guided the licensing studies. 

Our Analysis 

Monitoring fish populations would assist with determining the effects of any 

changes in operation or measures that are implemented in the new license to enhance 

trout populations, and for assessing whether any modifications or additional measures are 

needed. 

South Feather’s analysis of fish population data indicates that fish populations in 

the project reaches can be substantially reduced during and following severe flood events. 

Postponing sampling by up to 2 years after a flood event as specified by the Forest 

Service would improve data consistency, which would help to identify population trends 

associated with the measures or operational changes that are implemented in the new 

license. 

In its reply comments, South Feather indicates that the smaller number of study 

sites that are specified by the Forest Service is more appropriate than the 11 sites 

recommended by Cal Fish & Game. South Feather reports that the sites that are not 

included in the Forest Service-prescribed plan include two sites that are dominated by 

warmwater fish, which are not an agency management priority, and one Lost River site 

that has been affected by local site disturbance and excessive angling pressure. 

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring 

The Forest Service filed revised 4(e) conditions specifying that, within 1 year after 

license issuance, South Feather develop a plan, in consultation with the Forest Service 

and other interested governmental agencies, to monitor benthic macroinvertebrates in 

affected bypassed reaches. South Feather indicated in its reply comments that it fully 

supports all of the Forest Service revised 4(e) conditions, including the benthic 

macroinvertebrate monitoring plan. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-93

The plan specified by the Forest Service would involve: 

• Surveys would be conducted in the same years as fish population 

monitoring (unless an alternative monitoring schedule is approved in 

consultation with the State Water Board, Forest Service, Cal Fish & Game, 

and FWS). 

• The plan would be designed to assess the effects on the macroinvertebrate 

community in the project bypassed reaches under new flow regimes and 

other changes that may be stipulated in the new license. 

• The plan would describe the methods that South Feather would use to 

monitor benthic macroinvertebrate species composition and relative 

abundance. Data would be used to determine trends in the 

macroinvertebrate community structure, as represented by metrics (e.g., 

taxa richness, EPT index, tolerance value), such as the California Stream 

Bioassessment Procedure, and determine the trends in metrics within 

reaches, between reaches, and in comparison with previous results. 

• When scheduling sampling site selection or field data collections, South 

Feather would notify the agencies at least 30 days in advance to provide the 

opportunity to participate or observe. If field conditions or operational 

situations preclude a 30-day notification, South Feather would provide 

notice as far in advance as feasible. 

• South Feather would provide the results of benthic macroinvertebrate 

monitoring to the agencies in a technical report at the annual consultation 

meeting following completion of each sampling effort. In addition to 

describing the results, the report would compare the results with those of 

previous surveys. 

Cal Fish & Game recommends a benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring plan that is 

identical to the Forest Service plan, except that sampling would be conducted in years 1 

through 4 and in years 8, 12, 16, and 24, unless an alternative monitoring schedule is 

approved in consultation with the agencies. In addition, Cal Fish & Game recommends 

that South Feather follow the most recent Cal Fish & Game for sampling benthic 

macroinvertebrate species composition and abundance. 

Our Analysis 

Benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring would assist with determining the 

effectiveness of measures implemented in the new license for enhancing trout 

populations, and for assessing whether any modifications or additional measures are 

needed. 

Sampling benthic macroinvertebrates in the same years as fish population 

monitoring would help to identify relationships between fish populations and the 

abundance of the aquatic macroinvertebrate prey base, which would improve 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-94

understanding of the relationship between measures that are implemented and aquatic 

productivity. Identifying the procedures that would be followed in the sampling plan 

would ensure that comparable methods are employed in different years, and would not be 

subject to any biases associated with any changes in sampling protocols. 

Annual Consultation 

The Forest Service specifies that South Feather consult with the Forest Service 

each year with regard to measures that are needed to ensure protection and utilization of 

the National Forest resources affected by the project (Forest Service Standard Condition 

No. 3). The date of the consultation meeting would be mutually agreed to by South 

Feather and the Forest Service but in general would be held 60 days prior to the 

beginning of the recreation season to facilitate implementation of flow management 

requirements and recreational management activities. Representatives from other 

interested agencies would be able to request to attend the meeting. Consultation would 

include, but not be limited to: 

• A status report regarding implementation of license conditions; 

• Results of any monitoring studies performed over the previous year in 

formats agreed to by the Forest Service and South Feather during 

development of study plans; 

• Review of any non-routine maintenance; 

• Discussion of any foreseeable changes to project facilities or features; 

• Discussion of any necessary revisions or modifications to plans approved 

as part of this license; 

• Discussion of needed protection measures for species newly listed as 

threatened, endangered, or sensitive or, changes to existing management 

plans that may no longer be warranted due to delisting of species or, to 

incorporate new knowledge about a species requiring protection; and 

• Discussion of elements of current year maintenance plans, such as for road 

maintenance. 

• South Feather would keep a record of the meeting, which would include 

any recommendations made by the Forest Service for the protection of 

National Forest lands and resources. South Feather would file the meeting 

record, if requested, with the Commission no later than 60 days following 

the meeting. A copy of the certified record for the previous water year 

regarding instream flow, monitoring reports, and other pertinent records 

would be provided to the Forest Service at least 10 days prior to the 

meeting date, unless otherwise agreed. Copies of other reports related to 

project safety and non-compliance would be submitted to the Forest 

Service concurrently with submittal to the Commission. These would 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-95

include, but are not limited to: any non-compliance report filed by South 

Feather, geologic or seismic reports, and structural safety reports for 

facilities located on or affecting Forest Service lands. Subject to any 

restrictions contained in any agreement with South Feather, the Forest 

Service reserves the right, after notice and opportunity for comment, to 

require changes in the project and its operation through revision of the 

Section 4(e) conditions to accomplish protection and utilization of National 

Forest lands and resources. 

Cal Fish & Game recommends that South Feather, in consultation with the 

agencies, develop and implement an adaptive management plan acceptable to Cal Fish & 

Game that will allow Cal Fish & Game and other interested governmental agencies to 

recommend changes to project operation during the license term based on the results of 

biological monitoring. The plan would include a process for identifying whether changes 

to project operation including, but not limited to, operation of fish screens, operation of a 

thermal control device, riparian vegetation management, ramping rates, and the amount 

and timing of flow releases from project features are required, and a mechanism for 

implementing those changes. 

Our Analysis 

Conducting annual meetings to review the results of monitoring reports and to 

consider any need to modify project operation or environmental measures would help to 

ensure that National Forest System lands and important environmental resources are 

protected. Opening the meeting to all interested parties would assist with interpretation 

of monitoring results and ensure that the full range of effects of any changes in operation 

or measures are fully considered. 

3.3.2.3 Cumulative Effects 

The construction and operation of the South Feather Power Project contributes to 

cumulative effects on water resources and fisheries resources within the South Feather 

basin. Project effects on water temperatures are likely variable by reach, reducing 

summer temperatures below major storage reservoirs with deep releases such as Little 

Grass Valley reservoir and Sly Creek, while increasing the amount of warming that 

occurs within bypassed or diverted reaches. Increased water temperatures from reduced 

flows in Slate Creek downstream of the Slate Creek diversion and in the Yuba River 

downstream of the Slate Creek confluence may act in concert with other factors including 

logging, wildfires, land clearing, and consumptive water uses, to cause a cumulative 

reduction in streamflow and increase in water temperatures. South Feather’s proposal to 

cease diversions from Slate Creek when the average water temperature exceeds 20°C 

would eliminate the project’s contribution to cumulative effects on water temperature in 

Slate Creek during the critical high temperature period of the year. 

South Feather’s impoundments, tunnels, and canals also support some diversions 

for non-project consumptive uses, which contribute a minor cumulative reduction in flow 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-96

volumes downstream of these diversions in addition to any reductions associated with 

upstream consumptive uses. Diversion of flow from Slate Creek by South Feather also 

contributes to a cumulative reduction in flow volumes in lower Slate Creek and in the 

Yuba River downstream of the Slate Creek confluence. As noted above, South Feather’s 

proposal to cease diversions from Slate Creek when the average water temperature 

exceeds 20°C would eliminate the project’s contribution to cumulative effects on water 

temperature in Slate Creek during the critical high temperature period of the year. 

Trapping of gravel in project impoundments also may contribute to a reduction in 

the supply of spawning gravels caused by other diversions and impoundments in the 

basin. However, the results of South Feather’s fish population surveys did not indicate 

any lack of recruitment, indicating that enough spawning gravel exists to allow sufficient 

trout spawning to occur. 

3.3.3 Terrestrial Resources 

3.3.3.1 Affected Environment 

Vegetation 

South Feather conducted field surveys in 2004 and used existing vegetation GIS 

data prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention, the Plumas 

National Forest, and DWR to identify vegetation communities within the project area. 

Tree-dominated communities cover 84 percent of the study area, and dominant conifer 

species within these communities include ponderosa pine, douglas fir, white fir, and 

incense cedar. Dominant hardwood species include blue oak, California black oak, 

Oregon white oak, canyon live oak, tanoak, and Pacific madrone. Riparian vegetation 

accounts for 0.3 percent of the area covered by tree-dominated communities. Tree 

species within the riparian areas include black cottonwood, willow, alder, and dogwood. 

Chaparral shrublands and herbaceous areas cover an additional 2.7 percent (2.1 and 0.6 

percent, respectively) of the project area. Aquatic habitats, bare areas, and developed 

areas account for the remaining 13.3 percent. 

Riparian Vegetation 

South Feather conducted surveys focused on riparian vegetation in 2005 to more 

accurately describe vegetation dynamics within 200 feet of the normal high water line 

along river reaches in the project area. The surveys produced a more detailed map and 

description of existing riparian vegetation and a characterization of tree age structure 

within these communities. 

Dominant riparian communities in the project area include the white alder type (30 

percent of total area), followed by the white alder/Indian rhubarb type (15 percent). The 

mountain alder type, which only occurred at the upper Little Grass Valley dam reach site, 

comprised 13 percent of the total mapped area. Table 3-32 (at the end of this resource 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-97

section) presents a complete summary of the composition of riparian vegetation within 

each surveyed area. 

Species composition and age structure studies indicate that species composition is 

similar at all sites and consistent with regional patterns. For example, Indian rhubarb was 

found at all sites and white alder occurred in every site except the highest elevation site, 

where it was replaced by thinleaf alder. Three genera dominated the riparian tree and 

shrub layers: alders, dogwoods, and willow. Alder species tended to dominate the 

riparian overstory at all sites. Dogwood species tended to be more abundant at mid- to 

high elevation sites, and willow species at low- to mid-elevation sites within the study 

area. Distribution of vegetation is strongly influenced by the natural channel morphology 

in the study area. The channels are steep, narrow, confined, and dominated by bedrock 

and boulder substrates, which naturally results in patchy distribution of riparian 

vegetation. Age analysis focused on white alder because it is the most prevalent tree 

species within the selected study sites. The study found recruitment at all sites, and a low 

presence of old trees at lowest elevation sites. 

Following a request from the Forest Service, South Feather mapped woody 

vegetation encroachment on the stream channel within the Forbestown diversion dam 

reach. South Feather used video footage taken during a helicopter flight along the project 

and mapped vegetation within the active channel. The survey identified 16 sites ranging 

from 25 to 150 feet long where encroachment occurred. Combined, these sites comprised 

1,250 feet of the 5.5-mile reach (4 percent). 

Noxious Weeds 

South Feather identified 10 state-designated noxious species within the project 

boundary during 2004 vegetation surveys. The surveys also identified 12 species listed 

by the Forest Service or the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC), but not state 

listed. Table 3-33 (at the end of this resource section) presents the state- and federally 

listed noxious species and species identified by Cal-IPC identified within the study area, 

the size of the populations, and the general location of the recorded observations. 

Special Status Plant Species 

South Feather conducted a special-status plant survey in 2004 that covered a 0.5-

mile buffer around project facilities (table 3-34). South Feather’s survey identified 10 

special status species distributed across a total of 37 sites in the study area. Several 

species were represented at some but not all sites. Three of the 10 species, Lake Almanor 

clarkia (Clarkia stellata), round-leaf sundew (Drosera rotundifolia), and Northern 

California walnut (Juglans hindsii), were not on the initial target list. No federally or 

state-listed threatened or endangered plant species were observed during the survey. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-98

Wildlife 

The diversity of forested, reservoir, and stream habitats in the project area supports 

a wide variety of invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Project 

reservoirs provide habitat and a prey base for piscivorous birds, such as bald eagles and 

osprey, and nesting and migratory habitat for a diversity of waterfowl. A variety of bat 

species including, but not limited to, western mastiff bat, Mexican free-tailed bat, pallid 

bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, big brown bat, red bat, long-eared myotis, little brown 

myotis, and long-legged myotis occur in or on tunnels, buildings, bridges, or other project 

features. Game species in the project vicinity include deer, waterfowl, and wild turkey. 

Common birds in the project area include waterfowl, gulls, pelicans, and common 

nighthawks. Columbian black-tailed deer, a subspecies of mule deer found in the project 

area, use the areas within the project as migration corridors and are known to migrate 

along the ridgetops to the south of the Sly Creek reservoir. Survey information from Cal 

Fish & Game indicates that California’s deer populations are “stable” to “slightly 

declining” Major factors affecting deer herds include fire suppression, timber 

management practices, livestock grazing, and weather patterns, although hunter harvest, 

predation, and road kills are also important factors affecting population fluctuations. The 

Miners Ranch conduit study area is within Cal Fish & Game’s Deer Assessment Unit 4. 

The deer population within Deer Assessment Unit 4 is estimated at 33,960 and slightly 

declining due to less-than-optimal deer habitat; this trend is expected to continue. Other 

mammals in the project area include coyote, gray fox, marten, black bear, and beaver.

Special Status Wildlife Species 

South Feather conducted a search of federal and state databases of wildlife with 

special status and consulted with agency (Forest Service, FWS, and the California 

Natural Diversity Database [CNDDB]) biologists familiar with special status species 

locations and determined that 68 vertebrate species and 2 invertebrate species with 

special status could potentially occur in the project vicinity. Of these species, South 

Feather identified one invertebrate, eight birds, three mammals, and three amphibians 

with recorded occurrences on project lands and/or near project facilities. Table 3-35 lists 

these species. 

South Feather conducted more detailed studies for the valley elderberry longhorn 

beetle, bald eagle, California spotted-owl, northern goshawk, special status bat species, 

mountain yellow-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, and California red-legged frog. 

Two of these special status species, valley elderberry longhorn beetle and California redlegged frog, both federally listed as threatened, are discussed in section 3.3.4, Threatened 

and Endangered Species. 

Bald eagle – Bald eagles nest in mature forests near bodies of water that provide a 

suitable fish population for foraging. Nests are typically constructed in large trees with 

an open view of the surrounding forest and are often used by the same pair of birds in 

consecutive years. Within the project boundary, nesting bald eagles only occur near 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-99

Little Grass Valley reservoir. One pair have been recorded nesting near the reservoir 

since 1987, and have used two different nest sites over that period. Wintering and 

transient bald eagles have also been observed at the Sly Creek, Lost Creek, Ponderosa, 

and Miners Ranch reservoirs. 

Management of lands surrounding the known nesting territory is guided by the 

Little Grass Valley reservoir Bald Eagle Management Plan. The Forest Service 

developed this plan with the intent of implementing, to the extent reasonably possible, 

resource management strategies to provide sufficient suitable nesting and foraging habitat 

for bald eagles at Little Grass Valley reservoir for the next 25 to 50 years. The plan 

includes several protection zones and measures that measures include the establishment 

of limited operating periods, promoting perch trees, and restricting the use of herbicides 

and pesticides. Also, under the plan, the Plumas National Forest is responsible for 

monitoring human use trends and considering restrictions in areas where conflicts arise, 

monitoring and surveying for bald eagles, and coordinating with other agencies, 

including Cal Fish & Game, and South Feather, to effectively implement the plan. 

California spotted owl – The California spotted owl occupies habitat with dense, 

multi-layered evergreen forest that includes a diversity of tree species, large trees, some 

trees with evidence of decadence, and open areas under the canopy. Occupied habitat is 

most often on lower, north-facing slopes of canyons and usually within 0.2 mile of water. 

The owls feed nocturnally on small rodents. 

The Forest Service has designated several areas within the project PACs based on 

suitable habitat for the California spotted owl. Little Grass Valley, Sly Creek, Lost 

Creek, Ponderosa, and Miners Ranch reservoirs, as well as the Forbestown, Slate Creek, 

and South Fork diversions are all within 1 mile of California spotted owl PACs. During 

the 2004 survey period, Plumas National Forest contractors detected California spotted 

owls within 0.5 mile of Sly Creek reservoir along the south shore and within 0.5 mile of 

Horse Camp campground at the northeastern portion of Little Grass Valley. During the 

2005 survey period, Plumas National Forest contractors detected California spotted owls 

within 0.5 mile of Little Grass Valley reservoir. In addition, the Plumas National Forest 

contractors reported a single detection along the south shore, north of Strawberry 

campground. Finally, Plumas National Forest surveys near Slate Creek diversion dam 

yielded three detections and one active nest discovery on Onion Creek. All three 

detections and the nest discovery near Slate Creek occurred more than 0.5 mile away 

from the Slate Creek diversion dam and impoundment. During the 2004 and 2005 survey 

seasons, South Feather detected spotted owls throughout the study area at Sly Creek 

reservoir, Lost Creek reservoir, and Slate Creek, including one confirmed nesting pair in 

Strawberry campground at Sly Creek reservoir. 

Northern goshawk – The northern goshawk nests in a variety of forest types but 

generally prefers large tracts of mature or old growth forest. Nesting habitat in the 

western United States typically occurs in ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, or mixed 

coniferous forests. Northern goshawks forage in both densely wooded and open forests. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-100

Prey typically includes small mammals, reptiles, and some insects. Two PACs for 

northern goshawk exist within 1 mile of Little Grass Valley reservoir. 

In 2004 and 2005, South Feather, in coordination with the Plumas National Forest, 

conducted surveys for northern goshawk near the Little Grass Valley, Sly Creek, Lost 

Creek, Ponderosa, and Forbestown reservoirs; near the Miners Ranch conduit; and near 

the Slate Creek diversion dam. Surveyors detected northern goshawks, including one 

active nest, in the Little Grass Valley reservoir study area. South Feather did not detect 

goshawks in any of the other study areas in 2004 or 2005. However, previous studies did 

detect this species near Lost Creek, Sly Creek, and Slate Creek. 

Bats – There are 10 special status bat species with the potential to occur in the 

project area (see table 3-36). South Feather surveyed 30 project facilities with the 

potential to provide roosting habitat for bats. Of these, surveyors identified 10 structures 

that either showed evidence of bat activity or had a high potential for use. In 2004, South 

Feather used passive and active acoustic monitoring and net or trap capture stations to 

identify bats roosting near these facilities. These surveys encountered 6 of the 10 species 

listed in table 3-36. Other recent surveys in the project area (2001 to present) 

encountered three of the remaining four species. The remaining species, the small-footed 

myotis, may occur in the area, but based on the distribution of existing records, this 

seems unlikely. This species is not well studied in California, but is presumed to be 

crevice-dwelling and associated with cliff habitat. 

Foothill yellow-legged frog – The foothill yellow-legged frog (FYLF) inhabits 

small streams below 5,000 feet elevation. Breeding occurs in low to moderate gradient 

streams in shallow edgewater areas; often close to confluences with tributary streams. 

Preferred substrate consists of cobble and small boulder bars in side pools and side 

channels with open sunny areas and little riparian vegetation. FYLF deposit masses of 

eggs on the downstream side of cobbles and boulders in gentle stream of water flow. Egg 

laying occurs in spring once water temperatures reach 12 to 13°C. Tadpoles occupy 

areas adjacent to riffles, cascades, main channel pools, and plunge-pools that provide 

escape cover and food. These areas are typically associated with edgewater habitat with 

substrate interstices, vegetation, and detritus for cover. The tadpoles tend to remain near 

the site of the egg mass they hatched from. Juvenile and adult FYLF prefer perennial 

streams and ephemeral creeks with pools and areas that provide exposed basking sites 

and cool shady areas adjacent to water’s edge. Preferred streams contain shallow, 

flowing water, with some cobble-sized substrate. 

Egg laying for FYLF is thought to occur over a 2-week period (Nussbaum et al., 

1983; Stebbins, 1985; Jennings, 1988). Eggs hatch in 15 to 30 days depending on water 

temperature, and tadpoles metamorphose into juvenile frogs in 3 to 4 months. Males 

reach sexual maturity in 1 to 2 years, and females in 2 years (Nussbaum et al., 1983). 

Life expectancy for FYLF is an estimated 3 years or longer (Duellman and Trueb, 1986). 

South Feather conducted an assessment of potential habitat based on video from 

helicopter flights over the project reaches in 2003 and pedestrian habitat surveys in 2004. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-101

Using this information, South Feather selected 30 sites in areas with potential habitat and 

conducted between 1 and 4 visual encounter surveys at each site. Project reaches where 

surveyors encountered adult or juvenile FYLF are Lost Creek reach (2 sites), Forbestown 

diversion dam reach (7 sites), and Slate Creek diversion dam reach (2 sites). Egg masses 

and/or tadpoles occurred at three sites along the Lost Creek reach and one site along the 

Slate Creek reach. 

Mountain yellow-legged frog – The mountain yellow-legged frog (MYLF) occurs 

in montane riparian habitats with slow-moving streams, lakes, and ponds above 4,500 

feet. MYLF use habitat very similar to FYLF, but with deeper water (12 to 20 inches) 

and at higher elevation. MYLF egg masses are typically not attached to substrate. Using 

similar methods to those discussed above, South Feather identified five sites with 

potential MYLF habitat and conducted visual encounter surveys. All five sites are 

located along the SFFR upstream from Little Grass Valley reservoir. During site visits, 

surveyors determined that MYLF habitat was of low quality due to a lack of deep, slowmoving water and overwintering habitat. No MYLF were encountered. 

3.3.3.2 Environmental Effects 

Noxious Weeds 

Project operation potentially affects vegetation through the introduction and 

spreading of noxious weed species. Any O&M actions, including road blading, 

vegetation control along roadsides and in transmission corridors, and fluctuating water 

levels, that disturb soil or remove existing vegetation could increase the spread of 

noxious weeds and would have a direct effect on vegetation. Potential indirect project 

effects could come from recreational users that spread noxious weed seeds or other 

regenerative plant materials from colonized to non-colonized areas. 

South Feather proposes several measures to prevent and control the spread of A 

and B-rated noxious weeds on National Forest System lands within the project 

boundary.18 South Feather would also implement control measures where contiguous 

populations continue on National Forest System lands outside of the FERC project 

boundary, as long as the majority of the treated area is on project lands. Specific 

measures proposed by South Feather include training staff to recognize noxious species, 

monitoring populations, sharing information on new populations with the Forest Service, 

and several best management practices aimed at reducing the spread of noxious weeds. 

 

18As defined by the California Department of Food and Agriculture, A-rated 

species require eradication, containment, rejection, or other holding action at the statecounty level. Quarantine interceptions for A-rated species are to be rejected or treated at 

any point in the state. B-rated species require eradication, containment, control, or other 

holding action at the discretion of the Commissioner. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-102

Forest Service Condition No. 26 prescribes that, within 2 years of license issuance, 

South Feather would file with the Commission an invasive weed management plan 

developed in consultation with the Forest Service, appropriate county agricultural 

commissioner, and California Department of Food and Agriculture. South Feather would 

control invasive weeds that are defined in the California Food and Agriculture code, and 

other species identified by the Forest Service. The majority of the prescribed plan is 

consistent with South Feather’s proposed measure; however, the prescription includes 

several additional requirements that would have South Feather: (1) address aquatic and 

terrestrial invasive weeds; (2) include protocols for locating, monitoring, and controlling 

weed populations; (3) include a public education program and facilities for public use to 

reduce the spread of aquatic species; and (4) provide information on noxious weed 

populations in a data format compatible with the Forest Service GIS database. 

Our Analysis 

Twenty-two species of noxious weeds occur within the project boundary, eight that 

Cal-IPC lists as high priority. Both special status and noxious weed species have been 

observed along most project reaches. Noxious weeds have the potential to out-compete 

special status plant species, if they move into special status plant habitat. Project 

maintenance and operation can aid the proliferation of noxious weeds. Project roads can 

act as a method of seed dispersal into areas previously not infested and vegetation 

management within transmission lines can cause disturbance which allows noxious weeds 

to move in. Finally, project-related recreation acts both as a means of dispersal from one 

project area to another and as a source of disturbance, which creates conditions favorable 

to noxious weed establishment. 

Implementing the proposed invasive weed and vegetation management plan would 

control current populations and future infestations of noxious weeds within the project 

boundary on Forest Service lands. We interpret the proposed invasive weed management 

plan to be intended for lands within the project boundary that are adjacent to project 

features directly affecting National Forest System lands. Because not all project-related 

noxious weed infestations occur on project lands that affect National Forest System 

lands, expanding the invasive weed and vegetation management plan to all lands within 

the project boundary that are affected by project operation or maintenance would result in 

more complete control of noxious weeds that are affected by the proposed project. 

The California Department of Food and Agriculture rating system defines Q-rated 

species as those pending evaluation for a permanent rating. These species are treated as 

A-rated species in the interim, which requires action at the state and county level. If, as 

specified by the Forest Service, South Feather includes Q-rated species in the list of 

species managed as noxious weeds, project effects on vegetation would be further 

minimized. 

Successful weed control requires a cooperative effort by all landowners and land 

managers in the vicinity, because untreated weeds on adjacent lands provide a ready seed 

source for infestation by new species and re-infestation after treatment of existing 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-103

problem weeds. Communication between South Feather and the Forest Service would be 

a necessary component of a successful weed management program. South Feather’s 

proposed measures include informal monitoring of known populations and advising the 

Forest Service of new populations on National Forest System lands. The coordination 

process would be more productive if this communication includes maps showing 

locations of all populations on project lands with the potential of spreading onto National 

Forest System lands. A database prepared using GIS software, as prescribed by the 

Forest Service, would be beneficial to the management of noxious weeds and would 

facilitate communication between the Forest Service and South Feather. South Feather 

prepared the South Feather Power Project Relicensing GIS Database as a component of 

filing its application for license renewal and has demonstrated the ability to use such 

resources. If, as prescribed by the Forest Service, South Feather compiles and maintains 

a Forest Service-compatible GIS data layer for noxious weeds, South Feather would 

minimize effects on vegetation. 

Recreational boaters may spread noxious aquatic plants to other locations within 

the project boundary and to other waters in the region. These species could result in 

degraded aquatic ecosystems affecting wildlife and recreational resources in locations 

where they are not controlled. If measures including public education and boat cleaning 

stations are incorporated into the management of noxious weeds, as prescribed by the 

Forest Service, South Feather would minimize the spread of noxious aquatic weeds. 

Riparian Vegetation Encroachment 

Project operation has the potential to affect riparian vegetation by altering the 

timing, magnitude, and duration of water flows (i.e., hydrograph) along project stream 

channels. Many species of riparian trees, including Fremont cottonwood and willow, 

have specific requirements for micro-habitats within which seeds can germinate and 

survive. Altering the flows could cause either riparian encroachment into the channel or 

limit the extent of the riparian corridor. South Feather does not propose to change large 

flood flow control from current practices. 

The Forest Service specifies in Condition No. 19, part 3, and Cal Fish & Game 

recommends that South Feather conduct video surveys to identify areas of vegetation 

channel encroachment. Surveys would be conducted the fourth year after license 

issuance and repeated every 10 years. South Feather would conduct the surveys by 

helicopter along the South Fork diversion dam and Forbestown diversion dam reaches. 

South Feather and the agencies would review the video and identify up to three 100- to 

300-foot long segments within the South Fork diversion dam reach, and up to five 100- to 

300-foot long segments in the Forbestown diversion dam reach where vegetation is 

encroaching into the channel. South Feather would then treat these reaches with 

vegetation removal measures, and evaluate the effectiveness of the treatments every 5 

years to determine if conditions would require another treatment. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-104

South Feather agreed to Forest Service Condition No. 19, part 3, in its reply 

comments. 

Our Analysis 

By nature, riparian systems are highly dynamic, with changes in vegetation 

structure occurring over space and time. The presence of some vegetation within the 

channel is expected as it is a component of channel formation and vegetation 

regeneration processes. The spatial pattern of riparian vegetation is controlled by the 

timing, duration, and frequency of water flows. High flood flows remove vegetation 

from the stream channel and deposit sediments suitable for establishing new vegetation. 

Low flow levels determine whether enough water is present for vegetation to persist. 

South Feather maintains that the magnitude and frequency of floods that have 

occurred during the life of the project have been suitable for maintaining a healthy 

riparian ecosystem. Past floods have been large enough to control encroachment of 

vegetation into the channel, and also have promoted the regeneration of riparian trees. 

South Feather’s studies indicate that existing flooding processes active within the 

Forbestown and South Fork reaches are sufficient to prevent substantial channel 

encroachment of vegetation. Encroachment was only evident along 4 percent of the 

Forbestown diversion dam reach and was not observed at the South Fork diversion dam 

reach. We would expect to see this condition at more than 4 percent of the area if project 

operation was not sufficiently controlling encroachment. The new license would not alter 

the low frequency, high magnitude floods that are associated with the formation of 

germination sites and control of riparian encroachment. The new license also would 

increase minimum flows, and maintain a wider active channel. We do not expect 

proposed project operation to result in an increase in riparian encroachment compared to 

current operations. Furthermore, removing riparian vegetation also would cause a loss in 

habitat for other species and potential increases in erosion. The Forest Service condition 

to treat riparian vegetation would have an adverse effect on riparian vegetation and 

habitat for some wildlife species because habitat would be removed. However, as 

discussed below, the benefits to FYLF could outweigh these adverse effects if 

encroachment of riparian vegetation is adversely affecting FYLF habitat. 

Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species Management 

New species are added to and removed from special status lists maintained by 

FWS, Forest Service, and Cal Fish & Game on an annual basis. Currently, 10 plant and 

15 wildlife species with some form of special status occur within the project area. 

Disturbance from road maintenance, reservoir water level fluctuations, weed 

management and debris removal, and recreation activities associated with the project 

could reduce habitat or cause mortality of special status plant and wildlife. 

South Feather proposes to annually review, in consultation with the Forest 

Service, any new species proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act, 

California Endangered Species Act, California Native Plant Protection Act, or by the 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-105

Forest Service, to assess the potential for those species to occur on NSF lands within the 

project boundary and to be affected by project O&M. South Feather would develop and 

implement a study plan, in consultation with resource agencies, to assess the effects of 

continued project O&M on such species. This study would include a detailed description 

of the methodology to be used and schedule for conducting the study. In addition, the 

study plan would (1) describe the goals and objectives of the study; (2) address any 

known resource management goals related to the species; (3) describe existing 

information regarding the species, including its abundance and distribution; (4) explain 

the nexus between normal project O&M and potential effects on the species; (5) explain 

how the study methodology is consistent with generally accepted practices in the 

scientific community; and (6) describe considerations of level of effort and cost. 

Additionally, South Feather would annually train employees in the proper procedures for 

minimizing effects on special status plant and wildlife species. 

The Forest Service specifies in Condition No.24 an annual review process similar 

to that proposed by South Feather. The Forest Service specification does not include any 

additional measures not already addressed by South Feather’s proposal; however, the 

Forest Service specifies that, before construction of any new project features on National 

Forest System lands that might affect Forest Service special status species or their critical 

habitat, South Feather should prepare a Biological Evaluation. The Biological Evaluation 

would analyze the effects of the new construction on the species and habitat, report 

findings from any necessary surveys, propose mitigation measures, and describe 

monitoring efforts that would be implemented to ensure mitigation is effective. 

Our Analysis 

Resource agencies maintain lists of rare, threatened, or endangered species to 

preserve biodiversity and limit the risk of species extinctions. As new information 

becomes available and environmental conditions change, species are added to and 

removed from these lists. An adaptive management program for special status species 

would ensure that project management is aware of these changes in species lists and 

modify project O&M as appropriate. 

Measures proposed by South Feather and prescribed by the Forest Service for 

protecting future special status species are consistent and compatible. South Feather and 

the Forest Service would develop a set of study methodologies and procedures that would 

adequately monitor and protect these resources. If South Feather prepares a Biological 

Evaluation, as specified by the Forest Service, prior to the construction of any new 

development on National Forest System lands, effects on special status plant and wildlife 

species could be identified and minimized early. Under such circumstances, the 

production of a Biological Evaluation would reduce effects on special status species. 

Terrestrial Habitat Connectivity 

The Miners Ranch conduit contains a 5.5-mile long segment of above-ground, 

open canal that impedes wildlife movement near Lake Oroville. Occasionally animals 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-106

become trapped in the conduit and drown. Multiple crossing points, including culverts 

and wildlife bridges, exist along the length of the open segment. The canal also contains 

escape ramps for wildlife that have fallen into the canal. Over time, large flow events, 

changes in vegetation structure, or general deterioration of facilities could reduce the 

effectiveness of these mitigation measures. Under such conditions, the conduit could 

cause increased migration impediments and mortality for wildlife. 

To ensure that mitigation measures in place to facilitate wildlife movement across 

the canal continue to be successful, South Feather proposes to consult with Cal Fish & 

Game regarding specifications and design prior to replacing or retrofitting existing 

wildlife bridge crossings or deer escape facilities. South Feather would file the design, 

including evidence of consultation, with the Commission within 60 days after the 

crossing or facility has been replaced or retrofitted. 

Cal Fish & Game recommends that, in addition to consultation prior to the 

development of new facilities, South Feather conduct surveys to ensure that existing 

facilities are operational. The agency recommends that these surveys occur twice a year 

–in the spring and fall prior to deer migration. The recommended surveys would ensure 

that existing bridges, escape ramps, and fences are operational and maintained. 

Our Analysis 

South Feather’s surveys indicate that the Miners Ranch conduit is a source of 

wildlife mortality, with an average of 9 mule deer trapped and killed in the canal 

annually. However, surveys of crossing facilities indicate that they are used by wildlife, 

thus reducing potential additional mortality. Surveys also show that the greatest use 

occurs in the spring and fall during seasonal migrations. If South Feather conducts 

surveys prior to the spring and fall migrations, it would be able to evaluate the 

operational status of the facilities and therefore, maintain them as appropriate to ensure 

they are functional prior to heavy use periods. Such monitoring and maintenance would 

further reduce effects of the project on mule deer. 

Bald Eagle 

One pair of bald eagles has been recorded nesting in the project area. The pair has 

used two nest sites, both located on National Forest System lands in the vicinity of the 

Little Grass Valley reservoir. In 2002, the Forest Service developed and implemented, 

and FWS approved, the Little Grass Valley reservoir Bald Eagle Management Plan. This 

plan established management guidelines, including limited operation periods, timber and 

hazard tree removal prescriptions, and eagle monitoring programs, aimed at addressing 

the needs of the Little Grass Valley reservoir bald eagles. Where applicable, South 

Feather adheres to the measures prescribed in this plan and has not proposed any 

additional measures relating to the bald eagle. The Forest Service specifies in Condition 

No. 25 that South Feather consult with the Forest Service to update and revise the 

existing Bald Eagle Management Plan based on new project O&M. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-107

Our Analysis 

Relicensing the project would result in changes in project O&M, which could 

include increases in minimum flows released from reservoirs. Increasing water releases 

would affect reservoir levels, which would affect foraging area for the bald eagle. If 

South Feather consults with the Forest Service, as specified, to revise and update the 

existing Little Grass Valley reservoir Bald Eagle Management Plan, as prescribed by the 

Forest Service, effects on the bald eagle could be reduced. 

Bat Management 

During pre-licensing surveys, South Feather observed six special status bat species 

using project facilities for day and night roosting habitat. None of the six species are 

state or federally listed as endangered or threatened. To reduce potential effects of 

project O&M on bats, and address potential health concerns associated with South 

Feather employees working in proximity to bats, South Feather proposes to install bat 

exclusion devices in some areas. South Feather would place the exclusion devises on 

project facilities that are regularly visited by employees, and not within tunnel areas 

behind grates. South Feather would select the exclusion devices following consultation 

with Cal Fish & Game or a Bat Conservation International-approved specialist. 

Forest Service Condition No. 25 specifies and Cal Fish & Game recommends that 

South Feather consult with resource agencies and develop a bat management plan to 

mitigate effects on bats. 

Our Analysis 

Although South Feather’s proposed measures would not displace a large bat 

colony, the exclusion devices would remove some roosting habitat and potentially affect 

special status bat species. South Feather could mitigate this displacement with the 

installation of bat boxes or other protection or mitigation measures. If South Feather 

consults with resource agencies to develop a bat management plan, as specified by the 

Forest Service and recommended by Cal Fish & Game, the agencies and South Feather 

would identify and implement such protection and mitigation measures and South 

Feather would reduce effects on special-status bat species. 

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog 

South Feather identified suitable habitat and observed FYLF within three project 

reaches: Lost Creek dam, Forbestown diversion dam, and Slate Creek diversion dam. 

New minimum flows, ramping rates, and flow pulses associated with continued operation 

of the project could affect water velocity, temperature, and channel morphology in 

reaches with FYLF. These changes in habitat could cause increased stress, affect the 

timing of breeding, and reduce reproduction success for FYLF. 

South Feather proposes several measures to minimize effects on FYLF, including 

considering FYLF habitat preference when developing minimum flow levels (discussed 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-108

in detail in section 3.3.2, Aquatic Resources) and avoiding high pulse flows. South 

Feather proposes to avoid the release of controlled high flows during periods when FYLF 

are expected to be active. This measure would be in effect from April 15, or whenever 

water temperatures reach 13°C (whichever is later) until October 31 of each year. 

Cal Fish & Game recommends that South Feather develop a FYLF monitoring 

plan. The plan would include annual surveys monitoring FYLF adult, tadpole, and egg 

mass numbers in the SFFR/Lost Creek dam, Forbestown diversion dam, and Slate Creek 

diversion dam reaches for the first 10 years after relicensing, followed with similar 

surveys every 5 years for the term of the license. Cal Fish & Game also recommends that 

following 5 years of FYLF monitoring, South Feather implement ramping rates that 

would protect FYLF egg masses and tadpoles in all reaches where they occur. 

In addition to the population monitoring recommended by Cal Fish & Game, the 

Forest Service specifies in preliminary Condition No. 19, 2.2 through 2.4, the 

development of a population model, a population viability model, a 2-D habitat model, a 

temperature monitoring protocol, and a geomorphology and riparian encroachment 

monitoring protocol. The population model would mathematically relate numbers of egg 

masses to numbers of tadpoles and numbers of adults based on the proportion of 

individuals that are predicted to survive to the next life stage. The population viability 

model would project population trends and identify whether the FYLF population is 

stable, growing, declining, and if declining, time to extinction. The prescribed 2-D 

habitat model would construct discharge to velocity and discharge to stage relationships 

at FYLF egg sites to determine the effect of ramping rates on egg masses. Under the 

specified temperature monitoring, South Feather would track water temperature at FYLF 

breeding sites and conduct studies on the effect of water temperature on egg development 

and metamorphosis processes. Finally, the geomorphology and riparian encroachment 

plan would monitor the effects of the new managed flow protocol on gravel bar formation 

and vegetation establishment to identify the resulting effects of FYLF habitat availability. 

The Forest Service also specifies a management protocol for controlling the rates 

of water flow changes following uncontrollable flood events. Under the Forest Service 

condition, South Feather, as soon as reasonably possible, would evaluate the step 

reductions (i.e., change in streamflows from one period to another) from May through 

July at the South Fork, Forbestown, Lost Creek and Slate Creek diversion dams for each 

water year type. Specific step reductions are listed in tables 3-10 through 3-14, and water 

year types are also described in section 3.3.2, Aquatic Resources. The purpose of this 

condition is to determine a rate at which to implement the step reductions that would not 

exceed the Forest Service’s target rates of water velocity and stage changes for the 

protection of FYLF. These targets are: (1) when egg masses are likely to be present, 

water velocities shall be less than 0.8 foot per second measured as mean column velocity 

at the egg mass locations and no more than 20 percent of egg masses de-watered as a 

result of the May through July step reductions; and, (2) when tadpoles/juveniles are likely 

to be present, water velocities shall not change more than 0.4 foot per second per hour 

measured as mean column velocity at the tadpole/juvenile locations, with a upper 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-109

threshold mean column velocity not to exceed 1.0 foot per second at the tadpole/juvenile 

locations at any time. The Forest Service developed these targets based on empirical data 

presented in Kupferberg et al. (2008) and Lind et al. (2008). 

To make this evaluation, South Feather would provide to the Forest Service its 

expectation of the water year type through July of that year by the first April 15 after 

license issuance. By April 15, South Feather would also provide to the Forest Service, 

for approval: (1) a brief description of the protocols that South Feather proposes to use 

for the sampling described below; and (2) three locations South Feather proposes for 

monitoring, allowing for each one to coincide with known sites of FYLF breeding in the 

following stream reaches: (a) SFFR from the confluence with Lost Creek to Forbestown 

diversion dam (SFFR/Lost Creek reach); (b) SFFR from Forbestown diversion dam to 

Ponderosa reservoir (Forbestown diversion dam reach); and (c) Slate Creek from Slate 

Creek diversion dam to New Bullards Bar reservoir (Slate Creek diversion dam reach). 

For the purpose of evaluating the Forest Service’s target rates of water velocity and stage 

changes, the Forest Service states that South Feather should consider the monitoring 

locations representative of conditions in the reach. It also specifies that sampling should 

include the following two components: 

1. Velocity and Stage Measurements. At each of the above-listed project dams, 

South Feather would implement each step reduction from May through July in 

two approximately equal steps (e.g., a step reduction from 126 to 53 cfs should 

occur over 2 hours with a reduction at the beginning of the first hour from 126 

to 89 cfs, and the reduction at the beginning of the second hour from 89 to 53 

cfs) or up to 20 cfs reductions, whichever is greater. During each reduction, 

immediately prior to the reduction in flow at the dam and about every 30 

minutes after the reduction in flow at the dam, South Feather would measure 

stage (total depth in tenths of a foot) and water velocity (mean column velocity 

in tenths of a foot per second) at the monitoring locations. Monitoring would 

continue until stage change related to the step reduction is no greater than 0.1 

foot between sampling events at the monitoring location. 

2. Habitat Monitoring. At the highest and lowest step reduction flow, South 

Feather would map FYLF habitat availability at each monitoring location. 

Mapping protocols would be similar to those for FYLF habitat mapping in 

Silver Creek performed by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District for 

relicensing of its Upper American River Project (FERC No. 2101). 

Within 3 months of completing the sampling for that water year type, South 

Feather would prepare a draft report that describes the results of the sampling, including 

curves which relate stage and velocity to discharge at each monitoring location sampled, 

and the results of the habitat mapping in appropriate plots. The report would discuss the 

findings in relation to the Forest Service’s water velocity and stage targets described 

above and recommend a ramping rate (in cfs per unit time) at each of the South Fork, 

Forbestown, Lost Creek, and Slate Creek dams for the periods from May through July for 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-110

the water year type in which the sampling was performed. The report also would include 

an estimate of accretion from the project dams to the monitoring locations during the 

sampling, and the actual water year types for each month during the sampling occurred. 

South Feather would provide the report to the Forest Service for 60-day review. Within 

60 days of the close of the comment period South Feather would file with the 

Commission a final report including evidence of consultation and any written comments 

made by the Forest Service. South Feather would implement the ramping rate for that 

water year type following approval by the Commission. 

If additional information concerning the effects of ramping rates on amphibians 

becomes available, South Feather would re-evaluate the ramping rates. South Feather 

would repeat the sampling in each subsequent year until the sampling has been performed 

once for each water year type. If the expected water year type in a subsequent year is the 

same as a water year type for which South Feather has previously sampled or if sampling 

in previous years is deemed adequate by the Forest Service to address the expected water 

year type, South Feather would not repeat the exercise in that year. The sampling would 

occur in a maximum number of 4 years. 

In response to the Forest Service condition, South Feather commented that the 

development of population and habitat models and studies relating water temperature to 

development processes would be overly expensive and are not necessary for evaluating 

effects of the project. South Feather also states that these prescriptions are not directly 

related to the project, but are research projects aimed at better understanding FYLF 

biology in general. South Feather filed an alternative 4(e) condition in which it proposed 

to eliminate the population model, population viability model, 2-D habitat model, 

temperature monitoring and associated studies, and geomorphology and riparian 

encroachment monitoring from Forest Service’s 4(e) condition. South Feather’s 

alternative 4(e) condition also proposed a monitoring plan which would include two types 

of surveys: full reach and representative. South Feather would conduct full reach 

surveys in first year following relicensing and then repeat them every 10 years. These 

surveys would consist of surveying all reasonable accessible FYLF habitat in the South 

Fork Feather River/Lost Creek, Forbestown diversion dam, and Slate Creek diversion 

dam reaches. South Feather would conduct the representative surveys once every 10 

years starting the fifth year after relicensing which would include surveys located at one 

site within each of the three reaches. South Feather would conduct both the full reach 

and representative surveys following the methodology used for the pre-license 

application studies. Based on the results of these surveys, South Feather, in consultation 

with the Forest Service, would evaluate project effects on FYLF. If it is evident that 

there are adverse project-related effects, South Feather, in consultation with the Forest 

Service, would recommend more targeted studies aimed at identifying the mechanisms 

for such adverse effects and identifying appropriate mitigation measures. South Feather 

would implement any such recommendations subsequently approved by the Commission.

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-111

Our Analysis 

Proposed project operation would alter the existing hydrograph in stream channels 

known to support FYLF, including the Lost Creek, Forbestown, and Slate Creek 

diversions. Quickly reducing high flows to minimum low flow levels could increase 

mortality of egg masses and tadpoles by stranding them in dry areas as flows recede. 

Conversely, high flows could wash egg masses, tadpoles and adults downstream to 

unsuitable habitat which could increase mortality. The degree to which these changes 

would affect FYLF populations is unknown. Monitoring the effect of high flow releases 

on FYLF populations is needed to determine whether proposed changes in project 

operation adversely affect FYLF, and to develop measures that may be warranted to 

reduce adverse effects. 

The release of high flows for recreational purposes is discussed in section 3.3.4.2, 

Recreational Resources. The FYLF breeding period is triggered by water temperatures 

warming to 12°C following springtime high water flows associated with snowmelt. The 

date this occurs will vary from year to year depending on climatic conditions. Avoiding 

the release of pulse flows between the date water temperatures reach 12°C and October 

31 would avoid affecting FYLF during their spring and summer periods of activity. 

The implementation of an appropriately structured monitoring plan that identifies 

changes in FYLF habitat, breeding periods, and population levels would be a necessary 

tool for evaluating project effects on FYLF, and developing and implementing mitigation 

measures. South Feather’s alternative 4(e) condition includes surveys in the SFFR/Lost 

Creek, Forbestown diversion dam and Slate Creek diversion dam reaches in the first year 

of the license and every 5 years thereafter. However, to detect the effects of new license 

conditions on amphibian populations, it is important to incorporate lag times into the 

design and interpretation of monitoring because the response of breeding populations 

may not be detected for years after the new discharge regimes have altered conditions for 

spawning and tadpole rearing (Kupferberg, 1996). It would take 1 to 2 years for new 

eggs to hatch, mature, and reproduce. Therefore, the full effects of initial project-related 

changes in breeding success on population levels would not be evident for several years. 

As such, annual monitoring for the first 10 years, as specified by the Forest Service and 

recommended by Cal Fish & Game, would be needed to identify any unanticipated short 

term effects early in the license term, while monitoring every 5 years thereafter would be 

sufficient to detect any long-term changes. 

South Feather’s alternative 4(e) condition would include full-reach surveys of all 

reasonably accessible FYLF habitat in the first year of the license, and every 10 years 

thereafter, while all other surveys would be conducted in representative areas within each 

reach. The survey protocols specified by the Forest Service and recommended by Cal 

Fish & Game did not specify the extent of the surveys to be conducted in each reach. 

Representative sampling is an accepted scientific method for collecting biological data, 

and if used appropriately, could detect most changes in FYLF populations and habitat 

conditions. However, as channel morphology adjusts to the new hydrologic conditions, 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-112

suitable FYLF habitat could be removed in some areas and created in others. As a result, 

periodic full reach surveys would be needed to be conducted to detect such long-term 

shifts in habitat. A monitoring methodology that includes both full reach and 

representative surveys would be appropriate for detecting changes in habitat and 

population levels. We recommend that the first five annual surveys be full-reach surveys, 

after which full reach surveys be conducted every 10 years. 

The results of the Forest Service-specified population modeling and temperature 

studies would be informative and could enhance conservation efforts for FYLF. 

However, they are in excess of what is needed to determine project effects on this 

species. Prior to identifying adverse effects, the implementation of these measures would 

be premature. In the event that South Feather’s monitoring surveys suggest adverse 

effects related to the project, South Feather proposes, in its alternative 4(e), to consult 

with the Forest Service to initiate more focused studies aimed at identifying the 

mechanisms for such adverse effects and mitigating those effects. Some of the measures 

specified by the Forest Service may be appropriate at such time when the need for more 

targeted studies is clear. 

The encroachment of vegetation into the stream channel could affect FYLF by 

slowing water velocities and altering patterns of sediment scour and deposition. Channel 

substrates in areas with slow water velocity are dominated by fine silts, which could 

replace gravel bars preferred by FYLF. The Forest Service specifies habitat and 

geomorphological surveys in Condition No. 19, parts 2 and 3. South Feather’s 

encroachment study indicated that the intensity and timing of flood flows and associated 

channel scour processes that have occurred under current operations have been effective 

in controlling encroachment. However, there are some locations where riparian 

vegetation is present in the active channel. These results suggest that the current effect of 

encroachment on the FYLF population is probably minimal, and that treatment would be 

premature at this time. However, if future monitoring indicates that encroachment of 

riparian vegetation is affecting FYLF, implementation of the Forest Service specified 

treatment protocol may be warranted. 

Controlling the rate at which managed flow increases or decreases occur would be 

a necessary component of a successful FYLF management strategy. Increasing flows too 

quickly would increase the potential for FYLF eggs, tadpoles, or adults to be washed 

downstream into unsuitable habitat. Similarly, decreasing flows at too great a rate would 

increase the potential for all life stages to become stranded in pools where conditions 

could become unsuitable as flows continue to decrease and pools dry up. Minimum flow 

requirements, as discussed above, would depend upon current climatic conditions. 

Implementing a methodology, as recommended by Cal Fish & Game, that identifies 

suitable rates of flow fluctuation based the needs of FYLF would reduce effects on this 

species. A methodology for determining appropriate ramping rates for each water year 

type, as specified by the Forest Service, would further reduce effects on FYLF.

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-113

Table 3-32. Field-mapped riparian vegetation types at eight intensive study sites and at the Slate Creek 

impoundment, based on the Potter (2003) classification. (Source: South Feather, 2007) 

Acres and Percent of Total Site 

Slate Creek Diversion 

Little Grass 

Valley Dam 

Reach 

South 

Fork 

Diversion

Dam 

Reach

Forbestown 

Diversion Dam 

Reach 

Lost 

Creek 

Dam 

Reach Dam Reach Impoundmentc 

Potter 

Vegetation 

Type 

SFFR 

27.4

(4,641 

ft)

SFFR 

22.7 

(3,920 

ft) 

SFFR 

13.7 

(3,100 ft) 

SFFR 

7.2 

(1,607 

ft)

SFFR 

3.5 

(1,050 

ft) 

LC 3.3b 

(3,116 

ft) 

SC 7.8 

(3,378 

ft) 

SC 1.1 

(2,066 

ft) (3,552 ft)3

T

A

White Alder 0.31 

(19%) 

0.98 

(39%) 

1.16 

(59%) 

0.79 

(41%) 

 1.12 

(50%) 

0.73 

(32%) 

2.87 

(47%) 

7

White Alder / Indian Rhubarb 

0.14 

(2%) 

0.93 

(57%) 

0.67 

(27%) 

 0.10 

(5%) 

0.97 

(86%) 

0.44 

(20%) 

0.65 

(29%) 

 3

Bedrock and Boulder 

2.23 

(37%) 

0.39 

(24%) 

0.03 

(1%) 

0.02 

(1%) 

0.94 

(49%) 

 0.32 

(14%) 

0.59 

(26%) 

0.08 

(1%) 

4

Mountain Alder 

3.47 

(57%) 

 3

Unclassified Riparian Scrub 

0.08 

(1%) 

 0.22 

(9%) 

0.21 

(11%) 

0.06 

(3%) 

0.16 

(14%) 

0.05 

(2%) 

0.06 

(3%) 

0.87 

(14%) 

Unconsolidated Material 

 0.52 

(20%) 

0.09 

(5%) 

 0.24 

(11%) 

0.17 

(7%) 

2.34 

(38%) 

3

Mid-elevation Unclassified Riparian Forb 

0.04 

(1%) 

 0.11 

(6%) 

 0.05 

(2%) 

 0
3-114

Acres and Percent of Total Site 

Oregon Ash 0.37 

(19%) 

 0

Unclassified Riparian Forest and Woodland 

 0.09 

(4%) 

 0.01 

(1%) 

 0

Douglas fir / Incense Cedar / White Alder 

0.08 

(1%) 

 0

Fremont Cottonwood / Red Willow 

 0.02 

(1%) 

 0

Low Elevation Unclassified Riparian Forb 

 0.06 

(3%) 

 0

Totals 6.04 

(100%) 

1.64 

(100%) 

2.52 

(100%) 

1.97 

(100%) 

1.92 

(100%) 

1.13 

(100%) 

2.23 

(100%) 

2.26 

(100%) 

6.16 

(100%) 

2

Notes: Table includes extent (acres), percent of total acres, and frequency (number of polygons) of field

vegetation and cover types in the study area. 

a The following intensive study sites were not mapped due to poor image quality of orthophoto basem

by upland vegetation: South Fork Diversion Dam Reach upper site (SFFR 16.5) and South Fork Fea

Reach site (SFFR 8.7) 

b Riparian vegetation at the Lost Creek dam reach site (LC 3.3) was mapped further upstream than wh

surveys occurred, due to poor image quality of orthophoto basemaps and shading by upland vegetatiexhibited similar vegetation types as those found at the greenline transects. 

c Consists of additional mapping conducted in and around the Slate Creek diversion dam impoundmen
3-115

Table 3-33. Summary of incidental observations of non-native species designated as noxious weeds. (

Feather, 2007) 

Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name 

CDFA Pest 

Listinga 

Cal-IPC 

Listingb 

General Location in Study 

Area 

No. of 

Populations 

Mapped Ab

Aegilops triuncialis 

Barbed goatgrass 

B High -Miners Ranch reservoir 

Carduus pycnocepahalus

Italian thistle C Moderate -Miners Ranch reservoir 

-Little Grass Valley reservoir 

Centaurea solstitialis

Yellow star-thistle 

C High -Kelly Ridge powerhouse 

-Miners Ranch conduit -Ponderosa reservoir -Forbestown Diversion -Sly Creek reservoir 

 Com

areapowEspfaceDensoutMinScatoccuRan

Cirsium vulgare

Bull thistle UR Moderate -Miners Ranch reservoir 

-Ponderosa reservoir -South Fork diversion -Little Grass Valley reservoir -Sly Creek reservoir 

Convolvulus arvensis

Bindweed C Eval No List -Kelly Ridge powerhouse 

-South Fork diversion -Little Grass Valley reservoir -Sly Creek reservoir 

Cynodon dactylon

Bermuda grass C Moderate -Ponderosa reservoir 

-Sly Creek reservoir 
3-116

Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name 

CDFA Pest 

Listinga 

Cal-IPC 

Listingb 

General Location in Study 

Area 

No. of 

Populations 

Mapped Ab

Elytrigia repens Quackgrass B -South Fork diversion 

-Lost Creek reservoir -Sly Creek reservoir 

Genista Monspessulana 

French broom C Moderate -Kelly Ridge powerhouse 2 

Hypericum perforatum

Klamath weed C Moderate -Kelly Ranch powerhouse 

-Miners Ranch conduit -Miners Ranch reservoir -Forbestown diverssion -Lost Creek reservoir -Sly Creek reservoir -Slate Creek reservoir 

Taeniatherum caput-medusae

Medusa-head C High -Miners Ranch reservoir Scat

dry, alonsurrothegras

Ailanthus altissima Tree-of-heaven N/A Moderate -Miners Ranch conduit 1 One 

-Forbestown diversion 1 Fou

abun

Arundo donax Giant-reed N/A High -Ponderosa reservoir Each 

a lar

Brassica nigra Black mustard N/A Moderate -Kelly Ridge powerhouse 

-Miners Ranch reservoir -Miners Ranch conduit -Ponderosa reservoir -Forbestown diversion -Lost Creek reservoir -Sly Creek reservoir 

2 Wid

area

Bromus madritenis ssp. rubens 

Foxtail chess N/A High -Kelly Ridge powerhouse 

-Miners Ranch reservoir -Miners Ranch conduit 

 Com

areaon d
3-117

Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name 

CDFA Pest 

Listinga 

Cal-IPC 

Listingb 

General Location in Study 

Area 

No. of 

Populations 

Mapped Ab

-Ponderosa reservoir -Forbestown diversion 

road

Ficus carica Edible fig N/A Moderate -Kelly Ridge powerhouse 

-Ponderosa reservoir -Forbestown diversion 

 Lim

matuwith largpopuRidg

Hedra helix English ivy N/A High -Ponderosa reservoir 1 Nea

alon

Leucanthemum vulgare 

Oxeye-daisy N/A Moderate -Slate Creek diversion 

Robinia pseudoacacia 

Black locust N/A Limited -Miners Ranch Reservoir 

-Ponderosa reservoir -FDD reach (SFFR 3.9) 

 One 

ripathe F

Rubus discolor Himalayan 

blackberry 

N/A High -Kelly Ridge powerhouse 

-Miners Ranch rReservoir -Miners Ranch conduit -Ponderosa reservoir -Forbestown diversion -Lost Creek reservoir -Sly Creek reservoir -Sly Creek powerhouse -Little Grass Valley reservoir -FDD reach (SFFR 3.9 and SFFR 6.9) -LCD reach (LCD 3.0) -SFF/LC reach (SFFR 8.4) 

3 (Project Reaches) 

Spewell Projfounwateto cosurrAlso midProjundripadens

Saponaria officinalis Bouncing-bet N/A Limited -Slate Creek diversion and 

reach 

 Wid

bars Creefoun
3-118

Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name 

CDFA Pest 

Listinga 

Cal-IPC 

Listingb 

General Location in Study 

Area 

No. of 

Populations 

Mapped Ab

diveundalon

-Miners Ranch conduit 4 (1) 

 (2-4

Spartium junceum Spanish broom N/A High 

-Miners Ranch reservoir 10 (1-5

(6) l(7) Pplan(8) L30ft (9) Aplan(10) 

Verbascum thapsus Wooly mullen N/A Limited -Kelly Ridge powerhouse 

-Miners Ranch reservoir -Miners Ranch conduit -Ponderosa reservoir -Forbestown diversion -South Fork diversion -Lost Creek reservoir -Sly Creek reservoir -Slate Creek diversion -Little Grass Valley reservoir 

a CDFA 2004. These are considered Noxious Weeds by the state of California and have received the f

B: Weeds subject to action by CDFA only when found in a nursery, and otherwise subject to eradication

control, or other holding action at the discretion of the local county agricultural commissioner. 

C: Not subject to state action except to provide for general pest cleanliness in nurseries; reject by CDFA 

in a crop seed for planting or at the discretion of the commissioner, action to retard spread outside of 

discretion of the county agricultural commissioner. 
3-119

UR: Unrated. b Cal-IPC 2006. 

High: These species have severe ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communiti

structure. Their reproductive biology and other attributes are conducive to moderate to high rates of destablishment. Most are widely distributed ecologically. 

Moderate: These species have substantial and apparent—but generally not severe—ecological impacts o

processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure. Their reproductive biology and o

conducive to moderate to high rates of dispersal, though establishment is generally dependent upon edisturbance. Ecological amplitude and distribution may range from limited to widespread. 

Limited: These species are invasive but their ecological impacts are minor on a statewide level or there 

information to justify a higher score. Their reproductive biology and other attributes result in low to invasiveness. Ecological amplitude and distribution are generally limited, but these species may be lo

problematic. 

Eval No List: Evaluated but not listed due to either lack of sufficient information to assign a rating or th

information indicates that the species does not have significant impacts at the present time. 
 3-120

Table 3-34. Summary of special-status plant occurrences located in 2004. (Source: 

South Feather, 2007) 

Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name Statusa 

Total No. of 

Populations Location 

Approx. No. 

Plants w/in 

Population 

Cardimine 

pachystigma 

var. 

dissectifolia 

Dissectedleaved 

toothwort 

Fed: None 

PNF: FSI Cat 

1 

CA: None 

CNPS: 3 

1 Forbestown 

diversion 

2 

Clarkia 

biloba ssp. 

brandegeae 

Brandegee’s 

clarkia 

Fed: FSC 

PNF: FSS 

CA: None 

CNPS: 1B 

4 Miners Ranch 

conduit 

50; 50; 25; 

100 

Clarkia 

mildrediae 

ssp. lutescens 

Goldenanthered 

clarkia 

Fed: None 

PNF: FSI Cat 

1 

CA: None 

CNPS: 4 

10 Little Grass 

Valley 

reservoir 

1,000; 500; 

10; 5; 150; 1 

 Sly Creek 

powerhouse 

400; 300; 

300 

 Slate Creek 

diversion 

1,000 

Clarkia 

mosquinii 

Mosquin’s 

clarkia 

Fed: FSC 

PNF: FSS 

CA: None 

CNPS: 1B 

4 Miners Ranch 

conduit 

30 

 Ponderosa 

reservoir 

1; 20 

 Lost Creek 

reservoir 

3 

Clarkia 

stellata 

Starry clarkia Fed: None 

PNF: FSS 

CA: None 

CNPS: None 

1 Little Grass 

Valley 

reservoir 

30 

Drosera 

rotundifolia 

Round-leaved 

sundew 

Fed: None 

PNF: FSI Cat 

2 

CA: None 

CNPS: None 

1 Little Grass 

Valley 

reservoir 

1,000 

Fritillaria 

eastwoodiae 

Butte County 

fritillary 

Fed: FSC 

PNF: FSS 

CA: None 

CNPS: 3 

2 Forbestown 

diversion 

5 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
 3-121

Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name Statusa 

Total No. of 

Populations Location 

Approx. No. 

Plants w/in 

Population 

 Ponderosa 

reservoir 

No datab

Juglans 

hindsii 

Northern 

California 

black walnut 

Fed: None 

PNF: None 

CA: None 

CNPS: 1B 

1 Miners Ranch 

reservoir 

1 

Vaccinium 

coccineum 

Siskiyou 

Mountains 

huckleberry 

Fed: None 

PNF: FSS 

CA: None 

CNPS: 3 

2 South Fork 

diversion 

1 

 Sly Creek 

reservoir 

1 

Viola 

tomentosa 

Wooly viola Fed: FSC 

PNF: FSI Cat 

1 

CA: None 

CNPS: 4 

5 Little Grass 

Valley 

reservoir 

150; 5; 50; 

100; 20 

a Status listing definitions are as follows: 

Federal Status (Fed): 

FE Listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. 

FT Listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. 

FC Federal candidate species. 

FSC Federal species of concern (SFWP 2003) 

Plumas National Forest (PNF) Status: 

MIS Considered a Management Indicator Species by the USDA Forest Service under the 

National Forestry Management Act (USDA 1988). 

FSS Considered a sensitive species by the USDA Forest Service under the National 

Forestry Management Act. 

FSI Cat1 Special Interest Category 1-survey and recommend conservation measures. 

FSI Cat2 Special Interest Category 2-report occurrences and Forest Service recommend 

conservation measures. 

California (CA) Status: 

CT Listed as threatened under the state Endangered Species Act. 

CE Listed as endangered under the state Endangered Species Act. 

CR Listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act. 

California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Status: 

1A Plants presumed extinct in California 

1B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere 

2 Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere 

3 Plants for which more information is needed to determine its status. 

4 Limited distributions (watch list). 

b This cell should contain an estimate for the number of plants in a population of an RTE 

species; however, the cell was blank in South Feather’s application. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-122

Table 3-35. Special-status wildlife species with documented occurrences in the project area. (Source: 

2007) 

Common and Scientific 

Name Status Habitat Notes Occurrences in Pro

Valley elderberry longhorn 

beetle 

Desmocerus californicus 

dimorphus 

FT Entire life cycle dependent on elderberry plants 

(Sambucus spp.), which occur within riparian forests or occasionally in separate patches or as individuals in non-forested habitat types in the Central Valley. Elderberry typically grows in association with various species of woody plants, often on the top and slope of banks, and rarely on sandbars. VELB appears to typically prefer larger, mature plants. Conservation guidelines consider potential host plants with one or more stems measuring 1 in (2.5 cm) in diameter or greater at ground level. Emergence holes have been observed at heights of 4 ft (1.2 m) or less. Specific conservation guidelines for VELB include survey protocols and measures for avoiding, protecting, restoring and monitoring impacted VELB habitat. 

• Only known location in PNF wi

habitat found near Pulga Road sou70 at the western boundary near L(T23N R5E S32). No VELB was ralthough exit holes have been obsplants here. • Elderberry occurs in scattered lo

PNF, but no other areas have showactivity. 

Canada goose Branta canadensis 

MIS Use a variety of habitats including lacustrine, fresh 

emergent wetlands, moist grasslands, croplands, pastures, and meadows. 

• Occur at Little Grass Valley and 

also observed at Sly Creek and Lo

Osprey Pandion haliaetus 

CSC Nest in large trees near open, fish-bearing water. • Project reservoirs have increase

amount of potential foraging and nvicinity of the Project; Osprey are Little Grass Valley, Sly Creek, anreservoirs, and near Miners Ranch Oroville). 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

CE, CFP, MIS 

Tend to nest in areas of primarily mature/latesuccessional, or old-growth forest in fairly close proximity to water. Nests usually constructed in very large trees within fairly open stands of approximately 40% canopy closure. The nest tree is often the dominant or co-dominant tree in the surrounding stand and must be sturdy enough to support a large, heavy stick nest (e.g., 5 feet wide and 3 feet deep) and often re-used and/or reconstructed each year. Breeding territories may include one or more alternate nests. Fish 

• Project reservoirs have increaseamount of potential foraging and nvicinity of the Project; occur at LiCreek, Lost Creek, and Ponderosa Miners Ranch conduit (along Lak• Nesting has been documented areservoir which supports the only territory in the vicinity of the Projside of reservoir, 3 miles north of • Spring hollow territory; south o
3-123

Common and Scientific 

Name Status Habitat Notes Occurrences in Pro

are primary diet although waterfowl, gulls and other birds, mammals, and carrion may also be taken. Large bodies of water required for hunting, including estuaries and coastal waters, rivers, large lakes, and reservoirs. Open, easily approached perches and feeding areas are preferred. Winter habitat requirements include adequate food supplies and the presence of roosting sites generally located close to open water but can be up to over 20 mi (32 km) from foraging areas. Important perch and roost sites include snags and dead-topped, livetrees located in areas with minimal human disturbance. 

Feather River arm of Lake OrovilFeather Falls. • One CNDDB occurrence at UT• One CNDDB occurrence at UT• One CNDDB occurrence at UT

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentiles 

FSC, CSC, MIS, FSS 

Prefers dense, late successional stage forest interspersed with meadows and other openings, and low-elevation riparian habitats (middle and higher elevations). 

• Forbestown. 

• Mooreville Ridge, 1.5 miles we

Reservoir. • Four nests northeast of Little Gr

the Bald Onion Management Unit • 13 goshawk detections and thre

vicinity of the confluence of Lost Fork Feather River. • One CNDDB occurrence at UT

• One CNDDB occurrence at UT

American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum 

CE, CFP, MIS 

Use a variety of habitats, including wetlands, woodlands, cities, agricultural lands, and coastal areas. Often nest in open areas near rivers, lakes, and coasts, and increasingly, in urban settings. Nests usually located near water, typically constructed on ledges of large cliff faces; birds in urban environments nest on city buildings and bridges. Nests consist of a wellrounded hollow scrape with accumulated debris in tree cavities, caves or on cliff ledges, occasionally lined with grass. Peregrine falcons may hunt prey in a variety of open habitat types such as wetlands, estuaries, mudflats, marshes, meadows, lakes, and rivers. Individuals have been known to forage up to 15 km (9 miles) from their nest sites. 

• The nearest known or suspected 

are on bridges at Lake Oroville, aFork Feather River near Lake Oro

Greater sandhill crane Grus canadensis tabida 

CT, CFP, FSS 

Winters in the Central Valley, where it feeds on grasses, forbs, waste grains, small mammals, 

• Although 7 pairs were found ne

in 1988, there are no sandhill cran
3-124

Common and Scientific 

Name Status Habitat Notes Occurrences in Pro

amphibians, snakes, and invertebrates in relatively treeless plains, pastures, flooded grain fields, wet meadow, shallow lacustrine, and fresh emergent and seasonal wetlands habitats. 

in the CNDDB for the Project area

California spotted owl Strix occidentalis 

occidentalis 

FSC, CSC, MIS, FSS 

Found in late- and mid-successional stage forest; dense multi-layered mixed conifer, redwood, and Douglas-fir habitats (0–7,500 ft [2,300 m]). 

• California spotted owl observat

recorded throughout PNF since 19documented (outside Project areasLittle Grass Valley reservoir, PinkCreek reservoir, and Devil’s Gap ndiversion dam. 

Great grey owl Strix nebulosa 

CE, FSS 

Found in old-growth forests interspersed with openings for foraging, particularly mixed conifer and red fir forests of the Sierra Nevada during the breeding season. Distributed mainly in the scattered meadowmature forest zone on the west slope of the central Sierra Nevada. 

• No owls observed during 2002 

Bald Onion Management Areas (KResources 2002) or during surveyCreek (PNF) in 1984. One 1937 rmiles south of Mt. Ingalls along BSeptember 1937. • Multiple observations noted fro

Western Mastif bat Eumops perotis 

FSC, CSC, WBWGH 

Found in open areas with abundant roost locations provided by crevices in rock outcrops and buildings (lower elevations, but as high as 8,700 ft [2,660 m])e

• Confirmed population associatemountains near Oroville; additionnear Chico thought to be year-lon

Pacific fisher Martes pennanti 

FSC, CSC, FSS, FC 

Occur in late successional forest near streams and meadows (0–11,000 ft [3,350 m] 

• Vicinity of Bullards Bar Reserv

Bullards Bar Dam. Plumas Nation

California wolverine Gulo gulo luteus 

FSC, CT, FSS 

Most historical records in the Sierra Nevada associated with coniferous forests. Home range size extremely variable and appears to depend on the abundance and distribution of food. Localized areas of high food availability tend to result in smaller home ranges. Home range size varies from less than 39 mi2 (100 km2) to over 347 mi2 (900 km2). Natal den sites located in cavities in trees and snags and in holes dug under standing trees or downed logs in forested areas. Dens also found in abandoned beaver lodges, within the roots of recently downed trees, among boulders, on rock ledges, old bear dens, and in caves. Dense cover used for resting and reproduction, open areas used for hunting (4,300–7,545 ft [1,300–2,300 m]). 

• White Springs. 
3-125

Common and Scientific 

Name Status Habitat Notes Occurrences in Pro

Topographic features such as rivers, lakes, and mountain ranges do not appear to block the movement of wolverines. Riparian areas are used as travel corridors. In the Sierra Nevada, wolverine populations may have become isolated due to human activities, and their current distribution in the Sierra Nevada is unknown. 

Mountain yellow-legged 

frog 

Rana muscoca 

FSC, FC, CSC, CP` 

Montane riparian habitats with slow moving streams, lakes, and ponds (above 1,372 m [4,500 feet]) 

• Pine Grove Creek, 0.7 miles NW Plumas National Forest. • Pinkard Creek; 1.1 miles directlReservoir and 2 miles directly eas

• Vicinity of Bottle Springs, 6.4 m

Peak and 5.7 miles west of Little V

Foothill yellow-legged 

frog 

Rana boylii 

FSC, CSC, CP 

Moderate-sized, open streams with coarse substrate and 

low gradients (0–1,524 m [0–5,000 feet]) 

• Observed on Slate Creek upstreSlate Creek Diversion Dam. • Slate Creek, north of forest road Little Grass Valley Reservoir • South Fork Feather River, at forPlumas National Forest. • Oroleve Creek, just east of fore

(Forbestown Dam Road), Plumas • Woodruff Creek, approximately Goodyear’s Bar, North Yuba Rive• North Yuba River, from the moto Devils Canyon Creek, Tahoe N• Unnamed tributary to Woodruff Mountain House Road, 1 mile SSW North Yuba River Basin, Tahoe N• Unnamed tributary to Woodruff Mountain House Road, 2 miles SSNorth Yuba River Basin, Tahoe N• Fiddle Creek, at Fiddle Creek RYuba River Basin, Tahoe Nationa• Woodruff Creek, 0.6 mile south mile south of HWY 49), North YuNational Forest • Along forest road 22N62, east o
3-126

Common and Scientific 

Name Status Habitat Notes Occurrences in Pro

Feather River Basin, Plumas Natio

California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytonii 

FT, CSC. CP 

Wetlands; wet meadows; ponds and lakes; and pools in low-gradient, slow moving stream reaches, with permanent sources of deep water and riparian vegetation (0– 1,524 m [0–5,000 feet]) 

• North side of Little Oregon CreHill Road (CNDDB 2004, Challen• Closest occurrence (from 1994) 

mile north of Lost Creek Reservoi

Notes: FE = Listed as endangered under the federal ESA. FT = Listed as threatened under the federal ESA. FTPD = Listed as threatened under the federal ESA but currently proposed for delisting. FP = Proposed for listing under the federal ESA. FC = Federal candidate species. FSC = Federal species of concern (former Category 2 candidate for listing under the ESA). CE = Listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. CT = Listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. SC = Candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act. CFP = Fully protected by the state of California. CSC = Considered a species of special concern by the state of California. MIS = Considered a Management Indicator Species by the Forest Service under the National Fore

Act. 

FSS = Considered a Sensitive Species by the Forest Service under the National Forestry Managem

WBWG-H = Considered imperiled or are at high risk of imperilment by the WBWG. 
3-127 

Table 3-36. Roosting and foraging behavior summary of special-status bat species 

potentially occurring in the study area. (Source: South Feather, 2007) 

Common and 

Scientific Names 

Regulatory 

Statusa

 Roosting Behavior Foraging Behavior 

Western mastiff bat 

Eumops perotis 

CSC, FSC, 

WBWG-H 

Colonial (30–300); 

predominantly cliffdwelling; associated with 

major river canyons, and 

basaltic tablelands. 

Aerial forager; feeds 

in both aquatic and 

terrestrial habitats; 

strong, long distance 

flier (1- way distance 

up to 25 km/night). 

Pallid bat 

Antrozous pallidus 

FSS, CSC, 

WBWG-H 

Colonial (30–300); roosts 

in caves, abandoned 

mines, tree hollows, 

buildings, and bridges; 

often associated with oak 

habitat; somewhat 

sensitive to human 

disturbance. 

Forages primarily on 

large, ground 

dwelling arthropods 

(scorpions, Jerusalem 

crickets, long-horned 

beetles); comes to 

water to drink. 

Townsend's bigeared bat 

Corynorhinus 

townsendii 

FSS, CSC, 

FSC, 

WBWG-H 

Colonial (30–300); roosts 

in caves, abandoned 

mines, and cavity-like 

manmade structures (e.g., 

enclosed attics); restrictive 

roost requirements; 

sensitive to human 

disturbance; roosts in 

large, basal redwood 

hollows. 

Moth specialist; 

forages close to 

vegetation, often 

following secondary 

stream drainages, 

often away from 

water sources. 

Spotted bat 

Euderma maculatum 

FSS, CSC, 

FSC, 

WBWG-H 

Little known about 

roosting behavior; 

typically only one is 

caught per night at a given 

site; individuals well 

dispersed, separated by 

distances of 750–1,000 m. 

Forages on moths; 

less than 10 km from 

diurnal roost; seems 

to forage constantly; 

roost faithful— 

returns to same 

diurnal roost every 

night during summer. 

Red bat 

Lasiurus blossevillii 

FSS, 

CSC*, 

WBWG-H 

Non-colonial; foliageroosting; summer 

breeding populations 

found predominantly in 

Feeds predominantly 

on moths; often 

forages above canopy 

height, in association 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-128 

Common and 

Scientific Names 

Regulatory 

Statusa

 Roosting Behavior Foraging Behavior 

mature riparian forests in 

Central Valley; migrates 

through Central Valley in 

spring and fall. 

with both aquatic and 

terrestrial habitats. 

Small-footed myotis 

Myotis ciliolabrum 

FSC Non-colonial or small 

colonies; often associated 

with rock features; 

roosting behavior poorly 

known; may tree roost. 

Generalist; aerial 

hunter of small flying 

insects; diet poorly 

known in California. 

Long-eared myotis 

Myotis evotis 

FSC Small colonies (10-30); 

crevice-roosting in trees, 

caves, mines, rock 

jumbles (riprap) and 

sometimes in buildings. 

Forages in close 

association with 

vegetation; in clutter 

and along edges in 

both aquatic and 

terrestrial habitats. 

Fringed myotis 

Myotis thysanodes 

FSC, 

CSC*, 

WBWG-H 

Generally small colonies 

(10-100); roosts in trees 

(primarily bark crevices in 

snags) caves, mines, and 

sometimes in buildings. 

Aquatic and 

terrestrial habitats, 

often along secondary 

streams; feed mainly 

on beetles. 

Long-legged myotis 

Myotis volans 

FSC, 

CSC*, 

WBWG-H 

Colonies (30-100); day 

roosts in trees, sometimes 

in buildings or caves; very 

few roosts known in 

California; night roosts on 

bridges. 

Feeds predominantly 

on moths; forages in 

aquatic, riparian, and 

terrestrial habitats, 

often along secondary 

streams. 

Yuma myotis 

Myotis yumanensis 

FSC Colonial; versatile 

roosting habits—caves, 

mines, trees, buildings, 

bridges. 

Species dependent on 

aquatic habitats; often 

skims open water 

surface. 

Notes: CSC = Considered a species of special concern by the state of California 

FSC = Federal species of concern (former Category 2 candidate for listing under ESA). 

FSS = Considered a Sensitive Species by the Forest Service under the National Forestry 

Management Act. 

WBWG-H = Considered imperiled or are at high risk of imperilment by the WBWG. 

* Status proposed.

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-129 

3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species 

3.3.4.1 Affected Environment 

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle 

The valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desomcerus californicus dimorphus) is 

listed as threatened under the ESA. All life stages of the beetle are associated with 

elderberry plant (Sambucus spp.). Adult females lay eggs in crevices in the bark of the 

host plant. After the eggs hatch, the larvae spend 1 to 2 years eating elderberry wood, 

which is the insect’s only food source. The larvae pupate in the tree, exit to breed, and 

then the life-cycle is complete. The host plants are found in riparian areas in California, 

but the beetle has only been observed on plants below 3,000 feet. During pre-licensing 

surveys, South Feather conducted surveys for valley elderberry longhorn beetles 

following FWS survey protocols. Surveyors did observe some elderberry plants within 

the project area; however, all these observations were recorded near 5,000 feet. No 

elderberry plants were recorded at elevations suitable for the valley elderberry longhorn 

beetle.

California Red-legged Frog 

The California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) is listed as threatened 

under the ESA. This species occurs in wetlands; wet meadows; ponds and lakes; and 

pools in low-gradient, slow moving stream reaches, with permanent sources of deep 

water and riparian vegetation (0 to 5,000 feet). Eggs are laid in ponds or backwater 

pools and attached by females to an emergent vegetation brace. Tadpoles inhabit the 

same area as eggs, often occurring in slow-moving, shallow riffle zones, and along the 

margins of pools. The larvae spend most time in submergent vegetation or organic 

debris. Following metamorphosis, adults and juveniles occur in emergent and/or 

riparian vegetation, undercut banks, semi-submerged root masses, open grasslands with 

seeps, or springs with dense growths of woody riparian vegetation. Cattails, bulrushes, 

and willows are good indicator species for frog presence. Adults are typically 

associated with deep (>0.7 meter), still or slow-moving water. Juveniles prefer open, 

shallow aquatic habitats with dense submergents. In the project area, the closest 

recorded observation of California red-legged frog is about 1 mile north of Lost Creek 

reservoir along Pinkard Creek. As part of the re-licensing process, South Feather 

conducted habitat and visual encounter surveys following FWS protocols for the 

California red-legged frog. Based on review of helicopter flight video, potential habitat 

for California red-legged frog was identified in the Forbestown diversion dam reach, 

Lost Creek dam reach, and at Miners Ranch reservoir; however, only one of these 

reaches was accessible for on-the-ground surveys. Two additional areas of potential 

habitat were identified during ground reconnaissance along the Lost Creek dam reach. 

Areas of potential habitat were limited and generally of poor quality due to high silt 

content, lack of appropriate vegetation, and presence of predators. Visual encounter 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-130 

surveys were conducted at three sites. No California red-legged frog observations were 

made during these surveys. 

3.3.4.2 Environmental Effects 

There is no known potential valley elderberry longhorn beetle habitat in the 

project area. No comments filed with the Commission address this species. Although it 

is unlikely that this species occurs in the project area, it cannot be ruled out. We 

conclude the proposed project may affect, but is unlikely to adversely affect, this 

species. 

Potential habitat for the California red-legged frog in the project area is generally 

limited and of poor quality. However, several areas of potential habitat were not 

accessible for ground surveys and the presence of California red-legged frog in these 

areas is unknown. Ground reconnaissance and visual encounter surveys conducted in 

the accessible reaches indicated a presence of predatory species and did not record any 

occurrences. No comments filed with the Commission address this species. However, 

if California red-legged frog were to occur in the project area, the species could be 

affected by project effects on flow regimes, water levels, and riparian habitats. As a 

result, we conclude that the proposed project may affect, but is unlikely to adversely 

affect, this species. 

3.3.5 Recreation Resources 

3.3.5.1 Affected Environment 

Regional Recreation Resources 

More than half of the South Feather Power Project is located on lands within the 

Plumas National Forest. The Plumas National Forest, totaling 1,146,000 acres, provides 

a variety of recreational opportunities such as camping, fishing, hunting, picnicking, 

off-road vehicle areas, mountain biking, water skiing, whitewater boating; snow skiing, 

snowmobiling, and more than 300 miles of hiking trails including the Pacific Crest 

National Scenic Trail, and the Feather Falls and Hartman Bar National Recreation 

Trails. The Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail stretches across the Plumas National 

Forest for about 75 miles, while the Feather Falls and the Hartman Bar trails extend 3.5 

miles each. The Plumas National Forest hosts nearly one million visitors a year. 

The Lake Oroville State Recreation Area adjoins the South Feather Power 

Project, making up 0.5 percent of the lands within the project boundary. The park offers 

camping, picnicking, horseback riding, hiking, boating, water-skiing, fishing, and 

swimming. Lake Oroville State Recreation Area has a visitor center, museum, store, 

swimming areas, marinas, day-use areas, picnic areas, a fish hatchery, three developed 

boat launches, five undeveloped boat launches, boat docks, parking, and house boat 

rentals. There are more than 200 campsites for tents and recreational vehicles with 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-131 

restrooms and showers, boat-in campsites, floating campsites, and one group 

campground. More than 100 primitive camping sites are available by boat access only. 

Other recreation areas outside of the project area, but within the project region, 

include: Bucks Lake Wilderness, New Bullards Bar reservoir, Feather Falls National 

Scenic Area, and Plumas-Eureka State Park. Bucks Lake Wilderness offers activities 

such as swimming, boating, hunting, fishing, hiking, and snowmobiling in winter. 

There are seven public campgrounds for tents and recreational vehicles, three boat 

launches, and two day-use areas. Private recreation facilities around Bucks Lake 

include campgrounds, cabins, a country store, a marina, slip rentals, a grocery store, a 

gas station, a restaurant, boat rentals, boat launch areas, a swimming area, and a water 

ski beach. 

Recreation facilities at New Bullards Bar reservoir includes six private 

campgrounds including group camping, shoreline camping, boat-in camping, and landbased camping and two boat launches. Feather Falls National Scenic Area, located 

northeast of Lake Oroville, provides hiking opportunities along the Feather Falls 

National Recreation Trail and scenic views of a 640-foot waterfall. Plumas-Eureka 

State Park is 20 miles east of Little Grass Valley reservoir and offers 67 campsites, a 

visitor center and museum, fishing opportunities, hiking, bike trails, natural trails, 

guided tours, a nature study, and picnic areas. 

Project Area Recreation Resources 

There are two developed recreation areas within the project boundary: Little 

Grass Valley reservoir recreation area and Sly Creek reservoir recreation area; both are 

located within the Sly Creek development. South Feather constructed and currently 

operates and maintains the Sly Creek reservoir recreation area facilities. South Feather 

constructed the Little Grass Valley reservoir recreation area facilities, with the 

exception of the Horse Camp campground and the fishing trail, which were constructed 

by the Forest Service. At the Forest Service’s request, South Feather turned over 

ownership of the Little Grass Valley reservoir recreation area facilities to the Forest 

Service, which currently administers, maintains, and operates these facilities. The 

Plumas National Forest and South Feather contract with Northwest Parks Management 

to operate and maintain the facilities at these two areas, which offer recreational 

opportunities such as camping, picnicking, hiking, waterskiing, swimming, boating, 

hunting, fishing, sightseeing, snowmobiling, and cross-country skiing. 

Little Grass Valley Reservoir Recreation Area 

The Little Grass Valley reservoir recreation area has nine campgrounds, three 

boat ramps, two day-use areas, and three trails (figure 3-13 and table 3-37). The 

campgrounds include Little Beaver, Red Feather, Running Deer, Horse Camp, 

Wyandotte, Peninsula, Black Rock, and Tooms. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-132 

Figure 3-13. Recreation sites at Little Grass Valley reservoir recreation area. (Source: 

South Feather, 2007) 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-133 

Table 3-37. Recreation facilities at the Little Grass Valley reservoir recreation area. 

(Source: South Feather, 2007, staff) 

Site Name Facilities 

Little Beaver Complex 120 campsites including six lakeside sites, trailer 

space, flush toilets, drinking water, dump station, 

amphitheater 

Red Feather campground 60 campsites including 12 lakeside sites with trailer 

spaces, flush toilets, drinking water, dump station 

Running Deer campground 40 campsites including five lakeside sites with trailer 

space, flush toilets, drinking water, dump station 

nearby 

Horse Camp campground 10 campsites with trailer space, vault toilets, no piped 

drinking water, a warming hut, restricted to use by 

campers with horses only 

Wyandotte campground 30 campsites, trailer space, flush toilets, drinking 

water, pump station, four picnic units 

Peninsula Tent campground 25 tent-only campsites, drinking water, flush toilets 

Black Rock Tent campground 10 walk-in campsites, two picnic units, vault toilets, 

drinking water 

Black Rock RV campground 20 parking spaces for RV’s, vault toilets, drinking 

water, boat ramp 

Black Rock boat ramp Paved ramp, loading dock, parking area, accessible 

restroom, fish cleaning station 

Tooms RV camp 12 parking spaces for RV’s, vault toilets, drinking 

water, dump station, nearby boat ramp 

Tooms Boat Ramp Paved ramp, loading dock, parking area, accessible 

restroom, fish cleaning station, lighting 

Blue Water day-use area 12 picnic units, flush toilets, drinking water, changing 

rooms, amphitheater nearby, swimming area 

Maidu boat ramp Paved ramp, loading dock, parking area, accessible 

restroom, fish cleaning station 

Pancake Beach day-use area 12 picnic units, vault toilets, drinking water, changing 

rooms, swimming area 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-134 

Site Name Facilities 

Little Grass Valley lakeshore 

trail 

13.5 mile trail around most of reservoir 

Little Grass Valley accessible 

fishing trail 

Accessible 800 foot cement trail, accessible parking 

area, and accessible restroom 

Bald Mountain trailhead 15 mile Forest Service trail 

Paved access to the reservoir occurs on FS Road 27 and FS Road No. 120 (La 

Porte Road). On the eastern shoreline, Running Deer, Little Beaver, and Red Feather 

campgrounds can be accessed by FS Road No. 22N57. Wyandotte, Tooms RV, and 

Peninsula Tent campgrounds are located on a protruding peninsula on the south shore, 

and can be accessed by FS Road No. 22N57Y. The Black Rock campground and Horse 

Camp campground facilities are accessed via FS Road No. 22N57 that extends around 

the eastern and northern shore of Little Grass Valley reservoir. The campgrounds at 

Little Grass Valley reservoir recreation area combined offer 295 campsites with tables, 

fire rings, grills, water, and restrooms. Some units provide space for trailers up to 40 

feet. No hookups are provided but dump stations are available near Little Beaver, 

Peninsula, and Wyandotte campgrounds. 

The three boat ramps on Little Grass Valley reservoir (Black Rock, Tooms, and 

Maidu) are paved, have loading docks, and nearby parking areas. Black Rock boat 

ramp is located at the Black Rock RV campground while Tooms is located near Tooms 

RV campground, and Maidu is located adjacent to Blue Water day-use area and Little 

Beaver campground. The Forest Service (letter from J. Rider, Attorney, Forest Service, 

San Francisco, CA, to K. Bose, Secretary, FERC, Washington, DC, April 14, 2008) 

states that elevation 5,023 feet msl is the minimum elevation at which the boat ramps 

are available for use by anglers and recreationists, as confirmed in correspondence from 

South Feather (letter from M. Glaze, General Manager, South Feather, Oroville, CA, to 

K. Bose, Secretary, FERC, Washington, DC, August 2, 2000). 

Since 2000, improvements at all three boat ramps were implemented through 

funding from the California Department of Boating and Waterways, which provides 

grants to public agencies for the construction of boat launching ramps and ancillary 

facilities. At Tooms boat launch, these improvements included: widening of the 

existing launch ramp; repair of damaged parking areas and roadways; construction of an 

accessible restroom, and removal of the old restroom; and the installation of a fish 

cleaning station and area lighting. At the Black Rock and Maidu boat ramps, 

improvements included: widening the existing boat ramps, applying seal to the parking 

areas, installing accessible restrooms, and adding a fish cleaning station at each ramp. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-135 

The two day-use areas, Pancake Beach and Blue Water, both consist of 12 picnic 

units, drinking water, restrooms, and changing rooms. Pancake Beach is located on the 

peninsula, while Blue Water is located near Maidu boat ramp. Hiking, boating, 

swimming, and picnicking are available on the reservoir at or near all day-use areas. 

Three trails exist along Little Grass Valley reservoir. The Lakeshore trail is 13.5 

miles long and used for hiking, mountain biking, and horseback riding. No off-highway 

vehicles (OHV) or motorbikes are permitted. The cement accessible fishing trail is 

located near the Little Grass Valley dam and extends 800 feet to the water level and is 

accessible at different elevations to accommodate fishing access as the reservoir 

elevation fluctuates. The Bald Mountain trailhead is located in the Horse Camp 

campground. This trail is a Forest Service trail that extends 15 miles. 

The Davis-Grunsky Act (Chapter 5, commencing with Section 12880, of Part 6 

of Division 6 of the California Water Code) provides financial assistance for local water 

supply and sanitation projects and is administered by DWR. The 1967 contract between 

South Feather and DWR provided about $2.5 million for construction of on-shore

recreation facilities at Little Grass Valley reservoir (the Forest Service now operates 

these facilities.). In accordance with the South Feather’s Davis-Grunsky Contract, 

South Feather has maintained the Little Grass Valley reservoir at or above 58,500 acrefeet (elevation 5,022 feet msl) through September 30 to keep boat ramps operational. 

South Feather’s contract with DWR expires when the current FERC license for the 

project expires. 

South Feather currently assists the local county sheriff departments to install 

public safety buoys in Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoirs. The buoys provide 

the public with information regarding boat speed in restricted areas, danger areas, and 

other safety information. The buoys are typically installed each year around Memorial 

Day at the start of the recreation season and removed after Labor Day. 

Sly Creek Reservoir Recreation Area 

At Sly Creek reservoir, there are two campgrounds, two boat ramps/launches, 

and a day-use area (figure 3-14 and table 3-38). This reservoir offers many recreational 

opportunities, although steep terrain makes access more difficult than at Little Grass 

Valley reservoir. The boat ramp facilities provide access to the water for fishing, waterskiing, and boating. Sly Creek reservoir can be accessed by FS Road No. 21N16 

(Barton Hill Road). Sly Creek campground is located on the southwest side of Sly 

Creek reservoir. Adjacent to Sly Creek campground is the Mooreville boat ramp and 

day-use area. Sly Creek campground and Mooreville boat ramp and day-use area are 

accessible from Barton Hill Road. The Strawberry campground is located on FS Road 

No. 21N20, on the northeast side of the reservoir. Nearby is a car-top boat launch 

facility for canoes, rafts, or kayaks. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-136 

Figure 3-14. Recreation sites at Sly Creek reservoir recreation area. (Source: South 

Feather, 2007) 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-137 

Table 3-38. Recreation facilities at the Sly Creek reservoir recreation area. (Source: 

South Feather, 2007, staff) 

Site Name Facilities 

Sly Creek campground 

30 campsites, drinking water, picnic tables, fire 

rings, vault toilets, trailer space, two campsites 

with picnic tables, accessible restrooms 

Mooreville boat ramp and 

day-use area 

Concrete boat launch, courtesy floats, fish 

cleaning station, picnic tables, fire ring/grill, 

water hydrant, parking area 

Strawberry campground 

and car-top boat launch 

Campground - 17 campsites with trailer spaces, 

vault toilets, drinking water; boat launch –

paved foot path, water access for car-top boats, 

paved parking area, restroom 

In 1999-2001, South Feather with its own funding and funding from the 

California Department of Boating and Waterways, made improvements to the recreation 

facilities at Sly Creek reservoir recreation area. Sly Creek campground improvements 

included: road and site development, the purchase and installation of picnic tables, fire 

rings, vault toilets, and paving the campground road and parking areas. Improvements 

at Mooreville boat ramp included: relocation of the ramp off the end of the trailer 

parking area, extension of the ramp to accommodate launching at lower water levels, 

courtesy floats, and a fish cleaning station. Upgrades at the car-top boat launch include 

paving the parking area, paving a 250-foot footpath, and adding a restroom. 

Lost Creek Reservoir 

There are no developed recreation sites at Lost Creek reservoir,. Access to this 

reservoir is difficult and limited to the areas near Lost Creek and Sly Creek dams. 

Upstream from Lost Creek dam is an informal boat ramp, accessible only by primitive 

trail or by boat. 

Ponderosa Reservoir 

There are no developed recreation facilities at Ponderosa reservoir. Access to the 

reservoir is limited to unimproved Forest Service roads or private roads. FS Road No. 

20N24 turns into a primitive trail that leads to the shoreline of Ponderosa reservoir. 

Three private residences are located on private lands along the reservoir shoreline. 

Miners Ranch Reservoir 

Public access at Miners Ranch reservoir is prohibited. The reservoir is locked 

and gated to prevent use because it is part of the domestic water supply. The lands 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-138 

surrounding the reservoir are zoned for public use, residential use light commercial use, 

and state use as the Lake Oroville State recreation area. 

South Fork, Slate Creek, and Forbestown diversions 

At South Fork, Slate Creek, and Forbestown diversions, there is no developed 

recreation. Access to the South Fork and Slate Creek diversions is difficult and limited 

due to the steep terrain and location in the canyons. Roads used for access are 21N11Y 

from 21N16 (Mooreville Ridge), and Upper Scales Road, a Yuba County road. 

Forbestown diversion can be accessed by FS Road No. 20N27 that ends at the Woodleaf 

powerhouse. Shoreline fishing is permitted at the Forbestown diversion, however, 

boating and swimming are not permitted because of the overflow spillway and use for 

domestic water supply. 

Recreation Use and Facility Capacity 

Recreation use within the project boundaries occurs at the two developed 

recreation areas, Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek recreation areas, and dispersed 

recreation use at the undeveloped recreation areas. According to the Plumas National 

Forest, dispersed recreation makes up 60 percent of all recreation in the Plumas 

National Forest. 

In 2005, South Feather estimated use based on the extrapolation of visitor counts 

at the day-use areas and boat launches at Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoirs 

during the peak recreation season (table 3-39). South Feather defines the peak 

recreation season for Little Grass Valley reservoir as May 21 through October 15, and 

April 28 through October 15 for Sly Creek reservoir. The study evaluated the number 

of people at one time at the facility. South Feather estimates use in recreation days was 

highest at Blue Water Beach and Pancake Beach at Little Grass Valley reservoir 

recreation area and at the Mooreville day-use area at Sly Creek reservoir recreation area. 

South Feather estimates percent capacity at day-use areas and boat launches is highest 

on holiday weekends and some weekend days in July and August. 

South Feather estimates the site occupancy at the campgrounds at Little Grass 

Valley recreation area was at 13.3 percent capacity in 2003, 15 percent in 2004, and 

22.7 percent capacity in 2005 (table 3-40). South Feather suggests the number of 

visitors per year and percent capacity varies due to open and close dates for each 

facility. In terms of estimated future use and capacity, South Feather estimates that, by 

the year 2050, the campgrounds would only be at about 41 percent of overall capacity at 

Sly Creek recreation area and at about 26.9 percent of overall capacity at Little Grass 

Valley recreation area. At the day-use facilities, South Feather estimated that none of 

the facilities would reach full capacity by the year 2050; however, it is likely Blue 

Water Beach and Mooreville day-use area would be at full capacity on most holiday 

days. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-139 

Table 3-39. 2005 Peak season day-use estimates in recreation days for the day-use 

facilities at Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoir recreation areas. 

(Source: South Feather, 2007) 

Facility Use Estimate (recreation days)a

Little Grass Valley Reservoir Recreation Area 

Maidu boat launch 526 

Tooms boat launch 527 

Black Rock boat launch 601 

Pancake beach 1,614 

Blue Water beach 2,324 

ADA Fishing trail 582 

Subtotal 6,174 

Sly Creek Reservoir Recreation Area 

Mooreville boat launch 986 

Strawberry car-top boat launch 455 

Mooreville day-use area 1,126 

Subtotal 2,567 

Project Total 8,741 

a Recreation day is each visit by a person to a development for recreation purposes 

during any portion of a 24-hour period (as defined in the glossary of FERC Form 80 

terms). 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-140 

Table 3-40. Annual use and capacities at campgrounds. (Source: South Feather, 2007, staff) 

2003 2004 

Campground 

(Sites per Facility) 

# Sites 

Occupied # Visitors 

% 

Capacity 

# Sites 

Occupied # Visitors % Capacity 

# Sites 

Occupied 

Little Grass Valley Reservoir Recreation Area 

Black Rock (22) 355 1,199 11.1 436 1,413 13.8 331 Horse Camp (10) 50 154 3.4 115 465 8.0 133 Little Beaver (120) 3284 11,210 18.9 3,253 11,686 18.8 3,627 Peninsula Tent (25) 134 567 3.7 177 823 4.9 Red Feather (60) 1391 5,909 16.0 1,435 6,530 16.6 1,491 Running Deer (41) 980 4,172 16.5 837 3,808 14.2 1,123 Tooms RV (20) 11 27 .1 45 110 1.6 Wyandotte (30) 893 3,355 20.6 803 3,056 18.6 Annual Totals (328) 7,098 26,593 13.3 7,101 27,891 15.0 6,705 

Sly Creek Reservoir Recreation Area 

Sly Creek (30) 1,377 5,873 29.8 1,398 6,143 30.3 1,571 Strawberry (17) 269 982 12.1 130 404 5.8 50 Annual Totals (328) 1,649 6,855 24 1,528 6,547 22.3 1,621 
3-141 

South Feather also evaluated the vehicle data in vehicles-at-one-time at the 

parking lots of each recreation facility. On average, Little Grass Valley day-use parking 

capacities were lower than Sly Creek day-use parking areas. In 2005, Maidu boat 

launch was the only facility at Little Grass Valley to exceed capacity. At Sly Creek, 

South Feather estimated use at Mooreville day-use area was on average 41 percent 

capacity, while the parking lot, on five different occasions, met or exceeded 100 percent 

capacity. Tables 3-41 and 3-42 show average and maximum vehicle data. 

Table 3-41. Average, minimum, and maximum vehicles at one time observed by day 

type for day-use facilities at Little Grass Valley reservoir recreation area, 

summer 2005. (Source: South Feather, 2007) 

Total Spaces % Capacitya

Day Type Ave Min Max Ave Min Max 

Maidu Boat Launch (50 spaces) 

 Overall 11.8 0 51 23.6 0 102 

 Weekday 5.4 0 11 10.8 0 22 

 Weekend 15.2 6 37 30.3 12 74 

 Holiday 14.8 0 51 29.6 0 102 

Tooms Boat Launch (30 spaces) 

 Overall 0.9 0 7 3.1 0 23.3 

 Weekday 0.5 0 2 1.7 0 6.7 

 Weekend 0.7 0 6 2.4 0 20 

 Holiday 1.6 0 7 5.2 0 23.3 

Black Rock Boat Launch (25 spaces) 

 Overall 3.4 0 10 13.6 0 40 

 Weekday 2.2 0 5 8.9 0 20 

 Weekend 3.4 0 7 13.6 0 28 

 Holiday 4.6 0 10 18.2 0 40 

Pancake Beach (20 spaces) 

 Overall 1.8 0 14 8.8 0 70 

 Weekday 0.7 0 3 3.3 0 15 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-142 

Total Spaces % Capacitya

Day Type Ave Min Max Ave Min Max 

 Weekend 1.4 0 7 7.2 0 35 

 Holiday 3.2 0 14 15.8 0 70 

Blue Water Beach (30 spaces) 

 Overall 5.2 0 22 17.2 0 73.3 

 Weekday 1.6 0 4 5.2 0 13.3 

 Weekend 5.8 0 19 19.4 0 63.3 

 Holiday 8.1 0 22 27.0 0 73.3 

ADA Fishing Trail (10 spaces) 

 Overall 0.6 0 3 5.9 0 30 

 Weekday 0.3 0 2 3.3 0 20 

 Weekend 0.7 0 3 7.2 0 30 

 Holiday 0.7 0 2 7.2 0 20 

Bald Mountain Trailhead (4 spaces) 

 Overall 0.3 0 2 7.9 0 50 

 Weekday 0.1 0 1 2.8 0 25 

 Weekend 0.2 0 2 5.6 0 50 

 Holiday 0.6 0 2 15.3 0 50 

a

 Percent capacity is the total number of spaces occupied during the season divided by 

the total spaces available for the days observed. 

Table 3-42. Average, minimum, and maximum vehicles at one time observed by day 

type for day-use facilities at Sly Creek reservoir recreation area, summer 

2005. (Source: South Feather, 2007) 

Total Spaces % Capacitya

Day Type Ave Min Max Ave Min Max 

Mooreville Boat Launch (24 spaces) 

Overall 8 0 24 32 0 100 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-143 

Total Spaces % Capacitya

Day Type Ave Min Max Ave Min Max 

Weekday 2 0 4 8 0 17 

Weekend 9 4 18 36 17 75 

Holiday 12 3 24 51 13 100 

Strawberry Car-top Boat Launch (8 spaces) 

Overall 0 0 2 6 0 25 

Weekday 0 0 1 1 0 13 

Weekend 0 0 2 5 0 25 

Holiday 1 0 2 10 0 25 

Mooreville Day Use (3 spaces) 

Overall 1 0 5 41 0 167 

Weekday 0 0 2 15 0 67 

Weekend 1 0 2 33 0 67 

Holiday 2 0 5 76 0 167 

a

 Percent capacity is the total number of spaces occupied during the season divided by 

the total spaces available for the days observed. 

Angling 

The project reservoirs and streams provide angling opportunities. Survey data 

collected by South Feather indicated a high level of participation in angling. The 

percentage of visitors who fished at a developed recreation site was highest at Little 

Grass Valley reservoir (36 percent) and lowest at Sly Creek reservoir (18 percent). The 

percentage of visitors who fished at an undeveloped recreation site was highest at 

Forbestown diversion (80 percent) and lowest at South Fork diversion (29 percent). 

None of the visitor’s surveyed fished from a boat at the undeveloped recreation sites. 

Overall, the survey data indicated that the majority of respondents, 97 percent at 

Little Grass Valley reservoir and 85 percent at Sly Creek reservoir, did not have 

problems accessing the reservoirs for fishing. Of those who indicated that they had 

problems (four respondents at Little Grass Valley reservoir and two respondents at Sly 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-144 

Creek reservoir), indicated that angling opportunities were inhibited by access issues, 

including lack of trails, lack of roads, lack of signage, presence of large boulders, steep 

terrain, and large crowds. 

Whitewater Boating 

In 2004, South Feather conducted an assessment of whitewater boating 

opportunities within the project region through a literature review and surveys of 

individuals knowledgeable about whitewater boating opportunities within the region. In 

the Plumas National Forest, to the north and west of the project, the river systems of the 

Main Fork and the North Fork Feather River provide numerous, well established 

whitewater boating opportunities of varying classes19 as summarized in table 3-43. To 

the south and east of the project, whitewater boating opportunities are available on the 

North Yuba River and its tributaries primarily during spring run-off, as summarized in 

table 3-44. None of the river reaches within the project reaches were listed in published 

literature or guidebooks; however, those who were surveyed indicated they had boated 

the Little Grass Valley dam reach. 

Table 3-43. Whitewater boating runs on the North and Middle forks of the Feather 

River, as identified by Holbeck and Stanley, 1998. (Source: South 

Feather, 2007).

River 

Name of 

Whitewater 

Run 

Put-In 

Take-Out 

Length 

(miles) 

Gradient 

(feet per 

mile) Class 

Season of 

Boating Use 

East 

Branch of 

North Fork 

Feather 

Virgilia - 

Belden 

Virgilia - 

Belden 

10 40 IV-V Spring 

West 

Branch of 

North Fork 

Upper Whiskey 

Flat Bridge - 

Dean Rd. 

3.3 64 IV-V Winter/Spring

 

19Classification of rapids is based on the International Whitewater Classification 

System (American Whitewater, 2008): Class II, Novice: Straightforward rapids with 

wide, clear channels which are evident without scouting; Class III, Intermediate: 

Rapids with moderate, irregular waves which may be difficult to avoid and which can 

swamp an open canoe; Class IV, Advanced: Intense, powerful, but predictable rapids 

requiring precise boat handling in turbulent water; Class V, Expert: Extremely long, 

obstructed, or very violent rapids that expose a paddler to above average endangerment; 

Class VI, Extreme and exploratory: These runs have almost never been attempted and 

often exemplify the extremes of difficulty, unpredictability, and danger. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-145 

River 

Name of 

Whitewater 

Run 

Put-In 

Take-Out 

Length 

(miles) 

Gradient 

(feet per 

mile) Class 

Season of 

Boating Use 

Feather 

Ben & 

Jerry’s 

Gorge 

Dean Road – 

Lake 

Oroville 

4 118 V+ Winter/Spring

Rock Creek 

Run 

Rock Creek 

Dam – Rock 

Creek 

Powerhouse 

8 50 III-V Spring 

Cresta Run Cresta DamCresta 

Powerhouse 

6.5 48 III-V Spring 

North Fork 

Feather 

Poe Run Poe DamPoe 

Powerhouse 

7.5 70 IV-V Spring 

Devils 

Canyon 

Nelson 

Point–

Milsap Bar 

32.5 70 V Spring Middle 

Fork 

Feather 

Devils 

Canyon 

Nelson 

Point–

Milsap Bar 

6.5 108 V+ Spring 

Little North 

Fork 

Middle 

Feather 

n/a Glazer 

Creek – 

Milsap Bar 

9.8 196 V-VI Winter/Spring

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-146 

Table 3-44. Whitewater boating runs on the North Fork of the Yuba River, as 

identified by Holbeck and Stanley, 1998. (Source: South Feather, 2007)

Name of 

Whitewater 

Run 

Put-In 

Take-Out 

Length 

(miles) 

Gradient 

(feet per 

mile) Class 

Season of 

Boating Use 

Loves Falls Salmon Creek – Wild 

Plum Road 

2.8 300 V+ Winter/Spring 

Sierra City to 

Downieville 

Wild Plum 

Campground – 

Downieville 

13 109 IV-V Spring 

Rosassco 

Canyon 

Downieville -

Goodyear’s Bar 

4 60 IV-V Spring 

Goodyear’s 

Bar 

Goodyear’s Bar -

Hwy. 49 Bridge 

8.5 49 IV+ Spring 

Bullards Bar 

Dam to 

Middle Fork 

Yuba 

Bullards Bar Dam -

Englebright Lake 

2.3 80 V Spring 

Following the completion of the 2004 Whitewater Boating Study, the Forest 

Service, FWS, the Water Board, and Cal Fish & Game requested that the South Feather 

perform controlled whitewater boating flow studies on all project reaches except the 

Slate Creek diversion dam reach. Accordingly, in 2005, South Feather conducted 

controlled flow studies for whitewater boating opportunities for the Little Grass Valley 

dam reach, the South Fork and Forbestown diversion dam reaches, and the Lost Creek 

dam reach. A controlled flow study of the Slate Creek diversion dam reach was not 

conducted due to the project’s limitations for controlling the flow of water from the 

Slate Creek diversion dam. Instead, the assessment of this reach included a survey 

(same survey instrument as the controlled flow studies) of three boaters who ran the 

reach in April 2005. The following sections summarize the characteristics and boatable 

and optimum flow ranges20 for each reach identified in the studies. Table 3-45 provides 

a summary of the identified boatable and optimum flow ranges for all of the reaches. 

 

20The optimum flow range represents a narrower, ideal range flows for boating; 

whereas, the boatable flow range is a broader representation of flows that brackets the 

optimum range but has a slightly higher and lower end whereby some but not all boaters 

would run the reach at the flows outside the optimum range. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-147 

Table 3-45. Boatable and optimum flow ranges for project reaches. (Source: South 

Feather, 2007) 

Flow Ranges Based on Flow Studies (cfs) 

Reach Boatable Flow Range Optimum Flow Range 

Little Grass Valley dam 180 - 464 230 - 400 

South Fork diversion dam 188 - 700 250 - 438 

Forbestown diversion dam 216 - 400 250 - 350 

Lost Creek dam 96 - 193 100 - 185 

Slate Creek diversion dama

 167 - 517 300 - 450 

a

 A controlled flow study was not conducted; flow range based on knowledgeable 

kayakers’ survey responses. 

Little Grass Valley Dam Reach 

The Little Grass Valley dam reach is 9.1 miles long with an average gradient of 

141 feet per mile and a number of significant drops. The reach is accessed by County 

Road 514 to the put-in at Little Grass Valley dam and the take-out is accessible by La 

Porte Road near the South Fork diversion dam. Black Rock RV and Tent campground 

is located 0.25 mile from the put-in, making overnight boating on the Little Grass 

Valley reach possible. 

Whitewater boating study participants indicated that the Little Grass Valley dam 

reach is best suited for hard shell and inflatable kayaks and could provide Class IV and 

V whitewater opportunities. Study participants indicated that boatable flows ranged 

between 180 and 464 cfs, with an optimum flow range of between 230 to 400 cfs. 

South Feather estimates that, based on the period 1972 to 2001, existing project 

operation provides, on average for all water years, 104 days when flows are in the 

optimal boating flow range on the Little Grass Valley dam reach. 

South Fork Diversion Dam Reach 

The South Fork diversion dam reach is about 9.4 miles long, consisting of the 

upper reach which extends about 4.3 miles from the South Fork diversion dam to the 

Golden Trout Crossing and the lower section extending about 5.1 miles from Golden 

Trout Crossing to the Forbestown diversion dam. The gradient of the upper reach is 

about 85 feet per mile, and the gradient of lower 5.1-mile reach averages 266 feet per 

mile with 1 mile that drops over 400 feet. (With the concurrence of the agencies and 

American Whitewater, the lower 5.1-mile reach was not further assessed due to the 

steep gradient and limited whitewater boating opportunities.) Access to the put-in, near 

South Fork diversion dam, and to the take-out, near Golden Trout Crossing, occurs only 

by a vehicle with high clearance or 4-wheel drive. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-148 

Whitewater boating study participants indicated that the upper portion of the 

South Fork diversion dam reach is best suited for hard shell kayaks, open canoes, and 

inflatable kayaks and that the reach could provide Class II through Class IV whitewater 

opportunities. The study participants indicated that boatable flows for the upper portion 

of the South Fork reach ranged from between 188 to 700 cfs, with an optimal flow 

range of 250 to 438 cfs. South Feather estimates that, based on the period 1972 to 2001, 

existing project operation provides, on average for all water years, two days when flows 

are in the optimal boating flow range on the South Fork diversion dam reach and the 

Lost Creek dam reach. 

Lost Creek Dam Reach 

The Lost Creek dam reach is 4 miles long with an average gradient of about 305 

feet per mile. Access to the put- in, near Lost Creek dam, is via La Porte Road, Barton 

Hill Road, and FS Road No. 20N09 and access to the take-out, near the Forbestown 

diversion dam, is via Forbestown Road and FS Road No. 20N29. Whitewater boating 

study participants indicated that the Lost Creek dam reach is best suited for hard shell 

kayaks and that the reach could provide Class V through VI whitewater opportunities. 

The study participants indicated that boatable flows at Lost Creek dam reach range from 

96 to 193 cfs; while optimal flows range of 100 to 185 cfs. 

Forbestown Diversion Dam Reach 

The Forbestown diversion dam reach is 5.4 miles long and has an average 

gradient of 135 feet per mile. The put-in can be accessed by a steep bank near the 

diversion dam via Forbestown Road and FS Road No. 20N29, and the take-out can be 

accessed on the Ponderosa reservoir near the Forbestown powerhouse via Lower 

Forbestown Road and FS Road No. 20N24. Based on gradient and number of portages, 

whitewater boating study participants found that the Forbestown diversion dam reach is 

best suited for hard shell kayaks. The study participants indicated that the reach could 

provide Class V whitewater opportunities, and that the boatable flows at Forbestown 

diversion dam reach were between 216 and 400 cfs, with an optimal flow range of 

between 250 to 350 cfs. South Feather estimates that, based on the period 1972 to 2001, 

existing project operation provides, on average for all water years, 33 days when flows 

are in the optimal boating flow range on the Forbestown diversion dam reach. 

Slate Creek Diversion Dam Reach 

The Slate Creek diversion dam reach is 8.8 miles long with a gradient of 172 feet 

per mile and extends from the base of Slate Creek diversion dam to the confluence with 

the North Yuba River. The put-in is located at the base of Slate Creek diversion dam 

and accessed from County Road 2 and the take-out is at FS Road No. 20N16 at the 

confluence of North Yuba River. Survey respondents indicated that the Slate Creek 

diversion dam reach is best suited for hard shell kayaks and could provide Class IV or V 

whitewater opportunities. Based on survey responses, boatable flows at Slate Creek 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-149 

diversion dam reach range from 167 to 517 cfs; and optimal flows range of between 300 

to 450 cfs. 

The results of the study showed that boaters preferred other runs available in the 

area and elsewhere in California as opposed to the project reaches. Generally, boaters 

noted the primary draw to boat on the identified project reaches was their potential to be 

boated in the fall when boating opportunities are limited elsewhere. 

3.3.5.2 Environmental Effects 

Replace and Rehabilitate Existing Recreation Facilities 

Recreation facilities at the project may need to be replaced or rehabilitated in part 

or in total due to decline of such facilities through age, repeated use, or increased 

demand by the public. 

Facility Master Plans 

South Feather, under Measure 45,21 proposes to develop and implement facility 

master plans for Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoir recreation areas that 

illustrate the layouts, locations, sizes, shapes and relationships between existing and 

proposed improvements. The master plan for Little Grass Valley reservoir recreation 

area would be filed within 1 year of license issuance and the master plan for Sly Creek 

reservoir recreation area would be filed within 3 years of license issuance. South 

Feather would obtain Forest Service approval of all plans before filing these plans with 

the Commission. In addition, South Feather, under Measure 34, proposes to consult 

annually with the Forest Service regarding planned project operation and maintenance 

activities on Forest Service lands for that calendar year. 

The Forest Service (Condition No. 20, part 1) specifies measures for the 

development of facility master plans consistent with South Feather’s proposal and also 

specifies that South Feather conduct an annual coordination meeting to help ensure the 

goals and objectives of the master plans are being met. 

Our Analysis 

South Feather’s proposed master plans would provide the means to develop and 

implement the proposed recreation measures in a consistent and coordinated manner. 

Consultation, including an annual consultation meeting, with the Forest Service would 

help to ensure that the measures being developed and implemented would be consistent 

with the management goals and objectives of the Plumas National Forest. Submittal of 

 

21As revised by South Feather in letter from M. Glaze, General Manager, South 

Feather, Oroville, CA, to K. Bose, Secretary, FERC, Washington, DC, October 12, 

2007. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-150 

these master plans to the Commission for review and approval would help to ensure that 

project facilities are maintained and adequate public recreation access is provided at the 

project over the term of a new license. 

Individual Site Rehabilitation Measures 

South Feather proposes to develop and implement individual site development 

plans for each existing recreation facility within the existing project boundary. The site 

development plans would include the following components: (1) management 

objectives for the site; (2) an existing conditions survey; ( 3) description of conceptual 

and specific proposed rehabilitation measures; (4) a schedule for completion of the 

proposed rehabilitation measures; (5) measures for South Feather to provide for all 

construction related to maintenance, including preparation of all necessary engineering 

specifications and detailed construction drawings, and to select and manage a contractor 

to perform the construction; (6) measures for South Feather to obtain all necessary 

regulatory approvals and permits for the proposed construction; (7) measures for South 

Feather to obtain Forest Service approval of all proposed construction prior to 

performing any ground-disturbing activities; and (8) measures for South Feather to 

operate and maintain all rehabilitations, replacements, improvements and new facilities, 

and to include such facilities within the FERC project boundary. 

Site rehabilitation measures to be incorporated into the site plans would include 

the following, as appropriate: (1) rehabilitation of all existing roads, parking areas, and 

campground vehicle spurs within the facility; (2) replacement of all existing fire rings, 

grills, and picnic tables within the facility; (3) ensure tent camping areas are at least 12 

feet by 16 feet, and RV camping areas are 225 square feet; (4) replacement of all 

existing entrance signs, directional signs, and information/bulletin signs; (5) upgrade of 

the existing water systems at each facility unless South Feather and Forest Service agree 

that the upgrade is not necessary at any or all of the facilities; (6) replacement of a 

number of current campsites and the replacement or retro-fitting of restrooms with new 

campsites and restrooms that meet accessibility requirements; and (7) replacement of 

the existing floating boat docks and concrete launch ramps with similar structures. 

South Feather proposes to file site development plans for Little Grass Valley reservoir 

recreation area facilities within 3 years of license issuance; and for Sly Creek reservoir 

recreation area facilities within 5 years of license issuance. The site development plan 

for Peninsula Tent campground would be filed within 5 years of license issuance. 

South Feather proposed specific rehabilitation and enhancement measures for the 

following individual recreation sites: 

Little Grass Valley Recreation Area

• Little Beaver Campground Loop C - South Feather proposes to remove about 10 

existing campsites and re-configure the existing campground layout to provide 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-151 

improved RV opportunities with larger vehicle spurs and campsite space, while 

incorporating accessibility design standards. 

• Peninsula Tent Campground - All work described in this measure for Peninsula 

Tent Campground would be dependent upon the Forest Service’s and South 

Feather’s collaborative assessment of the facility’s usefulness, which would 

occur in the fifth year after license issuance. Peninsula Tent Campground may 

be considered for re-configuration depending upon future facility needs. If 

changes are proposed, South Feather would include the changes in the Peninsula 

Tent Campground site development plan. If South Feather and the Forest 

Service determine that Peninsula Tent Campground should not be re-configured, 

the site development plan would include rehabilitation of the existing restroom 

structure to meet accessible restroom standards. 

• Black Rock Tent Campground - South Feather proposes to remove the existing 

restroom structure and install a two-unit vault restroom that meets accessibility 

standards. South Feather would also re-size, re-pave (asphalt) and stripe the 

existing tent site unloading zone to accommodate two vehicles (pull-in) including 

installing vehicle barriers and directional signs. If it is determined that an 

accessible campsite is feasible at the tent campground, then one of the two 

vehicle unloading spaces would be modified to meet accessibility standards. 

• Black Rock RV Campground – South Feather proposes to paint and add signage 

at one existing RV campsite for accessibility, including making a single 

(adjacent) water hydrant accessible. 

• Blue Water Beach Day Use Area - South Feather proposes to upgrade the 

existing picnic sites to be fully accessible, install new trash and recycle bins, and 

rehabilitate existing paths. During site plan development, South Feather would 

consult with the Forest Service regarding the need to re-design the path or 

include stepped access. 

• Pancake Beach Day Use Area - South Feather proposes to rehabilitate the 

existing parking area, replace the existing picnic area, and install a new beach 

access path. South Feather would re-design and construct a new parking area. 

South Feather would remove the existing restroom and install one new two-unit 

vault, accessible restroom facility. South Feather would remove the existing 

changing room structures adjacent to the restroom. 

• Black Rock and Tooms Boat Launches – At both boat launch facilities, South 

Feather proposes to remove the existing two-unit accessible vault restroom and 

replace the facility with a similar structure. 

• Maidu Boat Launch - South Feather proposes to remove the existing two-unit 

vault restroom and replace the facility with a similar structure and to install an 

accessible boat loading platform in the facility parking area. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-152 

• Maidu Amphitheater - South Feather proposes to replace the existing path to the 

amphitheater from the adjacent existing accessible flush restroom at Maidu Boat 

Launch. South Feather would re-surface, widen, and harden the existing gravel 

path in its current location, while incorporating accessibility design standards. 

• Horse Camp Campground – South Feather proposes to install a water system, as 

long as the cost does not exceed $217,000 (in 2004 dollars). South Feather also 

proposes to remove the two existing single-unit accessible vault restrooms and 

replace the facility with similar structures that meets Forest Service standards. 

• Little Grass Valley reservoir Accessible Fishing Trail - South Feather proposes 

to replace the existing concrete trail surface, curb and pull-outs. 

Sly Creek Reservoir Recreation Area

• Mooreville Boat Launch - South Feather proposes to remove the existing twounit vault restroom and replace the facility with a similar structure. 

• Mooreville Day Use Area – South Feather proposes to provide one accessible 

picnic table and one accessible combination fire ring/grill at the day-use area, 

and provide an accessible path from the existing parking area to the accessible 

picnic site. South Feather would replace the one existing water hydrant with a 

new accessible water hydrant. 

• Strawberry Car-top Boat Launch - South Feather proposes to re-pave the 

existing asphalt car-top launch ramp to the same design and remove the existing 

single-unit accessible vault restrooms and replace the facility with a similar 

structure. 

Also under Measure 45, South Feather proposes to, within 1 year of license 

issuance in consultation with the Forest Service, conduct the following minor 

maintenance measures: (1) at Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoir recreation 

areas, replace about 25 percent of all existing fire rings and grills and replace 25 percent 

of picnic tables; (2) at Tooms, Black Rock, Mooreville, and Strawberry car-top boat 

launches, paint and sign one accessible parking space adjacent to the existing accessible 

restroom; and (3) at Maidu boat launch, provide two accessible parking spaces adjacent 

to the accessible restroom including signs and striping. 

The Forest Service specifies (Condition No. 20, part 1) measures for the 

development of individual site plans that are consistent with South Feather’s proposed 

site plans. The Forest Service specifies that South Feather complete the individual site 

plans within five years of the license issuance unless otherwise agreed to by the 

Licensee and the Forest Service. The Forest Service specifies several additional 

components to be incorporated into the site plans including measures for public 

interpretive facilities, such as kiosks and trail signs, as well as measures to develop and 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-153 

implement a re-vegetation plan that would be submitted within 5 years of license 

issuance for all developed recreation facilities within the project boundary. 

The Forest Service also specifies (Condition No. 20, part 2) that South Feather 

consult with the Forest Service and other appropriate agencies to ensure that the 

recreation rehabilitation and enhancements are consistent with the overall goals of other 

resource conditions and management plans required under the license and initiate 

consultation with Native Americans to determine appropriate protection and mitigation 

measures if potential recreational facility construction or rehabilitation impacts to 

cultural resources are identified. 

O’Rourke’s Outdoor Adventure recommends that the license require the 

following recreation enhancements at the Peninsula (Tooms), Black Rock, and Little 

Beaver (Maidu) boat ramps: enlarge boat ramps and vehicle turn around areas; install 

signs prohibiting parking in turn around or pre-launch areas and 80 yards leading to the 

ramp area; and extend existing boat ramps to accommodate for lower water levels. For 

the Peninsula, Little Beaver, Red Feather and Running Deer campgrounds, O’Rourke’s 

Outdoor Adventure recommends that the license require the following enhancement 

measures: update the campgrounds to accommodate for larger trailer sizes; remove low 

hanging trees and branches; and remove or replace existing wood blocks along the 

campground roads. In addition, O’Rourke’s Outdoor Adventure states that both the 

Forest Service and South Feather should be responsible for paving the remaining 1.9 

miles of the Little Grass Valley Road and for brushing 4 miles of access road into Sly 

Creek for safety concerns. 

Our Analysis 

South Feather’s proposed site rehabilitation measures include provisions for the 

upgrade of site facility features that would be implemented at various times over the 

term of a new license. These measures include provisions for rehabilitation and 

enhanced accessibility of project-related facilities, including trails, boat ramps, 

restrooms, campsites and amenities, picnic areas and amenities, trash facilities, parking, 

and boat loading platforms. Improving access for the disabled at the project would be 

consistent with the Commission’s policy on recreation facilities22 at licensed projects 

under which licensees are expected to consider the needs of the disabled in the design 

and construction of such facilities. These measures, along with South Feather’s 

proposed minor maintenance measures, would provide enhanced accessibility to 

recreation opportunities at the project over the term of a new license. 

South Feather’s proposed enhancement and rehabilitation measures are 

consistent with the Forest Service’s Condition No. 20, although that condition contains 

a few additional measures that South Feather did not propose. Providing interpretive 

 

22See 18 CFR Part 2.7. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-154 

facilities, such as enhanced signage and interpretive kiosks, would help enhance public 

use of the recreation facilities at the project. The Forest Service’s proposed revegetation plans would help to ensure that any disturbed areas resulting from 

implementation of the recreation enhancements are adequately mitigated through 

reestablishment of vegetation, as necessary. In addition, consultation with the Forest 

Service and other relevant resource agencies to coordinate recreation plans with other 

management plans at the project would help to limit any potential adverse effects of the 

proposed recreation measures on other project resources. 

South Feather’s proposed site rehabilitation measures and maintenance measures, 

with the addition of the specified interpretive measures and re-vegetation plans, would 

help to ensure that project recreation facilities meet future recreational demand. In 

addition, South Feather’s consultation with the Forest Service and other relevant 

resource agencies would help to ensure that the proposed rehabilitation and maintenance 

measures would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Plumas National 

Forest and other resource plans at the project. 

O’Rourke Outdoor Adventures’ recommended measures to enhance boat ramps 

and campgrounds at the project are included in South Feather’s proposed rehabilitation 

measures and would be implemented over the term of a new license, with the exception 

of extending the boat ramps. In addition, South Feather has already implemented 

measures to improve access at Tooms Boat Launch and Black Rock and Maidu boat 

ramps, including widening the launch ramps, repairing damaged parking areas and 

roadways, constructing an accessible restroom, and installing a fish cleaning station. 

O’Rourke Outdoor Adventures also recommended road maintenance measures 

for Little Grass Valley Dam Road and the access road to Sly Creek, such as paving and 

brush clearing. Both these roads are county roads and although South Feather states it 

currently conducts brush trimming on a regular basis along Sly Creek Road as 

determined during annual meetings held pursuant to the road use special-use permit 

between South Feather and the Forest Service, because both these roads are county 

roads outside of the FERC project boundary, they would not be South Feather’s 

maintenance responsibility under a new license. 

Capital Improvement Measures 

South Feather proposes to construct, within 3 years of license issuance and in 

consultation with the Forest Service, a multi-use trail below Little Grass Valley dam to 

provide better access to the SFFR, primarily for recreational boating and angling. The 

trail would be constructed to a primitive and non-accessible standard on river left 

extending from the gravel parking area below the accessible restroom about 0.5 mile to 

the river’s edge. 

The Forest Service specifies (Condition No. 20, part 1) that South Feather 

implement the following capital improvement projects: construct a groundwater potable 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-155 

water well, in conjunction with the proposed upgrade of water systems, for the east 

shore facilities on Little Grass Valley reservoir within 5 years of license issuance; 

implement a horse watering supply and distribution system at Horse Camp campground 

within 10 years of license issuance; explore opportunities to extend paved or native 

trails to increase pedestrian connectivity of sites in the development of the master plans; 

and construct amenities such as parking and off-loading ramps at the Sly Creek OHV 

use area, dependent on pending designation of the borrow site.23 

Our Analysis 

South Feather’s proposed recreation access trail below Little Grass Valley dam 

would improve recreational angler and boating access in this area. Currently, there is 

drinking water at all of the east-shore facilities on Little Grass Valley reservoir, except 

Horse Camp campground, and South Feather has proposed to upgrade each of these 

water systems as necessary. The Forest Service’s specification to construct a 

groundwater potable water well and implement a horse watering supply and distribution 

system at Horse Camp campground would further improve existing facilities since there 

is no water for drinking or for horses at the camp. 

The Forest Service’s specified OHV site amenities would be associated with a 

currently unconstructed facility located near the Sly Creek campground, which may or 

may not ever be built. Further, OHV use at the project is low and future demand for 

this type of activity is estimated to increase only slightly over the next 40 years. 

Therefore, the proposed facilities would not be necessary for current or future recreation 

demand at the project. 

Maintenance and Operation of Recreation Facilities 

The Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoir recreation areas require shortterm maintenance and operation of all facilities. This would include routine 

maintenance such as minor repairs and/or replacement of parts, prevention measures, 

and cyclic maintenance to keep the facilities in acceptable condition. 

Under Measure 46, South Feather proposes to file, in coordination with the 

Forest Service, a routine maintenance and operation plan within 6 months of license 

issuance for the Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoir recreation areas. In 

Condition No. 20, part 2, the Forest Service specifies that South Feather perform routine 

annual maintenance at all the recreation facilities at Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek 

 

23There is a proposal to designate the borrow site for dam construction near Sly 

Creek campground as an open OHV use area. Undetermined amenities such as parking 

and off-loading ramps may be desired upon successful designation. The Forest Service 

specifies that specific proposals, if applicable, would be evaluated during the annual 

consultation process. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-156 

reservoir recreation facilities to keep facilities in working, acceptable condition. The 

Forest Service specifies that South Feather develop and file a plan, in consultation with 

the Forest Service, within 1 year of license issuance. 

Both the Forest Service and South Feather submitted a draft “Operation Plan for 

Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek Reservoir Recreation Facilities” to meet the proposed 

specified provisions related to maintenance and operation of the recreation facilities 

described under South Feather Measure 46 and the operation and maintenance measures 

specified by the Forest Service under Condition No. 20, part 2. The Forest Service 

states that this draft plan has been tentatively agreed to by both the Forest Service and 

South Feather and would be reviewed and finalized to meet license conditions within 

the first year following issuance of a new license for the project. The proposed 

operation plan specifies: (1) their respective roles and management responsibilities in 

the routine operation and maintenance of the project recreation facilities; (2) specific 

operational measures such as the operating season, length of stay at the campgrounds, 

and user fees; (3) specific maintenance measures, such as daily and weekly maintenance 

measures, and annual maintenance measures and target dates for implementation; and 

(4) description of measures associated with other programs such as signs, and the 

interpretive programs. 

Our Analysis 

Maintenance and operation measures associated with the project’s recreation 

facilities helps to ensure that these facilities and associated public recreational access 

are provided over the term of a license. South Feather’s proposed draft operation plan 

for Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoir recreation facilities was developed in 

consultation with the Forest Service and would be consistent with Condition No. 20. 

The proposed plan provides specific guidelines for the operation and maintenance of the 

facilities associated with the project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed plan 

would help ensure proper maintenance and operation of the Little Grass Valley and Sly 

Creek reservoirs recreation facilities and would help to ensure that these facilities are 

maintained over the term of a new license. In addition, submittal of the final plan to the 

Commission for review and approval would help to ensure that the proposed operation 

and maintenance measures are consistent with the terms and conditions of a new 

license. 

Monitoring Recreation Use 

Recreation use, demand, and user preferences can change over time. Most 

project licenses extend over a 30 to 50 year timeframe and existing recreation facilities 

may not be adequate over time to meet future recreation demand at the project. 

Under Measure 47, South Feather proposes to, concurrent with the filing of the 

Form 80 Recreation Report, file with the Commission a report on recreational use to 

determine if the capacity of existing recreation facilities is adequate to meet demand 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-157 

over the term of the license at the developed recreational facilities. If South Feather’s 

calculations show that the maximum capacity for campgrounds, day-use areas, or boat 

launches at either the Little Grass Valley or Sly Creek reservoir recreation areas are 

exceeded, South Feather would, within 1 year of filing the report with the Commission 

and in consultation with the Forest Service, develop a site concept plan for that 

recreation area. South Feather would be fully responsible for the planning, design, 

construction, operation and maintenance of the new facilities. South Feather would 

provide a draft of the report to the Forest Service for 60-day review, would file the 

report with the Commission, including documentation of consultation, and would 

implement those measures approved by the Commission. 

Under Measure 48, South Feather proposes to, concurrent with every third filing 

of the Form 80 Recreation Report, file with the Commission a report on recreational 

user surveys at developed recreational facilities at Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek 

reservoir recreation areas. The purpose of the report would be to determine if existing 

recreation facilities are adequate to meet user preferences. South Feather proposes to 

file this report with every third filing of the FERC Form 80 Recreation Report, 

therefore, every 18 years. 

South Feather would prepare the report based on the survey information, 

including objectives, methods, results, recommended resource management measures, 

including assessment of the need for recreation facility modification or new facilities, 

and a schedule for implementation of recommended measures. South Feather would 

provide a draft of the final report to the Forest Service for a 60-day review and would 

file the report, including evidence of consultation, with the Commission concurrent with 

the next Form 80 filing. South Feather would implement those measures following 

approval by the Commission. 

The Forest Service specifies (Condition No. 20, part 1) that South Feather file a 

Recreation Use and Facilities Condition Survey once every 6 years. The survey would 

determine trends of use, condition of facilities, the number of days parking capacity is 

met or exceeded and whether resource damage is occurring. 

Our Analysis 

The level and type of recreation use and recreation user preferences could change 

over the term of a new license. Periodic monitoring of recreation use, surveying of user 

preferences, and assessment of facility capacity and recreation demand can help to 

determine if the project’s recreation facilities meet demand and provide adequate public 

recreational access to the project over the term of a new license. 

South Feather’s proposed recreation report to be filed concurrently with the 

FERC Form 80 filings every 6 years would provide additional periodic review of trends 

of recreation use, condition of facilities, and parking capacity. This is consistent with 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-158 

the Forest Service’s Condition No. 20, part 1. South Feather’s proposed recreation user 

survey would provide the means for further assessment of recreation demand at the 

project based on recreation user preferences. However, South Feather proposes to 

conduct the recreation user survey every 18 years (every third filing of the Form 80), 

and recreation user preferences could change significantly over an 18-year timeframe. 

Conducting the recreation user survey every 12 years (every other filing of the Form 

80), instead, would allow for enhanced assessment of the adequacy of public recreation 

facilities and access at the project over the course of a new license. South Feather’s 

proposed recreation monitoring measures and associated recreation reports would be 

consistent with the Forest Service’s specification that South Feather file a recreation use 

and facilities condition report. Both the recreational use report and the recreation user 

preference report would be submitted to the Commission for review and approval, 

which would provide the mechanism to help ensure that recreation facilities meet 

project needs and purposes over the term of a new license. Therefore, South Feather’s 

proposed measures for monitoring and reporting recreation use, with the modification of 

conducting the recreation user survey every 12 years, would provide the means to assess 

the need to provide additional or modified recreation facilities to meet demand for 

public recreational access at the project over the term of a new license. 

Reservoir Levels 

Project operation results in drawdown and fluctuation of reservoir elevations, 

which can affect recreation use and access at the project reservoirs. Drawdown and 

fluctuation of the project reservoirs have the greatest effects on reservoirs where higher 

levels of recreation use and access occur such as Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek 

reservoirs and can substantially affect boat access and use at these reservoirs. South 

Feather proposes to maintain the water level at Little Grass Valley reservoir no lower 

than elevation 5,023 feet msl24 through September 15 in all water years, except Dry 

water years, to facilitate the use of Little Grass Valley boat launch facilities. In Dry 

water years, South Feather proposes to maintain Little Grass Valley reservoir as high as 

possible through Labor Day weekend. 

 

24There is a discrepancy between information provided in the final license 

application and the most recent correspondence regarding the proposed water surface 

elevation under South Feather’s Measure 49. In the final license application, South 

Feather proposes to maintain the water surface elevation at 5,022 feet. However, in 

more recent correspondence from both South Feather and the Forest Service, this 

elevation is 5,023 feet (letter from J. Whittaker, IV, Winston and Strawn, LLP, Attorney 

for South Feather, Washington, DC, to K. Bose, Secretary, FERC, Washington, DC, 

May 29, 2008; letter from J. Rider, Attorney, Forest Service, San Francisco, CA, to K. 

Bose, Secretary, FERC, Washington, DC, April 14, 2008). For our assessment, we use 

5,023 feet as stated in the most recent correspondence. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-159 

The Forest Service, as part of Condition No. 20, part 2, specifies that South 

Feather support reservoir-based recreation consistent with lake levels required by the 

license conditions, and provide seasonal lake level data and monitor boat usage and 

fishing activities. Cal Fish & Game states that the project reservoirs provide valuable 

angling and other recreational opportunities, and that reservoir elevations that are too 

low may exclude public access to boat ramps and other recreational facilities. The 

public submitted various letters expressing concerns related to potential lower water 

surface levels at Little Grass Valley reservoir during the recreation season. Concerns 

included: boat ramps could become less accessible; bank fishing would be further from 

the tree line and more treacherous to access; reservoir surface area would be reduced; 

swimming and boating would become hazardous; beaches would be further from 

camping and picnic areas, and the potential dewatering of the Pancake Bay area. 

Our Analysis 

Under existing conditions, water surface elevations at Little Grass Valley 

reservoir can vary significantly from year to year with reservoir fluctuations ranging 

from about 18 to 31 feet depending on the water year type. During the primary 

recreation season (Memorial Day through Labor Day) elevations can typically range 

from about elevation 5,044 feet to elevation 5,025 feet (see figure 3-3 in section 3.3.2, 

Aquatic Resources). South Feather has historically maintained Little Grass Valley 

reservoir at or above elevation 5,022 feet msl through September 30 to keep boat ramps 

operational. South Feather’s proposed measures would change the management of the 

Little Grass Valley water surface elevations by maintaining the water levels above 

elevation 5,023 feet msl to September 15. This would potentially result in 1-foot-higher 

levels during the primary recreation season and to September 15, but lower surface 

water elevations during the period after September 15, compared to existing conditions. 

Most recreation use at Little Grass Valley reservoir occurs during the primary 

recreation season, from Memorial Day to Labor Day; however, recreation use at the 

project can continue into the fall period. Holding the reservoir elevation at 5,023 feet 

msl instead of 5,022 feet msl through September 15 would enhance boating 

opportunities during the primary recreation season and through September 15. The 

lower water surface elevations between September 16 and September 30 have the 

potential to adversely affect reservoir boating access compared to existing conditions. 

Various individuals stated concerns regarding the potentially lower water surface 

elevations at Pancake Bay. Pancake Bay is a protected cove with a gently sloping 

bottom located in the southeastern portion of Little Grass Valley reservoir near the 

Peninsula area (see figure 3-13). Pancake Bay offers wind- and wave-sheltered 

canoeing and kayaking experiences, compared to the open reservoir. Pancake Bay 

begins to form when Little Grass Valley reservoir reaches an elevation of about 5,020 

feet msl. The cove is rapidly inundated between elevations 5,020 and 5,040 feet msl 

and continues to grow in size up to the normal full pool elevation of 5,045.5 feet msl. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-160 

South Feather assessed the incidence and period of the inundation of Pancake 

Bay when it is at or near full inundation (between elevations 5,040 and 5,045.5 feet msl) 

under (1) existing (no-action) conditions; (2) South Feather’s alternative 4(e) condition 

(adopted into the staff alternative); and (3) the Forest Service specified and Cal Fish & 

Game’s recommended flow regime (which are the same below Little Grass Valley 

dam); see further discussion of proposed flow regimes in section 3.3.2, Aquatic 

Resources). Based on this assessment (table 3-46) under the Below Normal water years 

the percent of years where inundation would occur at Pancake Bay area would be 

reduced by about 50 percent under the Forest Service and Cal Fish & Game’s 

recommended flow regime and about 25 percent under the staff alternative (i.e., South 

Feather’s alternative 4(e) condition) as compared to existing conditions. In Dry water 

years, the Pancake Bay area would not be inundated under the Forest Service and Cal 

Fish & Game’s flow regime. Under the staff alternative, the percentage of Dry water 

years where inundation would occur would be reduced about 38 percent, compared to 

existing conditions. These reductions in the inundation of the Pancake Bay area would 

result in potential adverse effects on recreational use of project waters in this area. 

Table 3-46. Incidence and period of Upper Pancake Bay inundation (5,040 through 

5,045.5 feet msl): Below normal and dry water years. (Source: South 

Feather, 2007) 

Period 

No-Action 

Alternative 

Staff Alternative 

(South Feather’s 

Alternative 4(e) 

Condition) 

Forest Service 4(e) 

and Cal Fish & 

Game, Rec. 1 

Below Normal Water Years 

Percent of Years Where 

Inundation Occurs 

100% 75% 50% 

Average Inundation 

Period 

May 7 – June 

29 

May 9 – June 29 May 13 – June 29 

Duration (days) 54 52 48 

Dry Water Years 

Percent of Years Where 

Inundation Occurs 

50% 12% None 

Average Inundation 

Period 

May 19 – 

June 29 

June 2 – June 28 None 

Duration (days) 42 27 None 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-161 

Implementation any of the alternative flow regimes and the corresponding 

potential reduced reservoir elevations, compared to existing conditions, would result in 

potential adverse effects on recreational use and access at Little Grass Valley reservoir. 

Potential effects are least for the licensee’s proposed flows, intermediate for the staff 

alternative, and greatest for the Forest Service/Gal Fish and Game Flows. Monitoring 

the effects of reservoir elevations resulting from the implementation of a modified flow 

regime would provide the means to assess the potential adverse effects on recreational 

use and access to project waters. South Feather proposes to provide a concise reservoir 

elevation monitoring report to the Commission annually following license issuance until 

the next Form 80 filing and then provide a reservoir elevation monitoring report as a 

component of the subsequent Form 80 report filings. The reservoir elevation 

monitoring report would include a summary of water surface elevations at Little Grass 

Valley reservoir during the May 1 through October 15 period (primary recreation 

period), an assessment of the duration and period of inundation of the Pancake Bay 

area; and an assessment of the potential effects on recreation use and access at the 

project. This monitoring would provide the means to evaluate these potential effects on 

recreational use and access at the project. The reservoir elevation monitoring report 

would help provide the means for the Commission to ensure that adequate public 

recreational use and access to project waters is provided over the term of a new license. 

Whitewater Boating Flows 

Project operation can change quantity and timing of flows in project-affected 

reaches and thereby affect potential whitewater boating opportunities. South Feather 

proposes various measures to provide supplemental streamflows for recreation 

opportunities. 

Little Grass Valley Dam Reach - Under Measure 50, South Feather proposes to 

provide a supplemental streamflow for recreational purposes in the Little Grass Valley 

dam reach in all water years from September 16 of each year until the date that Little 

Grass Valley reservoir elevation is 5,017 feet msl. This recreational streamflow would 

have a target magnitude of between 180 and 460 cfs over a continuous 24-hour period. 

South Fork Diversion Dam Reach - Under Measure 51, South Feather proposes 

to provide a supplemental streamflow for recreational purposes downstream of the 

South Fork diversion dam in the spring of Above Normal and Wet water years. This 

recreational streamflow would have a target magnitude of no less than 190 cfs and no 

more than 700 cfs, measured continuously over two weekend days, starting around 

April 1 and lasting through June 15, or no later than when the average water 

temperature reaches 13oC. In this measure, South Feather also proposes to install, in 

consultation with the Forest Service and state agencies, a continuous water temperature 

monitor near the Woodleaf powerhouse. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-162 

Forbestown Diversion Dam Reach - Under Measure 52, South Feather proposes 

a supplemental streamflow in the spring during Above Normal and Wet water years at 

Forbestown diversion dam reach to improve opportunities for Class IV and V 

whitewater boating in the spring. This recreational streamflow would have a target 

magnitude of no less than 215 cfs and no more than 400 cfs, measured continuously 

over two weekend days, from April 1 through June 15, but no later than when the 

average water temperature reaches 13oC. In this measure, South Feather also proposes 

to install, in consultation with the Forest Service and state agencies, a continuous water 

temperature monitor near the Forbestown powerhouse. 

Our Analysis 

South Feather’s proposed supplemental streamflows would provide for enhanced 

whitewater boating opportunities in the project reaches, compared to existing 

conditions. The provision of supplemental flows during the fall period at Little Grass 

Valley dam reach would provide opportunities for increased whitewater boating at a 

time when whitewater boating opportunities within the region are not as abundant, 

compared to the spring season. The proposed spring recreational releases at the South 

Fork and Forbestown diversion dams during above normal and wet years would provide 

additional whitewater boating opportunities during those years. The proposed 

installation of water temperature monitors and cessation of releases when water 

temperature reaches 13oC would help ensure that the spring releases at the South Fork 

and Forbestown diversion dams would not adversely affect FYLF. However, because 

FYLF breeding may commence when temperatures rise to 12oC, discontinuing 

whitewater releases at this temperature would be more protective. 

Provision of Streamflow Information 

Accurate and timely stream flow information can provide information for 

recreationists planning water-related visits to the project. Under Measure 53, South 

Feather proposes to provide streamflow information to the public within the first year 

after license issuance. During Above Normal and Wet water years starting March 15, 

South Feather would notify the public of anticipated date and magnitude of recreational 

streamflow release for the South Fork and Forbestown diversion dam reaches. By April 

10, South Feather proposes to provide a preliminary forecast of water year type, 

initiation date, and duration of anticipated releases in addition to the minimum required 

streamflow at Little Grass Valley and Lost Creek dams. South Feather proposes to 

update this information on a monthly basis. South Feather also proposes to make 

available to the public the daily mean streamflows for the SFFR downstream of Little 

Grass Valley, South Fork, and Forbestown diversion dams; Lost Creek downstream of 

Lost Creek dam; and Slate Creek downstream of Slate Creek diversion, from May 1 

through November 30. The daily average streamflow readings would be updated 

weekly and rounded up to the nearest 50 cfs. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-163 

Our Analysis 

South Feather’s proposed provision of streamflow information to the public 

would provide the means for the public to gain information regarding streamflow for 

specified stream reaches. This information could then be used by the public to 

determine if recreational opportunities and desired flow ranges for angling, whitewater 

boating, and other recreational activities would be available. This would allow the 

public to take better advantage of opportunities for public recreational use at the project. 

Public Safety 

Public information at key locations on Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek 

reservoirs provides the public with information on acceptable and prohibited activities, 

as well as dangerous or restricted areas. Under Measure 54, South Feather proposes to 

install and maintain public safety buoys in Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoirs. 

The buoys would be installed after the roads are cleared of snow and would be 

maintained throughout the summer recreation season. Buoys would be removed from 

the reservoirs after September 15 each year. South Feather would coordinate with the 

local county sheriff departments to ensure the proper buoys are installed at the 

appropriate locations. South Feather also would be responsible for the purchase and 

replacement of buoys, as necessary. South Feather states that inclusion of this measure 

does not imply that South Feather is responsible for monitoring adherence to applicable 

state of California regulations and county ordinances regarding speeding and public 

safety at Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoirs. 

Our Analysis 

Until 2002, South Feather assisted the local county sheriff departments with the 

installation of public safety buoys in Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoirs. 

South Feather took over responsibility for installing safety buoys from the local county 

sheriff departments in 2002. South Feather’s proposed continued assistance with the 

installation of public safety buoys in those reservoirs would continue to provide 

recreation visitors information regarding boat speed limits, dangerous areas, and other 

safety information. The proposed installation of these buoys would continue to help 

ensure public safety at both Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoirs. The state of 

California and Plumas and Butte counties would continue to be responsible for 

monitoring compliance with state regulations and county ordinances regarding speeding 

and other public safety measures at Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoirs. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-164 

3.3.6 Cultural Resources 

3.3.6.1 Affected Environment 

Definition of Historic Properties 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires the Commission 

to take into account the effects of licensing a hydropower project on any historic 

properties, and allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Advisory Council) 

a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed action. Historic properties are 

defined as any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible 

for inclusion in the National Register. In most cases, cultural resources less than 50 

years old are not considered eligible for the National Register. Cultural resources also 

need enough internal contextual integrity to be considered historic properties. For 

example, dilapidated structures or heavily disturbed archaeological sites may not have 

enough contextual integrity to be considered eligible. An undertaking means a project, 

activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of 

a federal agency, including, among other things, processes requiring a federal permit, 

license, or approval. In this case, the undertaking is the proposed issuance of a new 

license for the project. 

If there would be an adverse effect on historic properties, the applicant must 

develop a Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) to seek to avoid, reduce, or 

mitigate the effects. Potential effects that may be associated with a hydroelectric project 

include any project-related effects associated with the day-to-day operation and 

maintenance of the project after issuance of a new license. During development of the 

HPMP, the applicant should consult with the Commission, the Advisory Council, the 

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Indian tribes, appropriate land-management 

agencies, and any other consulting party that may be involved with the licensing 

process. In most cases, the HPMP would be implemented by execution of a 

Programmatic Agreement that would be signed by the Commission, Advisory Council, 

SHPO, and other consulting parties. 

Section 106 also requires that the Commission seek concurrence with the SHPO 

on any finding involving effects or no effects on historic properties, and allow the 

Advisory Council an opportunity to comment on any finding of effects on historic 

properties. If Native American properties have been identified, section 106 also 

requires that the Commission consult with interested Native American tribes that might 

attach religious or cultural significance to such properties. 

Other federal laws, such as the American Indian Religious Freedom Act or the 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, also may apply when sacred 

areas or burial sites of Indian tribes have been identified. These and other cultural 

resources that possess religious or cultural significance to an Indian tribe, if eligible, can 

be considered as historic properties and treated through the section 106 process. Such 

historic properties are called Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs). 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-165 

Area of Potential Effects 

Pursuant to section 106, the Commission must take into account whether any 

historic property could be affected by a proposed new license within a project’s APE. 

The APE is delineated in consultation with the SHPO and is defined as the geographic 

area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in 

the character or use of historic properties and/or TCPs, if any such properties exist. For 

the relicensing of the South Feather Power Project, we define the APE as: 

• all lands within the FERC project boundary surrounding the Sly Creek, 

Woodleaf, Forbestown, and Kelly Ridge developments; and 

• the six project reaches as described in section 1.8, Description of General 

Locale, of the final license application (South Feather, 2007). 

Excluded from the APE are project tunnels, private lands not owned by the 

applicant unless access by the property owner has been granted, and steep terrain where 

access would be unsafe. 

Cultural Context 

Three primary cultural complexes have been proposed for the region 

encompassing the South Feather Power Project area. Classification of cultural materials 

was first undertaken by Heizer and Elsasser (1953, as cited by South Feather, 2007). 

They proposed two prehistoric periods based on investigations at 26 prehistoric sites: 

the Martis Complex and the Kings Beach Complex. 

The Martis Complex (4000 – 2000 before present [BP]) is characterized by the 

favored use of basalt over other lithic sources. The mano and metate, large, crudely 

shaped projectile points, atlatl weights, the bowl mortar and cylindrical pestle, and 

abundant basalt tools were identified as typical material attributes of the Martis 

Complex. The Martis Complex peoples were believed to be primarily interested in the 

exploitation of floral and faunal resources. Elsasser (1960, as cited by South Feather, 

2007) felt that the widespread distribution of Martis Complex was the result of a 

relatively homogeneous local culture and probably represented a seasonal adaptation to 

an economy based on the hunting of large mammals. 

Kowta (1988, as cited by South Feather, 2007) undertook an overview of the 

archaeology and prehistory of Plumas and Butte counties. He recognized the limitations 

in applying the concept of the Martis Complex to an archaeological manifestation that is 

presently “poorly defined” and often is loosely applied to “...archaeological 

assemblages, sometimes solely on the basis that basalt is the dominant lithic material in 

evidence” (Kowta 1988, as cited by South Feather, 2007). Kowta proposes the use of 

the more generic term “Martis Tradition” which can be taken to refer to the cultural 

remains present in the central and northern Sierra from 2,500 B.C. to A.D. 500 

Elston (1971, as cited by South Feather, 2007) later proposed that the Martis 

Complex could be separated into two distinct phases. The Early Martis phase (1,000 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-166 

B.C. to A.D. 1) is characterized by Elko, Martis Series, and Sierra Stemmed Triangular 

projectile points, and the Kings Beach Complex (1000 A.D. to historic contact) is 

defined by the dominant use of non-basalt lithic sources such as chert and obsidian, 

small projectile points with the inferred use of the bow and arrow, and the use of 

bedrock mortars. The Kings Beach Complex peoples were believed to be primarily 

interested in the exploitation of fish resources with a secondary emphasis on hunting. 

Heizer and Elsasser (1953, as cited by South Feather, 2007) suggest that the Kings 

Beach Complex dated from between 1,000 A.D. to the time of historic contact and was 

the ethnographic culture of the Washoe Indians. 

Following the work of Elsasser, Elston (1971, as cited by South Feather, 2007) 

also defined a pre-Martis phase: the Spooner Complex. This Complex was first 

identified at site 26Do38 (Spooner Lake Site). Elston places the Spooner Complex 

between 5,000 and 3,000 B.C. (possibly as late as 1,000 B.C.) and notes the similarities 

between these dates and the hypothesized Altithermal period (Antevs, 1948, as cited by 

South Feather, 2007) in the Great Basin. Given the similarities in dates and the 

presence of two projectile points typically found in the western Great Basin (Pinto and 

Humboldt Concave Base), Elston concludes that the Spooner Complex peoples may 

have been refugees from the Great Basin who began to colonize the Sierra Nevada. 

Ethnographically, the project area was inhabited by the Konkow or Northwestern 

Maidu. The Konkow lived in village communities, comprising several adjacent villages 

with a head man or chief. Villages ranged in size from a single lodge to upwards of 

twenty lodges situated on ridgelines above major drainages or on flats situated on the 

sides of river canyons. Structures were either circular or semi-subterranean, or were 

smaller cone-shaped huts built at ground level. In the summertime, simple lean-tos 

were built. 

Hunting and fishing grounds were owned by each Konkow community. In the 

mountain areas, deer, elk, and mountain-sheep were taken, while antelope and smaller 

animals were hunted in the Sacramento Valley. Grizzly bears, wolves, coyotes, and 

dogs were not hunted. Salmon was caught using large nets or gigs fashioned from 

antler or bone. Weirs across tributaries also assisted in salmon spearing. Salmon could 

be dried, pounded into a powder, stored, and eaten dry. Seasonal hunting and fishing 

was augmented by a strong reliance on gathering plants. Hundreds of species of plants 

were used for subsistence, material, and medicinal purposes. Greens, bulbs, and roots 

were collected during springtime; seeds were gathered in the summer; and acorns 

harvested in the fall. Acorns were a staple food for the Konkow and were shelled and 

then dried. Ground acorn was leached with warm water to remove tannins. Afterward, 

it could be cooked into bread. 

Impacts on the Konkow way of life from American settlers began in the early 

1800s. The onset of malaria in the Sacramento Valley in 1833 as a result of contact 

with early explorers led to significant reductions in Konkow population. Further 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-167 

changes occurred following the discovery of gold in 1848. An increase in the number 

of settlers to the area resulted in conflicts, and the practice of traditional lifeways by the 

Konkow was increasingly difficult. These conflicts led to attempts to negotiate treaties 

designed to remove the Indians to protect gold claims. The treaties established 

reservations and educational and economic aid in return for government title to 

traditional territory. The Konkow signed such a treaty. However, the treaties were not 

ratified by the U.S. Senate, which resulted in many Indians becoming homeless. 

The first account of European exploration into the Feather River area was in 

1808 when Lieutenant Gabriel Moraga searched the Central Valley for potential mission 

sites. He followed the Sacramento River into the lower reaches of the Feather River. In 

1820, Captain Luís Argüello’s party traveled into its upper reaches. He named the river 

“Río de Las Plumas,” or the “River of Feathers” for the large numbers of waterfowl 

feathers he observed floating on the river’s surface. 

Following the discovery of gold in January 1848, thousands of miners traveled to 

California. Miners began prospecting many rivers and creeks throughout northern 

California. As a result, many mining camps and small towns arose. Some of these 

small towns are located in the vicinity of the project, including Clipper Mills, 

Forbestown, American House, Mooretown, and La Porte. 

In 1850, John Bodly established a trading post at Little Grass Valley that 

provided goods to mining camps in the area. Additionally, an ice house and a boarding 

house were also located in the valley. 

Logging was also important in the region. Mills were established to provide 

lumber for mining flumes, including mills in Oroville. Railroads carried the logs to the 

mills until the establishment of the trucking industry in the 1920s and 1930s. This 

brought an end to railroad logging, and roads were pioneered to many remote sites in 

the region to cut the first growth timber. Major mills were located at Oroville. 

In the early 20th century, a rancheria system was developed where small parcels 

of isolated land were purchased for various tribal groups. Many Konkow joined 

rancherias at Mooretown, Enterprise, Berry Creek, Strawberry Valley, and Chico. In 

1953 many of these rancherias were “terminated” by the Bureau of Indian Affairs due to 

changing national policy. It was not until 1983 with the Tillie Hardwick et al., case that 

16 rancherias in California were “unterminated.” However, nine tribes remain 

terminated including Strawberry Valley Rancheria, which is located on a tributary to the 

upper Yuba River in proximity to the project area. 

Prehistoric and Historic Archaeological Resources 

The project Historic and Archaeological Sites Inventory and Impact study was 

conducted by South Feather to determine if continued project operation and 

maintenance would directly affect archaeological and historic-era sites within the 

project APE that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-168 

South Feather conducted a record search at the Northeast Center of the California 

Historical Resources Information Center at California State University, Chico, and 

Plumas National Forest records to determine if any lands within the APE had been 

previously surveyed and if any cultural resource sites had been documented. The record 

searches resulted in the identification of 11 sites located within the APE. Three of these 

sites are located within the Sly Creek development (FS-04-11-53-177, FS-05-11-53-

179, FS-05-11-53-180) and eight are located within the Kelly Ridge development (CABUT-2105H, CA-BUT-2273H, CA-BUT-2382H, CA-BUT-2515H, CA-BUT-2517, P04-001936, P-04-002100, P-04-002516H). Three of these sites are strictly prehistoric in 

nature consisting of extensive lithic and tool scatters and midden development. Seven 

sites are strictly historic and are characterized by historic-period refuse, roads, ditches, 

and/or mining-related features. A single site contains both prehistoric and historic 

components. 

Archaeological field investigations of the project APE were conducted between 

September and November 2004 and in October 2005. This work was undertaken 

according to the methods provided in the Historical and Archaeological Sites Inventory 

and Impact Study filed with the Commission on April 8, 2004. Surveys were 

undertaken in those portions of the APE that had not been previously surveyed. Areas 

within the APE that were adjacent to project reservoirs were surveyed when the 

reservoirs were at their lowest elevation. The intensity of survey coverage was 

dependent upon the likelihood of encountering cultural material and the potential of 

project-related effects on particular areas. Survey transects varied between 30 and 50 

feet in width, with particular attention paid to drainages, seeps, springs, level areas, and 

exposed bedrock locations. Steep sided shorelines, such as those found at Forbestown 

reservoir, and portions of Ponderosa reservoir, were not inspected due to safety 

concerns. In some areas, the researchers depended on prior surveys that they deemed 

adequate for the current project. These areas included the Miners Ranch conduit which 

was surveyed by DWR in 2002 (Selverston et al., 2005, as cited by South Feather, 

2007). 

In addition to the 11 previously recorded sites within the project APE, 8 new 

sites were documented. Additionally, three isolated artifacts were also identified. Table 

3-47 identifies these 22 resources. 

Table 3-47. Archaeological and historical resources within the South Feather Power 

Project APE. (Source: South Feather, 2007) 

Site Development Recordation 

Site Type/National 

Register Eligibility 

Recommended 

Integrity 

FS-05-

11-53-

177 

Sly Creek (Little 

Grass Valley 

reservoir) 

Previously 

recorded 

Lithic and tool 

scatter and possible 

midden 

development. 

Good 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-169 

Site Development Recordation 

Site Type/National 

Register Eligibility 

Recommended 

Integrity 

Unevaluated, 

assumed eligible. 

FS-05-

11-53-

179 

Sly Creek (Little 

Grass Valley 

reservoir) 

Previously 

recorded 

Lithic and tool 

scatter and possible 

midden 

development. 

Unevaluated, 

assumed eligible. 

Good 

FS-05-

11-53-

180 

Sly Creek (Little 

Grass Valley 

reservoir) 

Previously 

recorded 

Lithic and tool 

scatter and possible 

midden 

development, 

bedrock milling 

feature. 

Unevaluated, 

assumed eligible. 

Good 

CABUT2105H 

Kelly Ridge 

(Miner’s Ranch 

conduit) 

Previously 

recorded 

Historic-era earthen 

ditch. Unevaluated, 

assumed eligible. 

Unknown, 

Inundated 

CABUT2273H 

Kelly Ridge 

(Miner’s Ranch 

conduit) 

Previously 

recorded 

Historic period dirt 

road segment. 

Unevaluated, 

assumed eligible. 

Unknown, 

Inundated 

CABUT2382H 

Kelly Ridge 

(Miner’s Ranch 

conduit) 

Previously 

recorded 

Historic-era and 

modern refuse 

scatter. 

Unevaluated, 

assumed eligible. 

Unknown, 

Inundated 

CABUT2515H 

Kelly Ridge 

(Miner’s Ranch 

conduit) 

Previously 

recorded 

Historic period dirt 

road segment. 

Unevaluated, 

assumed eligible. 

Unknown, 

Inundated 

CA-BIT2517/H Kelly Ridge 

(Miner’s Ranch 

Previously 

recorded 

Prehistoric bedrock 

mortar outcrop, 

Unknown, 

Inundated 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-170 

Site Development Recordation 

Site Type/National 

Register Eligibility 

Recommended 

Integrity 

conduit) midden 

development, and 

lithic and tool 

scatter. Historic 

dirt road segments 

and two cans. 

Unevaluated, 

assumed eligible. 

P-04-

001936 

Kelly Ridge 

(Miner’s Ranch 

conduit) 

Previously 

recorded 

Historic period dirt 

road segment. 

Unevaluated, 

assumed eligible. 

Unknown, 

Inundated 

P-04-

002100 

Kelly Ridge 

(Miner’s Ranch 

conduit) 

Previously 

recorded 

Historic period dirt 

road segment. 

Unevaluated, 

assumed eligible. 

Unknown, 

Inundated 

P-04-

002156 

Kelly Ridge 

(Miner’s Ranch 

conduit) 

Previously 

recorded 

Mining-related 

feature with roads, 

ditches, and 

prospect pits. 

Unevaluated, 

assumed eligible. 

Unknown, 

Inundated 

PA-04-

100 

Sly Creek (Little 

Grass Valley 

reservoir) 

New site Prehistoric lithic 

scatter and a single 

historic bottle 

fragment. 

Unevaluated, 

assumed eligible. 

Good 

PA-04-

101 

Sly Creek (Little 

Grass Valley 

reservoir) 

New site Prehistoric lithic 

scatter; unknown 

historic component. 

Unevaluated, 

assumed eligible. 

Good 

PA-04-

102 

Sly Creek (Little 

Grass Valley 

New site Prehistoric lithic 

scatter and possible 

Good 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-171 

Site Development Recordation 

Site Type/National 

Register Eligibility 

Recommended 

Integrity 

reservoir) shelter feature; 

unknown historic 

component. 

Unevaluated, 

assumed eligible. 

PA-04-

103 

Sly Creek (Little 

Grass Valley 

reservoir) 

New site Boulder containing 

possible prehistoric 

inscriptions. 

Unevaluated, 

assumed eligible. 

Good 

PA-04-

104 

Sly Creek (Little 

Grass Valley 

reservoir) 

New site Lithic and tool 

scatter. 

Unevaluated, 

assumed eligible. 

Good 

PA-04-

105 

Sly Creek (Little 

Grass Valley 

reservoir) 

New site Bedrock mortar 

outcrops. 

Unevaluated, 

assumed eligible. 

Good 

PA-04-

106 

Sly Creek (Little 

Grass Valley 

reservoir) 

New site Bedrock mortar 

outcrop. 

Unevaluated, 

assumed eligible. 

Good 

PA-04-

107 

Woodleaf (Lost 

Creek reservoir) 

New site Lost Creek dam 

(circa 1924). 

Recommended 

ineligible. 

Compromised 

IF-04-20 Sly Creek (Little 

Grass Valley 

reservoir) 

New isolated 

find 

Single basalt core. 

Recommended 

ineligible. 

N/A 

IF-04-21 Sly Creek (Sly 

Creek reservoir) 

New isolated 

find 

Single stone 

scraper. 

Recommended 

ineligible. 

N/A 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-172 

Site Development Recordation 

Site Type/National 

Register Eligibility 

Recommended 

Integrity 

IF-04-22 Woodleaf (Lost 

Creek reservoir) 

New isolated 

find 

Single granite 

handstone. 

Recommended 

ineligible. 

N/A 

Each new site was recorded to current state of California Department of Parks 

and Recreation standards and to the standards of the Plumas National Forest, as 

appropriate. The condition of all sites was documented in the field. 

Following fieldwork, the applicant considered the various effects on all sites to 

determine if it was likely that observed effects were project-related and/or ongoing. The 

applicant states that it intends to consult further with the SHPO and Plumas National 

Forest regarding these effects. 

While South Feather has provided National Register eligibility recommendations 

for the three isolated finds identified in the APE, no formal National Register 

evaluations of the 18 identified archaeological sites were undertaken. However, Lost 

Creek dam (PA-04-107), currently listed on the National Register, has been 

recommended as ineligible on the basis of a recent reevaluation of the dam by South 

Feather. 

Traditional Cultural and Religious Sites Inventory and Impact Study 

TCPs are historic properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register 

because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that 

are (1) rooted in that community’s history; or (2) important in maintaining the 

continuing cultural identity of the community (National Register Bulletin 38, Parker and 

King, 1998). Assessment of historic properties and potential TCPs is conducted in 

continuous consultation with the Commission, the SHPO, Native American tribes, and 

all appropriate agencies (e.g., Plumas National Forest, the National Park Service). 

For the current project, South Feather implemented the Project Traditional 

Cultural and Religious Sites Inventory and Impact Study (TCP study) to identify and 

assess project effects on TCPs that may be eligible for National Register listing. 

South Feather undertook archival research to understand the ethnographic 

background and past use of the project area by Native American tribes. The results of 

this research were presented in section 6.3.2 of the license application (South Feather, 

2007) and are summarized earlier in this section. 

South Feather consulted with the California Native American Heritage 

Commission to obtain a list of Native American groups and individuals with whom it 

should consult regarding relicensing the project and potential TCPs that may be located 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-173 

within the project APE. The California Native American Heritage Commission 

provided the following list: 

• Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians 

• Butte Tribal Council 

• Enterprise Rancheria of Maidu Indians 

• Mr. Joe Marine 

• Konkow Valley Band of Maidu 

• Maidu Cultural and Development Group 

• Mechoopda Indian Tribe of the Chico Rancheria 

• Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians 

• United Maidu Nation 

Other groups and individuals were identified during the course of study 

implementation including the Strawberry Valley Band of Maidu, Mr. Ennis Peck, and 

the Greenville Rancheria. South Feather prepared presentations, held meetings, and 

provided site tours for tribal representatives of cultural resources located within the 

project APE. 

South Feather met with representatives of federally recognized tribes, other 

tribes, and individuals regarding the project. Consultation with the Native American 

groups and individuals with interests in the project area did not result in the 

identification of any specific areas within the project APE that are potentially eligible 

for listing on the National Register as TCPs. 

Historic Buildings and Structures 

In general, resources must be more than 50 years old to be considered eligible for 

listing on the National Register. Lost Creek dam (historic resource PA-04-107 

discussed above), was constructed in 1924; South Feather recommends that it is no 

longer eligible for listing on the National Register. The remaining structures associated 

with the project were constructed in the late 1950s and are not currently more than 50 

years old. 

Historic Properties Management Plan 

South Feather prepared an HPMP for the project and filed it with the license 

application. This HPMP was designed to address current and future project-related 

effects to historic properties within the APE. In July 2006, South Feather provided a 

draft of the HPMP to the Plumas National Forest archaeologist for review and comment. 

No comments were received. On July 27, 2006, South Feather distributed a draft 

license application to participating agencies, tribes, and NGOs. On September 29, 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-174 

2007, an addendum to the draft license application, including the HPMP was 

distributed. A single comment pertaining to cultural resources was provided by the 

Plumas National Forest on October 23, 2006, stating that the HPMP was being 

reviewed. 

In the HPMP, South Feather proposes to appoint an HPMP coordinator and 

implement employee training. Additionally, the HPMP includes procedures for (1) 

monitoring cultural resource sites; (2) addressing unanticipated discoveries; (3) 

discovery of human remains; (4) emergency undertakings; (5) periodic reporting and 

meetings; (6) periodic review and revision to the HPMP; and (7) Native American 

consultation. The HPMP also discusses potential project effects that identified 

resources may experience or are experiencing. 

3.3.6.2 Environmental Effects 

Continued operation of the South Feather Power Project without adequate 

protection measures could adversely affect properties that may be eligible for listing on 

the National Register. In particular, sites contained within reservoir fluctuation zones 

may be subject to lake-induced erosion. Archaeological sites within or near formal or 

dispersed recreational areas could be affected by both vehicle and pedestrian traffic; 

sites at Little Grass Valley reservoir are particularly susceptible to disturbance as a 

result of off-road vehicle traffic within the drawdown zone. Sites near recreational 

areas also could be subject to illicit artifact collection and/or other types of vandalism. 

Project operation and maintenance, including road grading and other activities, also 

could affect archaeological resources or the qualities of unevaluated hydroelectric 

system features that may become eligible for listing on the National Register in the near 

future. Finally, the use of or modifications to recreational facilities and hydroelectric 

system features could affect areas or plants of significance to Native Americans or 

could restrict their ability to access these traditional resources. 

On April 14, 2008, the Forest Service submitted preliminary terms and 

conditions for the project pursuant to section 4(e) of the FPA. Condition No. 23 

specifies that South Feather file with the Commission a Heritage (Historic) Properties 

Management Plan for the purpose of protecting and interpreting historic properties 

within 1 year of license issuance. The HPMP would take into account project-effects on 

National Register-eligible properties located on Forest Service lands, provide measures 

to mitigate effects, and provide for a monitoring program and management protocols. 

The Forest Service specified that any ground-disturbing project-related activities must 

cease in the immediate area should materials of cultural, historical, archaeological, or 

paleontological value be identified on Forest Service lands. South Feather would be 

required to notify the Forest Service and not resume work on ground-disturbing activity 

until appropriate evaluation of the find has been completed and South Feather has 

received written approval from the Forest Service. The Forest Service reserved the right 

to require South Feather to perform data recovery excavations and site preservation 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-175 

through the provisions found in the Archaeological Resources Protection Act., if 

deemed necessary. 

Our Analysis 

We concur with the APE developed by South Feather, in consultation with the 

SHPO. Project-related effects to archaeological resources around project reservoirs 

include erosion from fluctuating water levels and wave action, and accidental or 

deliberate disturbance of archaeological sites by recreationists or visitors. 

Archaeological sites along the six stream reaches included in the APE could be affected 

by increased minimum flows, as well as supplemental stream flows for recreation or 

sediment pass-through, as well as project-induced recreation. 

While we find the archaeological surveys conducted around project facilities to 

be adequate, there is no evidence in the record indicating that South Feather conducted 

surveys of the six project reaches. Archaeological surveys of these reaches would 

determine whether archaeological sites are present and whether project operation or 

project-related recreation pose a risk to these sites, indicating that management 

measures may be warranted. 

South Feather provided the Forest Service with an HPMP for review. The 

HPMP was provided to the Commission as part of the final license application. The 

HPMP adequately identifies the APE, describes the cultural resources inventories that 

were conducted within the APE, indentifies existing project-related effects that could 

occur on potentially significant cultural resources, and provides general management 

measures to resolve such effects. The HPMP also provides procedures for handing 

unanticipated discoveries and the proper treatment of human remains and sacred 

objects--if they are encountered. The HPMP provides protocols for emergency 

undertakings, periodic reporting and meetings, and appropriate review and revisions of 

the HPMP based upon changing conditions over the period of a new license. However, 

our review of the HPMP reveals that it does not provide enough site-specific measures 

to ensure that project-related adverse effects on historic properties resulting from 

operation, maintenance, recreational, or other activities would be adequately addressed 

over the term of the new license. Missing elements include: 

• a report on archaeological surveys in the six project stream reaches within 

the APE; 

• National Register evaluations on archeological sites that have been or are 

being adversely affected by project-related erosion, especially the 10 

archeological sites located at the Little Grass Valley Reservoir, but 

including any discovered during survey of the stream reaches; 

• a provision for evaluation of project features that may become eligible for 

listing on the Natural Register during the term of any new license issued 

for the project; and 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-176 

• a more detailed discussion of Lost Creek dam, including a description of 

the activities that led to prior Historic American Buildings 

Survey/Historic American Engineering Record documentation and any 

SHPO consultation/concurrence regarding the structure’s current National 

Register status. 

Implementation of the HPMP, with staff’s additional measures, in consultation 

with the SHPO, Forest Service, participating Tribes, and the Commission would ensure 

that adverse effects on historic properties as a result of South Feather Power Project 

operation, maintenance, recreational or other activities would be addressed over the 

term of the new license. We anticipate that any new license issued for the project would 

include a condition to implement a Programmatic Agreement executed among the 

Commission, SHPO, and the Advisory Council. South Feather, the Forest Service and 

others would be invited to sign the Programmatic Agreement as concurring parties. The 

agreement would include a measure to implement the HPMP, including staff’s 

additional measures. 

3.3.7 Land Use and Aesthetic Resources 

3.3.7.1 Affected Environment 

Land Use Resources 

The South Feather Power Project is located within the boundaries of the Plumas 

National Forest in Butte, Plumas, and Yuba counties. The total area within the project 

boundary is 3,838 acres. About 52 percent of the project land is located on United 

States-owned lands that are administered by the Forest Service (as part of the Plumas 

National Forest) and the BLM as public lands. State- and county-owned lands make up 

about 2 percent of the project lands, including the California Department of Parks and 

Recreation-managed Lake Oroville State Recreation Area. Approximately 46 percent 

of the project lands are privately owned. South Feather owns nearly 1,500 acres of land 

within the project boundary. Table 3-48 summarizes the acreage held by each major 

landowner. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-177 

Table 3-48. Land ownership within the project boundary. (Source: South Feather, 

2007, as modified by staff) 

Land Ownership (acres) 

Development 

Plumas 

National 

Forest BLM State County

South 

Feather Private Total 

% of 

Total 

Sly Creek 1,823.1 0 0 0 1,202.6 140.1 3,165.8 82.2 

Forbestown 39.3 0 0 0 2.5 22.9 64.7 1.7 

Woodleaf 8.0 0 0 0 151.5 52.2 211.7 5.5 

Kelly Ridge 104.4 10.6 85.1 2.7 145.1 80.5 411.2 10.7 

Total 1,977.1 10.6 85.1 2.7 1,494.8 268.6 3,838.8 100 

% Total 51.2 0.3 2 0.1 38.8 7.5 100 -- 

Federal lands within the project boundary include BLM lands (about 10 acres 

within the Kelly Ridge Development) and Plumas National Forest lands managed by the 

Forest Service. More than 50 percent of the project lands are located within the Plumas 

National Forest. The Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

(LRMP), amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan, provides management direction 

for the Plumas National Forest lands. The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan addresses the 

following five management areas: (1) old forest ecosystems and associated species, (2) 

aquatic, riparian, and meadow ecosystems and associated species, (3) fire and fuels 

management, (4) noxious weeds, and (5) lower Westside hardwood forest ecosystems. 

Table 3-49 summarizes management goals described in the LRMP for the Plumas 

National Forest. 

Table 3-49. Plumas National Forest management goals as described in the Plumas 

National Forest LRMP. (Source: South Feather, 2007, as modified by 

staff) 

Area/Resource Management Goal 

Recreation 

Resources 

Provide a wide range of developed and dispersed 

recreation opportunities that meet projected demand at the 

end of the planning period. Public uses take priority over 

uses of a semipublic nature, and these in turn take priority 

over private uses. Stress simpler, more natural recreation 

experiences over dense, sophisticated developments. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-178 

Area/Resource Management Goal 

Visual Resources Protect the most visually sensitive areas of the forest by 

placing the major roads, trails, streams, and areas of 

concentrated visitor use in scenic corridors and manage 

viewsheds. 

Wilderness Areas Maintain a lasting system of quality wilderness for public 

use and appreciation of the unique characteristics of 

wilderness, consistent with preserving its values. 

Wild and Scenic 

Areas 

Manage the wild, scenic, and recreation rivers to preserve 

their free flowing characteristics and protect their 

outstandingly remarkable values. 

Special Interest 

Areas 

Preserve the integrity of the botanical, archaeological, 

geological, and recreational features for which the areas 

were established. 

Range Resources Maintain current levels of livestock grazing and take 

advantage of additional forage induced by even-aged 

timber management. 

Timber Resources Sustain a long-term yield of logs and other wood products 

by practicing the most intensive forms of timber 

management on the most productive sites. Increase this 

yield by application of high utilization standards and 

scientific silvicultural growth techniques. Harvest 

Christmas trees only where timber productivity is 

enhanced or maintained. 

Riparian Areas Favor riparian dependent resources and limit disturbance in 

all riparian areas including riparian and aquatic 

ecosystems, wetlands, stream banks, and floodplains. 

Soil, Water, and Air 

Resources 

Protect streams, lakes, wetlands and riparian vegetation 

that surround them. Establish a permanent streamside 

management zone to furnish shade, ground cover, and 

natural environmental elements, which maintain high water 

quality and enhance fish and wildlife habitat. Limit 

cumulative disturbing impacts on watersheds within the 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-179 

Area/Resource Management Goal 

forest. Induce moderate increases in water yield by direct 

watershed improvement projects, meadow rehabilitation 

and expansion projects, and snowpack manipulation 

associated with timber harvest practices. 

Wildlife, Fish, and 

Sensitive Plants 

Provide a diversity of vegetation types and habitat to 

support viable populations of all fish, wildlife, and plant 

species. Maintain viability of species dependent upon 

specific forest features. 

Energy Resources Facilitate permitting of hydroelectric and other new energy 

development that reasonably protects all resources. 

Mineral Resources Cooperate and participate with mineral lessees, claimants, 

and permittees in the development of mineral resources 

under the laws and regulation that govern them. 

Lands Seek optimum land ownership patterns by means of land 

adjustments in order to reduce problems related to 

intermingled private lands. 

Fire Prevention Provide for sufficient level of fire protection and treat 

natural and activity fuels to assure a continuous flow of 

projected outputs and amenities for the forest. 

Transportation Develop and maintain the forest transportation system for 

the through traveling public while providing safe, efficient 

routes for recreationists. 

Facilities Build and maintain fire, administrative and other facilities 

(non-recreation) to serve resource and support program 

needs. Make them functional, energy efficient, and 

attractive to the public. Remove or replace unsafe, obsolete 

facilities. 

The lands around Sly Creek and Little Grass Valley reservoirs are primarily 

managed for maintaining recreation areas. Additional management prescriptions 

include bald eagle habitat, visual quality, and timber. Private lands surround Lost Creek 

dam and reservoir, and are classified as timber production zones. Part of the Woodleaf 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-180 

development and the Forbestown diversion dam would be managed under the Plumas 

National Forest minimal management prescription. Adjacent to the project boundary at 

the Forbestown development, are lands that are managed under the visual retention 

prescription, further discussed in below in aesthetic resources. Lands at the Kelly Ridge 

are managed for visual retention, timber, state recreation, public lands, and residential 

and light commercial uses. 

In addition, lands of the Plumas National Forest are managed for fire suppression 

and prevention. Specific measures include (1) managing fuels to reduce high risk 

hazards and/or to facilitate cost-effective resource protection; (2) responding with 

appropriate suppression measures to all wildfires; (3) providing a timely suppression 

response to wildfire with appropriate forces; and (4) using prescribed fire to maintain 

natural character of the area. 

State-owned lands account for about 0.5 percent of land inside the project 

boundary and are managed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation as 

part of Lake Oroville State Recreation Area. County-owned lands within the project 

boundary account for only 2.7 acres located within the Kelly Ridge development. 

Project facilities in Butte County include Sly Creek reservoir, powerhouse and 

dam; Lost Creek reservoir and dam; Woodleaf power tunnel, penstock and powerhouse; 

Forbestown diversion dam, power tunnel, penstock, and powerhouse; Ponderosa 

reservoir and tunnel; Miners Ranch reservoir and conduit; and Kelly Ridge power 

tunnel and powerhouse (see figure 2-1 for location of project facilities). Lands in Butte 

County are subject to the policies detailed in the Butte County General Plan. In Butte 

County, lands near the project are designated as “Timber Mountain” and “Grazing and 

Open Lands.” Timber Mountain is defined by areas used for forest management, 

harvesting, and processing of forest products, as well as animal husbandry, resource 

extraction, outdoor recreation, and public use. The Grazing and Open Land category is 

defined by areas used for animal husbandry and livestock grazing, as well as 

commercial forestry, recreation, and resource conservation. 

Project facilities in Plumas County include Little Grass Valley reservoir, South 

Fork diversion dam and tunnel, and Slate Creek diversion dam and tunnel. Lands in 

Plumas County are subject to the policies detailed in the Plumas County General Plan. 

In Plumas County, land use designations include residential and resource production. 

Specifically, these include secondary suburban, rural development, and timber preserve 

land uses. 

Project facilities in Yuba County include the inlet to the Slate Creek diversion 

and a small portion of the Sly Creek arm of Sly Creek reservoir. Lands in Yuba County 

are subject to the policies detailed in the Yuba County General Plan. In Yuba County, 

land designations include timber production, extractive industrial, public lands, mineral 

resources, timber/forest, and water resources. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-181 

South Feather owns the majority of private lands within and adjacent to the 

project boundary, with several parcels held by a timber company and 

residential/recreational communities. The privately owned lands account for about 

1,763 acres, with South Feather owning nearly 1,495 acres within the project boundary. 

The majority of the non-South Feather private land is located around Little Grass Valley 

reservoir. 

Aesthetic Resources 

The South Feather Power Project is located in the Sierra Nevada mountain range. 

This part of the state is largely undeveloped and retains much of its natural character, 

with scattered rural residences and small communities located along major corridors. 

The two larger project reservoirs, where the majority of recreation activities 

occur, Sly Creek and Little Grass Valley, are storage reservoirs that are slowly drawn 

down through summer and fall releasing water for power generation, irrigation, and 

consumptive purposes. Sly Creek reservoir can be drawn down in a typical water year 

by 100 to 102 feet, with an elevation drawdown of more than 50 feet from the early 

June to end of August timeframe. For Little Grass Valley, in a typical water year 

reservoir surface elevation fluctuates by 18 to 31 feet, with a drawdown of up to 20 feet 

during the early June to end of August period. These reservoir fluctuations result in 

exposed shorelines that influence the aesthetic views of the project shoreline area, 

particularly during the higher use recreation season,. 

Visual aesthetics management of project lands is guided by the general plans for 

Butte, Plumas, and Yuba counties which include goals and objectives associated with 

the protection of visual resources; and the Plumas National Forest LRMP. The Plumas 

National Forest LRMP provides standards and guidelines for the visual quality 

objectives (VQO) specified for each management area. VQOs are a measure of the 

degree of acceptable alteration permitted within the natural characteristic landscapes 

and are applied to all project proposals and activities on National Forest System lands. 

The VQOs prescribed by the Plumas National Forest LRMP for South Feather Power 

Project lands include: 

Retention—The Retention VQO provides for management activities that are not 

visually evident. Under retention, activities may only repeat the form, line, color and 

texture frequently found in the characteristic landscape, but changes in their qualities of 

size, amount, intensity, direction and pattern should not be evident. The following 

project areas have a retention VQO: Little Grass Valley reservoir, Ponderosa reservoir, 

Sly Creek reservoir, and Lost Creek reservoir. 

Partial Retention—The partial retention VQO allows for management activities 

that remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Activities may repeat 

the form, line, color, or texture common to the characteristic landscape, but they should 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-182 

remain subordinate to the visual strength of the characteristic landscape. Project areas 

that have a partial retention VQO include Little Grass Valley reservoir, Ponderosa 

reservoir, and Sly Creek reservoir. 

Modification—Under a modification VQO, management activities may visually 

dominate the characteristic landscape. However, activities of vegetative and land-form 

alteration must borrow from naturally established form, line, color, or texture so 

completely and at such a scale that its visual characteristics are those of natural 

occurrences within the surrounding area character-type. The following project areas 

have a modification VQO: Little Grass Valley dam reach, South Fork diversion 

impoundment, South Fork diversion dam reach, SFFR/Lost Creek reach, Forbestown 

diversion dam impoundment, Forbestown diversion dam reach, Slate Creek diversion 

dam impoundment, Slate Creek diversion dam reach, and Lost Creek dam reach. 

3.3.7.2 Environmental Effects 

Fire Prevention and Response Plan 

Recreation use at reservoirs and stream reaches, including at project recreation 

facilities and dispersed sites, could potentially pose a fire risk. In addition, 

hydroelectric operation along with the presence of project facilities such as generators, 

construction equipment, and transmission lines can contribute to fire danger in the 

project area. 

South Feather proposes to file with the Commission, within 1 year of license 

issuance, a fire prevention and response plan that is approved by the Forest Service, and 

developed in consultation with appropriate state and local fire agencies. The plan would 

set forth in detail South Feather’s responsibility for the prevention, reporting, control, 

and extinguishing of fires in the vicinity of the project resulting from project operation. 

At a minimum the plan would address the following items: 

1. Fuels Treatment/Vegetation Management: Identification of fire hazard 

reduction measures to prevent the escape of project induced fires. 

2. Prevention: Availability of fire access roads, community road escape 

routes, helispots to allow aerial firefighting assistance in the steep canyon, 

water drafting sites and other fire suppression strategies. Address fire 

danger and public safety associated with project induced recreation, 

including fire danger associated with dispersed camping, existing and 

proposed developed recreation sites, trails, and vehicle access. 

3. Emergency Response Preparedness: Analyze fire prevention needs 

including equipment and personnel availability. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-183 

4. Reporting: South Feather would report any project-related fires to the 

Forest Service within 24 hours. 

5. Fire Control/Extinguishing: Provide the Forest Service a list of the 

locations of available fire suppression equipment and the location and 

availability of fire suppression personnel. 

South Feather also proposes to fully cooperate with the Forest Service in the 

investigation of all project-related fires. South Feather would produce upon request all 

materials and witnesses not subject to the attorney-client or attorney work product 

privileges, over which the South Feather has control, related to the fire and its 

investigation. South Feather would preserve all physical evidence, and give custody to 

the Forest Service of all physical evidence requested. The Forest Service would provide 

South Feather with reasonable access to the physical evidence and documents that it 

would require to defend any and all claims that may arise from a fire resulting from 

project operation, to the extent such access is not precluded by ongoing criminal or civil 

litigation. 

The Forest Service specifies in Condition No. 21 that South Feather develop and 

implement a fire prevention, response, and investigation plan. The specified 

components of this plan are consistent with South Feather’s proposed measures. 

However, the Forest Service specifies that South Feather also develop and implement an 

additional fuel treatment/vegetation management plan (Condition No. 22) to be 

approved by the Forest Service and filed with the Commission within 1 year of license 

issuance. The plan would include analysis of live and dead fuel loading and potential 

fire behavior within 300 feet of project features; treatments to be employed to reduce 

the hazard; implementation schedule; and provisions for the reassessment of hazard at 5 

to 8 year intervals depending on regrowth of vegetation. Treatments extending onto 

adjacent National Forest System lands would be approved by the Forest Service, and 

when practicable, South Feather would coordinate implementation and accomplishment 

of hazard reduction activities with those of the Forest Service. 

Our Analysis 

The development of a fire prevention, response, and investigation plan that 

incorporates both the measures proposed by South Feather and specified by the Forest 

Service, as well as the components of the fuel treatment/vegetation management plan 

specified by the Forest Service, would provide the means for South Feather to develop 

and coordinate with the Forest Service effective fire management and prevention 

strategies. These strategies would include the identification of fire hazard reduction 

measures and public safety measures associated with project-induced recreation. The 

fire management and response plan also would provide the means for identifying and 

coordinating emergency response preparedness, reporting measures associated with fire 

management, and also would identify the cooperative roles and responsibilities of South 

Feather and the Forest Service in the investigation of fires on project lands. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-184 

Road Management 

Some of the roads used to access project facilities for operation and maintenance 

purposes are Forest Service roads that are also used by the Forest Service for land 

management, and by the public for recreation. 

The Forest Service specifies under Condition No. 28, that South Feather file with 

the Commission within 1 year of license issuance a road management plan that is 

approved by the Forest Service. The Forest Service specifies that the road management 

plan should include: (1) identification of all Forest Service roads and unclassified roads 

on National Forest System lands needed for project access, including road numbers; (2) 

a map of all Forest Service Roads on National Forest System lands needed for project 

access, including digital spatial data accurate to within 40 feet, identification of each 

road by Forest Service road number; (3) a description of each Forest Service road 

segment and unclassified roads on Forest Service lands needed for project access, 

including termini; length; purpose and use; party responsible for maintenance; level of 

maintenance; structures accessed; location and status of gates and barricades, if any; 

ownership of road segment and underlying property; instrument of authorization for 

road use; and assessment of road condition; (4) provisions to consult with the Forest 

Service in advance of performing any road construction, realignment, or closure 

involving Forest Service roads or lands; and (5) preparation of a condition survey and a 

proposed maintenance plan subject to Forest Service approval annually beginning the 

first full year after the road management plan has been approved. 

The Forest Service would require South Feather to obtain appropriate 

authorization (e.g., a special-use permit, road-use permit, or maintenance agreement) in 

accordance with the road management plan for use of all roads needed for project 

access. The plan would also identify South Feather’s responsibility for road 

maintenance and repair costs commensurate with South Feather’s use and projectinduced use; specify road maintenance and management standards accepted by the 

Forest Service that provide for traffic safety; and minimize erosion and damage to 

natural resources. 

Our Analysis 

As specified by the Forest Service, the road management plan would improve 

road management throughout the project vicinity, protect natural resources, provide 

reasonable public access, clearly define maintenance responsibilities, assess road 

conditions, and enable an annual survey process. The road management plan would 

establish a forum for coordination of road maintenance activities between South Feather 

and the Forest Service and would identify South Feather’s responsibilities for 

maintaining roads used for project operation and maintenance. In addition, the road 

management plan would identify measures to ensure that safety, maintenance, and 

rehabilitation measures associated with project roads are addressed in a consistent 

manner and so as not to adversely affect environmental resources. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-185 

Hazardous Materials 

South Feather proposes to prepare, file, and implement a hazardous substance 

plan within 1 year of license issuance and at least 60 days before starting any activities 

the Forest Service determines to be of a land-disturbing nature on Forest Service land, 

file with the Commission a plan approved by the Forest Service for oil and hazardous 

substances storage and spill prevention and cleanup on Forest Service lands. At a 

minimum, the plan would require South Feather to (1) maintain in the project area a 

cache of spill cleanup equipment suitable to contain any spill from the project; (2) 

periodically inform the Forest Service of the location of the spill cleanup equipment on 

Forest Service lands and of the location, type, and quantity of oil and hazardous 

substances stored in the project area on Forest Service lands; and (3) inform the Forest 

Service immediately of the nature, time, date, location, and action taken for any spill on 

or affecting Forest Service lands. 

Forest Service standard Condition No. 5 is consistent with South Feather’s 

proposed hazardous substance plan, but includes an additional provision that South 

Feather provide an outline of its procedures for reporting and responding to releases of 

hazardous substances, including names and phone numbers of all emergency response 

personnel and their assigned responsibilities. Forest Service standard Condition No. 5 

requires South Feather to obtain written approval of planned uses of pesticides, and 

South Feather must describe whether pesticide applications are essential for use on 

National Forest System lands, specific locations of use, specific herbicides proposed for 

use, application rates, dose and exposure rates, safety risk and timeframes for 

application. Exceptions to this schedule may be allowed only when unexpected 

outbreaks of pests require control measures that were not anticipated at the time the 

report was submitted. In such an instance, an emergency request and approval may be 

made. The condition also specifies that pesticide use must be excluded from National 

Forest System lands within 500 feet of known locations of California red-legged frog, 

mountain yellow-legged frog, or foothill yellow-legged frog. 

Our Analysis 

Preparation and implementation of a hazardous substance plan would help to 

ensure that spills of hazardous substances are promptly contained and cleaned up, and 

would minimize the potential extent of adverse environmental effects. Provision of an 

outline of its procedures for reporting and responding to releases of hazardous 

substances would facilitate coordination of control efforts in the event of a hazardous 

substance spill. The requirement to obtain Forest Service approval of any pesticide use 

would help to ensure that sensitive resources on National Forest System lands are 

protected. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-186 

Aesthetic Resources 

Little Grass Valley Reservoir Levels 

Project operation includes drawdown of reservoir elevations. Such drawdown 

can affect the visual quality of the reservoir and adjacent project lands. 

South Feather proposes to maintain the water level at Little Grass Valley 

reservoir no lower than 5,023 feet msl25 through September 15 in all water years, except 

Dry water years; and in Dry water years to maintain Little Grass Valley reservoir as 

high as possible through Labor Day weekend. 

The public submitted several letters, including a petition with more than 100 

signatures, expressing concerns regarding elevations at Little Grass Valley reservoir 

mainly relating to recreation resources, but also pertaining to land use and aesthetic 

resources (see also section 3.3.5, Recreation Resources). Public concerns related to 

land use and aesthetic resources include damage to scenic views, and decrease in overall 

value of property around Little Grass Valley reservoir. An area of particular concern of 

the public is the potential additional and extended dewatering of the Pancake Bay area 

under the proposed project operation and related adverse effects on the aesthetic 

experiences currently provided in this portion of the reservoir. 

Our Analysis 

Under the proposed action, South Feather would maintain Little Grass Valley 

reservoir under existing conditions; however, drawdown at the reservoir would occur 

starting in mid-September rather than late-September, and during Dry years, in which 

the reservoir level would be maintained as high as possible through Labor Day. 

Various individuals stated concerns regarding the potentially lower water surface 

elevations at Pancake Bay. South Feather conducted an assessment of the incidence and 

period of the inundation of Pancake Bay under (1) the existing (no-action) conditions; 

(2) South Feather’s alternative 4(e) condition; and (3) and the Forest Service 

preliminary 4(e) condition/Cal Fish & Game’s recommended flow regime, as further 

discussed in section 3.3.5, Recreation Resources. According to this assessment under 

the Below Normal water years the number of days where inundation would occur would 

 

25The license application states that South Feather proposes to limit the 

drawdown to elevation 5,022 feet. For our analysis, however, we use 5,023 feet 

because it was stated by both South Feather (letter from J. Whittaker, IV, Winston and 

Strawn, LLP, Attorney for South Feather, Washington, DC, to K. Bose, Secretary, 

FERC, Washington, DC, May 29, 2008) and Forest Service (letter from J. Rider, 

Attorney, Forest Service, San Francisco, CA, to K. Bose, Secretary, FERC, Washington, 

DC, April 14, 2008) in the most recent correspondence. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-187 

be reduced by 4 days under the Forest Service/Cal Fish & Game flow regime; and 

reduced by about 2 days under South Feather’s alternative 4(e) condition flows. Under 

the Dry water years, the area would not be inundated under the Forest Service/Cal Fish 

& Game flow regime and the number of days where inundation would occur would be 

reduced by about 15 days under South Feather’s alternative 4(e) condition, as compared 

to existing conditions. 

Therefore, there would be potential for short-term increased reduction in 

reservoir elevations, specifically in Below Normal water years which would result in 

some potential minor adverse aesthetic effects due to increased duration of exposed 

shoreline areas, particularly in the more gentle sloping area of Pancake Bay. However, 

South Feather’s alternative 4(e) condition (adopted into the staff alternative) would 

result in only an estimated 2 additional days when such lower elevation conditions 

would occur during Below Normal water years. Therefore, the reservoir area would 

continue to meet the retention VQO management objective because these short-term 

periods when the reservoir elevation drawdowns would occur (with resultant exposed 

shoreline areas) already occur under existing conditions, and therefore, would not likely 

significantly alter the visual landscape. 

Visual Management Plan 

Aesthetic resources can be affected by project facilities and operation. 

Recreation facilities and project facilities, such as project powerhouses and substation 

facilities, can dominate views, creating contrast with the natural landscape. 

The Forest Service specifies under Condition No. 27 that South Feather file a 

visual management plan 60 days prior to any ground-disturbing activity on National 

Forest System lands. The recommended plan would address clearing, spoil piles, and 

project facilities such as diversion structures, penstocks, pipes, ditches, powerhouses, 

other buildings, transmission lines, corridors, and access roads; facility configuration, 

alignment, building materials, colors, landscaping, and screening; proposed mitigation 

and implementation schedule necessary to bring project facilities into compliance with 

LRMP direction; locating road spoil piles either in approved areas on National Forest 

System lands or to a location off Forest Service administered lands; removal of all 

visible non-native materials, including construction debris from the surfaces of piles 

located on National Forest System lands; and stabilization and revegetation of all native 

material that is allowed to be left on National Forest System lands, including 

compliance with visual quality objectives. 

Our Analysis 

The development and implementation of a visual resource protection plan, prior 

to ground-disturbing activities on project lands located within the Plumas National 

Forest would help to ensure such activities would not adversely affect aesthetic 

resources within the Plumas National Forest. South Feather proposes rehabilitation and 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
3-188 

replacement measures to most of the recreation areas on Little Grass Valley and Sly 

Creek reservoirs (see section 3.3.5, Recreation Resources). The visual resource 

protection plan would help to ensure that the enhancements at the recreation sites would 

be consistent with the management directions of the Plumas National Forest LRMP. 

3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Under the no-action alternative, the project would continue to operate as it has in 

the past. None of the licensee’s proposed measures or the resource agencies’ 

recommendations and mandatory conditions would be required, and the existing trout 

populations would not be enhanced as a result of increased minimum flows. The 

continued operation of existing South Feather facilities would continue to be of 

importance to water supply, recreation, generation of renewable energy, and 

minimization of atmospheric pollutants. The continued operation of the existing 

facilities under the no-action alternative would, on average, result in the annual 

generation of 477,125 MWh of clean energy. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
FERC/EIS-0225D 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4 – Developmental Analysis

South Feather Power Project 

FERC Project No. 2088-068, California 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street N.E. 

Washington, DC 20426 

Office of

Energy

Projects

November 2008

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
4-1 

4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS 

In this section, we analyze the South Feather Power Project’s use of the water 

resources of the Feather River basin to generate power, estimate the economic benefits 

of the South Feather facilities, and estimate the cost of various environmental measures 

and the effects of these measures on project operation. 

4.1 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE PROJECTS 

4.1.1 Economic Assumptions 

Under its approach to evaluating the economics of hydropower projects, as 

articulated in Mead Corporation, Publishing Paper Division (72 FERC ¶61,027, July 13, 

1995), the Commission employs an analysis that uses current costs to compare the costs 

of the project and likely alternative power with no consideration for potential future 

inflation, escalation, or deflation beyond the license issuance date. The Commission’s 

economic analysis provides a general estimate of the potential power benefits and costs 

of a project and reasonable alternatives to project-generated power. The estimate helps 

to support an informed decision concerning what is in the public interest with respect to 

a proposed license. 

For our economic analysis of the South Feather alternatives, we used the 

assumptions, values and sources shown in table 4-1. 

Table 4-1. Staff assumptions for economic analysis of the South Feather Power 

Project. (Source: Staff) 

Assumption Value Source 

Base year for costs and 

benefits 

2008 Staff and South Feather 

Peak energy value 

(mills/kWh)a

79.72 South Feather 2008 

Off-peak energy value 

(mills/kWh)a

54.61 South Feather 2008 

Dependable capacity 

value ($/kW-yr)b

Included in energy value 

Period of analysis 30 years Staff 

Term of financing 20 years Staff 

Federal and state tax rate 0% Staff 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
4-2 

Assumption Value Source 

2006 to 2008 inflation for 

most final license 

application costs 

5.16% Staff 

Insurance rate Included in O&M costs 

Discount rate 6.2% Staff 

Interest rate 6.2% South Feather 

a

 South Feather in its May 29, 2008, filing estimated the value of peak and off-peak 

energy using the low and high end-of-week Electricity Price Index for California's 

North Path 15 as provided by Dow Jones at 

http://www.newsdata.com/wps/index.html. To calculate peak and off-peak energy 

prices, South Feather averaged the high and low values for peak and off-peak energy 

for the past year resulting in $79.72/MWh for peak energy and $54.61/MWh for offpeak. 

b

 South Feather did not provide dependable capacity rates or effects of measures on 

dependable capacity; however, energy values reflect a capacity component since 

they were developed from market based pricing. 

4.1.2 Current Annual Costs and Future Capital Costs under the No-action 

Alternative 

Total annualized costs for the no-action alternative for the South Feather Power 

Project amounts to $8,710,800, as table 4-2 shows. 

Table 4-2. Summary of current annual costs and future costs under the no-action 

alternative for the South Feather Power Project. (Source: South Feather, 

2007, staff) 

Cost 

Capital and OneTime Costs Annual Costs, 

Including O&M 

Total Annualized 

Costs 

Total original net 

investmenta

$20,389,700 $1,513,100 

Future non-license 

capital costsb

$13,475,200 $1,000,000 

Total relicensing costc $6,000,000 $445,300 

Subtotal $39,864,900 $2,958,400 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
4-3 

Cost 

Capital and OneTime Costs Annual Costs, 

Including O&M 

Total Annualized 

Costs 

O&M including 

insurance

$4,259,100 $4,259,100 

Transmission $315,500 $315,500 

Taxes and Fees $525,800 $525,800 

Operating reserves $631,000 $631,000 

Power Purchase 

Contract Management

$21,000 $21,000 

Subtotal annual costs $5,752,400 $5,752,400 

Total $39,864,900 $8,710,800 

a Based on South Feathers total investment of $87,257,979 less $61,844,549 in 

depreciation adjusted to the end of 2005 and 2 years additional depreciation at 

$2,511,885 per year. 

b South Feather estimates future capital expenses to maintain the Project will equal 

$1,000,000 per year. We divided that by the capital recovery factor of 0.07421 to 

convert to an equivalent 2008 capital cost. 

c Based on estimated relicensing costs projected by South Feather including additional 

ongoing costs of $1,000,000 beyond the $5,000,000 already spent. 

4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

South Feather provided an estimate of average annual output of the project under 

the no-action alternative (current conditions) of 498,987 MWh, which would provide 

annual power benefits of $37,113,800. Subtracting the current costs of $8,710,800 (see 

table 4-2) yields an annual net benefit of $28,403,000. Using the CHEOPS 26operations 

model, South Feather estimated project generation under South Feather’s proposed 

project, the staff alternative, and the staff alternative with mandatory conditions that is 

 

26Computerized Hydro Electric Operations Planning Software, a proprietary 

program developed by Devine Tarbell & Associates 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
4-4 

summarized in table 4-4.27 These modeling results serve as the basis for our analysis of 

project economic benefits. The project’s generation output is sold to the Pacific Gas 

and Electric Company. 

Table 4-3 compares the power value, annual costs, and net benefits of the noaction alternative, South Feather’s proposed action, the staff alternative, and the staff 

alternative with mandatory conditions. In section 5, Comprehensive Development and 

Recommended Alternative, we discuss our reasons for recommending the staff 

alternative, and explain why we conclude the environmental benefits are worth the cost 

increases and benefit reductions. The decrease in net benefits from $56.92/MWh under 

the no action alternative to $55.26/MWh for the proposed action represents a decrease 

of 2.9 percent. The decrease in net benefits from $56.92/MWh under the no-action 

alternative to $54.35/MWh for the proposed action with staff-adopted measures 

represents a decrease of 4.5 percent. The decrease in net benefits from $56.92/MWh 

under the no-action alternative to $53.70/MWh for the staff alternative with mandatory 

4 (e) conditions represents a decrease of 5.7 percent. 

Table 4-3. Summary of annual net benefits for the no-action, proposed action, staff 

alternative, and staff alternative with mandatory conditions for the South 

Feather Power Project. (Source: Staff) 

 No Action 

South Feather’s 

Proposed 

Action 

Staff 

Alternative 

Staff Alternative 

with Mandatory 

Conditions 

Annual power value 

($) 

$37,113,800 $36,537,100 $35,565,60

0 

$35,092,400

Annual power value 

($/MWh) 

$74.38 $74.52 $74.59 $74.54

Annualized cost of 

plant and current 

environmental 

measures ($) 

$8,710,800 $8,710,800 $8,710,800 $8,710,800

 

27On May 14, 2008 South Feather filed its alternative 4(e) conditions pursuant to 

EPAct. This filing contained a CHEOPS-based analysis of the effects on project 

generation of the instream flow regime contained in the Forest Service’s preliminary 

4(e) conditions and the flow regime proposed by South Feather in it alternative 4(e) 

condition regarding instream flows. These flow regimes correspond to those contained 

in the staff Alternative with mandatory conditions and the staff alternative, respectively. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
4-5 

 No Action 

South Feather’s 

Proposed 

Action 

Staff 

Alternative 

Staff Alternative 

with Mandatory 

Conditions 

Annualized cost of 

new environmental 

measures (including 

energy losses 

contained in the 

power values above) 

($) 

$0.00 $1,307,900 $2,490,800 $3,121,900

Annualized cost of 

new environmental 

measures (excluding 

energy losses 

contained in the 

power values 

above)($) 

$0.00 $731,300 $942,600 $1,100,500

Annual cost ($) $8,710,800 $9,442,100 $9,653,400 $9,811,300

Annual cost ($/MWh) 17.46 19.26 20.24 20.84

Annual net benefit ($) $28,403,000 $27,095,100 $25,912,20

0

$25,281,100

Annual net benefit 

($/MWh) 

56.92 55.26 54.35 53.70

The measures that South Feather proposes, summarized in table 4-5, increase the 

annualized costs from $8,710,800 to $9,442,100 relative to the no-action alternative. 

South Feather proposes some operational changes which would reduce annual 

generation by 8,685 MWh to 490,287 MWh, resulting in annual power benefits of 

$36,537,200 and an annual net benefit of $27,095,100. This equals an overall reduction 

in annual net benefits of $1,307,900 relative to the no-action alternative. 

The measures included in the staff alternative, summarized in table 4-5, would 

increase annualized costs from $8,710,800 to $9,653,400 relative to the no-action 

alternative. Operational changes would reduce annual generation, which would 

decrease by 22,139 MWh to 476,833 MWh. The staff alternative would provide annual 

power benefits of $35,565,600 and an annual net benefit of $25,912,200. This 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
4-6 

represents an overall reduction in annual net benefits of $2,490,800 relative to the noaction alternative. 

The measures included in the staff alternative with mandatory conditions, 

summarized in table 4-5, would increase annualized costs from $8,710,800 to 

$9,811,300 relative to the no-action alternative. Operational changes would reduce 

annual generation, which would decrease by 28,192 MWh to 470,780 MWh. The staff 

alternative with mandatory conditions would provide annual power benefits of 

$35,092,400 and an annual net benefit of $25,281,100. This represents an overall 

reduction in annual net benefits of $3,121,900 relative to the no-action alternative. 

4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES 

4.3.1 Cost of Environmental Measures for the South Feather Power Project 

South Feather provided costs for environmental measures in current dollars. 

Costs are taken from the final license application filed in 2007, and the South Feather 

reply comments on comments, recommendations, terms, and conditions (South Feather, 

2008). Table 4-4 summarizes the capital and O&M costs by major resource area. 

Changes in power benefits are addressed in section 4.2.2. 

Appendix B includes capital and O&M costs for individual measures proposed 

by South Feather and in terms, conditions, and recommendations received from 

agencies and other interested parties. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
4-7 

Table 4-4. Summary of annualized capital and O&M costs for measures included in the proposed act

action with staff modifications for the South Feather Power Project. (Source: Staff) 

South Feather’s Proposed Action Staff Alternative 

Staff Alternati

Co

Resource Area 

Capital 

Cost 

Annualized 

O&M Cost 

Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

Capital 

Cost 

Annualized 

O&M Cost 

Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

Capital 

Cost 

Ann

O&

Geology and soils 

$0 $11,000 $11,000 $0 $11,000 $11,000 $0 $

Aquatic resources 

$31,500 $98,200 $677,200 $81,500 $123,200 $1,677,400 $81,500 $1

Terrestrial resources 

$42,000 $91,100 $94,200 $77,000 $170,000 $175,800 $77,000 $3

Recreation $5,065,000 $357,800 $504,100 $5,065,000 $392,000 $538,300 $5,065,000 $3Cultural resources 

$0 $20,300 $20,300 $0 $79,400 $79,400 $0 $

Land use $0 $1,100 $1,100 $30,000 $6,700 $8,900 $30,000 Total $5,138,500 $579,500 $1,307,900 $5,253,500 $782,300 $2,490,800 $5,253,500 $9
4-8 

4.3.2 Effect of Environmental Measures on Energy Generation 

Several measures proposed by South Feather or included in the terms and 

conditions filed by the agencies and other parties would affect energy generation. For 

the South Feather Power Project, increased minimum flows proposed for the five river 

reaches are the only measure that would have a substantive effect on energy generation. 

Estimates of the effects of measures proposed by South Feather and by other parties 

were estimated by applying the CHEOPS operations model to optimize and simulate the 

system by South Feather. Estimates of the power benefits under South Feather’s 

proposed action, the staff alternative (which includes South Feather’s alternative 4(e) 

flows) and in the staff alternative with mandatory conditions (which includes the Forest 

Service’s preliminary 4(e) flows) are shown in table 4-5. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
4-9 

Table 4-5. Summary of the effect of environmental measures on energy for the no-action, proposed a

alternative, and staff alternative with mandatory conditions for the South Feather Power PrStaff) 

Power Benefits Effects No Action 

South Feather’s 

Proposed Action Staff Alternative 

Peak power (MWh) 392,870 388,790 379,361 Peak power value ($) $31,319,600 $30,994,300 $30,242,700 Off-peak power (MWh) 106,102 101,497 97,472 

Off-peak power value ($) $5,794,200 $5,542,800 $5,322,900 

Total power (MWh) 498,972 490,287 476,833 

Power lost relative to no action (MWh) 0 

8,685 22,139 

Power value ($) $37,113,800 $36,537,100 $35,565,600 Reduction in power value relative to no action ($) -$0 $576,700 $1,548,200 
4-10 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
FERC/EIS-0225D 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 5 – Staff Conclusions

South Feather Power Project 

FERC Project No. 2088-068, California 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street N.E. 

Washington, DC 20426 

Office of

Energy

Projects

November 2008

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-1 

5.0 STAFF’S CONCLUSIONS 

5.1 COMPARISON OF EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION AND 

ALTERNATIVES 

In this section, we compare the developmental and non-developmental effects of 

South Feather’s proposal, South Feather’s proposal as modified by staff (staff 

alternative), staff alternative with mandatory conditions, and the no-action alternative. 

We estimate the annual net benefits of operating and maintaining the South 

Feather Power Project under the four alternatives identified above. Our analysis shows 

that the annual net benefit would be $27,095,100 for the proposed action; $25,912,200 

for the staff alternative; $25,281,100 for the staff alternative with mandatory conditions; 

and $28,403,000 for the no-action alternative. 

We summarize the environmental effects of the different alternatives in the 

following section. 

Geology and Soils—Under South Feather’s proposal: (1) large woody debris 

would be passed downstream of the Little Grass Valley, Sly Creek, and Lost Creek 

reservoirs, enhancing downstream aquatic habitat; (2) supplemental stream flows would 

continue to be passed into Lost Creek to cleanse accumulated fine sediment from 

spawning gravels, reduce encroachment of riparian vegetation, and enhance geomorphic 

characteristics in Lost Creek; and (3) sediment pass-through measures at the Slate Creek 

diversion would restore sediment transport processes and improve the reliability of 

minimum flow releases and diversion operations by preventing sediment accumulation 

upstream of the dam. 

With our modifications to South Feather’s proposal and under the staff alternative 

with mandatory conditions, development and implementation of soil erosion control and 

revegetation plans during construction of any facilities would ensure that native species 

revegetate disturbed areas and minimize any potential adverse effects from erosion or 

sediment deposition. 

Aquatic Resources—Under South Feather’s proposal: (1) minimum instream 

flows in project-affected reaches would be increased to benefit trout and other aquatic 

biota, but would cause a minor reduction in water levels in Little Grass Valley reservoir; 

(2) streamflows and habitat for trout in Slate Creek would be enhanced during critical 

high temperature periods; (3) a wild trout supplementation program would enhance trout 

populations in reaches where recruitment does not meet fisheries objectives; and (4) fish 

and invertebrate populations would be monitored to assess trends and guide adaptive 

management under the new project operating regimes. 

With our modifications to South Feather’s proposal: (1) minimum instream flows 

and trout habitat in project-affected reaches would be further enhanced, but would cause 

a slight additional reduction in water levels in Little Grass Valley reservoir; (2) ramping 

rates would be implemented to reduce stranding mortality of trout and invertebrates; (3) 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-2 

streamflow measurement capabilities would be ensured for the term of the license; and 

(4) real-time water temperature information would be provided to DWR to assist it with 

meeting water temperature objectives to protect anadromous fish downstream of Lake 

Oroville. 

Under the staff alternative with mandatory conditions, the amount of physical trout 

habitat in project-affected reaches would be slightly enhanced as a result of higher 

minimum instream flows, but water temperatures would become less suitable (colder than 

optimal) for trout spawning and rearing in the reaches downstream of Little Grass Valley 

and Lost Creek dams, and for hardhead in the Forbestown bypassed reach. Similarly, 

higher summer flow releases required downstream of Little Grass Valley and Lost Creek 

dams would likely reduce invertebrate diversity and production due to the influence of 

coldwater outflows and increased thermal stability. In addition, higher minimum flows 

would cause a greater reduction in water levels in Little Grass Valley reservoir, which 

would cause some minor adverse effects on reservoir fish habitat.

Terrestrial Resources—Under South Feather’s proposal, annual training of 

employees, consultation with the Forest Service, and vegetation and invasive weed 

management plans would further the protection of sensitive areas and species and help to 

control the spread of noxious weeds; controllable pulse flows that could adversely affect 

FYLF would be avoided; and the effectiveness of wildlife crossings and escape facilities 

would be maintained when they are replaced or retrofitted through design consultation 

with Cal Fish & Game. 

With our modifications to South Feather’s proposal, ramping rates developed to 

protect FYLF would minimize adverse effects on reproduction, FYLF surveys would 

allow the effects of operation on FYLF to be monitored and the need for any additional 

studies or measures to be identified and implemented, and South Feather would be 

required to maintain all wildlife crossings and escape facilities that are necessary to 

protect wildlife. 

Under the staff alternative with mandatory conditions, the higher flows specified 

by the Forest Service in the South Fork diversion dam and Forbestown diversion dam 

reaches would likely reduce habitat suitability for FYLF by reducing water temperatures 

below levels required for breeding and by providing less stable flows. Additional studies 

specified by the Forest Service, including habitat, population, and viability models, and 

physiological studies related to water temperature, would increase biological knowledge 

of the species and could enhance conservation efforts for FYLF. 

Threatened and Endangered Species—Although no threatened or endangered 

species are known to or are likely to occur in the project area, the presence of the valley 

elderberry longhorn beetle and the California red-legged frog can not be ruled out. 

Therefore, we conclude that the alternatives considered in this EIS may affect, but are 

unlikely to adversely affect, these threatened and endangered species. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-3 

Recreation—Under South Feather’s proposal, South Feather would be 

responsible for the following measures to maintain and enhance recreational 

opportunities: (1) operation and maintenance of recreational facilities; (2) rehabilitation 

of existing recreational facilities; (3) construction of a new multi-use trail below Little 

Grass Valley dam to improve access to the SFFR for recreational boating and angling; (4) 

management of reservoir levels to facilitate recreational use while achieving project 

purposes; (5) provision of whitewater boating flows in the Little Grass Valley dam reach 

during the fall in all water years; (6) provision of whitewater boating flows in the spring 

in Above Normal and Wet water years in the South Fork diversion dam and Forbestown 

diversion dam reaches; (7) provision of flow information for whitewater boating to the 

public; and (8) maintenance and enhancement of public safety by installation of safety 

buoys each year in Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoirs. 

With our modifications to South Feather’s proposal, higher minimum flow 

releases would cause some adverse effects on reservoir recreation by increasing the 

drawdown of Little Grass Valley reservoir, and would reduce the amount of water that is 

available for whitewater releases. 

Under the staff alternative with mandatory conditions, the adverse effects of 

drawdown on reservoir recreation would be increased, and the amount of water available 

for whitewater releases would be further reduced.

Cultural Resources—Under South Feather’s proposal, cultural resources would 

be protected under provisions specified in the HPMP included in South Feather’s license 

application. 

With our modifications to South Feather’s proposal, additional measures would be 

incorporated into the HPMP that would provide a higher level of assurance that important 

cultural resources are adequately protected. 

Land Use and Aesthetics Resources—Under South Feather’s proposal, public 

safety would be maintained and enhanced by developing and implementing a fire 

prevention, response, and investigation plan. 

With our modifications to South Feather’s proposal, fire risk would be further 

reduced by developing and implementing a fuel treatment/vegetation management plan, 

road management would be improved throughout the project vicinity, and aesthetics 

would be protected and improved by implementing a visual management plan that would 

bring project facilities into compliance with land resource management plan direction. 

General—With our modifications to South Feather’s proposal, annual 

consultation with the management agencies would assist with interpretation of 

monitoring results and adaptive management. 

Under the no-action alternative, environmental conditions would remain the same, 

and there would not be any enhancement of environmental resources. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-4 

5.2 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED 

ALTERNATIVE 

Sections 4(e) and 10(a)(1) of the FPA require the Commission to give equal 

consideration to all uses of the waterway on which a project is located. When we review 

a hydropower project, recreation, fish, wildlife, and other non-developmental values of 

the waterway are given equal consideration with the project’s electric energy and other 

developmental values. In deciding whether, and under what circumstances, a 

hydropower license should be issued, the Commission must weigh the various economic 

and environmental tradeoffs involved in that decision. This section contains the basis for, 

and a summary of, our recommendations for relicensing the South Feather Power Project. 

We weigh the costs and benefits of our recommended alternative against other proposed 

measures. 

Based on our independent review and evaluation of the environmental and 

economic effects of the proposed action, the staff alternative, the staff alternative with 

mandatory conditions, and no-action, we recommend the staff alternative as the preferred 

alternative for the South Feather Power Project. 

We recommend this alternative because (1) issuing a new license would allow 

South Feather to continue operating the project as a beneficial, dependable source of 

water and electric energy; (2) the project, with a total installed capacity of 104 MW may 

eliminate the need for an equivalent amount of fossil fuel-produced energy, which helps 

conserve these non-renewable resources and limits atmospheric pollution; (3) our 

recommended environmental measures would protect water quality and quantity, enhance 

fish and wildlife resources, protect cultural resources; and improve public use of the 

project’s recreational facilities and resources; and (4) the public benefit of these measures 

would exceed those of the other alternatives. 

In the staff alternative, we include the following environmental measures proposed 

by South Feather, based on our analyses included in sections 3 and 4. In some cases 

(italicized), we modified or supplemented South Feather’s proposed measures. 

Geology and Soils 

• Annually return large wood to the SFFR downstream of Little Grass Valley 

dam and to Lost Creek downstream of Lost Creek dam by allowing the 

large wood to pass through the Little Grass Valley, Sly Creek, and Lost 

Creek dam spillways during spill periods. Large wood, as used in this 

measure, refers to downed, dead, or dying wood at least 20 feet long. If 

spills are not adequate to pass the large wood and large wood is collected 

from Little Grass Valley, Sly Creek, and Lost Creek reservoirs, consult 

with the Forest Service concerning alternative means and a schedule to 

return the large wood to the river. 

• Provide a supplemental streamflow below Lost Creek dam, as needed, to 

ensure that a flow of at least 390 cfs (measured as the average flow over 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-5 

any continuous 24-hour period as measured at USGS gage 11396000) 

occurs at least once every 4 years. 

• Within 2 years of license issuance, file a report on measures implemented 

to pass sediment at Slate Creek diversion dam. The report must describe 

the results of procedures used to determine whether smaller flow releases 

and releases timed to occur on the ascending limb of the hydrograph would 

allow accumulated sediment to pass through Slate Creek diversion dam 

more frequently, and include recommendations for future operations. The 

report must document consultation with the Forest Service, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Water Board, and Cal Fish & Game on the methods 

used to pass sediments, and these agencies must be allowed 90 days to 

review and comment on the report. The filed report must include 

comments received and the draft report from these agencies and describe 

how these comments were addressed in the report. 

Aquatic Resources 

• Determine water year type as described in the Forest Service’s revised 

Condition No.18, part 2, annually and apply to appropriate minimum flow 

release schedule and other measures that are dependent on water year type. 

• Install and maintain a gaging station, monitor water temperature, and cease 

diversions at Slate Creek diversion dam when mean daily water 

temperature reaches 20oC to protect downstream cold freshwater habitat. 

• Implement a minimum flow release schedule for the Little Grass Valley 

dam, South Fork diversion dam, Forbestown diversion dam, Lost Creek 

dam, and Slate Creek diversion dam reaches. This measure is modified to 

incorporate the streamflows identified for each reach in South Feather’s 

alternative to the Forest Service’s preliminary Condition No. 18, part 1,,

shown in tables 3-10 through 3-14. 

• When drought conditions may require deviation from minimum flows or 

other license conditions, consult with the Forest Service and other agencies 

to develop and implement an operating plan to manage drought conditions. 

• Develop and implement a wild fish supplementation program to augment 

fish populations, when warranted, in the South Fork Feather River, Slate 

Creek, and in Sly Creek and Lost Creek reservoirs. 

• Develop and implement a fish population monitoring plan approved by the 

Forest Service describing sampling to be conducted in the project-affected 

bypassed reaches to monitor fish species composition and relative 

abundance, including data on species size/age distributions and condition 

factors at eight of the locations previously established during the 

relicensing. Monitoring will be conducted in years 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, 18, 23, 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-6 

24, and 29 in each survey reach, or at a frequency jointly agreed to by the 

agencies. If sampling is scheduled in years with high peak flows, the 

survey may be postponed by 2 years to avoid confounding effects of high 

peak flows on fish recruitment and populations. 

• Develop and implement a benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring plan 

approved by the Forest Service describing sampling to be conducted in the 

project-affected bypassed reaches. Monitoring will be conducted in the 

same years that fish population monitoring is conducted. 

Terrestrial Resources 

• Conduct annual employee awareness training to familiarize staff with 

special-status, aquatic, wildlife, and plant species, including noxious 

weeds/non-native invasive plants, as well as sensitive locations including 

PACs, potential erosion areas, and cultural sites to allow 

avoidance/minimization of impacts. 

• Prepare and implement an invasive weed management plan. This measure 

is modified to address both aquatic and terrestrial invasive weeds; include 

protocols for locating, monitoring, and controlling weed populations; 

include a public education program and facilities for public use to reduce 

the spread of aquatic weed species; and provide information on noxious 

weed populations in a data format compatible with the Forest Service GIS 

database.

• Annually review with the Forest Service the list of species within the 

project area that are formally proposed for listing or are listed under federal 

or state endangered species acts or are Forest Service Sensitive, Watch List, 

or Management Indicator Species. If an added species has the potential to 

be adversely affected by the project, prepare a study plan to reasonably 

assess the effects of the project on the species, recommend reasonable 

resource management measures, and provide an implementation schedule, 

where appropriate.28 

• Maintain all bat exclusion devices in proper working condition. 

• Consult with Cal Fish & Game and FWS prior to replacing or retrofitting 

Miners Ranch conduit wildlife bridge crossings and deer escape facilities. 

 

28In addition, South Feather plans to avoid high flow releases from project dams 

(with the exception of the Little Grass Valley dam) associated with sediment passthrough, valve exercises, or supplemental flow releases for channel maintenance or 

recreational purposes during critical periods for FYLF (roughly April 15 - October 31, 

annually). 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-7 

This measure is modified to require that South Feather maintain and 

operate all devices and measures necessary for the protection of wildlife 

along the Miners Ranch conduit.

Recreational Resources 

• Develop and implement facility master plans that illustrate the layouts, 

locations, sizes, shapes, and relationships between existing and proposed 

improvements for the Little Grass Valley reservoir recreation area and the 

Sly Creek reservoir recreation area. 

• Develop and implement individual site development plans for each existing 

recreation facility on Forest Service lands within the existing project 

boundary. 

• Within 3 years of license issuance and after consultation with the Forest 

Service, construct a multi-use trail below Little Grass Valley dam to 

provide better access to the SFFR, primarily for recreational boating and 

angling. 

• Finalize and implement a Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoir 

recreation area routine maintenance and operating plan. 

• Every 6 years file a report on recreational use at the developed recreational 

facilities at Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoir recreation areas. 

• Every 18 years file a report on recreational user surveys at developed 

recreational facilities at Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoir 

recreation areas. This measure is modified to require the filing of the report 

every 12 years.

• Maintain the water level at Little Grass Valley reservoir no lower than 

elevation 5,023 feet msl through September 15 in all water years, except 

Dry water years,29 to facilitate the use of Little Grass Valley boat launch 

facilities. This measure is modified to specify that the restriction applies 

only from May 21 through September 15, and does not apply in drought 

years if the reservoir does not fill to elevation 5,023 feet msl. 

• Provide supplemental streamflow in Little Grass Valley dam reach for 

recreational boating from September 16 of each year until the date that 

Little Grass Valley reservoir elevation is 5,017.00 feet msl. In August of 

each year, South Feather would consult with the Forest Service, Water 

Board, American Whitewater, and other interested parties to set the target 

streamflow between 230 and 460 cfs for the upcoming September. The 

 

29In Dry water years, South Feather indicates that it will maintain the water level 

in Little Grass Valley reservoir as high as possible through Labor Day weekend. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-8 

actual streamflow may vary from the target streamflow by up to 15 percent 

but may not be less than 230 cfs. 

• Provide a supplemental streamflow in the spring of Above Normal and Wet 

water years downstream of the South Fork diversion dam for recreational 

purposes. A continuous flow of at least 190 cfs but not more than 700 cfs 

will be released for two consecutive weekend days between April 1 and 

June 15, as measured at USGS gage 11395200. A continuous water 

temperature monitor will be installed near the Woodleaf powerhouse, and 

the supplemental streamflows will be discontinued if the water temperature 

reaches13°C. This measure is modified to require that supplemental 

streamflows be discontinued if the water temperature reaches 12°C. 

• Provide supplemental streamflow in the spring during Above Normal and 

Wet water years at Forbestown diversion dam reach to improve 

opportunities for Class IV and V whitewater boating in the spring. A 

continuous flow of at least 215 cfs but not more than 400 cfs will be 

released for two consecutive weekend days between April 1 and June 15, as 

measured at USGS gage 11395200. A continuous water temperature 

monitor will be installed near the Forbestown powerhouse, and the 

supplemental streamflows will be discontinued if the water temperature 

reaches 13°C. This measure is modified to require that supplemental 

streamflows be discontinued if the water temperature reaches 12°C. 

• Provide streamflow information to the public within 1 year of license 

issuance, to include the anticipated dates and magnitude of recreational 

streamflow releases. 

• Install public safety buoys in Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoirs 

as soon as practical after access roads are clear of snow, and maintain the 

buoys through September 15 of each year. 

Cultural Resources 

• Upon issuance of license, finalize and, following Commission approval, 

implement the HPMP included in the application. This measure is modified 

to implement the HPMP provided in the application, with staff’s additional 

measures. 

Land Use 

• Prepare, file with the Commission within 1 year of license issuance, and 

implement a fire prevention and response plan. 

• Develop and implement a hazardous materials management plan to reduce 

the potential effects of hazardous materials spills. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-9 

General 

• Consult with the Forest Service annually to coordinate project and Forest 

Service activities. This measure is modified to include annual consultation 

regarding the status of measure implementation, the results of monitoring 

studies, discussion of both routine and non-routine maintenance, 

foreseeable changes in project facilities, review of any necessary revisions 

or modification of plans included in the project license, and discussion of 

any measures needed to protect sensitive species or changes to existing 

management plans. This measure is further modified to require that FWS, 

Cal Fish & Game, and the Water Board be afforded the opportunity to 

participate in the consultation meeting and included in the distribution of 

all monitoring reports and correspondence relating to the meeting, and that 

recommendations by these agencies be included in the record of the 

meeting. 

In addition to the foregoing, the staff alternative also includes the following 

additional measures identified by staff based on agency, tribal, and non-governmental 

organization specifications, recommendations, and our analysis. 

Aquatic Resources 

• Implement a maximum ramping rate of 0.5 foot per hour when making any 

controlled increases or decreases in flow releases into the Little Grass 

Valley dam, South Fork diversion dam, Lost Creek dam, and the Woodleaf 

diversion dam reaches. 

• Operate, maintain, and modify (if necessary) gages needed to determine 

river stage and minimum streamflows downstream of Little Grass Valley 

dam, South Fork diversion dam, Forbestown diversion dam, Lost Creek 

dam, and Slate Creek diversion dam. 

• Develop and implement a plan, in consultation with Cal Fish & Game, 

NMFS, and DWR to monitor the effects of flow releases on water 

temperatures in the Little Grass Valley dam, South Fork diversion dam, 

Lost Creek dam, and the Woodleaf diversion dam reaches, and to provide 

real-time information on the temperature and quantity of water discharged 

from the Kelly Ridge powerhouse. 

• Reserve NMFS authority to prescribe fishways. 

Terrestrial Resources 

• Prepare a Biological Evaluation before taking actions that may affect Forest 

Service special status species on National Forest System lands, update and 

implement the Bald Eagle Management Plan, and develop and implement a 

bat management plan. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-10 

• Using methodologies specified by the Forest Service, map FYLF habitat 

and develop stage-discharge curves for each reach under conditions 

representative of each water-year type. Develop ramping rates for each 

reach and water-year type that would meet Forest Service-specified stage 

and velocity requirements to protect FYLF. 

• Conduct surveys for FYLF egg masses, tadpoles, yearlings, and habitat 

over the full length of the SFFR/Lost Creek, Forbestown diversion dam, 

and the Slate Creek diversion dam reaches in years 1-5 and every 10 years 

thereafter supplemented by representative surveys in years 6-10 and every 

10 years thereafter. 

• Provide Forest Service and Cal Fish & Game video footage of helicopter 

flights along the South Fork diversion dam and Forbestown diversion dam 

project reaches so the agencies can identify areas where riparian vegetation 

is encroaching into the stream channel. If FYLF monitoring indicates that 

riparian encroachment is adversely affecting FYLF, treat selected segments 

to remove riparian vegetation and monitor effects on FYLF habitat. 

Recreational Resources 

• Incorporate several additional measures specified by the Forest Service for 

the facility master plans including: 

- provisions in the master plan for an annual coordination meeting to 

review the status of the implementation of the master plan; 

- provisions to ensure consistency with other management plans, 

including measures associated with potential effects of the proposed 

recreation rehabilitation on cultural resources within the project; 

- incorporation of provisions to re-vegetate disturbed vegetation 

associated with the proposed rehabilitation and enhancement 

measures at the recreation sites as part of the facility master plans; 

and 

- provisions to improve interpretive features for the public, i.e., kiosks 

or trail placards, as part of the individual site plans. 

Land Use and Aesthetics 

• Develop and implement a fuel treatment/vegetation management plan as 

part of South Feather’s fire prevention and response plan. File the plan 

with the Commission within 1 year of license issuance. 

• Develop and implement a road management plan for roads within the 

project boundary that are used primarily for project purposes, including 

access to project facilities and recreational facilities. File with the 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-11 

Commission within 1 year of license issuance and after Forest Service 

approval of the plan. 

• Develop and implement a visual management plan within 60 days prior to 

any ground-disturbing activity (including the construction or new facilities 

or modification of existing facilities, which could affect visual aesthetics) 

on National Forest System lands. 

5.2.1 Discussion of Key Issues 

The following paragraphs describe the basis for staff-recommended measures as 

well as for not recommending measures recommended by other entities. Under each 

major issue, we discuss our recommendations for the South Feather Power Project. 

Geology and Soils 

Large Woody Debris 

Because LWD can benefit fish habitat, South Feather proposes to make a 

reasonable effort to annually return LWD that collects in the Little Grass Valley, Sly 

Creek, and Lost Creek reservoirs to the river below each reservoir. LWD contributes to 

productive aquatic ecosystems, and is an important component in the formation of 

complex aquatic habitat units and channel maintenance. Although much of the steep and 

confined channel network in the project area offers limited opportunity for LWD 

retention, it may be retained locally in lower gradient areas or where valley and/or 

channel width narrows. Compared to reference reaches upstream of the impoundments, 

the number of LWD pieces per mile was considerably lower in the reaches downstream 

of Little Grass Valley dam on the SFFR and below Sly Creek dam on Lost Creek. 

Passing LWD that accumulates in the Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoirs to 

downstream reaches would increase the abundance of LWD in these reaches and provide 

a substantial benefit to trout habitat in areas where LWD is retained within the active 

stream channel. We estimate that passing LWD that accumulates in these reservoirs into 

downstream reaches would have an annualized cost of $5,300. Because increasing the 

amount of LWD in downstream reaches could provide a substantial benefit to fish habitat 

at a reasonable cost, we recommend adopting this measure. 

Lost Creek Geomorphic Flows 

Lack of seasonal high flow events may contribute to the accumulation of fine 

sediment in spawning gravels, which may adversely affect trout spawning and incubation 

success and contribute to the encroachment of riparian vegetation into the stream 

channel. Although most of the project reaches have limited potential to retain fine 

sediments, Lost Creek is a reach that can retain fine sediment that originates below Lost 

Creek dam (i.e., a response reach), and this sediment may affect aquatic habitat. Based 

on a study conducted in 1991, the current project license stipulates that flushing flows 

between 390 and 740 cfs be released from Lost Creek dam at least once every 4 years. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-12 

South Feather has studied the effects of these flushing flows to evaluate its effect on the 

reach as a continuation of the 1991 study, and found that the reach benefits from these 

geomorphic flow releases. South Feather therefore proposes to continue flushing flows 

in Lost Creek by spilling flows of at least 390 cfs for a period of 24 hours at least once 

every 4 years. Continuing these periodic flushing flows would serve to enhance 

geomorphic characteristics in Lost Creek and protect aquatic habitat, and we recommend 

that this measure be continued. Because these flow releases are stipulated in the current 

license, continuation of the measure would have no incremental cost. 

Sediment Pass-Through at Slate Creek 

Accumulation of sediment upstream of the Slate Creek diversion dam interferes 

with operation of the low-level outlet used to release minimum instream flows, affects the 

operation of the diversion tunnel, and impedes the transport of spawning gravel into the 

reach downstream of the diversion. South Feather is currently testing alternative methods 

of operation to facilitate the passage of sediment past the dam, and within 2 years of 

license issuance, proposes to file a report with the Commission that would describe the 

results of ongoing testing. 

Until 1986, the Slate Creek diversion dam was operated to allow sediment to pass 

through a low-level outlet during high flows. Sediment pass-through activities were 

suspended from 1986 to 2002 because of resource agency concerns about effects on 

water quality from toxins that may have collected in the accumulated sediment, although, 

as discussed in section 3.3.1.2, sampling of sediments and water demonstrated that this 

contamination had not occurred. South Feather attempted to resume sediment passthrough activities in 2002. It was unsuccessful because of the armored sediment 

accumulation that had built up against the outlet’s trashrack. In 2005, South Feather 

removed 500 cubic yards of the accumulated sediments by manual excavation, and 

sediment was successfully passed through the structure, but testing was suspended 

because of concerns about abrasion damage to the diversion’s outlet works. South 

Feather is currently testing new procedures to determine whether smaller flow releases 

would allow accumulated sediment to pass through Slate Creek diversion dam more 

frequently, and is assessing the size of storm events (rainfall amount and rate) that result 

in Slate Creek flows more than 1,000 cfs, so that sediment pass-through can be timed to 

occur on the ascending limb of the hydrograph, to allow both coarse and fine materials to 

be carried into the downstream reaches and enhance aquatic habitat. 

South Feather’s proposal to file a report 2 years after new license issuance would 

allow the Commission to review the results of the current sediment pass-through efforts 

and any proposed modifications to the sediment pass-through program. Continuing 

sediment pass-through and refining successful procedures would enhance downstream 

habitat by restoring sediment transport processes, and would improve the reliability of 

minimum flow releases and diversion operations by preventing further accumulation of 

sediment upstream of the dam. We estimate that the annualized cost of preparing the 

proposed sediment pass-through report would be $5,700. Because the report would help 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-13 

to determine the success of and develop effective sediment pass-through procedures, and 

would benefit aquatic habitat at a minimal cost, we recommend that this measure be 

adopted. 

Water and Fisheries Resources 

Minimum Flows and Reservoir Levels 

Flow regulation at Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoirs and diversion of 

water to the project powerhouses affect aquatic biota and recreational opportunities in 

five riverine reaches. These reaches are the Little Grass Valley dam, South Fork 

diversion dam, and Forbestown diversion dam reaches of the SFFR; Slate Creek below 

the Slate Creek diversion dam; Lost Creek below Lost Creek reservoir; and the 

SSFR/Lost Creek reach (downstream of the confluence of Lost Creek with the SSFR). 

Flows released into downstream reaches also affect water levels in project 

impoundments, especially in the Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoirs, which 

provide seasonal storage. 

In its final license application, South Feather proposed a minimum flow regime for 

each of the project reaches30 that varies by month for four water year types. In all cases 

the proposed flows are equal to or greater than the flows that are required in the current 

project license. Cal Fish & Game also filed a 10(j) recommendation and the Forest 

Service filed a preliminary 4(e) condition specifying seasonal flow regimes for each 

reach and water year type. South Feather also filed an alternative 4(e) condition 

specifying minimum flows that were in some cases consistent with the Forest Service’s 

4(e) flows, but in most cases were intermediate between the flows proposed in the license 

application and the Forest Service’s 4(e) flows. 

South Feather also proposes that instantaneous flows be allowed to deviate below 

the specified minimum flow releases by up to 10 percent or 3 cfs, whichever is less. The 

Forest Service specifies that the instantaneous flow be at lease 80 percent of the specified 

mean daily flow for minimum flows less than or equal to 10 cfs, and at least 90 percent of 

the specified mean daily flow for minimum flows greater than 10 cfs. Cal Fish & Game 

did not state whether any short-term deviations would be allowed from its recommended 

minimum flows. 

To develop the flows that it proposed in its license application, South Feather used 

a defined process that included establishing a target habitat value based on fish 

population studies, determining an initial flow to achieve the target habitat value based on 

habitat time series analysis, and refining the flow proposal as necessary based on the 

results of other studies. South Feather’s approach to developing these seasonal flow 

 

30Although flows in the SFFR/Lost Creek reach are not specified, the reach would 

receive the combined minimum flows from the South Fork diversion dam and Lost Creek 

reaches, plus accretion. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-14 

regimes ensured that its proposed flows would, at minimum, maintain at least 100 percent 

of the trout habitat that is available under current operation and at least 70 percent of 

unregulated habitat31 in each month for each water year type, while also taking into 

account the needs of special status aquatic species. More stringent criteria of 75 and 80 

percent of unregulated habitat were applied to reaches where trout populations were not 

considered to be robust, to provide additional enhancement to habitat in these reaches. 

The minimum flows specified by the Forest Service are generally similar to or 

higher than South Feather’s proposed flows during the fall and winter months, but in 

most cases are substantially higher than South Feather’s proposed flows from March 

through June. The process that Forest Service used to develop its flow regimes appears 

to be somewhat more qualitative and less well defined than the approach used by South 

Feather, and its filing does not provide a specific justification or methodology that it used 

to determine the flows specified for each reach, month, and water year type. Differences 

in the approach described by the Forest Service include the use of a wetted perimeter 

approach to determine minimum streamflows during the summer months in most reaches, 

attempting to achieve 100 percent of the maximum WUA for rainbow trout spawning and 

rearing habitat in the spring and summer, and not accounting for the effect of accretion 

flows that occur within each reach. 

Flows recommended by Cal Fish & Game are the same as the Forest Servicespecified flows in the Little Grass Valley dam reach and in Slate Creek, and are generally 

similar to the Forest Service-specified flows during the fall and winter in the other 

reaches. Like the Forest Service, Cal Fish & Game did not provide a specific rationale or 

description of the methodology that it used to develop its flow recommendations. 

South Feather’s alternative 4(e) flows are in most cases higher than the flows 

proposed in South Feather’s license application and would provide substantial increases 

in trout habitat in most months and water year types, compared to the flows proposed in 

the license application. South Feather’s alternative 4(e) flows are the same as the Forest 

Service-specified flows for all water year types in Slate Creek and for wet water years in 

the South Fork diversion dam reach. South Feather’s alternative 4(e) flows are 

considerably lower than the Forest Service 4(e) flows from April through June in other 

water year types in the South Fork diversion dam reach and in all water year types in the 

other three reaches, where they are generally between 30 and 50 percent of the flows 

specified by the Forest Service and recommended by Cal Fish & Game. Although the 

Forest Service and Cal Fish & Game flows would generally provide more trout habitat 

than South Feather’s alternative 4(e) flows, in most cases the increase is relatively minor. 

South Feather’s alternative 4(e) flows in Lost Creek would actually provide more WUA 

for spawning rainbow trout (94 to 96 percent of maximum) compared to the Forest 

 

31We used the term “unregulated habitat” to represent the amount of habitat that 

would occur without the influence of South Feather Power Project operations. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-15 

Service-specified flow condition (58 to 84 percent of maximum) during the key spawning 

period of March through May. 

In its filing of its alternative 4(e) conditions, South Feather noted that the higher 

flows specified by the Forest Service during the spring months would depress water 

temperatures in Lost Creek to levels that are below optimum levels for rainbow trout 

spawning and for FYLF breeding. Temperature monitoring conducted by South Feather 

in 2004 and 2005 indicates that water temperatures directly below Lost Creek dam did 

not rise to levels within the 9 to 14°C range identified by the Forest Service as being 

optimal for rainbow trout spawning until May in both years. Water temperatures directly 

downstream of the dam did not rise above the 12°C threshold that is considered to be 

required for FYLF breeding in any month during 2004, and did not rise above 12°C until 

August in 2005. Because higher flows would reduce the extent of warming that occurs as 

water passes downstream through the reach, it is likely that the higher flows specified by 

the Forest Service would delay the attainment of water temperatures that are suitable for 

rainbow trout spawning and for FYLF breeding. South Feather’s alternative 4(e) flows 

for Lost Creek in the spring and summer months are about 10 to 60 percent less than the 

Forest Service and Cal Fish & Game’s flows, and would therefore have a smaller effect 

on the rate that water temperatures rise in the spring, and have less potential to adversely 

affect the suitability of water temperatures for rainbow trout spawning and FYLF 

breeding. 

Higher flows specified by the Forest Service in the South Fork diversion dam and 

Forbestown diversion dam reaches would likely reduce habitat suitability for FYLF by 

reducing water temperatures and providing less stable flows, and also could reduce the 

length of the Forbestown diversion dam reach that is suitable for hardhead, which prefer 

water temperatures between 17 and 28°C. Similarly, higher summer flow releases 

required downstream of each of the project’s larger storage reservoirs (i.e., Little Grass 

Valley and Sly Creek reservoirs) under the Forest Service-specified flows would likely 

increase the length of the reaches below each reservoir in which invertebrate diversity 

and production is reduced by the influence of coldwater outflows and increased thermal 

stability. This would likely have an adverse effect on trout production in the reaches 

downstream of Little Grass Valley and Lost Creek reservoirs. South Feather’s alternative 

4(e) flows in the South Fork diversion dam and Forbestown diversion dam reaches are 

generally between 30 and 60 percent lower than Forest Service and Cal Fish & Game’s 

flows during the spring and summer months, and would therefore have a proportionately 

smaller effect on spring and summer water temperatures, and less potential to adversely 

affect FYLF breeding and habitat for hardhead. 

The higher minimum flows specified by the Forest Service and recommended by 

Cal Fish & Game for the reach below Little Grass Valley dam would cause Little Grass 

Valley reservoir to be drawn down to lower levels in the summer and to not fill to as high 

a level as currently occurs, particularly during Below Normal and Dry water years. 

Similar effects on reservoir surface area also would be apparent. These reductions in 

water level and surface area could cause some adverse effects on bald eagle foraging, 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-16 

boat ramp access, sheltered boating opportunities in Pancake Bay, and aesthetics. South 

Feather’s alternative 4(e) flows in the Little Grass Valley dam reach are generally 

between 30 and 80 percent less than the Forest Service and Cal Fish & Game’s flows 

during the spring and summer months, and as a result would have a proportionately 

smaller effect on drawdown levels. To minimize potential adverse effects on reservoirbased recreation, South Feather also proposes to maintain water surface elevations in 

Little Grass Valley reservoir above 5,023 feet msl through September 15, which is a 1-

foot increase over existing conditions. Although the peak recreation season extends from 

about May 21 through October 15 at Little Grass Valley reservoir, use decreases after the 

Labor Day weekend, so South Feather’s proposed measure should minimize adverse 

effects on recreation during the period of highest use. 

Finally, no party has provided a basis for including a provision to allow for the 

under-release of minimum flows. Without such a basis, we see no need to include this 

provision, and recommend that compliance be based upon meeting the instantaneous and 

daily average flow volumes identified in South Feather’s alternative 4(e). If some 

variation in flow release is anticipated, this is normally accommodated by providing a 

slight over-release, and if releases are found to be non-compliant, the licensee is usually 

required to notify the Commission of the violation, and to take immediate action to return 

to compliance. 

We recommend including South Feather’s alternative 4(e) flows in the staff 

alternative for the following reasons: (1) substantial increases in habitat for adult trout in 

all reaches compared to the flows proposed in the license application; (2) lower potential 

for causing adverse temperature effects on rainbow trout spawning, hardhead rearing, and 

FYLF breeding than the higher Forest Service and Cal Fish & Game flows; and (3) lower 

potential for adverse effects on recreation use and bald eagle foraging from low water 

levels in Little Grass Valley reservoir than the higher Forest Service and Cal Fish & 

Game flows. 

We estimate that the flow regime proposed by South Feather in its license 

application would reduce the average annual power generated at the project by 8,685 

MWh and would reduce the annual net benefit of the project by $587,200 compared to 

current operation, while the flow regime defined in South Feather’s alternative 4(e) 

condition would reduce the average annual power generated at the project by 22,139 

MWh and would reduce the annual net benefit of the project by $1,558,700 compared to 

current operations. Due to the substantial improvement that would be provided to trout 

habitat in a total of 38 miles of stream in six stream reaches, we conclude that the benefit 

of implementing the alternative 4(e) flows is worth its costs. We estimate that 

implementing the minimum flows specified by the Forest Service and recommended by 

Cal Fish & Game would reduce average annual project generation by 28,192 and 33,636 

MWh, respectively, and would reduce the annual net benefit by $2,031,900 and 

$2,432,300, respectively. Because of their additional cost and because the higher flows 

included in these proposals would have substantial potential to cause adverse temperature 

effects on trout and aquatic productivity in the Little Grass Valley dam and Lost Creek 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-17 

dam reaches, on hardhead in the Forbestown diversion dam reach, on FYLF habitat in 

several reaches, and on water levels and recreation use at Little Grass Valley reservoir, 

we conclude that the Forest Service and Cal Fish & Game flow recommendations are not 

warranted, due to these negative impacts and higher costs. 

Ramping Rates 

Rapid changes in streamflow have the potential to strand and kill young fish and 

macroinvertebrates, and may cause adverse effects on amphibians including FYLF. 

Because each of the powerhouses discharge into reservoirs or diversion pools, peaking 

operation of the South Feather Power Project does not cause flows or water levels in 

riverine reaches to fluctuate. However, rapid flow changes in riverine reaches would 

occur occasionally during spills and when high flow releases are made from project dams 

for geomorphic purposes or to support whitewater recreation. Cal Fish & Game 

recommends that ramping rates be limited to a maximum of 0.5 foot per hour to minimize 

fish stranding. Because whitewater flow releases would occur only once per year in each 

reach and the release of geomorphic flows into Lost Creek would occur only once every 

4 years, the cost associated with implementing this ramp rate in the Little Grass Valley 

dam, South Fork diversion dam, Lost Creek dam, and Forbestown diversion dam reaches 

is negligible, and we conclude that the benefits to fish populations are worth its cost. 

Because implementing ramping constraints at Slate Creek could limit the effectiveness of 

sediment pass-through activities, we do not recommend that ramping rate restrictions be 

imposed in this reach. Also, because the rate of flow change during naturally occurring 

spills at project dams is not controllable, the ramp rate should be applied only to flow 

changes that are controllable by South Feather. 

Flow Monitoring and Water Management during Extended Drought Conditions 

South Feather proposes to monitor compliance with its proposed minimum flows 

using existing USGS flow gages in each reach. Cal Fish & Game recommended and 

Forest Service specified that South Feather operate, maintain, and modify (if needed) 

existing gages that are needed to determine the river stage and minimum streamflow in 

each project-affected reach. The Forest Service also filed preliminary and revised 4(e) 

conditions specifying the methodology that would be followed to determine the water 

year type that would guide the implementation of minimum flows, and to consult with 

stakeholders to develop an operating plan to manage flows during drought conditions. 

South Feather indicated in its reply comments that it did not object to the revised 4(e) 

measures. 

Continued operation of the USGS gages in each of the affected reaches, including 

any modifications that may be required to accurately measure minimum flows or ramping 

rates that are included in a new license, would help to ensure that these gages remain 

functional and can be used to effectively monitor compliance with flow-related measures 

included in the license. The gages also would help to ensure that flow data continues to 

be available to other water users in the basin and to the general public. Provision of flow 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-18 

data recorded at 15-minute intervals to the agencies upon request would help to verify 

compliance with any instantaneous flows and ramping rates that are included in the 

license. We estimate that funding the continued operation of the USGS gages would 

have an annualized cost of $20,000. Because continued operation of these gages is 

needed to verify license compliance and to ensure that the benefits of implementing 

minimum flows to the project-affected reaches are realized, we conclude that the benefits 

of this measure are worth its costs. 

Yuba River Reopener 

Diversion of water from Slate Creek to Sly Creek reservoir reduces the volume of 

water that is contributed to the Yuba River via Slate Creek. The Yuba County Water 

Authority recommends that the Commission reserve authority to require South Feather to 

make reasonable provisions for modifying project facilities or operation as necessary to 

mitigate or avoid cumulative effects identified in any environmental analysis of the Yuba 

River Project (FERC No. 2246). They indicate that this reservation would be applicable 

in the context of any relicensing or license amendment proceeding involving the 

downstream Yuba River Project. 

We include analysis in this document of the cumulative effects of relicensing the 

South Feather Power Project on water resources, and adopt several measures that we 

consider to be appropriate to address the project’s contribution to cumulative effects on 

water resources in the Yuba River basin. If additional measures are needed because of 

proposed changes in the operation of the Yuba River Project, it would be appropriate to 

consider the need to mitigate for the effects of those changes in the proceeding that would 

implement those changes. For this reason, and because we cannot assess the benefits and 

the costs of what measures might be required under the proposed Yuba River reopener, 

we do not recommend that it be adopted. 

Water Temperatures Downstream of Kelly Ridge Powerhouse 

The release of warm water from the Kelly Ridge powerhouse has the potential to 

increase water temperatures in the Feather River downstream of Lake Oroville, and may 

contribute to exceedance of DWR’s water temperature targets established in the Oroville 

Settlement Agreement to protect anadromous fish broodstock that are collected at the fish 

barrier dam for the Feather River fish hatchery, which is located about 5 miles 

downstream from the Kelly Ridge powerhouse. The hatchery was built as mitigation for 

the effects of the construction of the Oroville Project on anadromous fishes. DWR, Cal 

Fish & Game, NMFS, and SWC/MWD recommend that South Feather be required to 

curtail or cease power generation at the Kelly Ridge powerhouse when the temperature of 

waters released from the powerhouse exceed specified values. 

Implementation of these recommendations could assist DWR with meeting its 

temperature objectives identified in the settlement agreement, and could thus benefit 

anadromous fish by reducing the potential for stress and mortality of adult broodstock, 

eggs, or juvenile salmon and steelhead caused by exposure to high water temperatures. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-19 

However, whether or not downstream temperature objectives are met ultimately depends 

on DWR’s operation of the Oroville Project. When DWR is generating at its Hyatt 

powerhouse, releases from Kelly Ridge powerhouse have a minimal effect on 

downstream water temperatures due to the higher volume of flows that are released from 

the Hyatt powerhouse, which has a typical generation flow range of 4,000 to 8,000 cfs 

and a minimum generating flow of 2,400 cfs. If South Feather shut down the Kelly 

Ridge powerhouse completely, DWR still may not meet its temperature objectives during 

hot weather conditions if the Hyatt powerhouse is not generating. Conversely, under the 

same hot weather conditions, if the Hyatt powerhouse is generating the Kelly Ridge 

powerhouse could be operated at full capacity and DWR could meet its downstream 

temperature objectives. Compliance with the temperature objectives in the Oroville 

Settlement Agreement, which DWR agreed to and to which South Feather is not a party, 

is clearly within their ability to control. We estimate that the annualized cost of curtailing 

or ceasing operation of the Kelly Ridge powerhouse according to the temperature criteria 

proposed by these parties would reduce the average annual generation by about 9,541 to 

15,696 MWh and reduce the annual benefit of the project by about $615,100 to 

$1,002,000 per year. Because these downstream temperature targets have been agreed to 

by DWR to enhance operation of its fish hatchery, and because achievement of the 

targets depends primarily on Oroville Project operations, we see no reason why South 

Feather should be required to bear the costs of this measure. As a result, we do not 

recommend that any limitation on the quantity or temperature of water that can be 

discharged from the Kelly Ridge powerhouse be included in the license. 

Water Temperature Monitoring 

South Feather proposes to install and maintain a continuous water temperature 

monitor at USGS gage 11413300 (RM 9.1) downstream of the Slate Creek diversion dam 

and to cease diversions from Slate Creek whenever the mean daily water temperature is 

greater than 20°C for three consecutive days between June 1 and September 15. South 

Feather also proposes to install continuous temperature monitors in the downstream ends 

of the South Fork diversion dam reach near the Woodleaf powerhouse (RM 7.9) and in 

the Forbestown diversion dam reach near the Forbestown powerhouse (RM 1.8) to 

provide information needed to ensure that whitewater flow releases do not occur during 

the FYLF breeding season. South Feather also monitors water temperatures at the Miners 

Ranch water treatment facility on Miners Ranch reservoir. 

Cal Fish & Game recommends that South Feather monitor water temperatures in 

the SFFR immediately above the fish passage barrier (RM 3.7) in the Forbestown 

diversion dam reach to demonstrate whether the recommended flows in the reach are 

adequate to reduce temperatures below 20°C. Cal Fish & Game recommends that South 

Feather also install and maintain continuous water temperature monitors at RM 8.9 on 

Slate Creek, at RM 28.3 on the Little Grass Valley dam reach of the SFFR, at RMs 8.1 

and 9.1 on the South Fork diversion dam reach, and in the Kelly Ridge powerhouse. The 

monitors would be used to record water temperatures at 1-hour intervals from May 1 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-20 

through September 15 annually, and the data would be provided to Cal Fish & Game and 

other interested agencies in a technical report within 6 months following completion of 

each sampling effort. 

NMFS recommends that South Feather maintain a temperature monitoring station 

in Miners Ranch reservoir at the Kelly Ridge intake and provide temperature data at 15-

minute intervals in a format that is available to the public. 

Water temperature data collected from the proposed monitoring site on Slate 

Creek would provide information that would be needed to implement South Feather’s 

proposed flow regime for Slate Creek, which includes shutdown when daily average 

water temperatures exceed 20°C for three consecutive days. We estimate that monitoring 

Slate Creek water temperatures would have an annualized cost of $5,700. Although we 

are not able to estimate the generation that would be foregone due to cessation of 

diversions from Slate Creek, South Feather stated that the volume of water diverted 

during the summer is small, and the amount of lost generation would be minor. Ceasing 

diversions from Slate Creek when average water temperatures exceed 20°C would benefit 

trout populations in Slate Creek downstream of the diversion, and would ensure the 

project has no adverse effects on the beneficial use of supporting coldwater aquatic life, 

and we conclude that these benefits outweigh the costs of this measure. Installing the 

temperature monitor at the USGS gage, as proposed by South Feather, would provide a 

secure location for temperature data to be collected and transmitted in real-time to inform 

the project operators when diversions should be discontinued and resumed. We see no 

substantial advantage of installing the temperature monitor at the location recommended 

by Cal Fish & Game, 0.2 mile downstream of the gage, where a secure mounting location 

and data telemetry system would be more costly and would involve placement of a small 

structure that would adversely affect the aesthetics of the stream environment. 

Cal Fish & Game’s proposal to monitor water temperature data at five additional 

locations, and to provide annual technical reports summarizing monitoring results would 

help to document any changes in water temperatures that occur under the minimum flow 

regimes that are implemented in a new license, and NMFS’ proposal to monitor water 

temperatures at the Kelly Ridge powerhouse would help to identify time periods when 

project operations may be adversely affecting water temperatures downstream of the 

powerhouse. The temperature data, along with flow information could help DWR to 

manage its operation to achieve the temperature objectives specified in the Oroville 

Settlement Agreement, while meeting system needs concerning the quantity and timing 

of hydroelectric generation and consumptive water supply. 

We recommend that South Feather consult with Cal Fish & Game, NMFS, and 

DWR to develop a water temperature monitoring plan designed to determine the effects 

of the implemented flow regime on water temperatures in each reach and the temperature 

of water discharged from the Kelly Ridge powerhouse. Consultation with DWR would 

ensure that the monitoring data is collected at locations an in a manner that will be useful 

to DWR, including the collection frequency, data format, and months when data will be 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-21 

collected. We estimate the annualized cost of developing and implementing such a 

temperature monitoring plan to be $8,700, and because it would help to ensure the 

effective use of the hydropower facilities in the basin to meet regional energy demands, 

we conclude that the measure is worth its cost. 

Selective Withdrawal 

Flows released from Little Grass Valley reservoir are drawn from deep in the 

reservoir, resulting in cool water temperatures in the SFFR downstream from the 

reservoir. Cal Fish & Game recommends that South Feather develop and implement a 

plan to allow water to be selectively withdrawn from the entire water column in Little 

Grass Valley reservoir so that the water temperature of release flows can be more closely 

matched to the optimum temperatures for trout. 

Although water temperatures in the Little Grass Valley reservoir reach are below 

the optimum range identified in the literature for growth of rainbow trout, we note that 

rainbow trout populations prosper in habitats that include a very wide range of 

temperature regimes, and that fish population sampling conducted by South Feather 

indicates that trout populations downstream from Little Grass Valley reservoir are in very 

good condition. We also note that releasing warmer water from Little Grass Valley 

reservoir would contribute to high water temperatures further downstream in the 

Forbestown diversion dam reach of the SFFR, and could adversely affect trout 

populations in that reach. We estimate that the annualized cost of implementing selective 

withdrawal at Little Grass Valley reservoir would be about $73,800. Because the 

available data indicate that the low temperature of water released from Little Grass 

Valley reservoir is not having a substantial adverse effect on trout populations in 

downstream reaches, we conclude that the benefits of this measure are not worth its costs. 

Fish Entrainment 

Entrainment of fish into project intakes removes fish from upstream populations, 

and may cause injury or mortality to a portion of the fish that would otherwise be 

recruited to downstream populations. South Feather evaluated the potential for fish 

entrainment at project intakes in its license application, concluded that effects of the 

project on trout populations were likely to be minor, and did not propose any measures to 

reduce or mitigate for fish entrainment. Cal Fish & Game recommends that South 

Feather develop and implement a plan to screen the intakes at the South Fork diversion 

dam, Slate Creek diversion dam, and the Woodleaf powerhouse intake in Lost Creek 

reservoir with fish screens acceptable to Cal Fish & Game and in accordance with their 

screening criteria. The Forest Service specifies, in its revised 4(e) conditions, that South 

Feather develop and implement a wild fish supplementation program to mitigate for lost 

fish resources in the SFFR, in Slate Creek, and in Sly Creek and Lost Creek reservoirs. 

The basis for determining the number of fish to be planted would be determined by 

reviewing age class distributions of rainbow trout in the Little Grass Valley dam and the 

upper Slate Creek diversion dam reaches, and estimating the numbers of fry that are 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-22 

needed to attain density and biomass levels observed in streams surrounding the project 

area. 

South Feather developed and implemented a study in consultation with the 

agencies to assess the potential for entrainment losses to affect fish populations in the 

project area. The study focused on rainbow and brown trout, and included a literature 

review, a review of the likelihood of entrainment based on the physical characteristics of 

each intake, and an assessment of trout populations upstream and downstream of each 

intake. Although it is likely that some fish are entrained into each of the intakes and that 

some fish are killed during turbine passage, the results of South Feather’s literature 

review and analysis indicate that entrainment potential at two of the three intakes may be 

limited. The entrainment potential at the Sly Creek reservoir power tunnel intake is 

probably reduced by the depth of the intake, and the potential for entrainment into the 

intake to the Woodleaf power tunnel in Lost Creek reservoir is limited by the relatively 

low water velocity at the trashrack. Although the Forbestown power tunnel intake may 

have a greater potential to entrain fish than the intakes in Sly Creek and Lost Creek 

reservoirs, the relatively high average biomass of trout in the SFFR/Lost Creek reach 

upstream of the Forbestown diversion indicates that entrainment is not having a 

substantial adverse effect on the trout population upstream of the diversion. 

Construction of effective fish screening facilities at each diversion as 

recommended by Cal Fish & Game would minimize entrainment mortality, and would 

likely provide some benefit to trout populations. However, construction of an effective 

screening facility at Slate Creek is probably not feasible given the stream’s high sediment 

load, which has filled in the diversion pool. 

While we recognize the limited entrainment potential at the project intakes, 

implementing the wild fish supplementation program specified by the Forest Service and 

supported by South Feather would serve to augment fish populations in any reaches 

where entrainment losses may be limiting recruitment to levels that are not adequate to 

meet the carrying capacity of available habitat. Using population assessment data to 

guide the stocking program would ensure that stocking only occurs in reaches and years 

when trout populations have been affected. We also recommend that South Feather file 

annual reports on its stocking program. The report should include the population data 

that is used to assess stocking needs and the numbers of fish stocked at each location. 

We estimate that screening the project diversions as recommended by Cal Fish & Game 

would have an annualized cost of about $3,041,100, while implementing the Forest 

Service’s revised 4(e) measure would provide a comparable benefit to trout populations 

with an annualized cost of $15,900. Because it would provide a comparable benefit at a 

much lower cost, we recommend implementing the wild trout stocking measure specified 

by the Forest Service. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-23 

Fish Monitoring 

The Forest Service filed revised 4(e) conditions specifying that, within 1 year after 

license issuance, South Feather develop a plan a plan to monitor fish populations at eight 

sites in the project-affected bypassed reaches, in consultation with the Forest Service and 

other interested governmental agencies. Fish surveys would be conducted in two 

successive years and begin in the fifth full year after implementation of new license 

streamflows. Fish surveys would be conducted in years 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, 18, 23, 24, and 

29 in each survey reach, or at a frequency jointly agreed to by the agencies. If sampling 

is scheduled in years with high peak flows, the survey may be postponed by 2 years to 

avoid confounding effects of high peak flows on fish recruitment and populations. South 

Feather indicated in its reply comments that it fully supports all of the Forest Service 

revised 4(e) conditions, including the fish monitoring plan. Cal Fish & Game filed a 

similar plan, but did not include a provision to defer sampling in high flow years, and 

included monitoring at all 11 sites that were sampled during South Feather’s licensing 

studies. 

Monitoring fish populations would assist with determining the effects of any 

changes in operation or other measures that are implemented in the new license, and with 

assessing whether any modifications or additional measures are needed. South Feather’s 

analysis of fish population data indicates that fish populations can be substantially 

reduced during and following severe flood events. Postponing sampling by up to 2 years 

after a flood event as specified by the Forest Service would improve data consistency, 

which would help to identify population effects associated with the measures or 

operational changes that are implemented in the new license. 

In its reply comments, South Feather indicates that the smaller number of study 

sites specified by the Forest Service is more appropriate than the 11 sites recommended 

by Cal Fish & Game. South Feather reports that the sites that are not included in the 

Forest Service-specified plan include two sites that are dominated by warmwater fish, 

which are not an agency management priority, and one Lost River site that has been 

affected by local site disturbance and excessive angling pressure. 

We estimate the annualized cost of the Forest Service and Cal Fish & Game fish 

monitoring plans at $35,300 and $48,500, respectively. Because fish monitoring would 

help to document the effectiveness of the new flow regime and whether or not it is having 

the intended effects on aquatic resources, we conclude that fish monitoring is worth the 

cost. Because deferring sampling in high flow years would provide a better assessment 

of the response of fish populations to the new flow regime and because of the limited 

benefit that would be provided by sampling at the three additional sites included under 

Cal Fish & Game’s monitoring plan, we recommend implementing the Forest Service’s 

fish monitoring plan. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-24 

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring 

The Forest Service filed revised 4(e) conditions specifying that, within 1 year after 

license issuance, South Feather develop a plan, in consultation with the Forest Service 

and other interested governmental agencies, to monitor benthic macroinvertebrates in 

affected bypassed reaches. South Feather indicated in its reply comments that it fully 

supports all of the Forest Service revised 4(e) conditions, including the benthic 

macroinvertebrate monitoring plan. The plan specified by the Forest Service would 

involve conducting surveys in the same years as fish population monitoring (years 5, 6, 

11, 12, 17, 18, 23, 24, and 29). 

Cal Fish & Game recommends a benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring plan that is 

identical to the Forest Service plan, except that sampling would be conducted in years 1 

through 4 and in years 8, 12, 16, and 24, unless an alternative monitoring schedule is 

approved in consultation with the agencies. In addition, Cal Fish & Game recommends 

that South Feather follow the most recent Cal Fish & Game protocols for sampling 

benthic macroinvertebrate species composition and abundance. 

We estimate the annualized cost of the Forest Service and Cal Fish & Game 

benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring plans at $23,500 and $44,700, respectively, 

assuming that both plans would include monitoring the same number of sites that each 

agency recommended for fish monitoring (8 sites for the Forest Service and 11 sites for 

Cal Fish & Game). Similar to fish monitoring, benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring 

would assist with determining the effectiveness of measures implemented in the new 

license for enhancing trout populations, and we conclude that the benefits of 

implementing a benthic invertebrate monitoring plan are worth its costs. Sampling 

benthic macroinvertebrates in the same years as fish population monitoring would help to 

identify relationships between fish populations and the abundance of the aquatic 

macroinvertebrate prey base, which would improve understanding of the effects of 

implemented measures on aquatic productivity. Using the same sampling procedures 

over time would ensure that comparable data are collected over the period of monitoring, 

and would avoid any confounding effects that may result from any changes in Cal Fish & 

Game’s sampling protocols. Because of these added benefits, we recommend adopting 

the plan as specified by the Forest Service. 

Terrestrial Resources 

Noxious Weeds 

Project operation may potentially affect vegetation through the introduction and 

spreading of noxious weed species. Any O&M activities that disturb soil or remove 

existing vegetation could increase the spread of noxious weeds and would have a direct 

effect on vegetation. Potential indirect project effects could come from recreational users 

that spread noxious weed seeds or other regenerative plant materials from colonized to 

non-colonized areas. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-25 

South Feather proposes several measures to prevent and control the spread of 

noxious weeds on National Forest System lands within the project boundary. South 

Feather also would implement control measures where contiguous populations continue 

on National Forest System lands outside of the project boundary, as long as the majority 

of the treated area is on project lands. The measures proposed by South Feather include 

training staff to recognize noxious species, monitoring populations, sharing information 

on new populations with the Forest Service, and implementing several best management 

practices aimed at reducing the spread of noxious weeds. 

The Forest Service filed a preliminary 4(e) condition that is consistent with South 

Feather’s proposed plan but also would require South Feather to (1) address both aquatic 

and terrestrial invasive weeds; (2) include protocols for locating, monitoring, and 

controlling weed populations; (3) include a public education program and facilities for 

public use to reduce the spread of aquatic species; and (4) provide information on 

noxious weed populations in a data format compatible with the Forest Service GIS 

database. 

Implementing South Feather’s proposed invasive weed and vegetation 

management plan would help to control current populations and future infestations of 

noxious weeds on project lands. The additional measures specified by the Forest Service 

would provide a more comprehensive level of control, help to address the spread of 

noxious weeds by recreational users, and improve information-sharing on the occurrence 

and spread of noxious weeds. We estimate that South Feather’s proposed plan would 

have an annualized cost of $7,600, and that the expanded plan specified by the Forest 

Service would have an annualized cost of $9,800. Because it would improve the control 

of noxious weeds at a reasonable cost, we recommend adopting the plan as specified by 

the Forest Service. 

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (FYLF) 

South Feather proposes several measures to minimize effects on FYLF including 

implementing minimum flows that take into consideration FYLF habitat needs and 

avoiding high pulse flows during critical time periods. South Feather proposes to avoid 

the release of controlled high flows during the FYLF breeding season, which it defines as 

starting on April 15 or when water temperatures reach 13°C (whichever is later) and 

extending until October 31. 

The Forest Service specifies that ramping rates be developed to meet Forest 

Service targets for water velocity and stage changes to protect FYLF egg masses and 

tadpoles. The Forest Service developed these targets based on empirical data presented 

in Kupferberg et al. (2008) and Lind et al. (2008). These targets would limit water 

velocities to 0.8 foot per second or less where egg masses are located and would limit 

stage reductions to dewater no more than 20 percent of egg masses, and would limit 

changes in water velocity to no more than 0.4 foot per second per hour, with velocities 

not to exceed 1.0 foot per second at locations where tadpoles and juvenile FYLF occur. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-26 

The Forest Service methodology would identify velocity and stage-discharge 

relationships, and map available habitat at FYLF study sites for different water year types 

to determine appropriate ramping rates between low and high flows. 

The Forest Service specifies and Cal Fish & Game recommends that South Feather 

develop a FYLF monitoring plan that would include annual monitoring surveys of FYLF 

adult, tadpole, and egg mass numbers for the first 10 years after relicensing, followed 

with similar surveys every 5 years for the remainder of the license. Cal Fish & Game 

also recommends that, after 5 years of monitoring, South Feather develop and implement 

ramping rates that would protect FYLF egg masses and tadpoles in all reaches where they 

occur. 

The Forest Service specifies and Cal Fish & Game recommends that South Feather 

conduct video surveys to identify areas of vegetation channel encroachment in the fourth 

year after license issuance to be repeated every 10 years. South Feather would conduct 

the surveys by helicopter along the South Fork diversion dam and Forbestown diversion 

dam reaches and identify up to three segments within the South Fork diversion dam reach 

and up to five segments in the Forbestown reach where vegetation is encroaching into the 

channel. South Feather would then treat these reaches with vegetation removal measures, 

and evaluate the effectiveness of the treatments every 5 years to determine if conditions 

would warrant another treatment. In addition, the Forest Service specifies the 

development of a population model, a population viability model, a 2-D habitat model, 

and monitoring of water temperatures along stream margins, and changes in 

geomorphology and riparian encroachment. 

South Feather filed an alternative 4(e) condition that would include both full reach 

and representative surveys to determine whether FYLF populations change as a result of 

proposed changes in project operations. The full reach surveys would be conducted in 

the first year after relicensing and then every 10 years, and would include all reasonably 

accessible FYLF habitat in the SFFR/Lost Creek, Forbestown, and Slate Creek reaches. 

Representative surveys would be conducted at one site within each of the three reaches 

once every 10 years starting on the fifth year after relicensing. 

The survey methods described in South Feather’s alternative 4(e) condition would 

be similar to those used for the re-licensing studies. South Feather’s proposed survey 

methods would be similar to those used for the re-licensing studies. The surveys would 

consist of visual encounter surveys for counts of egg masses, tadpole groups, and youngof-year frogs. The full reach surveys would document the overall distribution of FYLF in 

each reach and detect shifts in the spatial distribution of FYLF in relation to project 

effects. 

Based on the results of these surveys, South Feather would evaluate project effects 

on FYLF. If adverse project-related effects are evident, South Feather would recommend 

studies targeted on ramping rates, water temperatures, population viability, or other 

appropriate studies to determine the mechanisms of these adverse effects. South Feather 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-27 

would then use the results of these targeted studies to identify appropriate mitigation 

measures. 

The increased flows specified by the Forest Service and proposed by South 

Feather are designed to improve trout habitat and provide for whitewater recreation. On 

the other hand, these flows also have the potential to affect FYLF by reducing water 

temperature and changing channel morphology. Proposed flow increases would alter the 

existing hydrograph in stream channels downstream from project facilities. Low flows 

reduce available habitat and can increase mortality of egg masses and tadpoles stranded 

in dry areas, while high flows and rapid changes in flow can wash egg masses, tadpoles, 

and adults downstream to unsuitable habitat. 

The flows proposed by South Feather in its license application and in its 

alternative 4(e) measure are not as high as the Forest Service specifications, and therefore 

would have less potential to disrupt FYLF habitat and breeding patterns. South Feather’s 

proposal to avoid high flow releases during FYLF breeding periods would reduce the 

potential displacement of egg masses, tadpoles, and adults to unsuitable habitat. 

Following the Forest Service-specified methodology to map suitable habitat and identify 

appropriate ramping rates for each water year type also would reduce the potential for 

displacement during flow increases and reduce the potential for stranding during flow 

decreases. 

While these protection measures are expected to limit effects on FYLF, continued 

monitoring is required to ensure they are effective and that new project operations do not 

detrimentally affect this species. We consider South Feather’s approach outlined in its 

alternative 4(e) condition of combining full-reach and representative reach surveys to be 

sound. However, because increased minimum flows and whitewater flow releases could 

change the location of preferred breeding areas, we conclude that conducting full-reach 

surveys in each of the first 5 years would allow for more accurate determination of 

current FYLF distribution and detection of any shifts in distribution that occur as a result 

of project operations. These initial full reach surveys would also provide for a more 

accurate selection of representative reaches. Surveys of representative reaches would be 

conducted in years 6 to 10, and then continuing with South Feather’s 10-year cycle of 

alternating full reach and representative sampling with surveys every 5 years. This 

approach would provide detailed information on the distribution and response of FYLF 

populations to the new flow regime that occurs over the first 5 years, and would provide a 

sufficient amount of sampling over the rest of the license term to assess longer-term 

changes in habitat and breeding success. If short- or long-term effects are detected, the 

implementation of additional studies targeted on identifying the mechanism of such 

effects and developing mitigation measures, as South Feather includes in its alternative 

4(e) condition, would be appropriate at that time. With our recommended change in 

survey frequency, we consider the FYLF monitoring program that we recommend to be 

consistent with the FYLF monitoring surveys specified by the Forest Service and 

recommended by Cal Fish & Game. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-28 

The studies specified by the Forest Service, including habitat, population, and 

population viability models, as well as physiological studies related to water temperature 

and monitoring of changes in geomorphology are not necessary to determine the presence 

of project-related effects. We consider South Feather’s approach to be more costeffective, in that targeted studies would be conducted if and only if ongoing adverse 

effects are identified. Additionally, South Feather’s riparian encroachment study 

indicates that riparian vegetation is present within the active channel in some locations, 

but is limited in extent. The studies indicate the timing and intensity of high flows over 

the time frame of the current project license have largely controlled vegetation 

encroachment through channel scour. As such, we conclude that implementing 

treatments to remove riparian vegetation as specified by the Forest Service would be 

premature. We conclude, however, that helicopter surveys over the South Fork diversion 

dam and Forbestown diversion dam reaches, as recommended by Cal Fish & Game and 

specified by the Forest Service, would assist with identifying areas of potential riparian 

encroachment and with guiding ground-level assessment of effects of encroachment on 

FYLF habitat, and should be incorporated into the FYLF survey protocol. If monitoring 

results indicate that encroachment is affecting FYLF, then treatment to remove riparian 

vegetation may be considered at that time. 

Although the Forest Service and Cal Fish & Game do not specifically state 

whether the surveys conducted in each year would involve monitoring the full length of 

each stream reach, our recommended approach is consistent with their objective to 

determine project effects on FYLF. We estimate that this approach would have an 

annualized cost of $66,900, as compared to $24,900 for the monitoring regime outlined in 

South Feather’s alternative 4(e) condition. Because our recommended approach would 

assist with determining the effectiveness of measures implemented to protect FYLF and 

with refining these measures, if needed, we conclude that these benefits warrant the costs 

of this measure. We estimate that the annualized cost of the additional population and 

habitat modeling, physiological studies, and monitoring of changes in geomorphology 

specified by the Forest Service would be $157,900. As discussed above, the need to 

conduct additional targeted studies should be determined based on monitoring results, 

and we conclude that the cost of the additional studies prescribed by the Forest Service is 

not warranted at this time. 

Controlling the rate of flow and stage changes during critical time periods would 

limit the potential for mortality of early life stages of FYLF. South Feather has proposed 

to stop the release of high pulse flows during periods of FYLF breeding activity. In 

addition, we recommend that South Feather implement the methodology specified by the 

Forest Service to identify appropriate ramping rates to protect FYLF. The Forest Service 

methodology would identify velocity and stage-discharge relationships, and map 

available habitat at FYLF study sites for different water year types to determine 

appropriate ramping rates between low and high flows. We estimate that implementing 

the Forest Service’s approach would have an annualized cost of $10,200, and conclude 

that the benefits of this measure are worth this modest additional cost. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-29 

Recreation Resources 

Replace and Rehabilitate Existing Recreation Facilities 

South Feather proposes to develop and implement conceptual facility master plans 

for Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoir recreation areas comprising an overall 

conceptual plan that illustrates the layouts, locations, and relationships between existing 

facilities and proposed improvements. In addition, South Feather proposes to develop 

and implement individual site development plans and proposes site rehabilitation 

measures for each existing recreation facility within the existing project boundary, as 

discussed in section 3.3.5, Recreation Resources. South Feather’s proposal would allow 

the Forest Service and other stakeholders to have input in the development of these plans 

and would ensure the proposed measures would be implemented in a manner consistent 

with the Forest Service’s management goals and other resource management plans at the 

project. Although coordination among the licensee, governmental agencies, and 

interested stakeholders is encouraged in developing and implementing the proposed 

recreation measures, the licensee is ultimately responsible for the construction, operation, 

and maintenance of the project’s recreation facilities. 

In addition to the facility master plans and individual site plans described above, 

South Feather’s proposed capital improvements, including constructing a recreation 

access trail below Little Grass Valley dam and minor maintenance measures, such as 

replacing fire rings and improving parking, would improve existing facilities and increase 

public access at the project. 

We estimate the annualized cost associated with implementing the facility master 

plans, the individual site rehabilitation measures, the minor maintenance measures, and 

the access trail (capital improvement) at $78,000. Given the benefits identified above, we 

conclude that these benefits are worth the costs. 

South Feather’s proposed development of facility master plans and individual site 

plans are consistent with the Forest Service’s specified conditions, except they do not 

propose the additional Forest Service components of conducting an annual coordination 

meeting with the Forest Service, measures for public interpretive facilities, and measures 

to develop and implement a re-vegetation plan that would be submitted within 5 years of 

license issuance for all developed recreation facilities within the project boundary. The 

Forest Service also specifies that South Feather consult with the Forest Service and other 

appropriate agencies to ensure that the recreation rehabilitation and enhancements are 

consistent with the overall goals of other resource conditions and management plans 

required under the FERC license. 

The annual coordination meeting with the Forest Service would help to ensure that 

the proposed recreation rehabilitation measures would be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the goals and objectives of the Plumas National Forest. The re-vegetation 

plan would help to ensure that any disturbed areas resulting from implementation of the 

recreation enhancements are adequately mitigated through reestablishment of vegetation 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-30 

as necessary. Implementation of interpretive features would help to provide the means to 

enhance the public’s knowledge and use of the recreation resources at the project. 

Therefore, we recommend these measures be adopted. The Forest Service additional 

measures would have an additional annualized cost of $50,000, and we conclude that the 

benefits exceed the costs. 

The Forest Service specified several additional capital improvement measures, 

including constructing a groundwater potable water well and providing a horse watering 

system at Horse Camp campground. Currently, there is no groundwater well at the 

project and no water for drinking or for horses at Horse Camp campground. Although 

South Feather proposes to upgrade the water systems, the Forest Service’s proposed 

improvements to construct a groundwater well and implement a horse watering supply 

and distribution system would further improve existing facilities by providing a reliable 

source for drinking water to all recreation sites, including Horse Camp campground. 

Therefore, we recommend these measures be adopted. We find that addition of these 

components would result in a negligible increase in the cost of South Feather’s proposed 

water system upgrades. 

The Forest Service also specified measures involving an OHV facility 

development. The proposed OHV site amenities would be associated with a potential 

new facility located near the Sly Creek Campground that is under consideration, but yet 

to be developed. Further, OHV use at the project is low and future demand is low for this 

type of activity. Therefore, we do not recommend these additional OHV measures 

specified by the Forest Service. 

O’Rourke Outdoor Adventures recommends that South Feather implement 

rehabilitation and enhancement measures at several boat ramps and campgrounds at Little 

Grass Valley reservoir, as well as road maintenance measures around the project. South 

Feather’s proposal to enhance and rehabilitate project recreation facilities includes all of 

O’Rourke Outdoor Adventures recommendations, with the exception of extending the 

boat ramps. Combined with its recent upgrades at the boat ramps, we feel that South 

Feather’s proposal would adequately improve existing facilities and access to the project. 

In addition, the proposed road maintenance measures are located either on roads that are 

already maintained on a regular basis or are outside of the project boundary. Therefore, 

we do not see the need for the additional boat ramp enhancement measures or road 

maintenance recommended by O’Rourke Outdoor Adventures. 

Maintenance and Operation of Recreation Facilities 

South Feather’s proposed draft operation plan for Little Grass Valley and Sly 

Creek reservoir recreation facilities provides specific guidelines for the operation and 

daily and annual maintenance of these project facilities. Implementation of the proposed 

plan would provide measures to help ensure that these facilities are adequately 

maintained over the term of a new license. We estimate the annualized cost of 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-31 

implementation of the proposed operation plan at $278,700 and conclude the benefits are 

worth the costs. 

Monitoring Recreation Use 

South Feather’s proposed recreation report, to be filed concurrently with the FERC 

Form 80 filings every 6 years, would provide periodic review of recreation facilities at 

the project. The FERC Form 80 already requires facility capacity and demand to be 

reported every 6 years; however, South Feather’s additional recreation report would 

determine trends of use, condition of facilities, parking capacity, and whether or not 

resources damage is occurring. South Feather proposes to conduct the recreation user 

survey every 18 years (every third filing of the Form 80) and recreation user preferences 

could change significantly over an 18-year timeframe. Conducting the recreation user 

survey every 12 years (every other filing of the Form 80) would provide the means for 

periodic review in a shorter timeframe, which would allow for enhanced assessment of 

the adequacy of public recreation facilities and access at the project. South Feather’s 

proposed recreation monitoring measures and associated recreation reports are consistent 

with the Forest Service’s specified condition that South Feather file a recreation use and 

facilities condition report. 

Both the recreational use report and the recreation user preference report would be 

submitted to the Commission for review and approval, which would provide the 

mechanism to help ensure that recreation facilities are provided to meet project needs and 

purposes over the term of a new license. Therefore, we are recommending South 

Feather’s proposed measures for monitoring and reporting recreation use, with the 

modification of conducting the recreation user survey every 12 years, instead of 18 years. 

We estimate that the annualized costs for the recreation report that would be filed every 6 

years to be $10,000 and that the annualized cost of the recreation user survey monitoring 

would be $5,600, and consider the benefits of these measures to be worth the costs. 

Whitewater Boating Flows 

South Feather proposes to provide a supplemental recreation streamflow into the 

Little Grass Valley dam reach, in all water years, from September 16 of each year until 

the date that Little Grass Valley reservoir elevation is drafted to 5,017 feet msl. We 

estimate the annualized cost of this measure to be $13,000. South Feather also proposes 

to provide a supplemental streamflow, in the spring of Above Normal and Wet water 

years, downstream of the South Fork diversion dam for recreational purposes and to 

install a continuous water temperature monitor near the Woodleaf powerhouse that would 

allow flow releases to be stopped before the start of the foothill yellow-legged frog 

breeding (water temperature 13oC). We estimate the annualized cost of this measure to 

be $54,300, including an average annual reduction in power generation of 620 MWh. 

Similarly, South Feather proposes a supplemental streamflow in the spring during Above 

Normal and Wet water years at Forbestown diversion dam reach to improve opportunities 

for Class IV and V whitewater boating in the spring and proposes to install a continuous 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-32 

water temperature monitor near the Forbestown powerhouse. We estimate the annualized 

cost for this measure would be $34,600, including an average annual reduction in power 

generation of 308 MWh. 

South Feather’s proposed supplemental streamflows would provide for enhanced 

whitewater boating opportunities in project reaches during a time of year when 

whitewater boating is in high demand. The provision of supplemental flows in the fall 

season at Little Grass Valley dam reach would provide opportunities for increased 

whitewater boating during a period when alternative whitewater boating opportunities 

within the region are scarce. We conclude that the benefits associated with these 

measures outweigh the costs and recommend implementation of these measures. To 

ensure that adverse effects on FYLF breeding are avoided, we recommend that releases in 

the South Feather diversion dam and Forbestown diversion dam reaches be discontinued 

when water temperatures rise to 12oC. 

Provision of Streamflow Information 

Accurate and timely stream flow information is valuable information for 

recreational visitors planning water-related visits to the project. South Feather’s 

proposed provision of streamflow information to the public would provide the means for 

the public to gain information regarding streamflow for specific stream reaches. This 

would allow the public to take better advantage of opportunities for public recreational 

use of these stream reaches; therefore we recommend implementation of this measure. 

We estimate the annualized cost for this measure to be $2,500, and conclude that the 

benefits outweigh the costs. 

Public Safety 

Public information at key locations on Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek 

reservoirs provides area users with information on acceptable and prohibited activities, as 

well as dangerous or restricted areas. South Feather took over responsibility for installing 

safety buoys from the local county sheriff departments in 2002, and proposes to continue 

to install and maintain these buoys. This measure would continue to provide recreation 

visitors at the reservoirs with warnings regarding boat speed, dangerous areas, and other 

safety information, and would help to protect the safety of the public at Little Grass 

Valley and Sly Creek reservoirs. We recommend implementation of this measure and 

conclude the benefits are worth the estimated annualized cost of $11,600. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Continued operation of the South Feather Power Project without adequate 

protection measures could adversely affect properties that are eligible for listing on the 

National Register. South Feather filed a Heritage (Historic) Properties Management Plan 

(HPMP) for the purpose of protecting and interpreting historic properties with its license 

application. The Forest Service filed a preliminary 4(e) condition specifying that South 

Feather file a Forest Service-approved HPMP with the Commission within 1 year of 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-33 

license issuance. The HPMP would take into account project effects on National 

Register-eligible properties located on Forest Service lands, provide measures to mitigate 

effects, and provide for a monitoring program and management protocols. 

We find the HPMP adequately identifies the APE, describes the cultural resources 

inventories that were conducted within the APE, indentifies existing project-related 

effects that could occur on potentially significant cultural resources, and provides general 

management measures to resolve such effects. The HPMP also provides procedures for 

handing unanticipated discoveries and the proper treatment of human remains and sacred 

objects--if they are encountered. The HPMP provides protocols for emergency 

undertakings, periodic reporting and meetings, and appropriate review and revisions of 

the HPMP based upon changing conditions over the period of a new license. However, 

our review of the HPMP reveals that it does not provide enough site-specific measures to 

ensure that project-related adverse effects on historic properties resulting from operation, 

maintenance, recreational, or other activities would be adequately addressed over the 

term of the new license. 

We recommend that the HPMP include the following additional measures: 

• a report on archaeological surveys conducted in the six project stream 

reaches within the APE; 

• National Register evaluations on archaeological sites that have been or are 

being adversely affected by project-related erosion, especially the 10 

archaeological sites located at the Little Grass Valley reservoir, but 

including any discovered during survey of the stream reaches; 

• a provision for evaluation of project features that may become eligible for 

listing on the Natural Register during the term of any new license issued for 

the project; and 

• a detailed discussion of Lost Creek dam, including a description of the 

activities that led to prior Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic 

American Engineering Record documentation and any SHPO 

consultation/concurrence regarding the structure’s current National Register 

status. 

Implementation of the HPMP, with staff’s additional measures, would ensure that 

adverse effects on historic properties as a result of project operation, maintenance, 

recreational, or other project-related activities would be addressed over the term of the 

new license. We anticipate that any new license issued for the project would include a 

condition to implement a PA executed among the Commission, the SHPO, and the 

Advisory Council, should the Council choose to participate. South Feather, the Forest 

Service, and others would be invited to sign the PA as concurring parties. The PA would 

include a measure to implement the HPMP. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-34 

We estimate that implementation of the protective measures proposed in South 

Feather’s HPMP would have an annualized cost of $20,300. We estimate that the 

additional measures that we list above would increase the annualized cost of measures 

included in the HPMP to $59,100. Considering the extent of cultural heritage that is 

present in the project area, we consider the benefits to cultural resources to be worth the 

costs. 

Land Use and Aesthetic Resources 

Fire Prevention and Response Plan 

The development of a fire prevention, response, and investigation plan as 

proposed by South Feather and specified by the Forest Service, as well as the fuel 

treatment/vegetation management plan specified by the Forest Service, would provide the 

means for South Feather to develop and coordinate fire management and prevention 

strategies with the Forest Service. The fire management and response plan also would 

provide the means for coordinating emergency response preparedness, reporting 

measures associated with fire management, and the investigation of fires on project lands. 

We estimate that that developing a fire prevention, response, and investigation plan 

would have an annualized cost of $1,100, and that development of a fuel/vegetation 

management plan would have an annualized cost of $2,100. Given the benefits of 

improved public safety and reduced potential damage to property and natural resources, 

we conclude that the benefits of these measures are worth their costs. 

Road Management 

Some of the roads used to access project facilities for operation and maintenance 

purposes are Forest Service roads that are also used by the Forest Service for land 

management, and by the public for recreation. The road management plan specified by 

the Forest Service would help to improve road management throughout the project 

vicinity, protect natural resources, provide reasonable public access, clearly define 

maintenance responsibilities, assess road conditions, and enable an annual survey 

process. In addition, the road management plan would identify measures to ensure that 

safety, maintenance, and rehabilitation measures associated with project roads are 

addressed in a consistent manner and so as not to adversely affect environmental 

resources. We note that it is the Commission’s practice to include in the project 

boundary only those roads used primarily for project purposes. Therefore, the road 

management plan should clearly identify the roads either already within or proposed to be 

included in the project boundary that are necessary to access project facilities, including 

recreational facilities, and limit South Feather’s responsibilities to those access roads or 

portions of roads that are used primarily for project purposes. We estimate that the 

annualized cost of developing and implementing the road management plan would be 

$3,500, and we conclude that the benefits of this measure warrant the costs. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-35 

Visual Management Plan 

Aesthetic resources can be affected by project facilities and operation. Recreation 

facilities and project facilities, such as project powerhouses and substation facilities, can 

dominate views, creating contrast with the natural landscape. The development and 

implementation of a visual resource protection plan, as specified by the Forest Service, 

prior to ground-disturbing activities on project lands located within the Plumas National 

Forest would help to ensure such activities would not adversely affect aesthetic resources 

within the Plumas National Forest. We estimate an annualized cost of $2,200 and 

recommend implementation of this measure. 

General 

Annual Consultation 

The Forest Service specifies that South Feather consult with the Forest Service 

each year with regard to measures that are needed to ensure protection and utilization of 

the National Forest resources affected by the project. The date of the consultation 

meeting would be mutually agreed to by South Feather and the Forest Service but in 

general would be held 60 days prior to the beginning of the recreation season, and 

representatives from other interested agencies would be able to request to attend the 

meeting. The meeting would include: (1) the review of a status report regarding 

implementation of license conditions; (2) results of any monitoring studies performed 

over the previous year in formats agreed to by the Forest Service and South Feather 

during development of study plans; (3) review of any non-routine maintenance; (4) any 

foreseeable changes to project facilities or features; (5) any necessary revisions or 

modifications to plans approved as part of this license; (6) needed protection measures 

for species newly listed as threatened, endangered, or sensitive or, changes to existing 

management plans that may no longer be warranted due to delisting of species or, to 

incorporate new information about a species requiring protection; and (7) discussion of 

elements of current year maintenance plans, such as those for road maintenance. 

Cal Fish & Game recommends that South Feather, in consultation with the 

agencies, develop and implement an adaptive management plan that would allow Cal 

Fish & Game and other interested agencies to recommend changes to project operation 

during the license term based on the results of biological monitoring. The plan would 

include a process for identifying whether changes to project operation including, but not 

limited to, operation of fish screens, operation of a thermal control device, riparian 

vegetation management, ramping rates, and the amount and timing of flow releases from 

project features are required, and a mechanism for implementing those changes. 

We estimate that implementing the Forest Service and the Cal Fish & Game 

measure would both have an annualized cost of $30,000. As we discuss in section 3.3.2, 

Aquatic Resources, conducting annual meetings to review the results of monitoring 

reports and to consider any need to modify project operation or environmental measures 

would help to ensure that National Forest System lands and important environmental 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-36 

resources are protected, and we conclude that the benefits of this consultation would be 

worth its costs. Opening the meeting to all interested agencies and other parties would 

assist with interpretation of monitoring results, ensure that the full range of effects of any 

changes in operation or measures are fully considered, and accomplish the goals of Cal 

Fish & Game’s adaptive recommended adaptive management plan. Any changes to 

license conditions that are warranted based on monitoring results could be implemented 

via the Commission’s standard license amendment or reopener processes. 

5.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS 

The continued operation of the project would result in some minor unavoidable 

adverse effects on geologic, soil, and geomorphic resources. These could include some 

minor continued erosion associated with project operation and renovation of recreational 

facilities and interruption of sediment transport at project reservoirs. Most of these 

effects would be reduced by proposed resource enhancement measures, including (1) 

preparation and implementation of an erosion and sediment control plan, (2) passage of 

LWD at Lower Grass Valley and Sly Creek dams, (3) provision of geomorphic flows in 

the Lost River below Sly Creek dam, and (4) sediment pass-through activities at Slate 

Creek diversion dam. 

Under the proposed action, the continued operation of the project would continue 

to adversely affect some archaeological sites. The execution of a PA and implementation 

of the final HPMP with staff’s additional measures would ensure proper protection and 

management of significant cultural resources within the project’s APE and also would 

provide satisfactory resolution of any project-related adverse effects. 

We have identified no other unavoidable adverse effects on resources influenced 

by project operation. 

5.4 SUMMARY OF SECTION 10(J) RECOMMENDATIONS AND 4(E) 

CONDITIONS 

5.4.1 Recommendations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

Section 10(j) of the FPA requires the Commission to include license conditions, 

based on recommendations provided by federal and state fish and wildlife agencies for 

the protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources affected by the 

project. Section 10(j) of the FPA states that, whenever the Commission believes that any 

fish and wildlife agency recommendation is inconsistent with the purposes and the 

requirements of the FPA or other applicable law, the Commission and the agency shall 

attempt to resolve any such inconsistency, giving due weight to the recommendations, 

expertise, and statutory responsibilities of the agency. If the Commission still does not 

adopt a recommendation, it must explain how the recommendation is inconsistent with 

Part I of the FPA, or other applicable law and how the conditions imposed by the 

Commission adequately and equitably protect, mitigate damages to, and enhance fish and 

wildlife resources. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-37 

In response to the Commission’s ready for environmental analysis notice, issued 

February 14, 2008, Cal Fish & Game and NMFS filed letters providing comments and 

terms and conditions for the South Feather Power Project, pursuant to section 10(j). 

Table 5-1 summarizes the agency recommendations made under section 10(j), as well as 

whether the recommendations are adopted under the staff alternative. 

Table 5-1. Analysis of fish and wildlife agency section 10(j) recommendations for the 

South Feather Power Project. (Source: Staff) 

Recommendation Agency 

Within 

Scope of 

10(j)? Annual Cost 

Staff 

Recommending? 

1. Implement Cal Fish & 

Game’s recommended 

minimum flows 

Cal Fish 

& Game 

Yes $2,432,300 No, adopt South 

Feather’s 

alternative 4(e) 

flows instead 

2. Develop ramping rates to 

protect FYLF within 5 years 

after license issuance 

Cal Fish 

& Game 

Yes $10,200 Yes 

3. Implement selective 

withdrawal at Little Grass 

Valley reservoir 

Cal Fish 

& Game 

Yes $73,800 No, trout 

populations not 

adversely affected 

4. Screen diversions at the 

South Fork diversion, Slate 

Creek diversion, and the 

Woodleaf powerhouse intake 

Cal Fish 

& Game 

Yes $3,041,100 No, adopt Forest 

Service’s wild fish 

stocking program 

instead 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-38 

Recommendation Agency 

Within 

Scope of 

10(j)? Annual Cost 

Staff 

Recommending? 

5. Take all reasonable 

actions to assure 

conformance with water 

temperatures specified in the 

Oroville Settlement 

Agreement 

Cal Fish 

& Game 

Yes $606,400 No, recommend 

developing plan in 

consultation with 

DWR, NMFS, and 

Cal Fish & Game 

to monitor and 

provide 

information on 

water 

temperatures, 

flows, and 

reservoir levels to 

assist DWR with 

flow management 

decisions 

6. Maintain water levels in 

Little Grass Valley and Sly 

Creek reservoirs as high as 

possible to protect beneficial 

uses of the reservoirs, while 

recognizing the need for 

protection of ecological 

resources, power production, 

and consumptive water 

supply 

Cal Fish 

& Game 

No, not a 

specific 

fish and 

wildlife 

measure; 

measure 

is 

intended 

to 

provide 

boating 

access 

$0 Yes, the minimum 

flow regime 

adopted by staff 

maintains Little 

Grass Valley 

reservoir at levels 

equal to or higher 

than Cal Fish & 

Game’s proposed 

flow regime 

7. Develop and implement 

an aquatic biological 

monitoring plan 

Cal Fish 

& Game 

Yes $30,000 Yes 

8. Monitor fish populations 

in 2 successive years every 5 

years in all affected bypassed 

reaches 

Cal Fish 

& Game 

Yes $48,500 No, we adopt the 

monitoring plan 

specified by the 

Forest Service 

instead 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-39 

Recommendation Agency 

Within 

Scope of 

10(j)? Annual Cost 

Staff 

Recommending? 

9. Develop and implement a 

FYLF monitoring plan 

Cal Fish 

& Game 

Yes $66,900 Yes 

10. Monitor benthic 

macroinvertebrates in 

affected bypassed reaches in 

years 1 through 4 and every 4 

years thereafter 

Cal Fish 

& Game 

Yes $44,700 No, we adopt the 

monitoring plan 

specified by the 

Forest Service 

instead 

11. Monitor water 

temperatures at seven 

locations and provide 

monitoring results in a 

technical report within 6 

months following each 

monitoring season 

Cal Fish 

& Game 

Yes $8,700 Yes, but we 

recommend that 

the specific sites 

to be monitored 

by selected in 

consultation with 

DWR, NMFS, and 

Cal Fish & Game 

12. Riparian vegetation 

monitoring and treatment 

Cal Fish 

& Game 

Yes $2,400 Yes, but treatment 

would be 

implemented only 

if warranted based 

on the results of 

FYLF monitoring 

13. Develop and implement 

a bat management plan 

Cal Fish 

& Game 

Yes $1,000 Yes 

14. Monitor and maintain in 

functioning condition 

bridges, culverts, and exit 

ramps designed to provide 

wildlife crossing points or 

escape from the aboveground portion of the Miners 

Ranch conduit twice annually 

prior to the spring and fall 

migration season for local 

deer populations 

Cal Fish 

& Game 

Yes $10,500 Yes 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-40 

Recommendation Agency 

Within 

Scope of 

10(j)? Annual Cost 

Staff 

Recommending? 

15. Implement ramping rate 

of 0.5 foot/hour 

Cal Fish 

& Game 

Yes $0 Yes 

16. Monitor water 

temperatures at the Kelly 

Ridge Power Plant intake and 

cease operation when 

temperatures exceed 

specified targets 

NMFS Yes $1,002,000 No, recommend 

developing a plan 

in consultation 

with DWR, 

NMFS, and Cal 

Fish & Game to 

monitor and 

provide 

information on 

water 

temperatures, 

flows and 

reservoir levels to 

assist DWR with 

flow management 

decisions 

The Commission staff makes a preliminary determination that six of the 

recommendations by Cal Fish & Game and one recommendation by NMFS may be 

inconsistent with the purpose and requirements of the FPA or other applicable law. We 

also consider one of Cal Fish & Game’s recommendations to be outside of the scope of 

section 10(j) of the FPA. 

We do not recommend adopting Cal Fish & Game’s recommended minimum flow 

regimes for the Little Grass Valley dam, South Fork diversion dam, Slate Creek diversion 

dam, Lost Creek dam, and Forbestown diversion dam reaches. Cal Fish & Game did not 

provide any information on how it developed its recommended flow regime, and our 

analysis in sections 3.3.2.2 and 5.2 indicate that South Feather’s alternative 4(e) flows, 

which we adopt in the staff alternative, would provide a similar level of increase in trout 

habitat at a substantially lower cost. We also identified several potential adverse effects 

associated with the higher minimum flows recommended by Cal Fish & Game, including 

increased drawdown of Little Grass Valley reservoir, reduced physical habitat for 

rainbow trout spawning in Lost Creek, and reduced suitability of water temperatures for 

FYLF in the South Fork diversion dam and Lost Creek dam reaches and for hardhead in 

the Forbestown diversion dam reach. Lastly, we estimate that implementing the 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-41 

minimum flows recommended by Cal Fish & Game would cost approximately 

$2,432,300 per year, $873,600 more than the flows that we adopt in the staff alternative. 

Based on this information, we find that Cal Fish & Game’s recommended minimum 

flows may be inconsistent with the comprehensive planning standard of section 10(a) and 

the equal consideration provision of section 4(e) of the FPA. 

We do not recommend adopting NMFS’s recommendation to cease power 

generation at Kelly Ridge powerhouse when the temperature at Kelly Ridge powerhouse 

exceeds 56°F from October 1 to May 15, 63°F from May 16 to August 31 or 58°F from 

September 1 to September 30, or Cal Fish & Game’s recommendation that South Feather 

take all reasonable actions (including curtailing releases from the Kelly Ridge 

powerhouse) to assure conformance with water temperatures specified in the Oroville 

Settlement Agreement. Our analysis in section 3.3.2 suggests that, under some 

circumstances, these measures could help DWR comply with downstream temperature 

objectives established in the settlement agreement to protect anadromous fish. Under 

other circumstances these measures may be unnecessary or would not by themselves 

necessarily achieve the desired outcome. It is clear that DWR has several options for 

meeting its obligations under the settlement agreement through changes in Oroville 

Project operations including releasing more cold water from Lake Oroville or limiting 

pumpback operations. However, knowing the temperature and quantity of water passing 

through Kelly Ridge powerhouse could help DWR to determine the most efficient means 

to meet its temperature objectives. Accordingly, we adopt a recommendation that South 

Feather consult with NMFS, DWR, and Cal Fish & Game to develop a temperature 

monitoring plan. We do not consider it to be reasonable to require South Feather to 

curtail its operations when there is no guarantee that such a curtailment would result in 

attainment of downstream water temperature targets, since that is dependent on Oroville 

Project operation. Therefore, we have determined that NMFS and Cal Fish & Game’s 

recommendations, which we estimate would have an annualized cost of $1,002,000, and 

$606,400, respectively, may be inconsistent with the comprehensive planning standard of 

section 10(a) and the equal consideration provision of section 4(e) of the FPA. 

We do not recommend adopting Cal Fish & Game’s recommendation to 

implement selective withdrawal to control the temperature of water that is released from 

Little Grass Valley reservoir to more closely match the optimum temperatures for trout. 

Although our analysis in section 3.3.2 suggests that water temperatures below Little 

Grass Valley reservoir are below the optimum range identified in the literature for growth 

of rainbow trout, we noted that rainbow trout populations prosper in habitats with a very 

wide range of temperature regimes, and that fish population sampling conducted by 

South Feather indicates that trout populations downstream from Little Grass Valley 

reservoir are in very good condition. Releasing warmer water from Little Grass Valley 

reservoir also would contribute to high water temperatures further downstream in the 

Forbestown diversion dam reach, which could adversely affect trout populations in that 

reach. Lastly, we estimate that implementing selective withdrawal at Little Grass Valley 

reservoir would cost approximately $73,800 per year. Based on this information, we find 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-42 

that Cal Fish & Game’s recommendation to implement selective withdrawal may be 

inconsistent with the comprehensive planning standard of section 10(a) and the equal 

consideration provision of section 4(e) of the FPA. 

We do not recommend adopting Cal Fish & Game’s recommendation to install 

fish screens at the intakes at the South Fork diversion dam, Slate Creek diversion dam, 

and the Woodleaf powerhouse intake in Lost Creek reservoir. Our analysis in section 

3.3.2 suggests that the number of fish entrained at the Sly Creek reservoir power tunnel 

intake is probably low due to the depth of the intake, and that the potential for 

entrainment into the intake to the Woodleaf power tunnel in Lost Creek reservoir is 

limited by the relatively low water velocity at the trashrack. Although the Forbestown 

power tunnel intake may have a greater potential to entrain fish than the intakes in Sly 

Creek and Lost Creek reservoirs, we concluded that the relatively high average biomass 

of trout in the SFFR/Lost Creek reach upstream of the Forbestown diversion indicates 

that entrainment is not having a substantial adverse effect on the trout population 

upstream of the diversion. We also conclude that construction of an effective screening 

facility at Slate Creek is probably not feasible given the stream’s high sediment load, 

which has filled in the diversion pool. Lastly, implementing Cal Fish & Game’s 

recommendation to screen the project intakes would cost approximately $3,041,100, 

about 200 times more than the estimated annual cost of $15,900 to implement the Forest 

Service’s revised 4(e) specification for a wild fish supplementation plan, which we 

conclude would provide a similar benefit. Based on this information, we find that Cal 

Fish & Game’s recommendation to install fish screens at project intakes may be 

inconsistent with the comprehensive planning standard of section 10(a) and the equal 

consideration provision of section 4(e) of the FPA. 

We do not recommend adopting Cal Fish & Game’s recommendation to conduct 

fish population monitoring at 11 sites in years 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, 18, 23, 24, and 29 in each 

survey reach. Based on our analysis in section 3.3.2, we adopt the monitoring plan 

specified by the Forest Service instead, which would monitor 8 sites and defer sampling 

by up to 2 years after major flood events. Deferring sampling after a flood would provide 

better data on long-term population trends by avoiding sampling when populations may 

be depressed following severe high flow events. In its reply comments, South Feather 

indicated that the smaller number of study sites specified by the Forest Service is more 

appropriate than the 11 sites recommended by Cal Fish & Game, which included two 

sites dominated by warmwater fish, which are not an agency management priority, and 

one Lost River site that has been affected by local site disturbance and excessive angling 

pressure. Lastly, implementation of Cal Fish & Game’s recommendation would cost 

approximately $48,500, or $13,200 more than the annualized cost of the monitoring plan 

specified by the Forest Service. Based on this information, we find that Cal Fish & 

Game’s recommended fish monitoring plan may be inconsistent with the comprehensive 

planning standard of section 10(a) and the equal consideration provision of section 4(e) 

of the FPA. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-43 

We do not recommend adopting Cal Fish & Game’s recommendation to conduct 

benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring, using its latest sampling protocols, at all affected 

reaches in years in years 1 through 4 and in years 8, 12, 16, and 24. Based on our 

analysis in section 3.3.2, we adopt the monitoring plan specified by the Forest Service 

instead, which would conduct monitoring in the same years and locations where fish 

population monitoring is conducted, and provide better information on the relationship 

between the abundance of benthic macroinvertebrates and the health of fish populations. 

In addition, using the same sampling protocol in all years would provide comparable data 

among years. Lastly, implementation of Cal Fish & Game’s recommendation would cost 

approximately $44,700, or $21,200 more than the annualized cost of the monitoring plan 

specified by the Forest Service. Based on this information, we find that Cal Fish & 

Game’s recommended benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring plan may be inconsistent 

with the comprehensive planning standard of section 10(a) and the equal consideration 

provision of section 4(e) of the FPA. 

5.4.2 Forest Service 4(e) Conditions 

In section 2.2.5.3, Section 4(e) Federal Land Management Conditions, we note 

that section 4(e) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. §797(e), provides that any license issued by the 

Commission for a project within a federal reservation shall be subject to and contain such 

conditions as the Secretary of the responsible federal land management agency deems 

necessary for the adequate protection and use of the reservation. Thus, any 4(e) condition 

that meets the requirements of the law may be included in a license issued by the 

Commission, regardless of whether we include the condition in our staff alternative. 

In section 2.2.5.3 we identify seven Forest Service preliminary 4(e) conditions that 

we consider to be administrative or legal in nature and not specific environmental 

measures. We therefore do not analyze these seven conditions in our EIS. Table 5-2 

summarizes our staff conclusions with respect to the 4(e) conditions that we consider to 

be environmental measures. Of the twenty 4(e) conditions that we do not consider to be 

administrative or legal in nature, we include in the staff alternative all but two of these 

conditions. Our reasons for not including measures in the staff alternative are 

summarized in table 5-2 and are discussed in more detail in section 5.2, Discussion of 

Key Issues. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-44 

Table 5-2. Forest Service preliminary 4(e) conditions for the South Feather Power 

Project. 

Condition 

Annualized 

Cost Adopted? 

1. Consult with the Forest Service on 

measures needed to ensure protection and 

utilization of the National Forest resources 

affected by the project. To include 

discussion of the status of measure 

implementation, the results of monitoring 

studies, routine and non-routine 

maintenance, foreseeable changes in 

project facilities, review of any necessary 

revisions or modification of plans included 

in the project license, and discussion of any 

measures that are needed to protect 

sensitive species or changes to existing 

management plans. [revised Condition No. 

3] 

$30,000 Yes, modified to 

require consultation 

with FWS, Cal Fish & 

Game, the Water 

Board and any other 

interested agencies 

2. Maintain minimum streamflows in 

project reaches specified in tables A-1 

through A-5 provided in the Forest Service 

filing. The minimum instantaneous 15-

minute streamflow shall be at least 80 

percent of the prescribed mean daily flow 

for those minimum streamflows less than 

or equal to 10 cfs and at least 90% of the 

prescribed mean daily flow for those 

minimum streamflows required to be 

greater than 10 cfs. Should the mean daily 

flow as measured be less than the specified 

mean daily flow but more than the 

instantaneous flow, Licensee should begin 

releasing the equivalent under-released 

volume of water within 7 days of discovery 

of the under-release. [Condition No.18, 

part 1] 

$2,031,900 No, adopt South 

Feather’s alternative 

4(e) flows instead 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-45 

Condition 

Annualized 

Cost Adopted? 

3. Determine the water year type for 

minimum flow compliance based on the 

DWR Bulletin 120 water year forecast 

except for the months of October through 

January, which should be based on the 

Department of Water Resources’ Full 

Natural Flow record for the Feather River 

at Oroville. Provide notice to the Forest 

Service, Commission, and other interested 

governmental agencies of the final water 

year type determination within 30 days of 

making the determination. 

The water year types are defined as 

follows: Wet = greater than or equal to 7.1 

MAF; Above Normal = greater than or 

equal to 4.0 MAF but less than 7.1 MAF; 

Below Normal = greater than 2.4 MAF or 

equal to but less than 4.0 MAF; and Dry = 

less than or equal to 2.4 MAF. [revised 

Condition 18, part 2] 

$5,000 Yes 

4. Develop an operating plan to manage 

drought conditions when they occur. 

[revised Condition No. 18, part 3] 

$1,600 Yes 

5. Operate, maintain, and modify (if 

necessary) gages needed to determine river 

stage and minimum streamflows. 

[Condition No. 18, part 4] 

$20,000 Yes 

6. Develop and implement ramping rates 

that meet Forest Service targets for water 

velocity and stage changes to protect FYLF 

egg masses and tadpoles. [Forest Service 

revised 4(e) No. 18, part 5] 

$10,200 Yes 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-46 

Condition 

Annualized 

Cost Adopted? 

7. Develop and implement a wild fish 

supplementation program to enhance 

fisheries in the South Fork Feather River, 

Slate Creek, and in Sly Creek and Lost 

Creek reservoirs. The basis for the amount 

of fish to be planted would be determined 

by reviewing age class distributions of 

rainbow trout in the Little Grass Valley 

dam and upper Slate Creek diversion dam 

reaches, estimating the numbers of fry 

needed to enhance rainbow trout 

production towards the density and 

biomass levels observed in streams 

surrounding the project area. [revised 

Condition No. 18, part 6] 

$15,900 Yes 

8. Develop and implement a fish 

population monitoring plan in affected 

project reaches to monitor fish species 

composition and relative abundance, 

including data on species size/age 

distributions and condition factors at eight 

of the locations previously established 

during the relicensing. Surveys would be 

conducted in two successive years and 

begin in the fifth full year after 

implementation of new license streamflows 

or at a frequency jointly agreed to by the 

agencies. [revised Condition No. 19, part 

1] 

$35,300 Yes 

9. Develop a FYLF monitoring plan 

including annual monitoring of FYLF 

adult, tadpole, and egg mass numbers for 

the first 10 years after relicensing, followed 

with similar surveys every 5 years for the 

remainder of the license. [Forest Service 

Condition No. 19, part 2.1] 

$66,900 Yes 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-47 

Condition 

Annualized 

Cost Adopted? 

10. Develop a FYLF population model, a 

population viability model, a 2-D habitat 

model, a temperature monitoring protocol, 

and a geomorphology and riparian 

encroachment monitoring protocol. [Forest 

Service Condition No. 19, part 2.2 through 

2.4] 

$157,900 No 

11. Treat and monitor selected areas 

between the South Fork diversion dam and 

Ponderosa reservoir to reduce riparian 

encroachment. [Condition No. 19, part 3] 

$2,400 Yes, but treatment 

would be implemented 

only if warranted 

based on the results of 

FYLF monitoring 

12. Develop and implement a benthic 

macroinvertebrate monitoring plan for 

affected bypassed reaches to be conducted 

in the same years as fish population 

monitoring, unless an alternative 

monitoring schedule is agreed upon with 

the agencies. [revised Condition No. 19, 

part 4] 

$23,500 Yes 

13. Prepare a recreation facility master 

plan and site plans to include provisions to 

hold annual coordination meetings, to 

ensure consistency with other management 

plans, for re-vegetation measures for 

disturbed vegetation, for improving 

interpretive signs & kiosks, and to explore 

opportunities to extend paved or native 

trails to increase pedestrian connectivity. 

[Condition No. 20, part 1 and 2] 

$78,000 Yes, except for OHV 

parking and offloading ramps at Sly 

Creek campground 

14. Prepare, file and implement a fire 

prevention, response and investigation 

plan, including fuels treatment/vegetation 

management, prevention, emergency 

response preparedness, reporting, fire 

control/extinguishing. [Condition No. 21] 

$1,100 Yes 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-48 

Condition 

Annualized 

Cost Adopted? 

15. Develop and implement a fuel 

treatment/vegetation management plan. 

[Condition No. 22] 

$2,100 Yes 

16. Develop and implement a Heritage 

Properties Management Plan, approved by 

the Forest Service, for the purpose of 

protecting and interpreting heritage 

resources. [Condition No. 23] 

$79,400 Yes 

17. Annually review the current list of 

special status plant and wildlife species and 

implement a study on effects of the project 

on any newly added species if suitable 

habitat for the species is likely to occur on 

National Forest System lands and identify 

and implement resource measures where 

appropriate. [Condition No. 24] 

$21,600 Yes 

18. Prepare a Biological Evaluation before 

taking actions that may affect Forest 

Service special status species on National 

Forest System lands, update and implement 

the Bald Eagle Management Plan, and 

develop and implement a bat management 

plan. [Condition No. 25] 

$1,500 Yes 

19. Prepare and implement an invasive 

weed management plan to address both 

aquatic and terrestrial invasive weeds 

within the project boundary and adjacent to 

project features directly affecting National 

Forest System lands including, roads, and 

distribution and transmission lines. 

[Condition No. 26] 

$9,800 Yes 

20. Develop and implement a visual 

management plan within 60 days prior to 

any ground-disturbing activity on National 

Forest System lands. [Condition No. 27] 

$2,200 Yes 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-49 

Condition 

Annualized 

Cost Adopted? 

21. Develop and implement a road 

management plan. File with the 

Commission within 1 year of license 

issuance a road management plan after 

Forest Service approval of the plan. 

[Condition No. 28] 

$3,500 Yes 

5.5 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS 

Section 10(a)(2) of the FPA requires the Commission to consider the extent to 

which a project is consistent with federal and state comprehensive plans for improving, 

developing, and conserving waterways affected by a project. Under this section, federal 

and state agencies filed numerous qualifying comprehensive plans, of which we 

identified 11 California and 6 federal that are applicable to the project. The continued 

operation of the South Feather Power Project as recommended in this EIS is consistent 

with the 17 state and federal plans listed below that are applicable to the project. 

California Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout. 1988. Restoring the 

balance: 1988 annual report. Sausalito, CA. 

California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, and Bureau of Reclamation. 1988. Cooperative 

agreement to implement actions to benefit winter-run Chinook salmon in the 

Sacramento River basin. Sacramento, CA. May 20. 10 pp. and exhibit. 

California Department of Fish and Game. Fish and steelhead restoration and 

enhancement plan. Sacramento, CA. May 20. 10 pp. 

California Department of Fish and Game. 1990. Central Valley streams: a plan. 

Sacramento, CA. April. 115 pp. 

California Department of Fish and Game. 1996. Steelhead restoration and management 

plan for California. February. 234 pp. 

California – The Resources Agency. 1989. Upper Sacramento Fisheries and Riparian 

Habitat Management Plan. Sacramento, CA. January 1989. 

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1998. Public opinions and attitudes on 

outdoor recreation in California. Sacramento, CA. March. 

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1994. California outdoor recreation 

plan-1993. Sacramento, CA. March. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
5-50 

California Department of Water Resources. 1983. The California water plan- 1993. 

Sacramento, CA. April. 154 pp. and appendices. 

California Department of Water Resources. 1994. California water plan update. Bulletin 

160-83. Sacramento, CA. December. 268 pp. and attachments. 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region. 2007. The 

Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin. Fourth Edition with 

Revised Amendments, October 2007. 

Forest Service. 1988. Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 

Department of Agriculture, Quincy, CA. August 26. 342 pp. and appendices. 

Forest Service. 1988. Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 

Department of Agriculture, Quincy, CA. Appendices and maps. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Lassen National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan, including Record of Decision. Department of Agriculture, 

Susanville, CA. Appendices and maps. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service. 1986. North American 

waterfowl management plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, Portland, OR. 

February. 102 pp. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Undated. Fisheries U.S.A.: the recreational fisheries policy of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC. 11 pp. 

National Park Service. 1982. The nationwide rivers inventory. U.S. Department of the 

Interior. Washington, DC. January. 432 pp. 

Plumas County. 1997. Plumas County General Plan. 2nd Edition, as amended. Plumas 

County Planning Department. Quincy, CA. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
FERC/EIS-0225D 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 6 – Literature Cited

South Feather Power Project 

FERC Project No. 2088-068, California 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street N.E. 

Washington, DC 20426 

Office of

Energy

Projects

November 2008

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
6-1 

6.0 LITERATURE CITED 

American Whitewater. 2008. Safety Code of American Whitewater; International 

Scale of River Difficulty, revised 2005; accessed on June 6, 2008 at 

http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Wiki/do-op/id/safety:start#vi. 

Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. American Fisheries 

Society Monograph No. 6. Bethesda, MD. 275 pp. 

Bjornn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. 

In: Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and 

Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Spec. Pub. 19:83-138. 

Bradford, M.J., G.C. Taylor, J.A. Allan, and P.S. Higgins. 1995. An Experimental 

Study of the Stranding of Juvenile Coho Salmon and Rainbow Trout during 

Rapid Flow Decreases under Winter Conditions. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management. American Fisheries Society, 15: 473-479. 

CVRWQCB (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board). 1998. Central 

Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board basin plan. Fourth Edition. 

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, CA. 

Chandler, H.P. 1952. Natural Upstream Barriers for Anadromous Fish on the South 

Fork, Feather River, Butte County. Rancho Cordova, CA: California 

Department of Fish and Game, Pat O'Brien stream files for Butte County. 

Cook, T.C., G.E. Hecker, H.B. Faulkner, and W. Jansen. 1997. Development of a more 

fish-tolerant turbine runner advanced hydropower turbine project. Prepared for 

U.S. Department of Energy, DOE Idaho Operations Office, and Hydropower 

Research Foundation, Inc. DOE/ID-10571. ARL Report No. 13-97/M63F. 

Duellman W.E. and L. Trueb. 1986. Biology of Amphibians. The Johns Hopkins 

University Press, Baltimore, MD. 

DWR. 2005. Application of State of California, the Resources Agency, Department of 

Water Resources for the Oroville Facilities, FERC Project No. 2100: Volumes I 

and II: Application and Technical Exhibits. California Department of Water 

Resources, Sacramento, CA. January. 

FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 2007. Final environmental impact 

statement for the Oroville Facilities, California, FERC No. 2100. Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. November. 

Franke, G.F., D.R. Webb, R.K. Fisher, D. Mathur, P.N. Hopping, P.A. March, M.R. 

Headrick, I.T. Laczo, Y.Ventikos and F. Sotiropoulos. 1997. Development of 

environmentally advanced hydro turbine design concepts. Prepared for the U. S. 

Department of Energy, DOE Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, ID. 456 pp. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
6-2 

Gerstung, E.R. 1973. Fish population and yield estimates from California trout 

streams. CalNeva Wildlife: 9-19. 

Hunter, M.A. 1992. Hydropower flow fluctuations and salmonids: A review of the 

biological effects, mechanical causes, and options for mitigation. Technical 

Report No 119. State of Washington Department of Fisheries. 

Huntington, C.W. 2004. Klamath River flows within the JC Boyle Bypass and below 

the JC Boyle Powerhouse. Technical Memorandum to Larry Dunsmoor, Aquatic 

Biologist, Klamath Tribes. April 15, 2004. 

Jennings, M.R. 1988. Natural history and decline of ranids in California. Pages 61-72 

in H.F. De Lisle, P.R. Brown, B. Kaufman, and B.M. McGurty (eds.). 

Proceedings of the conference on California herpetology. Southwestern 

Herptologists Society. 

Kupferberg, S.J. 1996. Hydrologic and geomorphic factors affecting conservation of a 

river-breeding frog (Rana boylii). Ecological Applications 6(4): 1332-1344. 

Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press, 

Berkeley, California. Revised Edition. 502 pp. 

NERC (North American Electric Reliability Council). 2007. North American 

Reliability Corporation. 2007 Long-term Reliability Assessment, 2007-2016. 

Princeton, NJ. October. 

Nussbaum, R.A., Brodie, E.D. Jr., and R.M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and Reptiles of 

the Pacific Northwest. Univ. Press of Idaho. 332 pp. 

Sommer, T., D. McEwen, and R. Brown. 1983. Factors affecting Chinook salmon 

spawning in the Lower Feather River. In Contributions to the Biology of Central 

Valley Salmonids. Fish Bulletin 179, pp. 71-176. R.L. Brown, editor. 

South Feather (South Feather Water and Power Agency). 2008a. South Feather 

submittal of alternative conditions for certain preliminary Section 4(e) conditions 

submitted by the United States Forest Service to FERC on April 14, 2008 for the 

South Feather Power Project, FERC Project No. 2008. May 14, 2008. 

South Feather. 2008b. South Feather Reply Comments on Comments, 

Recommendations, Terms, and Conditions. May 29, 2008. 

South Feather. 2007. South Feather Power Project, application for a new license. 

FERC Project No. 2088. South Feather Water and Power Agency, Oroville, CA. 

March 26. 

Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Second edition, 

revised. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. 336 pp. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
6-3 

Winchell, F.C., S. Amaral, and D. Dixon. 2000. Hydroelectric turbine entrainment and 

survival database: an alternative to field studies. Presented at Hydrovision 2000, 

August 8–11, 2000. Charlotte, NC. 

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 drainage of 

California. In Contributions to the Biology of Central Valley Salmonids. Fish 

Bulletin 179, pp. 71-176. R.L. Brown, editor. 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
6-4 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
FERC/EIS-0225D 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 7 – List of Preparers

South Feather Power Project 

FERC Project No. 2088-068, California 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street N.E. 

Washington, DC 20426 

Office of

Energy

Projects

November 2008

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
7-1 

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 

John Mudre—FERC Project Coordinator, Fisheries and Water Resources (Ecologist; 

Ph.D., Fisheries Science) 

Matt Buhyoff—Fisheries, including Threatened and Endangered Species (Ecologist; 

M.S. Fisheries Science) 

Lesley Kordella—Terrestrial Resources, Wildlife, Threatened and Endangered Species, 

and Land Use and Aesthetics (Wildlife Biologist, Master of Natural Resources) 

Shana Murray—Recreation (Outdoor Recreation Planner; M.S. Recreation, Park, and 

Tourism Management) 

Timothy Looney—Need for Power, Developmental Analysis (Civil Engineer; B.S. 

Engineering) 

Frank Winchell—Cultural Resources (Archeologist; B.A., M.A., Ph.D., Anthropology) 

Fred Winchell—Task Manager, Aquatic Resources (Fisheries Biologist; M.S., Fisheries 

Biology) 

Sue Davis—Terrestrial Resources and Threatened and Endangered Species (Terrestrial 

Biologist; B.S. Wildlife Management) 

Kenneth Hodge—Developmental Analysis (Senior Engineer; B.S., Civil Engineering) 

Mark Killgore—Developmental Analysis (Senior Hydrologist; M.S., Civil Engineering) 

Karen Klosowski—Recreation (Senior Recreation and Land Use Specialist; M.L.A., 

Landscape Architecture; M.U.R.P., Regional Planning; B.S., Parks and 

Recreation) 

Lucy Littlejohn—Fisheries (Senior Fisheries Biologist; M.S., Marine Science, 

Department of Ichthyology; B.S., Natural Science) 

Alison Macdougall—Cultural Resources (Senior Environmental Manager; B.A., 

Anthropology) 

Deborah Mandell—Editorial Review (Technical Editor; M.B.A., Finance and 

Marketing; B.A., Government) 

Tom Mapletoft—Need for Power, Geology and Soils, Water Resources, and Project 

Economics (Water Resources Engineer; M.B.A; B.S., Civil Engineering) 

Leslie Pomaville— Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics (Scientist; B.S., 

Environmental and Natural Resources) 

Tyler Rychener— Terrestrial Resources and Threatened and Endangered Species 

(Environmental Scientist; M.S., Plant Biology; B.S., Biology) 

Denise Short—Editorial Review (Technical Editor; M.S., Agriculture, Food, and the 

Environment; B.A., English) 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
7-2 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
FERC/EIS-0225D 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 8 – List of Recipients

South Feather Power Project 

FERC Project No. 2088-068, California 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street N.E. 

Washington, DC 20426 

Office of

Energy

Projects

November 2008

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
8-1 

8.0 LIST OF RECIPIENTS 

Board of Supervisors 

Butte County 

25 County Center Drive 

Oroville, California 95965-3316 

R.H. Connett 

California Office of Attorney General 

P.O. Box 944255 

Sacramento, California 94244-2550 

Secretary 

California Public Utilities Commission 

505 Van Ness Avenue 

San Francisco, California 94102-3214 

Calif. Sportfishing Protection Alliance 

Director 

P.O. Box 1790 

Graeagle, California 96103-1790 

James Lynch 

Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc. 

2720 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 300 

Sacramento, CA 95833 

Frederick P Kurth 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

P.O. Box 7442 

San Francisco, California 94120-7442 

Larry Weitzel 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

California State Office 

2800 Cottage Way Ste W1834 

Sacramento, California 95825-1886 

Jeffrey Albert Meith, Esq. 

Minasian, Minasian, Minasian, et al. 

1681 Bird Street 

Oroville, California 95965 

Robert Baiocchi 

Anglers Committee 

P.O. Box 1790 

Graeagle, California 96103 

Michael Glaze 

General Manager 

South Feather Water and Power Agency 

P.O. Box 581 

Oroville, California 95965-0581 

CA Department of Water Resources 

P.O. Box 942836 

Sacramento, California 94236-0001 

Kelly Catlett 

Friends of the River 

915 20th Street 

Sacramento, California 95814-3115 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Regional Engineer 

Portland Regional Office 

101 SW Main Street, Suite 905 

Portland, Oregon 97204-3217 

City of Oroville 

1735 Montgomery Street 

Oroville, California 95965-4820 

Dale Marsh 

Anglers Committee 

130 Valley View Drive 

Oroville, California 95966-3726 

Eric Theiss 

Hydro Coordinator 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

650 Capitol Mall, Suite 8-300 

Sacramento, California 95814 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
8-2 

Dan Hytrek 

NOAA, General Counsel Southwest 

501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4470 

Long Beach, California 90802 

Elizabeth Lawson 

State Water Resources Control Board 

P.O. Box 2000 

Sacramento, CA 95812-2000 

Erin Mahaney 

Senior Staff Counsel 

Office of Chief Counsel 

State Water Resources Control Board 

P.O. Box 100 

1001 I Street, 22nd Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Matthew Bullock 

California State Water Resources 

Control Board 

1001 I St, 22nd floor 

Sacramento, CA 95812 

Ann Malcolm 

Acting General Counsel 

California Department of Fish and 

Game 

1416 Ninth St., 12th Floor 

Sacramento. CA 95814 

Brian Morris, General Manager 

Plumas Co. Flood Control & Water 

520 Main Street, Room 413 

Quincy, CA 95971 

Cherilyn E Widell, Director 

California Office Of Historic Preserv. 

1416 9th St 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Joshua Rider 

United States Department of Agriculture 

33 New Montgomery, 17th Flr 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Michael Swiger 

Van Ness Feldman P.C. 

1050 Thomas Jefferson St., NW 

Washington, DC 20007 

California Department of Fish and 

Game 

1701 Nimbus Road, Suite A 

Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-4599 

Dave Steindorf 

California Stewardship Director 

American Whitewater 

4 Beroni Drive 

Chico, CA 95928 

Richard O’Rourke 

O’Rourke’s Outdoor Adventures 

P.O. Box 86 

LaPorte, CA 95981 

California Air Resources Board 

P.O. Box 2815 

Sacramento, CA 95812-2815 

Coordinator 

CA Dept. of Fish and Game 

1416 9th St 

Sacramento, CA 94244 

Chief 

California Dept. of Parks and Recreation 

P.O. Box 942896 

Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
8-3 

California Fish & Game Commission 

Attn: Environmental Services Division 

1416 9th St 

Sacramento, CA 95814-5511 

California State Lands Commission 

Suite 100-South 

100 Howe Ave 

Sacramento, CA 95825-8202 

General Manager 

Imperial Irrigation District 

PO Box 937 

Imperial, CA 92251-0937 

Daniel Adamson 

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 

1919 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 

200 

Washington, DC 20006 

John Schlotterbeck 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern 

California 

PO Box 54153 

Los Angeles, CA 90054-0153 

Resources Agency Of California 

1416 9th St, ROOM 1311 

Sacramento, CA 95814-5511 

Tom Berliner 

Duane Morris LLP 

One Market Plaza, Spear Tower, Suite 

2000 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Terry Erlewine 

State Water Contractors 

1121 L. Street, Suite 1050 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Field Supervisor 

USFWS 

2800 Cottage Way, ROOM W-2605 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

Commander 

USACE San Francisco District Office 

1455 Market St, #1760 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs 

2800 Cottage Way 

Sacramento, CA 95825-1846 

Larry Weitzel 

US Bureau of Land Management 

2800 Cottage Way Ste W1834 

Sacramento, CA 95825-1886 

District Chief, USGS 

Placer Hall 

6000 J St. 

Sacramento, CA 95819 

Alice Carlton 

Forest Supervisor 

Plumas National Forest 

PO Box 11500 

Quincy CA 95971 

Cheryl Mulder 

Hydropower License Coordinator 

Plumas National Forest 

PO Box 11500 

Quincy CA 95971 

(5 copies) 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
8-4 

Dennis Smith 

USDA Forest Service 

Pacific Southwest Region 

Regional Hydropower Assistance Team 

Fish Biologist 

650 Capitol Mall, Suite 8-200 

Sacramento, CA 95814-4706 

Amy Lind, Ph.D. 

Wildlife Biologist/Herpetologist 

USDA Forest Service - Sierra Nevada 

Research Center 

1731 Research Park Drive 

Davis, CA 95618 

Joshua S. Rider 

The Office of the General Counsel, 

Pacific Region 

33 New Montgomery St. 17th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Robert H. Deibel 

National Instream Flow Coordinator & 

Hydropower Program Manager 

U.S. Forest Service 

2150 Centre Ave, Bldg A, Suite 368 

Ft, Collins, CO 80526 

Dennis D. Diver 

1638 Huntoon Street, Suite A 

Oroville, CA 95965-5788 

Hank Bailey 

201 Fire Camp Road 

Oroville, CA 95966-7603 

Wally Herger, Honorable 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20510 

John T. Doolittle 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20510 

Barbara Boxer, Honorable 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dianne Feinstein, Honorable 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
FERC/EIS-0225D 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix A

South Feather Power Project 

FERC Project No. 2088-068, California 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street N.E. 

Washington, DC 20426 

Office of

Energy

Projects

November 2008

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
APPENDIX A—SOUTH FEATHER POWER PROJECT MITIGATION AND 

MONITORING SUMMARY 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
A-1 

 Mitigation 

Implementation 

Duration 

Monitoring 

Duration Mitigat

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing 

One-time or 

Ongoing Implement

General – Potential effect of project operation and maintenance on sensitive resources 

Measure 33 - Conduct annual employee awareness training 

Ongoing: Annual employee awareness training to familiarize staff with special-status, aquatic, wildlife, and plant species, including noxious weeds/nonnative invasive plants, as well as sensitive locations including PACs, potential erosion areas, and cultural sites to allow avoidance/ minimization of impacts

 South Feath

General – Potential impacts on special-status species 

Measure 35 - Annually review with the Forest Service the list of species within the project area that are formally proposed for listing or are 

Ongoing: Annually review list of species and prepare a study plan to reasonably assess the effects of the project on the species, recommend reasonable resource management measures, 

Ongoing: Annually consult with Forest Service regarding planned operation and maintenance projects on Forest Service lands and Forest Service 

South Feath
A-2 

 Mitigation 

Implementation 

Duration 

Monitoring 

Duration Mitigat

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing 

One-time or 

Ongoing Implement

listed under federal or state endangered species acts or are Forest Service Sensitive, Watch List, or Management Indicator Species 

and provide an implementation schedule, where appropriate, if an added species has the potential to be adversely affected by the project 

activities that might affect the project. 

General – Potential projectrelated impacts on Forest Service lands 

Forest Service revised Condition No. 3 - Consultation with the Forest Service to determine measures needed to ensure protection of Forest Service lands affected by the project. This measure is modified to require that the meeting date be approved 

Ongoing: Annually; the date of the consultation meeting would be mutually agreed to by the South Feather and the Forest Service but in general would be held 60 days prior to the beginning of the recreation season 

Ongoing: Meeting would include review of all monitoring activities associated with all measures implemented on and off of National Forest System lands 

South Feath
A-3 

 Mitigation 

Implementation 

Duration 

Monitoring 

Duration Mitigat

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing 

One-time or 

Ongoing Implement

by FWS, Cal Fish & Game, the Water Board, and any other interested agencies.

General – Altered seasonal geohydrography 

Forest Service revised Condition No.18, part 2 - Determine water year type annually and apply to appropriate minimum flow release schedule and other measures that are dependent on water year type 

Ongoing: Annual determination of water year type and application of appropriate minimum flow release schedule 

 South Feath

Geo/Soils – Blockage of downstream transport of large woody debris 

Measure 56 - Return large wood to stream below Little Grass Valley and Lost Creek 

Ongoing: Return large wood to stream annually by allowing it to pass over the spillways 

 South Feath
A-4 

 Mitigation 

Implementation 

Duration 

Monitoring 

Duration Mitigat

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing 

One-time or 

Ongoing Implement

dams 

Geo/Soils – Reduced flows downstream of project (diversions) 

Measure 57 - Provide supplemental streamflows in Lost Creek for geomorphic purposes. 

Ongoing: Where facility modifications are needed to release the specified flows, complete such modifications as soon as reasonably practicable, but within 3 years. In the interim, make a good faith effort to release specified flows within the capabilities of the existing facilities. 

 South Feath

Geo/Soils – Obstruction of downstream sediment transport by project dam 

Measure 58 - Continue Slate Creek sediment pass-through program. 

One-time: File report, including recommendations, with Commission within 2 years of license issuance. Ongoing: Continue to 

 South Feath
A-5 

 Mitigation 

Implementation 

Duration 

Monitoring 

Duration Mitigat

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing 

One-time or 

Ongoing Implement

implement the approved program through term of license 

Water – Potential effect of diversions on downstream water temperatures in Slate Creek 

Measure 37 - Install and maintain a gaging station, monitor water temperature and cease diversions at Slate Creek diversion dam when mean daily water temperature reaches 20oC to protect downstream cold freshwater habitat. 

One-time: Installation gaging station. Ongoing: Cease diversions when mean daily water temperature reaches 20oC 

Ongoing: Maintain gaging station and monitor water temperature daily 

South Feath

Water – Potential effects of hazardous materials spills 

Measure 38 - Develop and implement a Hazardous 

One-time: Develop and file Hazardous Materials Management Plan 

 South Feath
A-6 

 Mitigation 

Implementation 

Duration 

Monitoring 

Duration Mitigat

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing 

One-time or 

Ongoing Implement

on project lands and waters 

Materials Management Plan 

Ongoing: Implement the approved plan through term of license

Aquatic – Potential effects of modified operations during drought conditions 

Forest Service revised 4(e) No. 18, part 3 - Notify the Forest Service and other interested governmental agencies of South Feather’s drought concerns; consult with agencies to develop operational plans to manage drought conditions. 

Ongoing: Notification by March 15 of the second or subsequent dry water year; by May 1 of these same years, South Feather would consult with the agencies to discuss operational plans to manage the drought conditions. If unanimous agreement is not reached, South Feather would submit the revised proposed plan that incorporates as many agency issues as possible to FERC, as well as both assenting and dissenting 

 South Feath
A-7 

 Mitigation 

Implementation 

Duration 

Monitoring 

Duration Mitigat

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing 

One-time or 

Ongoing Implement

comments, should they exist, request expedited approval, and implement the proposed plan until directed otherwise by FERC 

Aquatic – Potential project O&M-related impacts on FYLF 

Measure 40 – Avoidance of high flow releases from project dams associated with sediment passthrough, valve exercises, or supplemental flow releases for channel maintenance or recreational purposes during critical periods for FYLF (except for the Little Grass 

Ongoing: Roughly April 15 - October 31, annually 

One-time: Install, in consultation with the Forest Service and state agencies, continuous water temperature monitors near the Woodleaf and Forbestown powerhouses to record from May 1 through September 15 annually to ensure that recreation flow releases occurs before water temperatures are suitable for FYLF 

South Feath
A-8 

 Mitigation 

Implementation 

Duration 

Monitoring 

Duration Mitigat

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing 

One-time or 

Ongoing Implement

Valley dam reach) breeding 

Aquatic – Potential impacts on (wild) fisheries 

Forest Service revised 4(e) No. 18, part 6 - Develop and implement a wild fish supplementation program for project-affected fisheries in the South Fork Feather River, Slate Creek, and in Sly Creek and Lost Creek reservoirs 

One-time: Develop and file a wild fish supplementation program Ongoing: Implement program through term of license unless fish exclusion devices are required by the Commission, at which point, the plan would be null and void 

 South Feath

Aquatic – Potential impact on fish populations in project bypassed reaches 

Forest Service revised 4(e) No. 19, part 1 – Develop and implement a fish population 

One-time: Develop and file a fish population monitoring plan Ongoing: Implement plan through term of 

Ongoing: Surveys would be conducted at 8 locations previously established during the relicensing in 2 

South Feath
A-9 

 Mitigation 

Implementation 

Duration 

Monitoring 

Duration Mitigat

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing 

One-time or 

Ongoing Implement

monitoring plan approved by the Forest Service 

license successive years and 

begin in the fifth full year after implementation of new license streamflows. Fish surveys would be conducted in years 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, 18, 23, 24, and 29 after MIFs are implemented in each survey reach or at a frequency jointly agreed to by the agencies. If sampling is scheduled in years with high peak flows, it may be postponed 2 years to avoid potential confounding effect of high peak flows on fish 
A-10 

 Mitigation 

Implementation 

Duration 

Monitoring 

Duration Mitigat

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing 

One-time or 

Ongoing Implement

recruitment and populations 

Aquatic - Potential impact on macroinvertebrate populations in project bypassed reaches 

Forest Service revised 4(e) No. 19, part 3) – Develop and implement a benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring plan 

One-time: Develop and file a benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring planOngoing: Implement plan through term of license 

Ongoing: Surveys would be conducted in the same years as fish population monitoring, unless an alternative monitoring schedule is agreed upon with the agencies 

South Feath

Terrestrial – Potential project O&M-related impacts on bats 

Measure 42 - Retain a qualified bat exclusion contractor when replacing or retrofitting any bat exclusion devices 

Ongoing: Maintain all bat exclusion devices in proper functioning condition and implement through term of license 

 South Feath

Terrestrial - Potential project impacts on 

Forest Service revised 4(e) No. 18, part 5 - Map 

One-time: Map FYLF habitat and develop stage-discharge curves 

South Feath
A-11 

 Mitigation 

Implementation 

Duration 

Monitoring 

Duration Mitigat

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing 

One-time or 

Ongoing Implement

FYLF FYLF habitat, 

develop stagedischarge curves, and develop ramping rates for each reach 

for each reach and develop ramping rates for each reach that would meet specified stage and velocity requirements Ongoing: Implement through term of license 

Recreation – Potential increases in project-related recreation use 

Measure 45 (as modified October 8 and October 12, 2007) - Facility master plans schematic for the Little Grass Valley and the Sly Creek reservoir recreation areas 

One-time: Develop and file facility master plans schematic with the Commission within 1 year of license issuance for Little Grass Valley, and within 3 years of license issuance for Sly CreekOngoing: Implement plans through term of license 

 South Feath

Recreation – Measures 45 – One-time: Develop South Feath
A-12 

 Mitigation 

Implementation 

Duration 

Monitoring 

Duration Mitigat

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing 

One-time or 

Ongoing Implement

Potential impacts of recreational development on Forest Services lands 

Development of individual site development plans for each existing recreation facility on Forest Service lands within the existing project boundary 

and file site development plans for Little Grass Valley reservoir recreation area facilities within 3 years of license issuance; for Sly Creek reservoir recreation area facilities within 5 years of license issuance; and for Peninsula Tent campground within 5 years of license issuance Ongoing: Implement plans through term of license 

Recreation – Increased recreational boating and angling use at 

Measure 45 – Construction of a multi-use trail below Little Grass Valley dam 

One-time: Construct a multi-use trail within 3 years of license issuance and in consultation with the 

 South Feath
A-13 

 Mitigation 

Implementation 

Duration 

Monitoring 

Duration Mitigat

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing 

One-time or 

Ongoing Implement

the South Fork Feather River 

Forest Service 

Recreation - Potential increases in project-related recreation use 

Measure 46 (as modified October 8, 2007) - Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoir recreation area Routine Maintenance and Operating Plan 

One-time: File final Routine Maintenance and Operating Plan with the Commission within 6 months of license issuance Ongoing: Implement plan through term of license 

South Feath

Recreation - Potential changes in recreational use of project area 

Measure 47 - Conduct recreational use report at developed recreational facilities at Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoir recreation areas 

One-time: Provide a draft report to the Forest Service for 60-day review Ongoing: File the report concurrent with FERC Form 80 Recreation Report 

Ongoing: Every 6 years during the recreation season (considered to extend from May 15 through September 15 at the Little Grass Valley reservoir recreation area and from April 15, or as soon as weather permits 

South Feath
A-14 

 Mitigation 

Implementation 

Duration 

Monitoring 

Duration Mitigat

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing 

One-time or 

Ongoing Implement

thereafter, to September 15 at Sly Creek reservoir recreation area) 

Recreation – Potential changes in recreational use of project area 

Measure 48 - conduct a report on recreational user surveys at developed recreational facilities at Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoir recreation areas 

One-time: Provide a draft of the final report to the Forest Service for a 60-day review Ongoing: File the report, including evidence of consultation, with the Commission concurrent with every third filing of FERC Form 80 Recreation Report 

Ongoing: Every 18 years 

South Feath

Recreation –Potential effect of water level elevation on recreational 

Measure 49 –Water level maintenance at Little Grass Valley reservoir 

Ongoing: Maintain water level at Little Grass Valley reservoir no lower than elevation 5,023 feet msl through September 15 in all 

 South Feath
A-15 

 Mitigation 

Implementation 

Duration 

Monitoring 

Duration Mitigat

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing 

One-time or 

Ongoing Implement

access water years, except dry 

water years, to facilitate the use of Little Grass Valley boat launch facilities. In dry water years, South Feather proposes to maintain Little Grass Valley reservoir as high as possible through Labor Day weekend 

Recreation – Potential effects of reduced streamflow on recreation opportunities 

Measure 50 – Provision of supplemental streamflow in Little Grass Valley dam reach 

Ongoing: Provide supplemental streamflow in Little Grass Valley dam reach for recreational boating after September 15 each year. Where facility modifications are needed to release the specified flows, complete such modifications as soon 

 South Feath
A-16 

 Mitigation 

Implementation 

Duration 

Monitoring 

Duration Mitigat

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing 

One-time or 

Ongoing Implement

as reasonably practicable, but within 3 years. In the interim, make a good faith effort to release specified flows within the capabilities of the existing facilities 

Recreation - Potential effects of reduced streamflow on recreation opportunities 

Measure 51 - Provision of supplemental streamflow downstream of the South Fork diversion dam 

Ongoing: Provide supplemental streamflow downstream of the South Fork diversion dam in the spring of above normal and wet water years for recreational purposes. Recreational streamflow would have a target streamflow of no less than 190 cfs and no more than 700 cfs measured continuously over 2 weekend days, 

Ongoing: Install, in 

consultation with the Forest Service and state agencies, a continuous water temperature monitor near the Woodleaf powerhouse to record from May 1 through September 15 annually to ensure that the flow occurs before water temperatures are suitable for FYLF 

South Feath
A-17 

 Mitigation 

Implementation 

Duration 

Monitoring 

Duration Mitigat

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing 

One-time or 

Ongoing Implement

starting around April 1 and lasting through June 15, or no later than when the average water temperature reaches 13oC. This measure is modified to require that supplemental streamflows be discontinued if the water temperature reaches 12°C.

spawning 

Recreation - Potential effects of reduced streamflow on recreation opportunities 

Measure 52 - Provision of supplemental streamflow at Forbestown diversion dam reach 

Ongoing: Provide supplemental streamflow in the spring during above normal and wet water years at Forbestown diversion dam reach to improve opportunities for Class IV and V whitewater boating in the spring. Recreational 

Ongoing: South Feath
A-18 

 Mitigation 

Implementation 

Duration 

Monitoring 

Duration Mitigat

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing 

One-time or 

Ongoing Implement

streamflow would have a target streamflow of no less than 215 cfs and no more than 400 cfs measured continuously over two weekend days, from April 1 through June 15, but no later than when the average water temperature reaches 13oC. This measure is modified to require that supplemental streamflows be discontinued if the water temperature reaches 12°C.

Recreation - Potential effects of streamflow on recreation 

Measure 53 – Provision of streamflow information to the 

Ongoing: Provide daily mean streamflows for South Fork Feather River downstream of Little Grass Valley, 

 South Feath
A-19 

 Mitigation 

Implementation 

Duration 

Monitoring 

Duration Mitigat

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing 

One-time or 

Ongoing Implement

opportunities public South Fork and 

Forbestown diversion dams; Lost Creek downstream of Lost Creek dam; and Slate Creek downstream of Slate Creek diversion, from May 1 through November 30; within 1 year of license issuance 

Recreation – Potential public safety hazard at recreational access sites 

Measure 54 - Seasonal installation of public safety buoys in Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoirs 

Ongoing: Annually install public safety buoys after the roads are cleared of snow and maintain throughout the summer recreation season and remove after September 15 

 South Feath

Cultural - Potential projectrelated effects on cultural 

Measure 44 - Historic Properties Management Plan. This measure is 

Ongoing: Implement HPMP upon license issuance 

Ongoing: HPMP includes procedures for monitoring cultural resource 

South Feath
A-20 

 Mitigation 

Implementation 

Duration 

Monitoring 

Duration Mitigat

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing 

One-time or 

Ongoing Implement

resources modified to 

implement the HPMP provided in the application, with staff’s additional measures.

sites, periodic reporting and meetings, periodic review and revision 

Land Use – Potential project operation and maintenancerelated effects on land management 

Measure 55 - Fire Prevention and Response Plan 

One-time: Prepare and file plan with the Commission within 1 year of license issuance Ongoing: Implement a fire prevention and response plan, including measures for fuels treatment/vegetation management, prevention, emergency response preparedness, reporting, fire control/extinguishing. 

 South Feath
A-21 

 Mitigation 

Implementation 

Duration 

Monitoring 

Duration Mitigat

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing 

One-time or 

Ongoing Implement

Aquatic - Reduced flows downstream of project diversions 

Implement minimum flows in each reach as described in South Feather’s alternative to Forest Service 4(e) 18, part 1a

Ongoing: Implement 

minimum flows in each project-affected reach for term of license 

 South Feath

Aquatic - Confirmation of compliance with minimum streamflows 

Operate, maintain, and modify (if necessary) gages needed to determine river stage and minimum streamflows [Forest Service 4(e) No. 18, part 4 and Cal Fish & Game 10(j) No. 7, part 6] a

One-time: Prepare and file plan with the Commission within 1 year of license issuance 

Ongoing: maintain and operate gages for term of license 

South Feath

Aquatic - Confirmation of 

Develop and implement a plan 

One-time: Develop a plan to provide realOngoing: Implement South Feath
A-22 

 Mitigation 

Implementation 

Duration 

Monitoring 

Duration Mitigat

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing 

One-time or 

Ongoing Implement

compliance with minimum streamflows 

to provide realtime information on flows and water temperatures to DWR [staffdeveloped measure]a

time information on flows and water temperatures to assist with DWR Oroville operations 

the plan 

Aquatic - Potential effect of project dam on fish passage 

Reserve NMFS authority to prescribe fishways [NMFS 10(j) measure] a

 South Feath

Terrestrial – Potential projectrelated alteration of riparian communities 

Treat and monitor selected areas to reduce riparian encroachment [Forest Service 4(e) No. 19, part 3 and Cal Fish & Game 10(j) No. 7, part 3]. a Modified 

to include 

Ongoing: Treat and monitor selected areas between the South Fork diversion dam and Ponderosa reservoir to reduce riparian encroachment, if warranted based on FYLF monitoring results 

 South Feath
A-23 

 Mitigation 

Implementation 

Duration 

Monitoring 

Duration Mitigat

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing 

One-time or 

Ongoing Implement

treatment only if warranted based on FYLF monitoring results.

Terrestrial - Potential projectrelated alteration of invasive/ nuisance plant communities 

Develop and implement an invasive weed management plan [Forest Service 4(e) No. 26] a

One-time: Develop and file an invasive weed management plan Ongoing: Implement plan through term of license 

 South Feath

Terrestrial - Potential projectrelated impacts on sensitive wildlife 

Maintain and operate all devices and measures for the protection of wildlife along the Miners Ranch conduit that are deemed necessary by Cal Fish & Game and other interested agencies [Cal Fish & Game 

Ongoing: Maintain and operate all devices and measures for the protection of wildlife along the Miners Ranch conduit through term of license 

 South Feath
A-24 

 Mitigation 

Implementation 

Duration 

Monitoring 

Duration Mitigat

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing 

One-time or 

Ongoing Implement

10(j) No. 9]a

Terrestrial - Potential projectrelated impacts on sensitive wildlife 

Prepare a Biological Evaluation before taking actions that may affect Forest Service special status species on National Forest System lands, update the Bald Eagle Management Plan and develop and implement a bat management plan [Forest Service 4(e) No. 25]a

One-time: Prepare and file a Biological Evaluation, updated Bald Eagle Management Plan, and a bat management plan Ongoing: Implement 

the plans through term of license

 South Feath

Terrestrial - Potential projectrelated impacts on sensitive 

Conduct reach -level surveys for FYLF [staffdeveloped 

Ongoing: Surveys would be done in years 1-5 and every 10 years thereafter 

 
A-25 

 Mitigation 

Implementation 

Duration 

Monitoring 

Duration Mitigat

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing 

One-time or 

Ongoing Implement

wildlife measure] a supplemented by 

representative surveys in years 6-10 and every 10 years thereafter

Recreation – Inconsistency with other area management plans 

Recreation Facility Master Plan specified by the Forest Service [Forest Service 4(e) No. 20, part 1]a

One-time: File Recreation Facility Master Plan with the Commission within 1 year of license issuance for Little Grass Valley reservoir recreation area and within 3 years of license issuance for Sly Creek reservoir recreation area Ongoing: Implement plan through term of license 

South Feath

Recreation - Potential changes in 

Recreation measures specified by the Forest 

One-time: File Recreation Facility Annual Operation 

Ongoing: Annual 

recreation facility operation 

South Feath
A-26 

 Mitigation 

Implementation 

Duration 

Monitoring 

Duration Mitigat

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing 

One-time or 

Ongoing Implement

recreational use of project area and facilities 

Service [Forest Service 4(e) No. 20, part 2] a

Maintenance Plan with the Commission within 1 year of license issuance Ongoing: Implement plan through term of licenseOngoing: Support reservoir recreation consistent with lake levels required by license conditions Ongoing: Collaboration on current and future public interpretive programs implemented through term of license 

maintenance and inspection 

Land Use - Project operation and maintenanceDevelop and implement a fuel treatment/vegetation management plan One-time: Develop and file the plan with the Commission within 1 year of license South Feath
A-27 

 Mitigation 

Implementation 

Duration 

Monitoring 

Duration Mitigat

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing 

One-time or 

Ongoing Implement

related effects on land management 

[Forest Service 4(e) No. 22] as part of South Feather’s fire prevention and response plan a

issuance Ongoing: Implement plan through term of license 

Potential degradation of access roads needed to safely maintain project facilities 

Road management plan [Forest Service 4(e) #28] a

One-time: Develop and file a road management plan with the Commission within 1 year of license issuance, after Forest Service approval Ongoing: Implement plan through term of license 

 South Feath

Potential visual effects on the surrounding landscape 

Visual management plan [Forest Service 4(e) #27] a

One-time: Develop and file a visual management plan within 60 days prior to any ground-disturbing activity on National 

 South Feath
A-28 

 Mitigation 

Implementation 

Duration 

Monitoring 

Duration Mitigat

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing 

One-time or 

Ongoing Implement

Forest System lands Ongoing: Implement plan through term of license 

a Staff alternative; includes additional measures identified by staff based on agency and non-governme

recommendations and our analysis. 
FERC/EIS-0225D 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix B

South Feather Power Project 

FERC Project No. 2088-068, California 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street N.E. 

Washington, DC 20426 

Office of

Energy

Projects

November 2008

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
APPENDIX B 

CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS OF MEASURES 

FOR THE SOUTH FORK POWER PROJECT 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008
B-1 

Table B-1. Estimated capital and O&M costs of measures proposed by South Feather and recommended 

for the South Feather Power Project. (Source: Staff) 

Measure 

Entity and 

Measure 

No. 

Staff 

recommend? 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annualized 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

O&M 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

energy 

costs 

(2008 $)

Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Return LWD to SFFR and Lost Creek 

South Feather (#56) 

Adopt $0 $0 $5,300 $0 $5,300 

Provide supplemental streamflows in Lost Creek for geomorphic purposes 

South Feather (#57) 

Adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Prepare a Slate Creek diversion dam sediment passthrough program status report 

South Feather (#58) 

Adopt $0 $0 $5,700 $0 $5,700 

Implement minimum flows proposed in FLA 

South Feather (#39) 

Do not adopt $0 $0 $10,500 $576,700 $587,200 

Implement CF&G's recommended CF&G Do not $0 $0 $10,500 $2,421,800 $2,432,300 
B-2 

Measure 

Entity and 

Measure 

No. 

Staff 

recommend? 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annualized 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

O&M 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

energy 

costs 

(2008 $)

Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

minimum flows (10(j) #1) adopt Implement FS's 4(e) minimum flows 

FS (4e #18, part 1) 

Do not adopt $0 $0 $10,500 $2,021,400 $2,031,900 

Implement South Feather's alternative 4(e) flows 

South Feather (Alternative to FS 4e 18, part 1) 

Adopt $0 $0 $10,500 $1,548,200 $1,558,700 

Determine water year type 

FS (revised 4e #18, part 2), South Feather 

Adopt $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 

Develop operating plan to manage drought conditions 

FS (revised 4e #18, part 3), South Feather 

Adopt $0 $0 $1,600 $0 $1,600 

Cease diversions at Slate Creek if temperatures exceed 20°C 

South Feather (#37) 

Adopt $31,500 $2,300 $5,300 $0 $7,600
B-3 

Measure 

Entity and 

Measure 

No. 

Staff 

recommend? 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annualized 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

O&M 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

energy 

costs 

(2008 $)

Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Reserve authority to mitigate cumulative effects of the Yuba River Development Project 

Yuba County Water Authority (10a) 

Do not adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Implement ramping rate of 0.5 feet/hour 

CF&G (10(j) #10) Adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Operate, maintain, and modify (if necessary) gages needed to determine river stage and minimum streamflows 

FS (4e #18, part 4), CF&G (10(j) #7, part 6) 

Adopt $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $20,000 
B-4 

Measure 

Entity and 

Measure 

No. 

Staff 

recommend? 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annualized 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

O&M 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

energy 

costs 

(2008 $)

Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Maintain water levels in Little Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoirs as high as possible while recognizing the need for protection of ecological resources, power production, and consumptive water supply 

CF&G (10(j) #6) Adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Implement selective withdrawal at Little Grass Valley reservoir 

CF&G (10(j) #2) 

Do not adopt $1,000,000 $65,800 $8,000 $0 $73,800 

Avoid releasing water from the Kelly Ridge powerhouse that exceed specified temperatures when total releases from P-2100 are 2,000 cfs 

DWR (10a) Do not adopt $25,000 $1,900 $2,500 $997,600 $1,002,000
B-5 

Measure 

Entity and 

Measure 

No. 

Staff 

recommend? 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annualized 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

O&M 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

energy 

costs 

(2008 $)

Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

or lower or Lake Oroville is at or below 700 ft msl. Monitor water temperatures at three locations and limit Kelly Ridge powerhouse discharges to 100 cfs if water temperatures discharged from the powerhouse exceed specified temperatures 

SWC/MWD (10a) 

Do not adopt $50,000 $3,700 $5,000 $606,400 $615,100

Monitor water temperatures at the Kelly Ridge Power Plant intake and cease operation when temperatures exceed specified targets 

NMFS (10(j)) 

Do not adopt $25,000 $1,900 $2,500 $997,600 $1,002,000 
B-6 

Measure 

Entity and 

Measure 

No. 

Staff 

recommend? 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annualized 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

O&M 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

energy 

costs 

(2008 $)

Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Monitor water temperatures at six locations and provide monitoring results in a technical report within 6 months following each monitoring season 

CF&G (10(j) #7, part 5) 

Do not adopt $50,000 $3,700 $5,000 $0 $8,700 

Take all reasonable actions to assure conformance with water temperatures specified in the Oroville Settlement Agreement 

CF&G (10(j) #5) 

Do not adopt $0 $0 $0 $606,400 $606,400

Develop and implement a water temperature monitoring plan in consultation with Cal Fish & Game, NMFS, and DWR 

Staff Adopt $50,000 $3,700 $5,000 $0 $8,700 
B-7 

Measure 

Entity and 

Measure 

No. 

Staff 

recommend? 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annualized 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

O&M 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

energy 

costs 

(2008 $)

Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Screen diversions at the South Fork diversion, Slate Creek diversion, and the Woodleaf powerhouse intake 

CF&G (10(j) #4) 

Do not adopt $45,000,000 $2,960,900 $80,200 $0 $3,041,100 

Develop and implement a wild fish supplementation program 

FS (revised 4e #18, part 6), South Feather 

Adopt $0 $0 $15,900 $0 $15,900 

Reserve authority to prescribe fishways 

NMFS (Section 18) Adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Develop and implement a hazardous substance plan 

South Feather (#38) 

Adopt $0 $0 $1,100 $0 $1,100 
B-8 

Measure 

Entity and 

Measure 

No. 

Staff 

recommend? 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annualized 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

O&M 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

energy 

costs 

(2008 $)

Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Monitor fish populations in two successive years every five years in all affected bypassed reaches 

CF&G (10(j) #7, part 1) 

Do not adopt $0 $0 $48,500 $0 $48,500 

Monitor benthic macroinvertebrates in affected bypassed reaches in years 1 through 4 and every 4 years thereafter 

CF&G (10(j) #7, part 4) 

Do not adopt $0 $0 $44,700 $0 $44,700 

Monitor fish populations in two successive years starting in the fifth full year of implementation of new streamflows; sampling may be postponed two years 

FS (revised 4e #19, part 1), South Feather 

Adopt $0 $0 $35,300 $0 $35,300 
B-9 

Measure 

Entity and 

Measure 

No. 

Staff 

recommend? 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annualized 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

O&M 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

energy 

costs 

(2008 $)

Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

to avoid confounding effects of floods on fish populations Monitor benthic macroinvertebrates in project bypassed reaches in the same years as fish populations are monitored 

FS (revised 4e #19, part 4), South Feather 

Adopt $0 $0 $23,500 $0 $23,500 

Develop and implement an Aquatic Biological Monitoring plan 

CF&G (10(j) #7) Adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Consult with the Forest Service annually to determine measures needed to ensure 

FS (revised 4e #3), South Feather 

Adopt $0 $0 $30,000 $0 $30,000 
B-10 

Measure 

Entity and 

Measure 

No. 

Staff 

recommend? 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annualized 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

O&M 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

energy 

costs 

(2008 $)

Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

protection of Forest Service lands affected by the project Riparian vegetation monitoring and treatment 

FS (4e #19, part 3), CF&G (10(j) #7, part 3) 

Adopt $0 $0 $2,400 $0 $2,400

Implement noxious weed plan 

South Feather (#41) 

Do not adopt $31,500 $2,300 $5,300 $0 $7,600 

Develop and implement an invasive weed management plan 

FS (4e #26) Adopt $46,500 $3,500 $6,300 $0 $9,800 

Train employees annually 

South Feather (#33) 

Adopt $0 $0 $21,000 $0 $21,000 
B-11 

Measure 

Entity and 

Measure 

No. 

Staff 

recommend? 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annualized 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

O&M 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

energy 

costs 

(2008 $)

Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Review and assess new special-status species annually 

South Feather (#35) 

Adopt $0 $0 $21,600 $0 $21,600 

Annually review the current list of special status plant and wildlife species and conduct surveys for species determined to be likely to occur on National Forest System lands 

FS (4e #24) Adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Consult with CF&G prior to replacing or retrofitting wildlife crossing or escape facilities along the Miners Ranch conduit 

South Feather (#43) 

Do not adopt $0 $0 $1,900 $0 $1,900 

Maintain and operate all devices and measures for the protection of wildlife 

CF&G (10(j) #9) Adopt $0 $0 $10,500 $0 $10,500 
B-12 

Measure 

Entity and 

Measure 

No. 

Staff 

recommend? 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annualized 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

O&M 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

energy 

costs 

(2008 $)

Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

along the Miners Ranch Conduit that are deemed necessary by CF&G and other interested agencies Retain a qualified specialist to replace or retrofit bat exclusion devices 

South Feather (#42) 

Adopt $10,500 $800 $1,100 $0 $1,900 

Prepare BE before taking actions that may affect FS special status species on National Forest System lands, update the Bald Eagle Management Plan and develop a bat management plan 

FS (4e #25) Adopt $20,000 $1,500 $0 $0 $1,500 
B-13 

Measure 

Entity and 

Measure 

No. 

Staff 

recommend? 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annualized 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

O&M 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

energy 

costs 

(2008 $)

Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Develop and implement a bat management plan 

CF&G (10(j) #8) Adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Conduct reach level surveys for FYLF every 10 years starting in year 1 

South Feather (Alternative to FS 4e 19, part 2) 

Do not adopt $10,000 $700 $24,200 $0 $24,900 

Conduct reach level surveys for FYLF in years 1-5 and every 10 years thereafter supplemented by representative surveys in years 6-10 and every 10 years thereafter 

CF&G (10(j) #7, part 2), FS (4e #19, part 2.1) 

Adopt $0 $0 $66,900 $0 $66,900 

Development of FYLF population, population viability, and 2-D habitat models, and 

FS (4e #19, parts 2.2 through 2.4) 

Do not adopt $0 $0 $157,900 $0 $157,900 
B-14 

Measure 

Entity and 

Measure 

No. 

Staff 

recommend? 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annualized 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

O&M 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

energy 

costs 

(2008 $)

Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

implementation of temperature, geomorphology, and riparian encroachment monitoring protocols Avoid high flow pulses to protect FYLF from April 15 or when temperatures reach 13C (whichever is later) until October 31. This measure is modified to require that supplemental streamflows be discontinued if the water temperature reaches 12°C.

South Feather (#40) 

Adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Develop ramping rates to protect FYLF within 5 years after license issuance 

CF&G (10(j) #3) Adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 
B-15 

Measure 

Entity and 

Measure 

No. 

Staff 

recommend? 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annualized 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

O&M 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

energy 

costs 

(2008 $)

Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Map FYLF habitat and develop stagedischarge curves for each reach and develop ramping rates for each reach that would meet the stage and velocity requirements set by the FS 

FS (revised 4e #18, part 5), South Feather 

Adopt $0 $0 $10,200 $0 $10,200 

Prepare facility master plans and individual site development plans to replace or rehabilitate existing recreation facilities 

South Feather (#45) 

Adopt $5,000,000 $78,000 $0 $0 $78,000 

Prepare a recreation facility master plan 

FS (4e #20, part 1) Adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Maintain and operate recreation facilities 

South Feather (#46) 

Adopt $0 $0 $278,700 $0 $278,700 
B-16 

Measure 

Entity and 

Measure 

No. 

Staff 

recommend? 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annualized 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

O&M 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

energy 

costs 

(2008 $)

Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Consult with Forest Service annually regarding planned operation and maintenance activities on National Forest System lands 

South Feather (#34) 

Do not adopt $0 $0 $15,800 $0 $15,800 

Operate and maintain recreation facilities, support reservoir-based recreation, collaborate on current and future interpretive programs, and consult to ensure consistency with other FERCapproved management plans and protection of cultural resources 

FS (4e #20, part 2) Adopt $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $50,000 
B-17 

Measure 

Entity and 

Measure 

No. 

Staff 

recommend? 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annualized 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

O&M 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

energy 

costs 

(2008 $)

Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

File form 80 recreation report every 6 years and expand recreation facilities if warranted 

South Feather (#47) 

Adopt $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 

Prepare and file recreation use survey report and provide out-of-kind recreation facilities 

South Feather (#48) 

Adopt $0 $0 $5,600 $0 $5,600 

Maintain Little Grass Valley reservoir water levels no lower than 5022 feet msl through September 15 for use of boat launch facilities 

South Feather (#49) 

Adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Provide whitewater recreation flows in the LGVD reach 

South Feather (#50) 

Adopt $5,000 $400 $12,600 $0 $13,000 
B-18 

Measure 

Entity and 

Measure 

No. 

Staff 

recommend? 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annualized 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

O&M 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

energy 

costs 

(2008 $)

Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Provide whitewater recreation flows in the South Fork diversion dam reach 

South Feather (#51) 

Adopt $30,000 $2,200 $10,500 $41,600 $54,300

Provide whitewater recreation flows in the Forbestown diversion dam reach 

South Feather (#52) 

Adopt $30,000 $2,200 $10,500 $21,900 $34,600

Make streamflow information available on the internet including daily flows and anticipated date and magnitude of whitewater releases 

South Feather (#53) 

Adopt $0 $0 $2,500 $0 $2,500 

Install and maintain public safety buoys 

South Feather (#54) 

Adopt $0 $0 $11,600 $0 $11,600 
B-19 

Measure 

Entity and 

Measure 

No. 

Staff 

recommend? 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annualized 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

O&M 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

energy 

costs 

(2008 $)

Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Implement the HPMP included in the FLA 

South Feather (#44) 

Adopt $0 $0 $20,300 $0 $20,300 

Additional measures likely to be required in an HPMP approved by the Forest Service 

FS (4e #23) Adopt $0 $0 $59,100 $0 $59,100 

Develop and implement a fire prevention and response plan 

South Feather (#55) and FS (4e #21) 

Adopt $0 $0 $1,100 $0 $1,100 

Develop and implement a fuel treatment/vegetation management plan 

FS (4e #22) Adopt $0 $0 $2,100 $0 $2,100 

Develop and implement a road management plan 

FS (4e #28) Adopt $0 $0 $3,500 $0 $3,500 

Develop and implement a visual 

FS (4e #27) Adopt $30,000 $2,200 $0 $0 $2,200 
B-20 

Measure 

Entity and 

Measure 

No. 

Staff 

recommend? 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annualized 

Capital 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

O&M 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

Annual 

energy 

costs 

(2008 $)

Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

(2008 $) 

management plan Total Applicant's Proposal $5,138,500 $ 88,200 $638,600 $640,200 $1,367,000 Staff Alternative $5,253,500 $ 96,800 $782,300 $1,611,700 $2,490,800 Staff Alternative with 4(e) Mandatory Conditions 

 $5,253,500 $ 96,800 $940,200 $2,084,900 $3,121,900 
Document Content(s)

001 - Cover and Front Pages.PDF.......................................1-6

002 - Table of Contents.PDF...........................................7-19

003 - Executive Summary.PDF...........................................20-26

004 - Section 1 - Introduction.PDF....................................27-37

005 - Section 2 - Proposed Action and Alternatives.PDF................38-62

006 - Section 3 - Environmental Analysis.PDF..........................63-251

007 - Section 4 - Developmental Analysis.PDF..........................252-262

008 - Section 5 - Staff Conclusions.PDF...............................263-313

009 - Section 6 - Literature Cited.PDF................................314-318

0010 - Section 7 - List of Preparers.PDF..............................319-321

0011 - Section 8 - List of Recipients.PDF.............................322-326

0012 - Appendix A.PDF.................................................327-357

0013 - Appendix B.PDF.................................................358-380

20081107-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/07/2008