181 FERC ¶ 61,122
UNITED STATES OF AMERICAFEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Before Commissioners: Richard Glick, Chairman;
James P. Danly, Allison Clements,
Mark C. Christie, and Willie L. Phillips.
PacifiCorp

Project Nos. 2082-063
14803-001

Klamath River Renewal Corporation
State of Oregon
State of California
ORDER MODIFYING AND APPROVING SURRENDER OF LICENSE AND
REMOVAL OF PROJECT FACILITIES(Issued November 17, 2022)
On September 23, 2016, and supplemented on November 17, 2020,
February 26, 2021, December 14, 2021, May 2, 2022, and September 16, 2022, theKlamath River Renewal Corporation (Renewal Corporation) and PacifiCorp filed an
application to surrender the license for the Lower Klamath Project No. 14803 (Lower
Klamath Project) and remove the four project developments.1 The Lower Klamath Project
is located on the Klamath River in Klamath County, Oregon, and Siskiyou County,
California.
For the reasons discussed below, we approve the surrender of the Lower Klamath
Project license and the proposed removal of the four project developments, subject to theterms and conditions discussed below.2

1

As discussed further below, the Commission previously approved the transfer ofthe Lower Klamath Project from PacifiCorp to the Renewal Corporation, the State ofOregon, and the State of California as co-licensees, provided that the Renewal Corporationand the States accept license transfer and co-licensee status within 30 days of any
Commission order approving surrender. Any reference in this order to co-licensees means
the Renewal Corporation, the State of Oregon, and the State of California. See infra P 20.
2

A licensee requests surrender of a Commission-issued license when it decides it nolonger wishes to hold that license, which can happen for a variety of reasons. To protect theenvironment and public, a license may only be voluntarily surrendered upon agreement
between the licensee and the Commission. When a licensee voluntarily decides tosurrender its license, the Commission’s regulations require the licensee to file a surrenderProject Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001
I.

-2-Background

The Lower Klamath Project was formerly part of the 169-megawatt (MW) Klamath
Hydroelectric Project No. 2082 (Klamath Project), located on the Klamath River in
Klamath County, Oregon, and Siskiyou County, California, which included eightdevelopments (from upstream to downstream): East Side, West Side, Keno, J.C. Boyle,
Copco No. 1, Copco No. 2, Fall Creek, and Iron Gate. The Klamath Project included
federal lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and
U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM).3 The original license for the Klamath Project
was issued on January 28, 1954,4 and was transferred to PacifiCorp on November 23,
1988.5 The license expired on February 28, 2006, and the Klamath Project has been
operating under an annual license since that time.6
PacifiCorp filed an application to relicense the Klamath Project in 2004. In 2007,
Commission staff issued a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the application
analyzing various alternatives, including decommissioning and removing the J.C. Boyle,
Copco No. 1, Copco No. 2, and Iron Gate developments, but ultimately recommending
issuing a new license that included those four developments with staff-recommended
mitigation and mandatory conditions from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), theapplication that includes a decommissioning plan. 18 C.F.R. § 6.1 (2021). Possible forms
of decommissioning range from simply shutting down the power operations to removing allparts of the project, including the dam, and restoring the site to its pre-project condition.
The Commission will only approve a license surrender once the licensee has fulfilled its
obligations under the license or as established by the Commission. See Project
Decommissioning at Relicensing, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,011 (1994) (cross-referenced
at 69 FERC ¶ 61,336).
3

The Lower Klamath Project occupies approximately 400 acres of federal lands
administered by BLM.
4The Cal. Or. Power Co., 13 FPC 1 (1954). The original license order was for theconstruction and operation of the Big Bend No. 2 development, also known as the
J.C. Boyle development. Later orders incorporated the other project developments into thelicense.
5

The original license, issued to the California Oregon Power Company, wastransferred to Pacific Power and Light Company on June 16, 1961 (The Cal. Or. Power
Co., 25 FPC 1154 (1961)) and then to PacifiCorp on November 23, 1988 (PacifiCorp,
45 FERC ¶ 62,146 (1988)).
6

See 16 U.S.C. § 808(a)(1).

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001-3-National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and Reclamation.7 However, PacifiCorp
concluded that implementing those conditions (specifically, complying with mandatory
fishway prescriptions) would mean operating the Klamath Project at a net loss.8 Thereafter,
PacifiCorp entered into negotiations with a number of resource agencies, Tribes, and otherentities to evaluate alternatives to relicensing the Klamath Project.
In February 2010, PacifiCorp and 47 other parties, including the States of Oregon
and California and the U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior), executed the Klamath
Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (Settlement Agreement), which provided fordecommissioning and removing the J.C. Boyle, Copco No. 1, Copco No. 2, and Iron Gatedevelopments, contingent on the passage of federal legislation and approval by the
Secretary of the Interior. However, the necessary legislation was never passed.
Subsequently, in April 2016, the States of Oregon and California, Interior,
PacifiCorp, NMFS, the Yurok Tribe, and the Karuk Tribe executed the Amended Klamath
Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (Amended Settlement Agreement). The Amended
Settlement Agreement set forth a process by which PacifiCorp would request Commission
approval to transfer the four lower developments to the Renewal Corporation,9 which would
then seek Commission approval to decommission and remove the developments under theCommission’s license surrender procedures.10
On May 6, 2016, PacifiCorp requested that the Commission hold the relicensing
proceeding for the Klamath Project in abeyance, in accordance with the Amended
Settlement Agreement. On June 16, 2016, the Commission granted PacifiCorp’s motion.11

7

The staff alternative recommended issuing a new license for the Fall Creek
development, decommissioning the East Side and West Side developments, and removing
the Keno development from the project license because it is not necessary for power
generation.
8

See PacifiCorp, Klamath Hydroelectric Project Agreement in Principle, at 5 (filed
Nov. 24, 2008).
9

The Renewal Corporation is a non-profit public benefit corporation incorporated in
the State of California. The Renewal Corporation was established to facilitate
implementation of the Settlement Agreement and its primary purpose is to surrender andremove the Lower Klamath Project.
10
11

18 C.F.R. §§ 6.1-6.2 (2021).

PacifiCorp, 155 FERC ¶ 61,271 (2016). Upon issuance of this surrender order,
the abeyance will no longer be in effect.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001-4-

On September 23, 2016, PacifiCorp and the Renewal Corporation filed anamendment and transfer application with the Commission to: (1) amend the Klamath
Project license to place the four developments to be decommissioned into a new license thatwould become the Lower Klamath Project; and (2) transfer the license for the Lower
Klamath Project from PacifiCorp to the Renewal Corporation. On the same day, theRenewal Corporation filed an application to surrender the Lower Klamath Project license
and remove the four developments.12
On October 5, 2017, Commission staff requested additional information on theamendment and transfer application regarding the Renewal Corporation’s legal, technical,
and financial capacity to accept the new license and to decommission and remove thedevelopments, if authorized. Additionally, given the magnitude of the proposed dam
removals, the potential for safety issues, and questions about the adequacy of funding, costestimates, insurance, and bonding, staff required the Renewal Corporation and PacifiCorp
to convene an independent Board of Consultants to review and assess all aspects of the
proposed dam removal.13
On March 15, 2018, the Commission approved the proposed amendment to separate
the J.C. Boyle, Copco No. 1, Copco No. 2, and Iron Gate developments and create theLower Klamath Project.14 At the same time, the Commission deferred consideration of the
proposed transfer, stating that it needed more information about the Renewal Corporation’s
financial capability to accept transfer of the license and carry out the decommissioning of
the Lower Klamath Project.15 The March 15 Amendment Order required that the Renewal
Corporation provide the Commission with the results of an independent review of much of

12

Because only a licensee may file an application to surrender a license, which the
Renewal Corporation was not at the time, the Commission considered theSeptember 23, 2016 surrender application to be filed by both PacifiCorp and the Renewal
Corporation.
13

Letter from David Capka, FERC, to Mark Sturtevant, PacifiCorp, andMichael Carrier, Renewal Corporation (issued October 5, 2017).
14

PacifiCorp, 162 FERC ¶ 61,236 (2018) (March 15 Amendment Order). The otherfour developments (East Side, West Side, Keno, and Fall Creek) remain in the originalKlamath Project No. 2082 license.
15

Id. PP 71-72. The March 15 Amendment Order included an appendix, which
listed all the additional information the Commission would require before acting on the
September 23, 2016 transfer application.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001-5-this additional information, which the Commission noted could be performed by the
Board.16
PacifiCorp subsequently filed a request to stay the effectiveness of the amendment
order until such time as the Commission acted on the transfer application, explaining that
implementing the amendment would cost an estimated $3.1 million. On June 21, 2018, theCommission granted the stay.17 In that same order, the Commission noted that PacifiCorp
could defer its decision on whether to accept the amended licenses until the Commission
acted on the transfer application.18
On July 16, 2020, the Commission approved the partial transfer of the Lower
Klamath Project from PacifiCorp to the Renewal Corporation, contingent on PacifiCorp
remaining on as a co-licensee.19 The Commission found that if it were to ultimately
approve the surrender application, it would not be in the public interest for the entirety ofthe surrender and decommissioning efforts to rest with the Renewal Corporation given “themagnitude of the proposed decommissioning, the uncertainties attendant on final design andproject execution, and the potential impacts of dam removal on public safety and theenvironment.”20 Although the Commission was generally satisfied that the Renewal
Corporation had the capacity to carry out its proposed decommissioning, the Commission
determined it was appropriate to require PacifiCorp to remain on as a co-licensee because
as a co-licensee, PacifiCorp could provide legal and technical support, as well as further
assurance that there would be sufficient funding to carry out decommissioning.21 The
Commission also clarified that the March 15 Amendment Order would not be effective until
the partial transfer was effective.22
Following the Transfer Order, PacifiCorp, the Renewal Corporation, the States ofOregon and California, the Karuk Tribe, and the Yurok Tribe began discussions on amutually agreeable path forward for implementing the Amended Settlement Agreement.23
16

Id. PP 61, 72 & app.

17

PacifiCorp, 163 FERC ¶ 61,208 (2018).

18

Id. n.7.

19

PacifiCorp, 172 FERC ¶ 61,062 (2020) (July 16 Partial Transfer Order).

20

Id. P 45.

21

Id. P 71.

22

Id. P 76.

23

January 13, 2021 Transfer Application at 14.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001-6-These discussions resulted in the parties entering into a Memorandum of Agreement(MOA) on November 16, 2020.24 Among other things, the MOA provided that PacifiCorp
and the Renewal Corporation would not accept their status as co-licensees under the July 16
Partial Transfer Order, and that instead PacifiCorp, the Renewal Corporation, and the Statesof Oregon and California would prepare a new license transfer application, whereby
PacifiCorp would request to transfer the Lower Klamath Project license to the Renewal
Corporation and the States as co-licensees.25
Pursuant to the MOA, PacifiCorp and the Renewal Corporation filed an amended
surrender application on November 17, 2020, and PacifiCorp, the Renewal Corporation,and the States of Oregon and California filed a new transfer application on
January 13, 2021. On June 17, 2021, the Commission approved the transfer application,transferring the Lower Klamath Project from PacifiCorp to the Renewal Corporation and
the States of Oregon and California as co-licensees.26 The Commission continued to findthat the Renewal Corporation has the capacity to undertake the proposed decommissioning
and is qualified to be a co-licensee, and further found that the States as co-licensees “would
provide additional legal and technical expertise, as well as further assurance there would be
sufficient funding to carry out the surrender proposal if approved.”27
The June 17 Transfer Order gave the Renewal Corporation and the States 30 days
following any Commission order on the surrender application to accept license transfer andco-licensee status;28 thus, PacifiCorp has remained the sole licensee during theCommission’s consideration of the surrender application. If surrender was approved andthe transfer became effective, PacifiCorp would continue to operate and maintain the Lower
Klamath Project until electric operations cease and the powerhouses are physicallydisconnected from the grid.29 The June 17 Transfer Order also made the March 15

24

Id. at 15.

25

Id. at Ex. 7 (providing MOA).

26

PacifiCorp, 175 FERC ¶ 61,236 (2021) (June 17 Transfer Order).

27

Id. P 31.

28

Id. at ordering para. (C).

29

Id. P 15; see also January 13, 2021 Transfer Application at Ex. 6 (providing
2017 Operation and Maintenance Agreement entered into between PacifiCorp and theRenewal Corporation).

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001-7-

Amendment Order, which amended the Klamath Project and created the Lower Klamath
Project, effective as of the date of the approval of the transfer application, June 17, 2021.30
On June 17, 2021, the Commission issued a notice of intent to prepare an EIS for the
proposed Lower Klamath Project surrender and removal, requesting comments onenvironmental issues, establishing a schedule for environmental review, and providing
notice of public scoping sessions.31 The Commission issued a scoping document on thesame day, and conducted scoping sessions on July 20, 21, and 22, 2021.
On February 22, 2022, Commission staff, with the cooperation of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), issued a draft
EIS assessing the environmental effects associated with the proposed surrender anddecommissioning, including discussion of concerns raised and alternatives submitted bycommenters.32 Commission staff issued a final EIS, with the cooperation of the Corps,
EPA, and the Yurok Tribe, on August 26, 2022, addressing the comments received on thedraft EIS.33
II.

Project Description

The Lower Klamath Project consists of four developments, J.C. Boyle, Copco No. 1,
Copco No. 2, and Iron Gate, with a combined installed capacity of 163 MW, and currently
generates approximately 686,000 MW-hours annually.34
Specifically, the four developments consist of:a. The J.C. Boyle development, which consists of: (a) a 68-foot-high by
693-foot-long earthfill and concrete dam with an intake structure and spillway
section containing three 36-foot-wide by 12-foot-high radial gates and a
two-bay diversion culvert with stoplogs; (b) a 420-acre reservoir; (c) a24-inch diameter fish screen bypass pipe; (d) a 569-foot-long pool and weirfishway; (e) a 638-foot-long, 14-foot-diameter steel flow line; (f) a
30

Id. at ordering para. (D).

31

June 17, 2021 Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

32

In general, a cooperating agency is a federal agency or other entity that has
jurisdiction or special expertise regarding the environmental impacts of a proposed action
and/or its alternatives.
33

See Final EIS at app. L for a summary of substantive comments on the draft EIS
and staff’s responses.
34

A map of the Lower Klamath Project area is included in this order as Appendix F.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001-8-

two-mile-long concrete power canal; (g) two 956-foot-long by
10.5-foot-diameter steel penstocks; (h) a powerhouse containing two units
with an authorized capacity of 98 MW; (i) a 0.24-mile-long, primarytransmission line connecting to J. C. Boyle substation; and (j) two three-phasestep-up transformers.
b. The Copco No. 1 development, which consists of: (a) a 230-foot-high by
415-foot-long dam with a spillway section containing 13 14-foot by 14-foottainter gates; (b) a 1,000-acre reservoir (Copco Lake) with approximately
33,724 acre-feet of total storage capacity; (c) three penstocks varying from
8-14 feet in diameter; (d) a powerhouse containing two units with a total
authorized capacity of 20 MW; (e) four single-phase step-up transformers;and (f) four associated primary 69-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines as follows:(1) two lines, each approximately 0.07-mile-long, connecting Copco No. 1
powerhouse to the Copco No. 1 switchyard; (2) a 1.29-mile-long line
connecting the Copco No. 1 switchyard to Copco No. 2; and (3) a
1.66-mile-long line connecting Copco No 1 switchyard to a tap on the
69-kV line from Fall Creek plant.
c. The Copco No. 2 development, which consists of: (a) a 33-foot-high by
278-foot-long dam with a 130-foot-long spillway section containing
five tainter gates; (b) a 40-acre reservoir with a storage capacity of about
73 acre-feet; (c) a flowline consisting of 2,440 feet of concrete-lined tunneland 1,313 feet of wood-stave pipeline; (d) an additional 1,110 feet ofconcrete-lined tunnel; (e) a surge tank; (f) two steel penstocks, one 405.5 feetlong and one 410.6 feet long, with a diameter ranging from 8-16 feet; (g) apowerhouse containing two units with a total authorized capacity of 27 MW;(h) three single-phase transformers connected to three single-phase step-up
transformers; and (i) a 0.4-mile-long, 69-kV primary transmission line
connecting to Copco No. 2 switchyard.
d. The Iron Gate development, which consists of: (a) a 173-foot-high by
740-foot-long dam with a 727-foot-long side channel spillway; (b) a 944-acrereservoir with 58,794 acre-feet of storage capacity; (c) an intake structurewith a 12-foot-diameter penstock; (d) a powerhouse containing one unit witha total authorized capacity of 18 MW; (e) a single three-phase step-up
transformer; (f) one 6.55-mile-long, 69-kV primary transmission line
connecting to Copco No. 2 switchyard; and (g) the Iron Gate Fish Hatchery.
III.

Proposed Surrender

The Renewal Corporation requests surrender and decommissioning of the Lower
Klamath Project to improve water quality and address basin-wide limiting factors includinglack of fish passage, high summer and fall water temperatures, blue-green algae blooms,

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001-9-disease incidence, and impaired sediment supply and transport. Specifically, thecorporation states that it intends to advance the long-term restoration of the natural fish
populations in the Klamath River Basin, with particular emphasis on restoring the salmonid
fisheries used for commerce, recreation, subsistence, and Tribal cultural purposes. The
Renewal Corporation also intends to improve the long-term water quality conditions
associated with the Lower Klamath Project, including mitigating water quality impairments
caused by the bacterium Microcystis aeruginosa and associated toxins, high watertemperature, and levels of biostimulatory nutrients. The proposed surrender anddecommissioning is also intended to ameliorate conditions underlying high disease rates
among Klamath River salmonids and to restore anadromous fish35 passage to viable habitat
currently made inaccessible by the Lower Klamath Project dams.
The Renewal Corporation proposes to decommission and remove most project
facilities at the four developments, as described in the Definite Plan included in thesurrender application.36 Most of the work would occur within the project boundary,although road surface improvements and bridge strengthening work would occur outside
the boundary.37 Under the Renewal Corporation’s proposal, removal of the project facilities
would require 20 months and restoration and monitoring activities would last at least
five additional years. Specifically, pre-drawdown activities38 would occur from March to
December 2023, drawdown activities and most of the project removal would occur fromJanuary to December 2024, and post-drawdown activities, primarily comprising of reservoir
area restoration, would occur in 2025.39 The Renewal Corporation proposes to implement
16 management plans that specify the procedures that would be used to draw down thefour reservoirs, remove the dams and associated facilities, restore lands currently occupiedby the dams, reservoirs, and other facilities, improve access for salmon to historical andexisting habitat, and minimize adverse effects on environmental resources.40 The
management plans are as follows: (1) Reservoir Drawdown and Diversion Plan;(2) Construction Management Plan; (3) Health and Safety Plan; (4) Remaining Facilities
Plan; (5) Erosion and Sediment Control Plan; (6) Waste Disposal and Hazardous Materials
35

Anadromous fish refers to fish that migrate from freshwater rivers to the ocean andback to spawn in their natal streams.
36

See November 17, 2020 Amended Surrender Application at app. A-1.

37

Final EIS at 2-2.

38

See infra P 22.

39

Renewal Corporation’s July 1, 2022 Final Construction Documents Submittal

at 6-7.
40

PacifiCorp and the Renewal Corporation filed the final management plans on
February 26, 2021, and revised management plans on December 14, 2021.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 10 -

Management Plan; (7) Water Quality Monitoring and Management Plan; (8) Sediment
Deposit Remediation Plan; (9) Aquatic Resources Management Plan; (10) Hatcheries
Management and Operations Plan; (11) Reservoir Area Management Plan; (12) Terrestrial
and Wildlife Management Plan; (13) Recreation Facilities Plan; (14) Historic Properties
Management Plan (HPMP); (15) Water Supply Management Plan; and (16) Interim
Hydropower Operations Plan.
Proposed decommissioning and removal activities include pre-drawdown year
activities such as demolition of recreation areas, construction of access roads and bridges,
installation of a waterline, removal or relocation of transmission features, excavation of alow-level outlet tunnel through Copco No. 1 Dam, removal of components in the tunnel at
Iron Gate Dam, and removal of the Copco No. 2 Dam. Starting in the drawdown year, theRenewal Corporation proposes to lower reservoirs and remove the J.C. Boyle Dam, Copco
No. 1 Dam, and Iron Gate Dam. The Renewal Corporation also proposes barricading or
plugging the J.C. Boyle, Copco No. 2, and Iron Gate tunnels and the Copco No. 1 Penstock#3 portal. All powerhouses would be demolished and associated structures and equipment
would be removed, except for some concrete that would be buried in place. The buildings
previously used by project operators and all associated utilities would be removed, except
foundations and buried utilities, which would be left in place. All aboveground substationequipment, conduits, transmission lines, and support structures would be removed or
relocated. Finally, the Renewal Corporation would conduct grading and filling of theremoval areas and channels, and the reservoir footprint areas would be revegetated using
native species and exotic weed control.41
IV.

Public Notice, Interventions, and Comments

On December 16, 2020, the Commission issued public notice of the amended
surrender application, establishing February 16, 2021,42 as the deadline for filing comments,
interventions, and protests. A number of timely notices of intervention43 and unopposed

41

See Final EIS at 2-29.

42

The notice originally identified the deadline for filing comments, interventions,and protests, as February 15, 2021, a federal holiday. The Commission subsequently issued
an errata notice, identifying the correct deadline as February 16, 2021.
Under Rule 214(a)(2) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, theseagencies became parties to the proceeding upon the timely filing of their notices ofintervention. 18 C.F.R. § 385.214(a)(2) (2021).
43

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 11 -

motions to intervene were filed.44 Several late motions to intervene were also filed andwere granted by Secretary’s Notices.45 The final EIS lists intervenors at table 1.4.3.46
In addition to notices and motions to intervene, the Commission received comments
in support of and opposed to the proposed surrender and decommissioning. Commenters insupport of the proposal generally note that dam removal would eliminate aquatic resource
effects associated with the Lower Klamath Project facilities by opening upstream spawning
habitat to anadromous species and alleviating some of the causes of fish mortality.47
Commenters in support of dam removal also state that the environmental protection,
mitigation, and enhancement measures proposed, along with staff’s recommendations in thedraft and final EIS, would adequately protect environmental resources, restore thelandscape of the areas that are currently impounded within the project reach to a morenatural state, and help to sustain and restore water quality and the salmon runs.48
Specifically, the Yurok Tribe and the Karuk Tribe express an urgent need for rapid approvaland implementation of dam removal to protect Klamath salmon runs from deterioratingwater quality conditions and increased disease incidence.
Commenters opposed to surrender and dam removal express concerns about issues
including the need for the project reservoirs for irrigation and food production, the loss offlood control and fire protection afforded by the reservoirs, the importance of the reservoirs
for sustaining downstream flows and providing flushing flows, the proposal violating theKlamath River Compact,49 the release downstream of sediments and toxic materials

44

Timely, unopposed motions to intervene are granted by operation ofRule 214(c)(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
18 C.F.R. § 385.214(c)(1).
45

April 29, 2021, May 25, 2021, & November 2, 2021 Notices Granting Late
Intervention.
46

Final EIS at 1-11-13. Patty Vinikow was inadvertently excluded from the list ofintervenors.
47

See Final EIS at L-2.

48

Id.

49

The Klamath River Compact, which became effective with the consent ofCongress in 1957, created the Klamath River Compact Commission, with
one representative from Oregon, one from California, and one federal representative(Reclamation has been designated to hold that position) to administer the Compact. Pub. L.
No. 85-222, 71 Stat. 497 (1957). The purposes of the Compact are to promote the orderly,
integrated, and comprehensive development of the water resources of the Klamath River
Basin for domestic and industrial use, irrigation, fish and wildlife, recreation, hydropower,

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 12 -

currently held in the reservoirs, and the loss of reservoir-based recreation, including fishingand hunting opportunities.50 These commenters express concerns about the destruction of
wildlife habitat and adverse impacts to threatened and endangered species, the loss ofrenewable hydroelectric energy, and impacts on soil stability, domestic water supply,
property values, and tax revenues.51 Commenters opposed to dam removal also note thehistoric blockage of salmon migration above Copco No. 1 reservoir, the potential provisionof anadromous fish passage without dam removal, and that salmon runs could be increased
through hatchery operations and predator control.52
The interventions and comments have been fully considered in determining whether,and under what conditions, to approve the surrender of this license and removal of the
project facilities.
V.

Statutory ComplianceA.

Clean Water Act

Under section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA),53 any applicant for a federal
license or permit for an activity that may result in a discharge into United States waters
must obtain either a water quality certification (WQC or certification) from the appropriate
state pollution control agency verifying that any discharge from the project would comply
with applicable provisions of the Clean Water Act or a waiver of such certification.
1.

Oregon DEQ’s Certification

On September 11, 2017, the Renewal Corporation applied to the Oregon Departmentof Environmental Quality (Oregon DEQ) for certification for the proposed surrender of theLower Klamath Project license and removal of project facilities. On September 7, 2018,
Oregon DEQ issued certification for the project.54 Generally, Oregon DEQ’s certification
navigation, and flood protection; and to further intergovernmental cooperation and comitywith regard to these resources. See Compact art. I.
50

Final EIS at L-1.

51

Id.

52

Id.

53

33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1).

54

On September 1, 2022, Oregon DEQ issued certification for the Renewal
Corporation’s application to the Corps for a CWA section 404 permit to placeapproximately 212,000 cubic yards of fill material in the Klamath River during removal of
J.C. Boyle dam and related facilities in Oregon. Renewal Corporation’s September 30,

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 13 -

conditions require the co-licensees to: (1) notify Oregon DEQ of any modifications to the
proposed action; (2) submit a water quality management plan; (3) develop an adaptive
management plan if water quality monitoring demonstrates that the project may contributeto exceedances of applicable water quality standards more than 24 months post-drawdown;(4) provide fish passage at all project-related artificial obstructions, mitigate project effects
on adult Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker in the J.C. Boyle Reservoir prior to
drawdown, conduct western pond turtle abundance and overwintering studies andimplement any necessary mitigation prior to drawdown of the J.C. Boyle Reservoir,
decommission project septic systems in accordance with applicable state administrative
rules, and register for coverage under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) permit 1200-C before certain construction activities occur; (5) submit a reservoir
drawdown and diversion plan; (6) submit a reservoir area management plan that includes
performance criteria and monitoring for unobstructed stream continuity, fish passage,
sediment stability, and invasive exotic vegetation abatement and native coverestablishment; (7) submit a remaining facilities and operations plan describing all project
facilities that would not be removed and proposed measures to mitigate the remaining
facilities’ potential effect on water quality; (8) submit an erosion and sediment control plan;(9) submit a waste disposal and management plan; (10) submit a spill prevention, control,and countermeasure plan; and (11) submit annual compliance reports.
Oregon DEQ’s certification conditions are set forth in Appendix A to this order andare incorporated as conditions of this surrender order by Ordering Paragraph (D).
2.

California Water Board’s Certification

On September 23, 2017, the Renewal Corporation applied to the California State
Water Resources Control Board (California Water Board) for certification for the proposedsurrender of the Lower Klamath Project license and removal of project facilities. On
April 7, 2020, the California Water Board issued certification for the project. The Renewal
Corporation filed a request to amend the certification on September 23, 2022, and on
November 3, 2022, the California Water Board issued an amended certification to accountfor updates made to the proposal since the certification was issued on April 7, 2020. In theamended certification, the California Water Board approved many of the plans that it

2022 Letter, attach. A (providing Oregon DEQ’s September 1, 2022 certification). The
Renewal Corporation notes that although Oregon DEQ did not require additional conditions
to protect water quality outside of those already required, the certification imposes
additional conditions for the Pioneer Park West Boat Ramp, the Moonshine Falls Boat
Ramp, and the Pioneer Park West Dry Hydrant. Renewal Corporation’s September 30,
2022 Letter at 1.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 14 -

previously required the Renewal Corporation to submit pursuant to the 2020 certification.
Thus, the amended certification requires implementation of those approved plans.55
Generally, the California Water Board’s amended certification conditions require theco-licensees to: (1) implement the approved water quality management plan; (2) submit,
32 months after drawdown begins, an assessment of whether exceedance of any water
quality objectives are anticipated; (3) implement the approved reservoir drawdown anddiversion plan; (4) perform an arsenic assessment and any necessary remediation of visible
sediment deposits; (5) implement the approved anadromous fish presence monitoring plan;(6) implement certain aquatic resource measures; (7) implement the approved remaining
facilities plan that describes all project facilities that would not be removed and proposed
measures to mitigate the remaining facilities’ potential effect on water quality;(8) implement the approved public drinking water management plan and construct a
replacement pipe for the City of Yreka’s water supply pipeline, limiting any interruption towater delivery to a maximum of 12 hours; (9) submit a proposal following consultation if
chemical vegetation control is proposed to control algae or aquatic weeds; (10) comply withthe terms and conditions in the California Water Board’s NPDES Construction General
Permit and prepare site-specific water quality monitoring plans for any ground-disturbing
activities that could impact water quality that are not covered by the Construction General
Permit or other certification conditions; (11) implement the approved waste disposal plan;(12) implement the approved hazardous materials management plan; (13) implement theapproved hatcheries management and operations plan; (14) implement the approved
restoration plan that includes, among other things, additional measures for restoring lands inthe reservoir footprints, establishing native vegetation cover, ensuring floodplain
connectivity, providing for no net loss of wetland or riparian habitat, protecting water
quality during restoration activities, and increasing the abundance of large woody material
in the project reaches; (15) implement specified measures to protect water supply andbeneficial uses; (16) implement the approved amphibian and reptile rescue and relocation
plan; (17) comply with the Eagle Take Permit issued by FWS, discussed below;56(18) implement the approved slope stability monitoring plan; (19) implement the approved
recreation facilities plan that identifies all recreation facilities to be removed, modified,maintained, or added following dam removal, describes ownership transfer plans, andincludes measures to protect water quality, control aquatic invasive species, and provide forwater quality impairment signage; (20) submit an interim hydropower operations plan if
drawdown activities do not begin 24 months after issuance date of this surrender order;(21) consult with California Water Board staff and comply with applicable state regulations
prior to changing any water diversion; (22) submit to the Hoopa Valley Tribe, Karuk Tribe,
Resighini Rancheria, and any other Tribe that has obtained treatment-as-a-state status under55

The certification also requires that several of the approved plans be filed with theCommission within 30 days of the amended certification.
56

See supra P 43.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 15 -

the CWA and have EPA-approved CWA standards, the 32-month water quality objective
assessment (California Water Board Condition 2) and any request to end or modify
monitoring under the water quality monitoring plan (California Water Board Condition 1)
at the locations closest to or within the Tribe’s reservation; and (23) consult with additional
parties for any condition that requires consultation with specific agencies.
The California Water Board’s certification conditions are set forth in Appendix B tothis order and are incorporated as conditions of this surrender order by Ordering
Paragraph (E).
3.

The Corps’ Section 404 Permit

Section 404 of the CWA requires authorization from the Secretary of the Army,acting through the Corps, for the discharge of dredged or fill material into all waters of theUnited States, including wetlands.57 The Renewal Corporation has applied to the Corps fora permit that would authorize the placement of approximately 212,000 cubic yards ofpermanent or temporary fill material within 20 acres of jurisdictional waters in the Klamath
River. The Renewal Corporation’s section 404 permit application remains under the Corps’
consideration. Pursuant to Ordering Paragraph (K), land-disturbing activities subject to theCorps’ jurisdiction under CWA section 404 may not begin until the Corps has issued apermit authorizing such activities.
B.

Coastal Zone Management Act

Under section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA),58 theCommission cannot issue a permit for activities within or affecting a state’s coastal zone
unless the state CZMA agency concurs with the applicant’s certification of consistency withthe 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.
In Oregon, the Klamath River is not included in the State’s coastal watersheds.
Therefore, an Oregon coastal zone consistency review is not required.
In California, the Klamath River flows into the Pacific Ocean, where the delta andestuary are designated as a Critical Coastal Area within the coastal zone. On February 4,2022, the Renewal Corporation submitted a request to the California Coastal Commission
seeking guidance as to whether a consistency certification was required.59 On April 15,57

33 U.S.C. § 1344 et seq.

58

16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(3)(A).

59

Renewal Corporation’s February 7, 2022 Notification of Consistency Certification

Request.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 16 -

2022, the California Coastal Commission notified the Renewal Corporation that it had
determined that the proposed action would not have a substantial effect on land or wateruses in the coastal zone.60 Accordingly, the California Coastal Commission determined,
and we agree, that federal consistency review is not required.61
C.

Endangered Species Act

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)62 requires federal agencies
to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of thecritical habitat of such species. On August 2, 2021, Commission staff notified FWS and
NMFS that staff had reviewed the Biological Assessment (BA) prepared by the Renewal
Corporation and adopted it as the Commission’s final BA.
In the final BA, staff concluded that license surrender and removal may affect and islikely to adversely affect: Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho salmon and its
critical habitat, southern distinct population segment eulachon and its critical habitat,
Lost River sucker, shortnose sucker, and bull trout.63 Staff concluded that the proposedsurrender and removal of the Lower Klamath Project may affect but is not likely toadversely affect: southern distinct population segment green sturgeon and its critical
habitat, Southern Resident killer whale and its critical habitat, bull trout critical habitat,
Lost River sucker critical habitat, shortnose sucker critical habitat, northern spotted owl andits critical habitat, and the Oregon spotted frog.64 Finally, staff found the proposed

Renewal Corporation’s April 18, 2022 Response to Request for Additional
Information.
60

61

Id.

62

16 U.S.C. § 1536.

Commission staff’s August 2, 2021 Request for Formal Consultation at 2. See
also Final EIS at B-2.
63

Commission staff’s August 2, 2021 Request for formal consultation at 2. The
August 2, 2021 letter incorrectly stated that there would be no effect on critical habitat for
Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker. Commission staff clarified in an August 31, 2021
letter that the proposed action may affect but is not likely to adversely affect critical habitat
for these species. Commission staff’s August 31, 2021 Response to Request to Formal
Consultation at 1-2.
64

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 17 -

surrender and removal of the Lower Klamath Project would have no effect on critical
habitat of the Oregon spotted frog.65
On August 24, 2021, FWS published its final rule to list Franklin’s bumble bee as anendangered species under the ESA.66 FWS did not designate critical habitat for the species.
By letter dated August 31, 2021, Commission staff informed FWS of its determination thatthe proposed surrender and removal of the Lower Klamath Project may affect but is not
likely to adversely affect the Franklin’s bumble bee and requested to confer with FWS on
the species.67
On December 17, 2021,68 NMFS issued a biological opinion in which it concurredwith the BA’s determination that surrender and removal of the Lower Klamath Project may
affect but is not likely to adversely affect the green sturgeon and its critical habitat. NMFS
also concurred with the BA’s determination that the proposed action may affect and islikely to adversely affect the coho salmon evolutionary significant unit (ESU) and its
critical habitat, and the eulachon and its critical habitat. However, NMFS did not concurwith the effects determination for the killer whale, instead finding that the proposed action
may affect and is likely to adversely affect the species and its critical habitat. NMFS
concluded that the proposed surrender and decommissioning is not likely to jeopardize thecontinued existence of any of these species, nor is it likely to destroy or adversely modify
their critical habitat. NMFS’s biological opinion includes an incidental take statement withreasonable and prudent measures to minimize take of the coho salmon ESU, the eulachon,and the killer whale, along with two general reasonable and prudent measures and terms
and conditions to implement the measures. The reasonable and prudent measures and terms
and conditions of NMFS’s incidental take statement are set forth in Appendix C to thisorder and are incorporated as conditions of this surrender order by Ordering Paragraph (F).
Consistent with reasonable and prudent measure (10), Ordering Paragraph (G) includes areopener clause providing for the possible amendment of the order or other authorization toincorporate any reasonable and prudent alternatives, reasonable and prudent measures, andterms and conditions resulting from any reinitiated consultation on the authorized action.
On December 22, 2021, FWS issued a biological opinion in which it concurred with
the BA’s determination that the proposed action may affect but is not likely to adversely
65

Commission staff’s August 2, 2021 Request for Formal Consultation at 2.

66

86 Fed. Reg. 47,221 (Aug. 24, 2021). The listing status became effective on
September 23, 2021.
Commission staff’s August 31, 2021 Response to Request to Formal Consultation
at 2-3. See also Final EIS at 3-388 to 3-389; B-2.
67

68

Non-substantive corrections were filed on April 18, 2022. See NMFS’s
April 18, 2022 Comments on draft EIS.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 18 -

affect the northern spotted owl and its critical habitat, Franklin’s bumble bee, Oregon
spotted frog, and critical habitat for the Lost River sucker, shortnose sucker and bull trout.
FWS also concurred with the determinations that the project may affect and is likely toadversely affect the Lost River sucker, shortnose sucker, and bull trout and further
concluded that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
these species. Finally, FWS acknowledged that the proposed action includes minimization
measures to reduce effects on the monarch butterfly, a candidate for ESA listing. FWS is
currently reviewing the listing status of the little brown bat, western bumble bee, andwestern pond turtle. Staff evaluated the effects on these species in the final EIS anddetermined that the proposed surrender and decommissioning plan includes measures tominimize effects to both the little brown bat and the western pond turtle.69 While thewestern bumble bee is not likely to be found in the project area, the use of native plants
during restoration may benefit this species. In the final EIS, staff noted the Renewal
Corporation’s proposed measures minimize effects on these species. FWS’s biologicalopinion includes an incidental take statement with reasonable and prudent measures for
Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker, along with terms and conditions to implement themeasures. The reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions of FWS’s
incidental take statement are set forth in Appendix D to this order and are incorporated asconditions of this surrender order by Ordering Paragraph (H). Consistent with reasonable
and prudent measure (2), Ordering Paragraph (I) includes a reopener clause providing forthe possible amendment of the order or other authorization to incorporate any reasonable
and prudent alternatives, reasonable and prudent measures, terms and conditions, andmonitoring requirements resulting from any reinitiated consultation on the authorized
action.
On April 6, 2022, FWS notified the Commission that the Northern District Court ofCalifornia had vacated and remanded the FWS’s delisting of the gray wolf, restoring thegray wolf’s protections under the ESA as a federally endangered species. Commission staff
determined that the proposal may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the gray wolf,and, on May 17, 2022, Commission staff requested FWS’s concurrence.70 On June 7, 2022,
FWS concurred with Commission staff on its determination for the gray wolf, concluding
consultation for the species.
The Renewal Corporation submitted a Bald and Golden Eagle Conservation Plan and
Incidental Take Permit application to FWS on January 10, 2022, pursuant to the Bald andGolden Eagle Protection Act.71 The Renewal Corporation requested a five-year incidental
69

Final EIS at 3-370 to 3-372; 3-375; 3-389 to 3-396; B-3.

Commission staff’s May 17, 2022 Request for Concurrence at 2. See also Final
EIS at 3-397; B-3.
7071

16 U.S.C. § 668.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 19 -

disturbance take permit for bald and golden eagles for activities associated with thedecommissioning of the Lower Klamath Project, and detailed how it proposed to avoid,
minimize, and offset effects on eagles. On October 17, 2022, FWS issued an Eagle Take
Permit, final Environmental Assessment, and Finding of No Significant Impact for thedecommissioning of the Lower Klamath Project. The five-year Eagle Take Permit
authorizes 26 incidents of bald eagle take by disturbance and 17 incidents of golden eagle
take by disturbance, within two miles of surrender activities.72 The Eagle Take Permit isincluded in Appendix E and incorporated in this order by Ordering Paragraph (J).
D.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act requires federal agencies to consult with the Secretary of Commerce regarding any
action or proposed action authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may
adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) identified under the Act. Undersection 305(b)(4)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is required to provide EFH
conservation recommendations for actions that would adversely affect EFH.74 Undersection 305(b)(4)(B) of the Act, an agency must, within 30 days after receiving
recommended conservation measures from NMFS or a Regional Fishery Management
Council, describe the measures proposed by the agency for avoiding, mitigating, oroffsetting the effects of the agency’s activity on EFH.75
73

In the area that could be affected by the proposal, NMFS has designated EFH for
Chinook salmon, coho salmon, Pacific Coast ground fish, and coastal pelagic species. EFH
for Chinook salmon and coho salmon includes the stretch of the Klamath River from its
mouth to Keno Dam, and upstream to Lewiston Dam on the Trinity River. EFH for Pacific
Coast ground fish and coastal pelagic species includes estuaries.
Commission staff initiated EFH consultation in an October 13, 2021 letter to NMFS.
Commission staff determined that surrender with dam removal would result in adverse
effects on Chinook and coho salmon EFH conditions for adult migration, spawning,
egg-to-fry survival, juvenile rearing, and smolt migration habitat downstream of Iron Gate
72

FWS’s October 17, 2022 Eagle Take Permit at 2-3.

73

16 U.S.C. § 1855(b)(2).

74

Id. § 1855(b)(4)(A).

75

Id. § 1855(b)(4)(B). The measures recommended by the
Secretary of Commerce are advisory, not prescriptive. However, if the federal agency does
not agree with the recommendations of the Secretary of Commerce, the agency must
explain its reasons for not following the recommendations.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 20 -

Dam in the short term, and result in no adverse effect on estuarine rearing for Chinook andcoho salmon. Staff further concluded that, over time, as deposited sediments and sedimentsthat remain in the reservoir footprints are transported or stabilized, respectively, thesurrender and dam removal would have no adverse effect on or may benefit Chinook andcoho salmon habitat. Regarding the Pacific Coast groundfish and coastal pelagic species
EFH, staff determined that surrender and dam removal would have a small and temporary
adverse effect due to elevated suspended sediment, but long-term would likely result in noadverse effect.
In its December 17, 2021 response, NMFS agreed that there would be adverse
effects to EFH for these species but provided no EFH conservation recommendations,explaining that despite there being expected short-term adverse effects, the quality of the
EFH for the species will be enhanced over the long term as a result of the proposal. NMFS
also noted that the Renewal Corporation proposes to implement a number of measuresdesigned to avoid or minimize short-term adverse effects on aquatic species and habitat.
E.

Historic and Cultural Resources1.

National Historic Preservation Act

Under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA),76 and its
implementing regulations,77 federal agencies must take into account the effect of any
proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register ofHistoric Places (National Register), defined as historic properties, and afford the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (Advisory Council) a reasonable opportunity to commenton the undertaking. This generally requires the Commission to consult with the State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) or, where a project will be located on Tribal lands,
the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, to determine whether and how a proposed action
may affect historic properties, and to seek ways to avoid or minimize any adverse effects.
On November 10, 2016, Commission staff designated the Renewal Corporation as its
non-federal representative for the purposes of conducting section 106 consultation under the
NHPA.78 Pursuant to section 106, and as the Commission’s designated non-federal
representative, the Renewal Corporation initiated consultation with the Oregon SHPO andthe California SHPO in September 2017. Around this time, the Renewal Corporation alsoestablished a Cultural Resources Working Group to assist the Commission with section 106

76

54 U.S.C. § 306108.

77

36 C.F.R. pt. 800 (2021).

78

November 10, 2016 Notice of Applications Filed with the Commission, ProjectNos. 2082-063 & 14803-001.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 21 -

compliance and to ensure open communication among consulting parties.79 On April 5,
2022, the California SHPO requested the Advisory Council’s assistance in the
consultation.80 On May 3, 2022, the Advisory Council notified the Commission of its
decision to participate in the section 106 consultation process.81
The surrender of the Lower Klamath Project license would end the Commission’s
jurisdiction over historic hydroelectric facilities, archaeological sites, and Traditional
Cultural Properties within the area of potential effect, thus removing these resources fromthe federal protection that the NHPA affords.82 Historic hydroelectric districts andindividual structures at the J.C. Boyle, Copco No. 1, Copco No. 2, and Iron Gatedevelopments would be demolished or abandoned.83 In the final EIS, Commission staff
concluded that the proposed deconstruction activities, as well as the removal of federal
oversight, would adversely affect historic properties.84 As to Traditional Cultural
Properties, staff concluded that the proposed license surrender and removal of project
facilities would result in a significant beneficial effect on restoring salmon runs, access to
traditional foods, Tribal cultural practices, and a characteristic riverine landscape.85
To address adverse effects on historic properties, the Renewal Corporation
developed a Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP), the final version of which was
filed on October 14, 2022, containing a number of general and specific treatment measuresdesigned to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects on archaeological sites and historic

79

Members of the Cultural Resources Working Group include: PacifiCorp, theOregon SHPO, the California SHPO, Forest Service, BLM, Corps, Reclamation, andrepresentatives of the Klamath Tribes, Modoc Nation, Shasta Indian Nation, Shasta Nation,
Karuk Tribe, Yurok Tribe, Quartz Valley Indian Community of the Quartz Valley
Reservation of California, Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria,
Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indian Reservation, Resighini Rancheria, and the Hoopa
Valley Tribe.
California SHPO’s April 5, 2022 Request for Advisory Council Assistance (filed
April 6, 2022).
80

81

Advisory Council’s May 3, 2022 Notice of Formal Entry into Consultation.

82

Final EIS at 3-483.

83

Id. at 3-483.

84

Id. at 3-493, 4-24.

85

Id. at 4-25.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 22 -

structures that are listed or eligible for listing in the National Register.86 For example, thesemeasures include documenting the National Register-eligible hydroelectric historic districts,
as well as contributing resources within each district, prior to the removal of project works,in accordance with the National Park Service’s (Park Service) Historic American Buildings
Survey/Historic American Engineering Record/Historic American Landscapes Survey
procedures. To protect archaeological resources, the HPMP includes measures that call for
additional surveying following reservoir drawdown, archaeological and site-condition
monitoring during construction, and a range of treatment measures such as employing
strategic plantings and signage, installing erosion control materials, and capping andarmoring archaeological sites.87 The HPMP also includes a Monitoring and Inadvertent
Discovery Plan, which provides procedures to be followed during archaeologicalmonitoring and after a post-review discovery of archaeological resources or humanremains, and a Looting and Vandalism Prevention Plan, which provides archaeologicalcrime prevention and response strategies. The Renewal Corporation developed the HPMPin consultation with the Advisory Council, California SHPO, Oregon SHPO, and Tribes,
and incorporated and addressed comments from these entities other consulting parties.
To satisfy the requirements of section 106, the Commission executed a
programmatic agreement with the Oregon SHPO, California SHPO, and Advisory Council
on October 17, 2022, and invited the Renewal Corporation, PacifiCorp, State of California,
State of Oregon, the Corps, BLM, Forest Service, Yurok Tribe, Karuk Tribe, Klamath
Tribes, Shasta Indian Nation, Modoc Nation, Quartz Valley Indian Community of theQuartz Valley Reservation of California, Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indian
Reservation, Resighini Rancheria, Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad
Rancheria, and Hoopa Valley Tribe to concur.88 The Renewal Corporation, PacifiCorp, theCorps, the Resighini Rancheria, and the Shasta Indian Nation concurred. The
programmatic agreement requires the licensees to implement the HPMP. Execution of the
programmatic agreement demonstrates the Commission’s compliance with section 106 of
the NHPA. Ordering Paragraph (LL) of this order requires the licensees to implement the
programmatic agreement and associated HPMP.
2.

Tribal Consultation

The Commission’s consultation with interested Tribes began after the Renewal
Corporation filed its initial surrender application in September 2016. By letters dated
October 18, and 26, 2017, Commission staff initiated consultation with a number of86

See id. at 3-489 to 3-492 for a detailed discussion of these measures.

87

Id. at 3-489

Advisory Council’s October 18, 2022 Transmittal Letter (providing copy ofprogrammatic agreement executed on October 17, 2022).
88Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 23 -

Tribes.89 In early 2018, staff held Tribal consultation meetings with the Hoopa Valley
Tribe, Karuk Tribe, Quartz Valley Indian Community of the Quartz Valley Indian
Reservation of California, Klamath Tribes, Yurok Tribe, and Modoc Nation. On
July 9, 2019, Commission staff held a second Tribal consultation meeting with the Yurok
Tribe. On October 11, 2021, Chairman Glick and Commission staff participated in agovernment-to-government consultation with the Yurok Tribe.90 On March 1, 2022,
Commission staff met with Shasta Indian Nation and the California SHPO. The
Commission granted cooperating agency status under the National Environmental Policy
Act to the Yurok Tribe on March 9, 2022, after the Tribe agreed to use separated staff tocooperate in preparation of the final EIS while maintaining its status as an intervenor in theproceeding.
The final EIS includes a summary of general Tribal positions regarding dam
removal.91 That summary concludes that consultation with the participating Tribes
indicates strong support for the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco No. 1, Copco No. 2, andIron Gate Dams, with the consensus being that removal is necessary to restore anadromous
fish habitat and improve water quality in the Lower Klamath River. While some Tribes
have expressed concern regarding issues such as sediment passage and exposure or erosionof significant cultural resources, which were addressed in the final EIS, the record here
shows that most participating Tribes support the removal of the dams as expeditiously as
possible.92
F.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

Section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act93 provides that the Commission“shall not license the construction of any dam, water conduit, reservoir, powerhouse,transmission line, or other project works. . . on or directly affecting any river which isdesignated” as a component of the wild and scenic rivers system. A portion of the Klamath
89

Consulted Tribes included the: Hoopa Valley Tribe, Karuk Tribe, Yurok Tribe,
Klamath Tribes, Modoc Tribe, Quartz Valley Indian Community of the Quartz Valley
Reservation of California, Resighini Rancheria, Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians ofOregon, Trinidad Rancheria, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation ofOregon, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, Cow Creek
Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, Elk Valley Rancheria (California), Pit
River Tribe (California), and the Tolowa Dee-Ni Nation. Final EIS at 1-14.
90

Commission staff’s October 13, 2021 Consultation Memorandum.

91

Final EIS, app. K (Summary of Tribal Views on Dam Removal).

92

Id. at 1-16.

93

16 U.S.C. § 1278(a).

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 24 -

River downstream of the Iron Gate Dam was added by Congress to the wild and scenic
rivers system in 1981. Most of the river was designated by Congress as recreational;
24 miles were designated as scenic; and 12 miles were designated as wild. In 1994, theSecretary of the Interior added an 11-mile segment of the Klamath River from downstreamof the J.C. Boyle Powerhouse to the Oregon and California state line to the wild and scenic
rivers system, specifically designating that stretch as scenic and subject to the requirementsof the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. However, as staff explained in the final EIS, because
the Renewal Corporation is proposing to remove an existing project, we are not licensing
the construction of any project works, and, consequently, section 7 of the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act does not apply.94
In comments filed on the draft EIS, the Forest Service, the Park Service, BLM, andAmerican Whitewater disagree that section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act does not
apply to this surrender proceeding, arguing that dam removal is still considered a type ofwater resource project per the Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council
guidance paper,95 and therefore a section 7 determination is needed.96 However, the cited
guidance paper does not assert that section 7 applies to dam removal, decommissioning, or
the surrender of a project. The Forest Service further argues that even if a section 7
determination is not needed for the surrender and decommissioning of the project, theCorps’ CWA section 404 permit, which is needed to carry out dam removal, would requirea section 7 determination.97
In any event, the Forest Service, the Park Service, and BLM developed a preliminary
section 7 determination in response to the draft EIS, finding that the dam removal proposal
is consistent with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.98 On September 30, 2022, the Park
Service filed a final section 7 determination on behalf of the Forest Service, BLM, and thePark Service affirming the findings of the preliminary determination.99 The final
determination found that dam removal and associated restoration activities would result in
94

See PacifiCorp, 133 FERC ¶ 61,232, at PP 116-117 (2010) (explaining that theWild and Scenic Rivers Act does not apply to instances where the Commission is
authorizing the removal of an existing project).
95

Wild & Scenic Rivers Act: Section 7, October 2004,
https://www.rivers.gov/documents/section-7.pdf. The Coordinating Council is made up ofrepresentatives from BLM, the Park Service, FWS, and Forest Service.
96

See, e.g., Forest Service’s April 18, 2022 Comments at 2-3.

97

Id. at 2.

98

Id. at 3.

99

The Park Service September 30, 2022 Final Determination at 1-2.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 25 -

long-term benefits to the scenery, recreation, fish, and wildlife values of the designatedriver segments, as compared to the present conditions.100 The final determination further
found there would be no invasion or unreasonable diminishment of the values of thedesignated river segments.101 Accordingly, the question of whether the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act applies to surrender and decommissioning is moot.
VI.

Dam and Public Safety

The J.C. Boyle, Copco No. 1, and Iron Gate Dams are classified as having a highhazard potential, while Copco No. 2 Dam is classified as having a low hazard potential.102
The dams range in height from approximately 30 to 200 feet. There are no known existing
dam safety issues or concerns at any of the developments. The Lower Klamath Project waslast inspected on May 10 and 11, 2022, and the project facilities were found to be insatisfactory condition.
The Renewal Corporation’s proposed pre-drawdown activities include, but are notlimited to, improvements to the Fall Creek hatchery, installation of the City of Yreka’swater supply pipeline, discussed in further detail below, road and bridge improvements,
removal and relocation of transmission lines, excavation of a low-level outlet tunnel
through Copco No. 1 Dam, full removal of Copco No. 2 Dam, and modifications to thediversion tunnel at Iron Gate Dam. In the drawdown year, the reservoirs would be lowered
and concurrent dam removal of the remaining dams would begin. Reservoir drawdown anddam removal is expected to be complete within 20 months. Following dam removal,demolition of the powerhouses and other associated structures would begin. Restoration
activities would follow.
Since the Renewal Corporation filed its original surrender application in
September 2016, Commission staff has provided preliminary comments on design drawings
and specifications, as well as other related filings. In a letter dated October 5, 2017, staff
from the Division of Dam Safety and Inspections-Headquarters (D2SI-Headquarters)
required the creation of an independent Board of Consultants to review and assess all

100

Id.

101

Id.

102

Dams classified as having a high hazard potential are those where failure would
probably cause loss of human life. Dams classified as having a low hazard potential arethose where failure would result in no probable loss of human life and would result in low
economic or environmental losses. See Safety of Water Power Projects & Project Works,
Order No. 880, 177 FERC ¶ 61,204, at P 34 (2021) (defining high, significant, and low
hazard dam classifications in 18 C.F.R. § 12.3(b)(13) (2021)).

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 26 -

aspects of the proposed dam removal process. By letter dated May 22, 2018,
D2SI-Headquarters staff approved the Board.
Subsequently on February 26, and July 15, 2021, the Renewal Corporation submitted
decommissioning design drawings and a Construction Potential Failure Mode Analysis
report, respectively. By letter dated October 13, 2021, D2SI-Portland Regional Engineer
staff found the Construction Potential Failure Mode Analysis103 report met the intent of
Chapter 14 of the Commission’s Engineering Guidelines. In the October 13 letter, theD2SI-Portland Regional Engineer offered to review a consolidated 100% construction
package, noting that any such review would be preliminary and could not prejudge theoutcome of any Commission decision on the surrender application. The Renewal
Corporation submitted a revised construction package on July 1, 2022. By letter dated
October 6, 2022, the D2SI-Portland Regional Engineer provided preliminary comments on
the revised construction package.
The design package, including the plans and specifications for the proposed work,
has not been approved by the D2SI-Portland Regional Engineer and additional
modifications are necessary based on the October 6, 2022 letter. Therefore, Ordering
Paragraph (O) of this order requires the co-licensees (the Renewal Corporation and theStates of Oregon and California) to file final decommissioning design drawings, as well as
information regarding the Board of Consultant’s review of these documents. Ordering
Paragraph (P) also requires the co-licensees to file cofferdam and deep excavation drawings
and specifications with the Commission, should cofferdams or deep excavation benecessary for the proposed work. Work may not begin until the D2SI-Portland Regional
Engineer authorizes the start of construction.
Assuming acceptance of the transfer of the license from PacifiCorp, as required by
Ordering Paragraph (B) of this order, Ordering Paragraph (N) requires the co-licensees tosubmit an Owner’s Dam Safety Program within 30 days from the issuance date of thisorder.
Once the activities required by this order are complete, the co-licensees must file adecommissioning report with the D2SI-Portland Regional Engineer. Surrender of the103

A Potential Failure Mode Analysis is an exercise to identify all potential failuremodes under normal, flood, earthquake, and other (ice, reservoir sedimentation, etc.)
loading conditions, including all external loading conditions for water retaining andconveying structures, and to assess those potential failure modes that are significant enoughto warrant continued awareness and attention to visual observation, monitoring, andremediation, as appropriate. A Construction Potential Failure Mode Analysis is conductedprior to or during construction when the proposed means and methods of construction havethe potential to adversely load or otherwise potentially compromise the structure.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 27 -

license will not be effective until the D2SI-Portland Regional Engineer issues a letter
stating that all the work required by this order has been completed.
While this order approves several management plans developed by the Renewal
Corporation that relate to general construction activities, construction activities may not
begin until authorized by the D2SI-Portland Regional Engineer.
VII.

Discussion

Section 6 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) allows licensees to voluntarily surrender
existing licenses and cease operating project works, providing that licenses“may be . . . surrendered only upon mutual agreement between the licensee and theCommission after thirty days’ public notice.”104 The Commission, in acting on a surrenderapplication, applies a broad “public interest” standard105 and may require conditions notinconsistent with the FPA as it finds to be in the public interest.106
As Commission staff noted in the final EIS, the Lower Klamath Project blocks
anadromous fish from reaching potentially hundreds of miles of the Klamath River above
the Iron Gate Dam.107 This lack of passage is considered a major contributing factor to thedecline of anadromous fish populations in the Klamath River Basin.108 Federal and statefish and wildlife agencies have the management goal of restoring anadromous fish in the
Klamath River Basin and protecting federally listed salmonid species. These agencies takethe position that the best way to restore anadromous fish is to remove the four dams of theLower Klamath Project and restore natural flow conditions.
Additionally, the Hoopa Valley Tribe, the Karuk Tribe, the Yurok Tribe, Resighini
Rancheria, and the Klamath Tribes assert that dam removal will improve the health of theriver and bring it closer to its pre-project condition, and explain that the restoration of104

16 U.S.C. § 799.

FPL Energy Me. Hydro, LLC, 106 FERC ¶ 61,038, at P 20 (2004), reh’g denied,107 FERC ¶ 61,120 (2004), aff’d on other grounds, Save our Sebasticook v. FERC,
431 F.3d 379 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (FPL Energy). The broad public interest standard is not thesame as the public interest/comprehensive development standards applied to licensing
proceedings by FPA sections 4(e) and 10(a)(1). Id. (citing Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.,
100 FERC ¶ 61,185, at PP 12-13 (2002)).
105

106

16 U.S.C. § 803(g).

107

Final EIS at 3-245.

108

Id. at 3-237.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 28 -

salmon runs and improvement in water quality are of great cultural importance to the Tribal
communities residing along the Lower Klamath River.109
Others support dam removal for economic reasons, arguing that keeping the dams inplace would likely require costly upgrades, including the development of fish passage
facilities. Proponents also state that dam removal and restoration will create hundreds ofjobs in the area and increase tourism and recreational fishing industries.
Those in opposition to dam removal express concerns that it would adversely affectprivate wells, reduce property values and tax revenue, adversely affect water storage forfighting fires, remove a source of renewable power, affect local roadways and traffic, andeliminate jobs. Some question the science and engineering in support of dam removal,
arguing that the developments have not caused declines in anadromous fisheries nor havethey adversely affected water quality. Further, they maintain that dam removal will
adversely affect the salmon fishery, release toxic sediment downstream, expose Tribal
burial grounds and artifacts, increase flooding, reduce downstream flows, and affect lake
recreation. We find these issues were fully addressed in the final EIS; for example, studies
have shown that reservoir sediments have generally low concentrations of contaminants andare not acutely toxic.110 Several of these topics are discussed further below.
The proposed surrender of the Lower Klamath Project license and removal of thefour project developments is the culmination of a multi-year effort supported by a broad
range of stakeholders, as reflected in the provisions of the Amended Settlement Agreement.
In the final EIS, Commission staff concluded that the proposed action would result inenvironmental benefits that outweigh the associated adverse effects.111 While a request to
surrender a license need not be accompanied by a proposal to remove project works, therecord here indicates that removing the four developments as proposed by the Renewal
Corporation would result in significant environmental benefits. For example, dam removal
and restoration of natural flow conditions would significantly improve water quality andprovide anadromous fish access to historical habitat upstream of Iron Gate Dam.112 This
opened fish passage would increase the number of naturally produced salmon and steelhead
and improve the resiliency of these populations and other aquatic resources.113 Damremoval would also have beneficial effects on riverine recreation, the scenic landscape,tourism, income from commercial fishing, subsistence fishing, and ocean and in-river sport
109

See id. at 3-497.

110

Id. at 3-65.

111

See id. at 4-29.

112

Id. at 4-8.

113

Id.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 29 -

fishing.114 As explained above, dam removal is also of great cultural importance to Tribal
communities as it would aid in the continuation and restoration of Tribal practices andtraditions by improving water quality, as well as the aquatic resources, fisheries, andterrestrial resources used by Tribes.115
After balancing these environmental benefits with the issues raised by opponents of
dam removal,116 we find that license surrender, decommissioning, and removal of the
project developments are in the public interest. Additionally, we note that the Commission
cannot obligate a licensee to continue to operate its project;117 a licensee is free to surrenderits license and cease project operations upon Commission approval.118 We also note that,
here, no entity has offered to take over and operate the project. Accordingly, we approve
the Renewal Corporation’s surrender application, with the modifications discussed below
and subject to the conditions in this order’s ordering paragraphs.
Our approval of this application is conditioned on the Renewal Corporation and theStates accepting transfer of the license and implementing a number of measures that reflect
the Renewal Corporation’s proposal, the mandatory conditions required by other agencies,
and the recommendations of Commission staff. Staff’s recommended modifications to the
management plans are discussed below. Additionally, certain issues associated with license
surrender and dam removal are discussed further below.
Some commenters allege that the proposed funding for project decommissioning is
insufficient to cover the costs.119 Others express concerns about cost overruns should
project decommissioning exceed the $450 million provided for in the Amended Settlement
Agreement and whether the States are legally committed to provide funding for any cost
overruns.120

114

Id. at 4-26.

115

Id. at 4-25.

116

See supra P 70.

FPL Energy, 106 FERC ¶ 61,038 at P 31, reh’g denied, 107 FERC ¶ 61,120,
aff’d sub nom Save our Sebasticook v. FERC, 431 F.3d 379.
117

at 4-6.

118

Ariz. Pub. Serv. Co., 109 FERC ¶ 61,036, at P 39 (2004).

119

E.g., Loy and John Beardsmore’s March 15, 2021 Comments at 1-2.

120

E.g., Congressmen Cliff Bentz and Doug LaMalfa’s June 23, 2022 CommentProject Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 30 -

As we explained in the June 17 Transfer Order, we continue to find that the$450 million should be sufficient, based on the independent Board of Consultants’ priorreview.121 Additionally, PacifiCorp and the States have committed to creating an additional$45 million contingency fund, and stated that any cost overruns beyond the amount of thecontingency fund would be shared equally by PacifiCorp and the States.122 If the States andthe Renewal Corporation accept the transfer and become co-licensees, they will jointly andseverally share the liabilities associated with project decommissioning and be bound by thelicense as if they were the original licensees.123
A.

Management Plans

Fifteen of the 16 management plans and the associated subplans include measures tominimize adverse effects related to construction activities, as well as to restore land
occupied by the existing facilities and reservoirs.124 The 16th plan, the Interim Hydropower
Operations Plan, describes how the project would be operated until such time thatdrawdown and dam removal are initiated. This order approves, without modification, theInterim Hydropower Operations Plan, Remaining Facilities Plan, Oregon Erosion andControl Subplan, Health and Safety Plan, Waste Disposal and Hazardous Materials
Management Subplan, Historic Resources Management Plan, and the Aquatic Resources
Management Plan. The remaining plans are approved with the modifications discussed
below.125
In comments on the draft EIS, the Renewal Corporation agreed to many of staff’s
draft EIS recommendations and committed to incorporating those recommendations into the
management plans and subplans.126 In the final EIS, staff recommended additional
modifications to several management plans. Staff modifications, as well as Renewal
Corporation’s agreed upon modifications, are briefly discussed below.

121

June 17 Transfer Order, 175 FERC ¶ 61,236 at P 32.

122

Id. P 17.

123

Id. P 34.

124

Final EIS at 2-3.

125

See also PP 102 & 104 (discussing modifications to the Construction
Management, Sediment Deposit Remediation, Water Supply Management, Slope Stability
Monitoring, and Recreation Facilities Management Plans to provide for public outreach toenvironmental justice communities) and PP 115-116 (discussing modifications to the Fire
Management Plan).
126

See generally Renewal Corporation’s April 18, 2022 Comments, app. A.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 31 -To minimize construction effects on air quality, the Renewal Corporation plans to
implement air quality mitigation measures negotiated as part of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) consultation process with the California Water
Board.127 In the final EIS, Commission staff recommended further modifying theConstruction Management Plan with respect to the use of contractors that use equipmentthat meets or exceeds EPA’s exhaust emission standards to protect air quality during
construction. In Ordering Paragraph (S), we approve the Construction Management Plan,consistent with staff’s recommendation, to require the Renewal Corporation use suchcontractors to the extent practicable.
In comments on the final EIS, EPA recommends the Renewal Corporation work with
the Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District to establish air quality advisory andresponse procedures when project activities are expected to temporarily exceed air quality
standards or thresholds of significance. We find this coordination request reasonable and,to the extent such advance warning can be provided, we encourage the Renewal
Corporation to coordinate with both the Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District for
construction activities at the developments in Siskiyou County, as well as the Oregon DEQ
for the construction activities at the J.C. Boyle development. We consider this coordination
to be part of best management practices during construction to alert the community inanticipation of poor air quality events.
In its comments on the draft EIS, Siskiyou County noted that the development of an
erosion and sediment control plan was proposed for activities at the J.C. Boyle developmentin Oregon, but not for the developments in California.128 Therefore, in the final EIS, staff
recommended that the Renewal Corporation develop and file for Commission approval anerosion and sediment control plan that identifies best management practices to minimize
pollution from sediment erosion caused by facilities removal and restoration activities thatwould take place in California. In its comments on the final EIS, Siskiyou County
requested that Commission staff’s recommendation become a requirement of any
Commission order.129 We agree with staff’s recommendation and, in Ordering
Paragraph (V), require the Renewal Corporation to develop, in consultation withappropriate California agencies and Tribes, a California Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan, and file the plan for Commission approval at least 90 days before starting removal
activities.
As described in the final EIS, water quality during drawdown is a primary concern.
In the final EIS, Commission staff recommended certain modifications to the Oregon and127

Specifically, the Renewal Corporation plans to implement air quality measures
AQ-1 through AQ-5, which are described in the final EIS at 3-569 to 3-570.
128

Siskiyou County’s April 18, 2022 Comments.

129

Siskiyou County’s October 24, 2022 Comments at 2.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 32 -

California Water Quality Monitoring Plans to estimate and manage suspended sedimentloads.130 In its comments on the final EIS, Siskiyou County requested that Commission
staff’s recommendation become a requirement of any Commission order.131 In Ordering
Paragraph (GG), we approve the Renewal Corporation’s modifications to its Water Quality
Monitoring and Management Plan to include periodic estimation of suspended sedimentloads at several monitoring stations, as well as require real-time remedial actions,
i.e., adaptive management, depending on real-time turbidity monitoring.
In its comments on the draft EIS regarding its Reservoir Area Management Plan, theRenewal Corporation agreed to conduct vegetation sampling in late spring/early fall as
proposed, and again in late fall, prior to the onset of woody vegetation dormancy, as
recommended by Commission staff. In the final EIS, Commission staff recommended
several further modifications to the plan, including: (1) identification of potential
cool-water areas and their restoration; (2) inclusion of pre-work maps that would identify
areas of grading, water runoff control measures, planting, seeding, mulching, irrigation
areas, work zones, delineated wetland areas, reservoir footprints, the J.C. Boyle Power
canal and scour hole, and areas of temporary disturbance where revegetation activities
would occur; (3) pre- and post-drawdown requirements for cultural resources inspections;and (4) in the event of sediment grading, a provision for an on-site cultural monitor to bepresent to ensure any cultural resources are identified on the historical pre-dam groundsurface, grading stops, and appropriate measures are taken to ensure protection of thoseresources. We agree with these recommendations and also recognize that the approved
HPMP includes the measures identified above to ensure the protection of any cultural
resources identified during restoration of the reservoir footprints. In Ordering
Paragraph (FF), we approve the Reservoir Area Management Plan with the modifications.
In its comments on the draft EIS, the Renewal Corporation agreed with Commission
staff’s recommendation to modify the California Slope Stability Monitoring Plan,132 a
subplan of the Reservoir Drawdown and Diversion Plan, to include: (1) monitoringmonthly for six months following drawdown via one or more of the following methods:
Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR),133 photogrammetry, and/or ortho-imagery;(2) realigning affected road segments, engineering structural slope improvements, andrevegetating affected areas; and (3) providing funding to move or repair damaged structures

130

Final EIS at 4-32.

131

Siskiyou County’s October 24, 2022 Comments at 2.

132

Renewal Corporation’s December 14, 2021 Filing at Ex. K.

133

LiDar is a remote sensing method that uses light in the form of pulsed lasers tomeasure distance and is commonly used in creating high resolution maps.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 33 -or purchasing affected properties.134 Ordering Paragraph (Y) approves the Reservoir
Drawdown and Diversion Plan with these modifications to the California Slope Stability
Monitoring Plan.
In its comments on the draft EIS, the Renewal Corporation agreed with Commission
staff’s recommendation to modify the Del Norte Sediment Management Plan135 to remove
the $14,000 cost cap for removal of sediment deposits attributable to the project fromidentified boat ramps. Furthermore, the Renewal Corporation stated that the Del Norte
Sediment Management Plan will refer to the Memorandum of Understanding with
Del Norte County and the Crescent City Harbor District, which identifies mitigation
measures to address potential increased sediment deposition within Crescent City Harbor
during the dam removal and reservoir drawdown period.136 The Renewal Corporation mustalso provide for public outreach to Hmong- and Spanish-speaking communities that use thereservoir as a base for fishing activity that may be affected by construction activities related
to project surrender. Thus, in Ordering Paragraph (X), we approve the Del Norte Sediment
Deposit Remediation Plan provided that the Renewal Corporation modifies the Del Norte
Sediment Management Plan to reflect the changes described above.
Based on Siskiyou County’s comments on the draft EIS, Commission staff in the
final EIS recommended modifying the California Sediment Deposit Remediation Plan137 toinclude the period of time (in years) during which the Renewal Corporation would assess
sediment deposits on parcels with a current or potential residential or agricultural use, forwhich the property owner has notified the Renewal Corporation of a sediment deposit that
may be associated with reservoir drawdown activities. We agree that the plan should
include a period of time following drawdown during which sediment deposits would beassessed. In the final EIS, Commission staff concluded that the proposed action is expected
to result in short-term effects on suspended sediment concentration in the hydroelectric134

This funding would be available to cooperating landowners who allow theco-licensees access to their private properties for a pre-drawdown baseline assessment andfor subsequent assessments during and after drawdown, as needed, to determine whether
and how any reported structural damage is related to the drawdown.
Renewal Corporation’s December 14, 2021 Filing at Ex. L. The Del Norte
Sediment Management Plan is a subplan of the Sediment Deposit Remediation Plan.
135

Renewal Corporation’s March 3, 2021 Filing of the Memorandum ofUnderstanding Between County of Del Norte, the Crescent City Harbor District and the
Klamath River Renewal Corporation.
136

Renewal Corporation’s December 14, 2021 Filing at Ex. L. The California
Sediment Deposit Remediation Plan is a sub-plan of the Sediment Deposit Remediation
Plan.
137

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 34 -

reach and Lower Klamath River;138 thus a period of three to five years of monitoring would
be consistent with the determination. However, we will require five years of monitoring to
be consistent with some of the other plans required by this order. Therefore, in Ordering
Paragraph (W), we approve the California Sediment Deposit Remediation Plan withmodifications that the plan include five years of monitoring and provide for public outreachwith Hmong- and Spanish-speaking communities.
In its comments on the draft EIS, the Renewal Corporation stated that it plans to
attach a new waterline to the Daggett Road Bridge and that it would revise the California
Public Drinking Water Management Plan to reflect this change. The revised design would
reduce both in-water and upland ground disturbance. Accordingly, in Ordering
Paragraph (AA), we approve the California Public Drinking Water Management Plan withthe modification that the plan provide for attachment of a new waterline to the Daggett
Road Bridge.
In comments on the draft EIS, FWS recommended additional buffers around
disturbance areas in the survey area for nesting birds. Specifically, FWS recommended a
250-foot buffer around disturbance areas for non-eagle raptor nests139 and a 50-foot buffer
around disturbance areas for nests of all other bird species. FWS also recommended
limiting the removal of structures that provide roosting habitat for bats from September 1 toMarch 31. In the final EIS, Commission staff recommended adopting these measures. In
Ordering Paragraph (JJ), we require these provisions as part of the Renewal Corporation’s
Terrestrial and Wildlife Management Plan.
In the final EIS, Commission staff recommended additional consultation on the
Recreation Facilities Management Plan with American Whitewater and the Upper Klamath
Outfitters Association on necessary restrictions to public access during construction tominimize adverse effects on recreational users. Staff also recommended consultation with
the Shasta Indian Nation on the names of future recreation sites. In Ordering
Paragraph (KK), we approve the Recreation Facilities Management Plan with thesemodifications as well as a requirement to provide recreational signage in Spanish andHmong, discussed further below.140
B.

Disposition of Parcel B Lands

The Amended Settlement Agreement describes two general categories of land that
PacifiCorp owns in Oregon and California within the hydroelectric reach: Parcel A lands,
138

Final EIS at 3-86.

139

See supra P 43 (discussing the Bald and Golden Eagle Conservation Plan andassociated take permit).
140

See infra PP 103-104.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 35 -

which “are not directly associated with the Klamath Hydroelectric Project, and generally
not included within the existing project boundary,” and Parcel B lands, which are“associated with the Klamath Hydroelectric Project and/or included within the FERC
project boundary.”141 The Lower Klamath Project boundary encloses approximately
4,000 acres of land, of which PacifiCorp owns approximately 3,500 acres.142 Pursuant to
the Amended Settlement Agreement, PacifiCorp would transfer ownership of the vast
majority of lands that it owns within the project boundary to the Renewal Corporation
before removal of the project facilities.143 Once facility removal is complete and allconditions of the surrender satisfied, the Renewal Corporation would transfer ownership ofthese lands to the respective States or to a designated third-party transferee, which would
manage the lands for conservation purposes.144 In describing these land transfers, theAmended Settlement Agreement also states that “[i]t is also the intent of the [parties to theagreement] that transferred lands shall thereafter be managed for public interest purposessuch as fish and wildlife habitat restoration and enhancement, public education, and public
recreational access.”145
Throughout this proceeding, the Shasta Indian Nation has voiced strong interest in
acquiring certain Parcel B lands following completion of the license surrender and removal
of facilities. American Whitewater and the Upper Klamath Outfitters Association support
the Tribe’s interest in acquiring these lands. The Nation reports that it is involved inongoing consultation with the California Natural Resources Agency regarding thedevelopment of a process for the disposition of Parcel B lands in accordance with theAmended Settlement Agreement.146 The Nation maintains that it is not possible toadequately assess the mitigation of unavoidable impacts to Tribal cultural resources on
Parcel B lands without understanding final ownership of these lands.147 It states that the
future ownership and ongoing stewardship of Tribal cultural resources on Parcel B lands
141

Amended Settlement Agreement, § 7.6.4.A. We note that the Amended
Settlement Agreement, and thus this description, predates the March 15 Amendment Order,
which administratively separated the J.C. Boyle, Copco No. 1, Copco No. 2, and Iron Gatedevelopments and created the Lower Klamath Project.
142

Final EIS at 3-445. The rest of the land is owned by the United States(administered by BLM), the State of Oregon, or private landowners.
143

Amended Settlement Agreement, § 7.6.4.A.

144

Id.

145

Id.

146

Shasta Indian Nation’s September 12, 2022 Comments at 3.

147

Id.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 36 -

remains of paramount concern to the Tribe and that the Tribe is best positioned for the
stewardship of Shasta Tribal cultural resources, in particular the land associated with the
Kikaceki District Traditional Cultural Property.148
The Shasta Indian Nation’s comments reiterate the importance of California Tribal
cultural resource mitigation measures,149 and appear to suggest that the Commission should
become involved in the negotiation process with the state agencies.150 It is theCommission’s understanding that these mitigation measures were negotiated as part of the
CEQA consultation process with the California Water Board.151 The Renewal Corporation
maintains that the California Water Board suggested these mitigation measures as possibly
reducing impacts, but that the Board did not ultimately rely on implementation of thesemeasures in reaching its significance determination for the Environmental Impact Reportbecause the Renewal Corporation’s implementation of such measures was infeasible under
the terms of the Amendment Settlement Agreement.152 Nor did the Board include theserecommendations as conditions to its water quality certification. By way of example, theRenewal Corporation explains that once the terms of the surrender order are complete, it
148

Id.

149

Specifically, the Shasta Indian Nation seeks implementation of Tribal Cultural
Resource (TCR) measures TCR-6, TCR-7, and TCR-8 identified in the California Water
Board’s April 9, 2020 Environmental Impact Report, which generally consider the
possibility of future transfer of some Parcel B lands, land easements and transfer
stipulations, and off-site land transfers, respectively, that may benefit Tribes.
See Shasta Indian Nation’s September 12, 2022 Comments at 2-4. In a
subsequent comment, the Shasta Indian Nation also expresses concern regarding the
HPMP’s discussion of these mitigation measures being relocated from the text of the plan
to an appendix, based on comments received from the California SHPO and Commission
staff. See Shasta Indian Nation’s October 2, 2022 Comments.
150

See, e.g., Shasta Indian Nation’s October 4 Comments at 2. Specifically,
California Assembly Bill 52 requires the lead agency to consider Tribal cultural resources
early in the CEQA process and, if a project may cause a substantial adverse change to
Tribal cultural resources, consider measures to mitigate that impact. State of California,
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Technical Advisory: AB 52 and Tribal
Cultural Resources in CEQA (June 2017), https://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/20200224AB_52_Technical_Advisory_Feb_2020.pdf.
151

Renewal Corporation’s September 16, 2022 HPMP, attach. 1 at 10; see also
California Water Board’s April 2020 Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume III,
Attachment 1 at AT1-806 n.87,
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/water_quality_cert/doc
s/lower_klamath_ferc14803/lkp_final_feir_vol_iii_att_1.pdf.
152

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 37 -

will transfer the Parcel B lands to the States of California and Oregon and will have nocontrol over any easement or transfer stipulations that the States may enact.153 The
Renewal Corporation notes that the State of California, through the California Natural
Resources Agency and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (California DFW), is
engaged in ongoing consultation with Tribes to develop a plan for future ownership andmanagement of Parcel B lands.154 The Renewal Corporation states that once Tribal
consultation is complete, the State of California will consider input from the signatories to
the Amended Settlement Agreement before finalizing its decision on the future ownershipand management of Parcel B lands in California.155
As we have explained in other surrender proceedings, it is not appropriate for theCommission to place encumbrances on a licensee’s ownership of project lands after our
jurisdiction has ended.156 Similarly, there is no legal basis for us dictating how a licensee
disposes of lands that are not needed for project purposes, and certainly not if those actions
take place when the Commission no longer has jurisdiction over a former licensee. The
Amended Settlement Agreement provides that, once the surrender is complete, the Renewal
Corporation will transfer ownership of the Parcel B lands to the States of Oregon andCalifornia or to a designated third party. Further, Parcel B lands transferred to the States ofOregon and California will be managed for public interest purposes and in accordance withthe respective state land management agencies’ strategic plans.157 Because theCommission’s jurisdiction will end once the license surrender becomes effective, theultimate disposition of the Parcel B lands is a matter that must be left to the States ofOregon and California.158
C.

Fall Creek Hatchery

The purpose of the Hatcheries Management and Operation Plan is to provide
capacity for fish propagation during dam removal and for repopulation of new habitat
153

Id.

154

Id.

155

Id. at 11.

156

FPL Energy, 106 FERC ¶ 61,038 at P 52.

157

Final EIS at 3-450.

158

See Project Decommissioning at Relicensing, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,011,
at 31,223 (explaining that once Commission jurisdiction over a project ends, theCommission cannot require future ongoing conditions, and future actions would have to be
the result of the former licensee’s voluntary action or the requirements of the new
regulatory regime that follows).

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 38 -

following dam removal.159 The plan describes the co-licensees’ plans to construct andoperate the Fall Creek Hatchery,160 while retiring the hatchery located at Iron Gate
Development.161 In the draft EIS, staff recommended that the Renewal Corporation file arevised Hatcheries Management and Operation Plan to clarify future ownership of the Fall
Creek Hatchery and the likelihood that fish production at that facility would continue
beyond the eight-year period following dam removal.162
The Renewal Corporation subsequently committed to funding for eight years theoperation of the Fall Creek Hatchery, to be leased to California DFW, and agreed to modify
the Hatcheries Management and Operation Plan to clarify that PacifiCorp will continue to
own the lands occupied by the Fall Creek Hatchery and the newly constructed hatcheryfacilities.163
The Hoopa Valley Tribe has expressed concern with the transfer of ownership of fish
hatchery facilities to California DFW and advocated for consideration of an alternative
under which the Fall Creek Hatchery would be owned and operated by FWS.164 As
explained above, although California DFW would operate the Fall Creek Hatcheryfacilities, PacifiCorp would retain ownership of the hatchery facilities for eight years
following dam removal. During this time, California DFW would coordinate with NMFS,
Oregon DFW, Tribes, and commercial fishing interests to determine if fish production at
the Fall Creek Hatchery should continue beyond the eight-year period, taking into accountfactors such as river conditions and water quality; the natural recruitment of fish; the effects
159

Final EIS at 2-22. The Fall Creek Hatchery fish production goals are set forth inTable 2.1-4 of the final EIS. Id. at 2-23.
160

The final EIS explains that the Fall Creek Hatchery was constructed in 1919 tocompensate for the loss of spawning grounds due to the construction of Copco No. 1 Dam.
Id. at 3-206. Although six original rearing ponds remain, California DFW last used theponds from 1979 until 2003 to raise Chinook salmon yearlings for release into the Klamath
River at Iron Gate Hatchery. Yearling production at the Fall Creek Hatchery ceased in2003 when California DFW transferred all fish production to the Iron Gate Hatchery. Id.
161

Id. To implement the Hatcheries Management and Operations Plan, hatcheryoperations at the Fall Creek Hatchery must be functional prior to drawdown of Iron Gate
Reservoir.
162

Final EIS at 3-248.

163

Id.

See Hoopa Valley Tribe’s April 19, 2022 Comments at 2 and February 26, 2021
Motion to Intervene at 5 (opposing transfer of ownership of the Iron Gate Hatchery to
California DFW, as provided for in the Amended Settlement Agreement).
164

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 39 -of climate change; and to what extent, if any, continued hatchery operation is necessary.165
In the event that continued hatchery operation is found appropriate, California DFW would
work with PacifiCorp to develop mutually agreeable terms under which PacifiCorp would
transfer ownership of the facility to California DFW, or extend the lease beyond year
eight.166 We find the proposed plan for operating the Fall Creek Hatchery during theeight years following dam removal, as well as the process for determining if hatcheryproduction should continue beyond year eight, to be reasonable and, in Ordering
Paragraph (II), approve the Hatcheries Management and Operations Management Plan
provided that the plan is modified to clarify future ownership and operation of the hatcheryfacilities as described above.167 Further, we note that the Commission has no authority todirect another federal agency, such as FWS—which has in any event expressed no interestin operating the hatchery—to assume ownership and operation of the facility.
D.

Environmental Justice

The Commission follows Executive Order 12898, which directs federal agencies to
identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects” of their actions on minority and low-income populations (i.e., environmental justicecommunities).168 Executive Order 14008 also directs agencies to develop “programs,
policies, and activities to address the disproportionately high and adverse human health,environmental, climate-related and other cumulative impacts on disadvantaged
communities, as well as the accompanying economic challenges of such impacts.”169
Environmental justice is “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people

165

Final EIS at 3-242.

166

Id.

167

We note that once the surrender has become final, we will have no authority
regarding the hatchery.
168

Exec. Order No. 12,898, 59 Fed. Reg. 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994). While theCommission is not one of the specified agencies in Executive Order 12898, theCommission nonetheless addresses environmental justice in its analysis, in accordance with
our statutory duties.
169

Exec. Order No. 14,008, 86 Fed. Reg. 7619 (Feb. 1, 2021). The term“environmental justice community” includes disadvantaged communities that have been
historically marginalized and overburdened by pollution. Id. at 7629. The term also
includes, but may not be limited to, minority populations, low-income populations, orindigenous peoples. See EPA, EJ 2020 Glossary (Aug. 18, 2022),
https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/ej-2020-glossary.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 40 -

regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.”170
Consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)171 and EPA172
guidance, Commission staff considers: (1) whether environmental justice communities(e.g., minority or low-income populations)173 exist in the project area; (2) whether impacts
on environmental justice communities are disproportionately high and adverse; and(3) what mitigation measures might be needed. Following the recommendations set forth inPromising Practices, the Commission uses the 50% and the meaningfully greater analysis
170

EPA, Learn About Environmental Justice,https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/learn-about-environmentaljustice#:~:text=Environmental%20justice%20(EJ)%20is%20the,environmental%20laws%2
C%20regulations%20and%20policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people shouldbear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting fromindustrial, governmental, and commercial operations or policies. Id. Meaningful
involvement of potentially affected environmental justice community residents means:(1) people have an appropriate opportunity to participate in decisions about a proposed
activity that may affect their environment and/or health; (2) the public’s contributions caninfluence the regulatory agency’s decision; (3) community concerns will be considered in
the decision-making process; and (4) decision makers will seek out and facilitate theinvolvement of those potentially affected. Id.
171

CEQ, Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental
Policy Act 4 (Dec. 1997) (CEQ’s Environmental Justice Guidance),https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G-CEQEJGuidance.pdf. CEQ offers recommendations on how federal agencies can provide
opportunities for effective community participation in the NEPA process, including
identifying potential effects and mitigation measures in consultation with affected
communities and improving the accessibility of public meetings, crucial documents, andnotices. There were opportunities for public involvement for environmental justicecommunities during the Commission’s environmental review processes, though the record
does not demonstrate that these opportunities were targeted at engaging environmental
justice communities. See supra P 16.
172

See generally EPA, Promising Practices for EJ Methodologies in NEPA
Reviews (Mar. 2016) (Promising Practices), https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/201608/documents/nepa_promising_practices_document_2016.pdf.
173

See generally Exec. Order No. 12,898, 59 Fed. Reg. 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994).
Minority populations are those groups that include: American Indian or Alaskan Native;
Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic. CEQ’s Environmental
Justice Guidance at 25.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 41 -

methods to identify minority populations.174 Specifically, a minority population is present
where either: (1) the aggregate minority population of the block groups in the affected area
exceeds 50%; or (2) the aggregate minority population in a block group affected is 10%
higher than the aggregate minority population percentage in the county.175
CEQ’s Environmental Justice Guidance also directs low-income populations to be
identified based on the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the U.S. Census Bureau.176
Using Promising Practices’ low-income threshold criteria method, low-income populations
are identified as block groups where the percent of low-income population in the identified
block group is equal to or greater than that of the county.177
To identity potential environmental justice communities for the analysis presented
here, Commission staff used 2019 U.S. Census American Community Survey data178 for therace, ethnicity, and poverty data at the block group level.179 Additionally, in accordance174

See Promising Practices at 21-25.

175Here, depending on the location of the block group, Commission staff selected
the State of Oregon or the State of California as the comparable reference community toensure that affected environmental justice communities are properly identified. A reference
community may vary according to the characteristics of the particular project and thesurrounding communities. Because low-income populations may vary in dispersal within astate and its counties, we use the lesser of the state and county low-income levels toaccurately identify all potential low-income communities. In this case, the state was usedas the reference population because, in all cases, the state’s percentage of low-income
households is lower than the counties in which the block groups are located. Final EIS
at 3-540.
176

CEQ’s Environmental Justice Guidance at 26.

177

See Promising Practices at 25.

178

U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates
Detailed Tables, File# B17017, Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by
Age of Householder, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=B17017; File #B03002
Hispanic or Latino Origin By Race, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=b03002.
179

For this project, staff chose a fivr-mile radius around the project boundary as thearea of study. Final EIS at 3-539. Staff found that, for most resources, a five-mile radius issufficiently broad and allows for a thorough analysis of the direct effects of the removal of
project dams and facilities and restoration activities in the surrounding project area. Where
the proposed action may result in downstream direct effects on a resource, staff considereda broader geographic scope beyond the five-mile radius around the project boundary. To
address downstream effects, staff selected a geographic scope that included all block groups

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 42 -

with Promising Practices, staff used EJScreen, EPA’s environmental justice mapping andscreening tool, as an initial step to gather information regarding minority and low-income
populations; potential environmental quality issues; environmental and demographic
indicators; and other important factors.
Once staff collected the block group level data, as discussed in further detail below,
staff conducted an impacts analysis for the identified environmental justice communities
and evaluated relevant health or environmental hazards; the natural physical environment;
and associated social, economic, and cultural factors to determine whether impacts toenvironmental justice communities are disproportionately high and adverse. For thisproject, Commission staff determined both whether impacts were disproportionately highand adverse on environmental justice populations and also whether those impacts weresignificant.180 Commission staff assessed whether impacts to an environmental justicecommunity were disproportionately high and adverse based on whether those impacts werepredominately borne by that community, consistent with EPA’s recommendations in
Promising Practices.181
In the final EIS, Commission staff identified four environmental justice communities
within the 11 block groups in the geographic scope of analysis for this project.182 Three of
the identified environmental justice communities are located in Siskiyou County,
California, while the fourth is located in Jackson County, Oregon.183 The identified
environmental justice communities border the Copco No. 1 and Iron Gates Reservoirs andthe Klamath River below Iron Gate Dam.184 Staff’s impact analysis focused on how thewithin a one-mile radius buffer along the Klamath River from J.C. Boyle Dam to theconfluence of the Klamath River and Humbug Creek.
See Promising Practices at 33 (stating that “an agency may determine that
impacts are disproportionately high and adverse, but not significant within the meaning of
NEPA” and in other circumstances “an agency may determine that an impact is both
disproportionately high and adverse and significant within the meaning of NEPA”).
180

181

Id. at 44-46 (explaining that there are various approaches to determining whether
an action will cause a disproportionately high and adverse impact, and that one
recommended approach is to consider whether an impact would be “predominantly borneby minority populations or low-income populations”). We recognize that EPA and CEQ
are in the process of updating their guidance regarding environmental justice and we will
review and incorporate that anticipated guidance in our future analysis, as appropriate.
182

Final EIS at 3-541.

183

Id. at 3-541.

184

Id. at 3-552.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 43 -

project’s resource effects would affect the identified environmental justice communities.
The final EIS identified several temporary, adverse effects on environmental justicecommunities—including effects on slope stability, sediment deposition on private property,
air quality, noise, and traffic.185 The final EIS also identified long-term, adverse effects onenvironmental justice communities, including effects on groundwater well productivity, fire
management, reservoir angling, access to and type of available recreation opportunities,changes in county tax revenues in California, and aesthetics.186 Additionally, the final EIS
explained that long-term, beneficial effects would result from the project, including
increased river recreation opportunities, restoration of the natural geomorphology in thehydroelectric reach, long-term improvements in aquatic habitat, and restoration of thesalmon and steelhead fisheries.187 We discuss temporary and long-term adverse effects, andassociated mitigation measures, below.
Removal of the project reservoirs could adversely affect groundwater well
production in environmental justice communities.188 In the final EIS, Commission staff
found that implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, including plans to enhanceoutreach efforts associated with the Renewal Corporation’s well monitoring program,
would reduce the significance of these effects.189 Staff also observed that several mitigation
measures intended to address adverse effects on private land related to groundwater well
production, sediment deposits, and slope stability would require landowners to notify theco-licensees of property impacts following dam removal, but that the associatedmanagement plans did not include a public outreach component.190 Therefore, in the final
EIS, staff recommended revisions to the Sediment Deposit Remediation Plan, Water Supply
Management Plan, Slope Stability Monitoring Plan, and any other plan that requires
landowners to contact the co-licensees for mitigation services, to include a required public
outreach component that specifically addresses communication with environmental justice

185

Id.

186

Although identified as one of the long-term, adverse effects on environmental
justice communities, staff determined that aesthetic changes associated with dam removal
are more subjective, noting that draining of the project reservoirs would result in apermanent visual effect that, depending on the viewer, may be either adverse or beneficial.
See Final EIS at 3-548 and 3-552.
187

Id. at 3-554.

188

Id. at 3-552.

189

Id. at 3-552 to 3-553.

190

Id. at 3-554.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 44 -

communities.191 In its comments on the final EIS, Siskiyou County requested that
Commission staff’s recommendation become a requirement of any Commission order.192
This order requires the co-licensees to modify the Construction Management, Sediment
Deposit Remediation, Water Supply Management,193 and Slope Stability Monitoring Plans
to include public outreach with Spanish- and Hmong-speaking communities. In the final
EIS, Commission staff concluded that with targeted outreach to property owners andsufficient participation in well monitoring programs, adverse effects on environmental
justice communities from impacts on groundwater wells would be less than significant.194
We agree.
Recreation opportunities would also change from reservoir-based to river-based
recreation. The loss of reservoir-based recreation would affect shoreline residents,
including both those in environmental justice and non-environmental justicecommunities.195 The effect on environmental justice communities may be disproportionate
if most reservoir users are low-income or minority individuals.196 In the final EIS,
Commission staff concluded that the applicant-proposed drawdown and removal of the
project’s reservoirs would have a significant, permanent, adverse effect on reservoir-based
recreation users who may be unable to travel extensively for recreational purposes.197 The
Renewal Corporation proposes to place signs at recreation sites informing users of closure
dates and potential risks associated with the altered landscape following reservoir
drawdown.198 In the final EIS, Commission staff recommended providing signs in Spanish
and Hmong to ensure non-English speakers can access the information and to enhance

191

Id. at 3-556.

192

Siskiyou County’s October 24, 2022 Comments at 2.

193

The Water Supply Management Plan comprises four subplans—the California
Water Supply Management Plan, the California Public Drinking Water Management Plan,
the Oregon Groundwater Well Management Plan, and the Fire Management Plan. We
approve these subplans with modifications, respectively, in Ordering Paragraphs (Z), (AA),(BB), and (CC) of this order.
194

Final EIS at 3-543 to 3-544.

195

Id. at 3-553.

196

Id.

197

Id. at 3-545.

198

Id. at 3-555.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 45 -

communication with environmental justice communities.199 The final EIS reached noconclusion with respect to whether the placement of signs at recreation sites would reduce
the significance of the adverse impacts. We find that, while signage may provide
information that is useful, the impacts would remain significant.
In addition, reservoir removal would lead to changes in fishing opportunities asaquatic species in the project area transition from lake-dwelling panfish to riverine
species.200 Although fishing access may improve, these changes would affect communities
that rely on the project reservoirs for subsistence fishing; such effects would be permanentand could disproportionately affect environmental justice communities.201 However, thefinal EIS observed that, given the occurrence of large, blue-green algae blooms in the
project reservoirs, the shift from lake-dwelling species to riverine species would benefit
environmental justice communities by reducing the risk of adverse health effects associatedwith the local fish population.202 Commission staff recommended that the signs posted atrecreation sites include information, in Spanish and Hmong, notifying recreation users
about the changes in fish availability.203 This will ensure the information is available to all
recreation users, including residents in environmental justice communities. Accordingly,
Ordering Paragraph (KK) of this order requires the co-licensees to modify the Recreation
Facilities Management Plan to ensure that recreation site signage is accessible to Spanish
and Hmong speakers and includes information regarding the changes in fishing availability.
In the final EIS, Commission staff concluded that the proposed removal of project facilities
may have a significant, long-term, adverse effect on aquatic resources with respect toenvironmental justice communities. The final EIS reached no conclusion with respect towhether the placement of signs about changes in fish availability would reduce thesignificance of the adverse impacts. We find that while partially mitigated, the impacts
would remain significant.

199

Id.

200

Id. at 3-553.

201

Id.

202

Id.

203

Id. at 3-555.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 46 -

Additionally, in the final EIS, Commission staff concluded that the decommissioning
and surrender may cause temporary significant adverse impacts to traffic204 andconstruction-related impacts205 with respect to environmental justice communities.
As described above, the Commission engaged in Tribal consultation and the final
EIS includes a summary of Tribal positions regarding the impacts of the surrender anddecommissioning.206 In addition to assessing specific Tribal impacts separately, theCommission also considers, where appropriate, impacts on Tribes as part of our overall
assessment of impacts on environmental justice communities.207 We note, as discussed
above, that surrender and decommissioning will have substantial positive impacts on anumber of Indian Tribes, and many of those Tribes have strongly supported this action as
crucial to their goals and historical practices.208
In the final EIS, Commission staff concluded that the staff-recommended measuresdescribed above would reduce the significance of short- and long-term adverse effects onenvironmental justice communities.209 Staff found that although the overall effects of the
proposed action with staff modifications would continue to be disproportionately high andadverse, the staff-recommended mitigation would provide greater protection toenvironmental justice communities than would be provided by the Renewal Corporation’s
proposal.210 We agree with Commission staff’s conclusion that with staff modifications, the204

Id. at 3-547 to 3-548.

205

Id. at 3-550 to 3-551.

206

See supra PP 53-54.

207

See Final EIS at 3-558, Table 3.13-1, which includes census data on American
Indian and Alaskan Native populations that Commission staff uses to help identify potential
environmental justice communities.
208

The final EIS discussed a number of positive impacts associated with dam
removal cited by Tribes in their support of decommissioning. The positive impacts include
improving salmon access to historical and existing habitat, improving water quality,
improving Tribal fisheries, and reducing toxic algae blooms. Id. at 3-504 to 3-505. In
addition, Commission staff analysis of resource impacts affecting Tribes concluded thatdam removal would improve water quality; reduce the incidence of fish kills; reduce theforeseeable risk of the demise of salmon and steelhead runs in the Klamath River and its
tributaries; and increase habitat available to salmon and steelhead, which would in turnincrease recreational and potentially commercial fishing activity. Id. at 3-506.
209

Id. at 3-556.

210

Id.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 47 -

license surrender and project removal, as conditioned in this order, would result in a
disproportionately high and adverse effect on environmental justice populations.
Furthermore, we agree that while the adverse effects of the proposed action would be
improved from additional mitigation recommended by staff and would improve conditions
for environmental justice communities over the proposed action, the overall effects of the
proposed action as mitigated continue to be disproportionately high and adverse. We also
agree with Commission staff’s conclusion that the beneficial effects associated with dam
removal would outweigh long-term, adverse effects associated with the proposed action
with staff modification.211
E.

Effects on Wells and Water Supply

Groundwater wells adjacent to the Lower Klamath Project reservoirs provide
domestic and irrigation water supply to local residents.212 Commenters, including
Siskiyou County, have expressed concern regarding the effect of dam removal on
residential groundwater supply wells. In the final EIS, Commission staff found thatdraining the reservoirs would lower groundwater levels in the aquifer adjacent to thereservoirs, which could affect existing groundwater wells.213 To mitigate potential effects
on groundwater wells, the Renewal Corporation proposes to implement the measuresdescribed in its California Water Supply Management Plan and Oregon Groundwater Well
Management Plan.214 These measures include, but are not limited to monitoring wells,
public outreach for participation in the well monitoring program, and providing restorationof affected wells.215
In addition, California Water Board WQC Condition 15 requires the Renewal
Corporation to monitor groundwater levels within a 2.5-mile range of the California
reservoirs’ (i.e., Copco No. 1, Copco No. 2, and Iron Gate reservoirs) ordinary high-watermark before, during, and after reservoir drawdown.216 Specifically, California Water Board
WQC Condition 15 directs the Renewal Corporation to: identify potentially affected
groundwater wells by contacting all residents and landowners within 1,000 feet of the
211

Id.

212

Id. at 3-47.

213

Id. at 4-4.

214

Id. at 3-47. The California Water Supply Management Plan and the Oregon
Groundwater Well Management Plan are subplans of the Renewal Corporation’s Water
Supply Management Plan.
215

Id.

216

California Water Board WQC, app. B at Condition 15.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 48 -

California reservoirs to inquire about their groundwater wells; monitor groundwater levels
at a minimum of 10 locations within 1,000 feet of the California reservoirs for at least
two months before commencing drawdown activities; continue to monitor groundwaterlevels on a monthly basis and submit an annual groundwater report to the California Water
Board for at least two years following drawdown completion; and, if necessary, to mitigate
groundwater impacts.217
In the final EIS, staff concluded that the Renewal Corporation’s proposed mitigation
measures would address adverse effects on wells owned by landowners that agree toparticipate in well monitoring.218 Staff cautioned that any landowners that choose not toparticipate in the Renewal Corporation’s well monitoring program may run the risk of notparticipating in mitigation.219
F.

Effects on Property Values and Tax Revenue

Several commenters, including Siskiyou County,220 have expressed concern thatremoval of the project reservoirs would adversely affect the property value of parcels along
the reservoirs’ shorelines. While PacifiCorp owns the reservoirs, the southern and eastern
shores of Copco No. 1 Reservoir and some of the areas near Iron Gate Reservoir include
residential development.221 Most waterfront properties are located around Copco No. 1
Reservoir.222
The final EIS explains that some studies on dam removal have reported increases inprivate property values following removal due to improvements in water quality, removalof dam structures, and enhancement of the natural riparian environment. Other studies havedescribed private property values decreasing briefly and regaining value by the end of
two years.223 Another study referenced in the final EIS concluded that lake adjacency does
have a positive and significant effect on residential property values and that, all things being
217

Id.

218

Final EIS at 4-5.

219

See id. at 3-50.

220

Three of the four project dams (i.e., Copco No. 1, Copco No. 2, and Iron Gate
Dams) are located in Siskiyou County, California.
221

Final EIS at 3-513.

222

Id.

223

Id. at 3-550 (citing Interior and California DFW’s 2012 Klamath Facilities
Removal Final EIS/Environmental Impact Report, Vol. 1 at 3.15-20).

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 49 -

equal, properties on a lake, with lake proximity or a lake view are worth more thanproperties without these characteristics.224 Staff observed that, while dam removal could
influence a potential buyer’s decision to purchase a property, that decision would depend on
the buyer’s preference for lake-front or river-front property as well as a host of otherproperty-specific preferences.225 We agree with staff’s analysis in the final EIS that dam
removal may result in property values changes, but that the direction or significance of theeffect on property values is unclear.226 Moreover, as we have noted in other surrender
proceedings, the value of local property will depend upon how prospective home andlandowners value river-front as opposed to lake-front property.227
Commenters, such as Siskiyou County, have also raised concerns that removal of the
project will result in significant tax revenue losses. While it is possible that revenues
related to the presence of the project will be lost, we have previously stated that thetermination of any business venture reduces tax revenues to governments, but is not areason to deny a surrender application.228
G.

Wildfire Suppression

The project reservoirs are currently used for both aerial- and land-based firefighting
activities.229 Draining the reservoirs may increase the risk of wildfire damage to local
properties by reducing these water sources as well as by removing fire breaks that thereservoirs provide.230 The Renewal Corporation proposes to implement a Fire Management224

Id. (citing Kruse, S.A. and A.J. Scholz. 2006. Preliminary economic assessmentof dam removal: the Klamath River).
225

Id. (citing Kruse, S.A. and J. Ahman. 2009. The value of lake adjacency: ahedonic pricing analysis on the Klamath River, California. Ecotrust Working Paper
Series 5, Portland OR.).
226

Final EIS at 3-550 (examining the potential for property value changes and how
such changes may affect environmental communities around Copco No. 1 and Iron Gate
Reservoirs).
227

PacifiCorp, 133 FERC ¶ 61,232 at P 144.

228

Id. (citing Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 83 FERC ¶ 61,226, at n.12 (1998);
FPL Energy, 106 FERC ¶ 61,038 at P 58).
229

Final EIS at 3-450, 4-22.

230

Id.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 50 -

Plan231 that includes measures to improve early detection of wildfires, assist property
owners’ efforts to create defensible space around homes, and develop additional water
access sites for aerial- and land-based fire suppression efforts.232 The Fire Management
Plan also provides for early wildfire detection capabilities through the installation of
remote, camera-monitored detection systems at several sites throughout the region that willallow for precise triangulation of fires.233 As part of the Fire Management Plan, theRenewal Corporation has also committed to constructing or improving six sites that will
provide access to water to fill water trucks.234 Two of the six sites will be dry hydrants
located at existing road-stream crossings, three sites will be boat ramps with dry hydrants,
and the remaining site will be a boat ramp without a dry hydrant.235 Staff determined thatthe proposed location of these sites would provide an appropriate geographic distribution ofwater supplies for land-based fire suppression actions.236
In its comments on the draft EIS, the Renewal Corporation agreed to modify the Fire
Management Plan to incorporate staff’s recommendations to include: (1) the addition of
dry hydrants that meet National Fire Protection Association standards at Fall Creek
confluence and Iron Gate Dam/Hatchery boat launches; (2) the removal of the Deer Creek
and Beaver Creek dry hydrants; (3) the installation of a boat ramp at Copco Valley site
within the Copco No. 1 Reservoir area; (4) a statement that California Department ofForestry and Fire Protection or a local firefighting agency will be responsible for storage,
deployment, and fill of portable water tanks; (5) the installation of five additional dip tanks;and (6) a public outreach component that specifically addresses communication related toemergency planning with Hmong- and Spanish-speaking communities. The Renewal
Corporation also provided a technical memorandum detailing locations for the proposed dry
hydrants.237

231

The Fire Management Plan is a subplan of the Water Supply Management Plan.
See Renewal Corporation’s December 14, 2021 Revised Management Plans, Ex. P,
app. D – Fire Management Plan.
232

Final EIS at 3-453, 4-22.

233

Id. at 3-453 to 3-454.

234

Id. at 3-454.

235

Id.

236

Id.

237

Fire Access Boat Ramp & Dry Hydrant Design Memo, McMillen Jacobs
Associates, June 24, 2022 (filed June 30, 2022).

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 51 -In the final EIS, staff concluded that the Fire Management Plan’s mitigation
measures, along with the Renewal Corporation’s agreed upon modifications, would reduce
effects on fire suppression. We agree with staff and in Ordering Paragraph (CC), weapprove the Fire Management Plan with the modifications discussed above.
H.

Local Land Use and Zoning Requirements

Siskiyou County asks the Commission to expressly condition its surrender order on
the Renewal Corporation complying with all applicable county regulations, including land
use and zoning regulations, prior to project implementation.238 The County argues that the
Renewal Corporation intends to move forward with a project timeline that fails to accountfor compliance with county land use and zoning regulations.239 Siskiyou County
specifically references the Renewal Corporation’s plans to build a construction camp at
Copco No. 2 dam,240 which will consist of a construction office and construction support
facilities, temporary housing facilities, laydown areas, and parking.241 The County statesthat despite it notifying the Renewal Corporation that the construction work camp would
require a zone change application and a use permit, the Renewal Corporation has not taken
action to comply with local regulations.242
It is well established that the FPA preempts all state and local law concerninghydroelectric licensing apart from those adjudicating proprietary water rights.243
Furthermore, the Commission has found that since the determination of whether a license
should be surrendered is an action taken pursuant to the FPA, and the Commission retains

238

Siskiyou County’s September 29, 2022 Comments at 1, 3.

239

Id. at 1.

240

While Siskiyou County maintains that the construction work camp will be locatedon an undeveloped 11-acre site within Siskiyou County, we note that the Renewal
Corporation is evaluating two alterative locations, situated adjacent to one another. See
Construction Management Plan, Appendix E – Construction Camp Management Plan at 6(Construction Camp Plan). The final location will be determined between the co-licensees
prior to construction. Id.
241

Construction Camp Plan at 5.

Siskiyou County’s September 29, 2022 Comments at 2 (citing the Construction
Camp Plan at 5).
242

243

The courts have found that, except for proprietary water rights, the FPA has“occupied the field,” foreclosing state regulation. Sayles Hydro Assocs. v. Maughan,
985 F.2d 451, 456 (9th Cir. 1993); see also Cal. v. FERC, 495 U.S. 490 (1990).

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 52 -

jurisdiction over the project until the license surrender is accepted and becomes effective,
federal preemption applies to a license surrender.244
At the same time, we have also explained that preemption does not mean that theCommission will not elect to require a licensee to comply with local requirements that do
not conflict with a licensee’s ability to carry out the Commission’s orders.245 We prefer for
our licensees to be good citizens of the communities in which projects are located, and thus
to comply with state and local requirements, where possible.246 However, to the extent thatstate or local regulations make compliance with our orders impossible or unduly difficult,we will conclude that such regulations are preempted.247
Siskiyou County fails to describe with any specificity the particular land use andzoning regulations that would apply to Copco No. 2 Construction Camp. The Commissionis therefore unable to evaluate whether requiring compliance with such regulations would
rise to the level of making compliance with aspects of this surrender order impossible orunduly difficult. For similar reasons, we decline to impose a blanket requirement on the
Renewal Corporation to comply with Siskiyou County’s regulations. However, we remind
the Renewal Corporation that it must endeavor to comply with local ordinances that do not
unduly interfere with compliance with this order. Furthermore, we encourage the Renewal
Corporation to consult with Siskiyou County on final plans for the Copco No. 2
Construction Camp, including ultimate site selection.
Similarly, Commission staff recommended in the final EIS that the co-licensees
consult with Siskiyou County regarding disposal of construction debris, related to the Waste
Disposal and Management Plan. We encourage this cooperation regarding waste disposal.
Ordering paragraph (EE) approves the Waste Disposal and Hazardous Materials
Management Plan.
I.

City of Yreka Water Rights

In its comments on the draft EIS, the City of Yreka expresses concern over the effectthe surrender and decommissioning would have on its right to divert water from Spring

244

PacifiCorp, 115 FERC ¶ 61,194, at P 8 (2006).

Id. P 9 (explaining that “it is within the Commission’s sole discretion todetermine the extent to which [compliance with local regulation] will be required” and thata county “may be permitted to exert regulatory authority to the degree that the Commission
allows.”).
245

246

Id.

247

Id.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 53 -

Creek and Fall Creek for municipal purposes.248 The City’s water supply originates fromtwo diversions located just downstream of the Fall Creek facility, a hydroelectric facility
that is part of the Klamath Project No. 2082.249 The City seeks reassurance that its watersupply will not be impacted by the Lower Klamath Project’s decommissioning, but notesthat it understands that its water rights could be potentially impacted by the Klamath Project
relicensing proceeding.250 We agree with staff’s conclusion in the final EIS that there
would be no effect on the City’s continued use of its water rights because the surrender anddecommissioning will not include any changes to the Fall Creek hydroelectric facility.251
A section of the City of Yreka’s current water supply pipeline crosses the Iron Gate
Reservoir, and the Renewal Corporation will construct a new, fully operational replacement
pipe prior to any drawdown activities, pursuant to California Water Board WQC
Condition 8.252 Any interruption to water delivery will be limited to a maximum of
12 hours or another water delivery outage timeframe agreed upon between the City of
Yreka and the Renewal Corporation.253 We agree with staff’s conclusion in the final EIS
that replacement of the pipeline will not change the water supply amount diverted from Fall
Creek for the City’s water supply.254 We also note that whether there is sufficient water tosatisfy an entity’s rights is outside our jurisdiction.
VIII. Conclusion
We find surrender of the Lower Klamath Project license and removal of the project
to be in the public interest and grant the Renewal Corporation’s surrender application,subject to terms and conditions and acceptance of the license transfer.
As discussed above, pursuant to the June 17 Transfer Order, the Renewal
Corporation and the States have until 30 days following issuance of this order approving

248

City of Yreka’s April 18, 2022 Comments at 3-7.

249

Id. at 4.

250

Id. at 6. Since 2016, the relicensing proceeding for Klamath Project No. 2082 hasbeen held in abeyance. See supra P 7 and PacifiCorp, 155 FERC ¶ 61,271. Upon issuanceof this surrender order, the abeyance will no longer be in effect.
251

Final EIS at 3-45, 3-456.

252

See app. B.

253

Id.

254

Final EIS at 3-45.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 54 -

surrender to accept license transfer and co-licensee status.255 Additionally, the Renewal
Corporation and the States have until 30 days following issuance of this order to file thetransfer of title to properties under the license and delivery of all license instruments.256 If
the transfer becomes effective, the Renewal Corporation and the States will all be bound by
the terms and conditions of this surrender order. Moreover, if the transfer becomes
effective, PacifiCorp will continue to operate and maintain the project until electric
operations cease and the project powerhouses are physically disconnected from the grid.257
The Commission orders:(A) The amended application to surrender the license for the Lower Klamath
Hydroelectric Project No. 14803-001, filed jointly by the Renewal Corporation andPacifiCorp on September 23, 2016, and supplemented on November 17, 2020, February 26,
2021, December 14, 2021, May 2, 2022, and September 16, 2022, subject to the conditions
set forth in Ordering Paragraphs (B) through (MM), is approved.
(B) Within 30 days of issuance of this order, the Renewal Corporation, State ofOregon, and State of California, co-licensees, must acknowledge acceptance of the June 17
Transfer Order and its terms and conditions by signing and filing the acceptance sheet
attached to the June 17 Transfer Order. PacifiCorp must transfer title of the properties
under the license, transfer all project files including all dam safety related documents,
deliver all license instruments to the Renewal Corporation, State of Oregon, and State ofCalifornia, and file certified copies of all instruments of conveyance within 30 days of
issuance of this order.
(C) The abeyance of the relicense proceeding for the Klamath ProjectNo. 2082-027 is no longer in effect.
(D) This surrender is subject to the conditions submitted by the Oregon
Department of Water Quality under section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
§ 1341(a)(1), as those conditions are set forth in Appendix A to this order.
(E) This surrender is subject to the conditions submitted by the California State
Water Resources Control Board under section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
§ 1341(a)(1), as those conditions are set forth in Appendix B to this order.
255

June 17 Transfer Order, 175 FERC ¶ 61,236 at ordering para. (C).

256

Id.

257

Id. P 15; see also January 13, 2021 Transfer Application at Ex. 6 (providing
2017 Operation and Maintenance Agreement entered into between PacifiCorp and theRenewal Corporation).

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 55 -(F)
The terms and conditions and reasonable and prudent measures of theincidental take statement included with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National
Marine Fisheries Service’s December 17, 2021 Biological Opinion, with corrections filedon April 18, 2022, are hereby incorporated into this order. The incidental take statement is
attached as Appendix C.
(G) Consistent with reasonable and prudent measure 10 of the National Marine
Fisheries Service’s incidental take statement, the Commission reserves the authority toreopen this order or other authorization to incorporate any reasonable and prudent
alternatives, reasonable and prudent measures, terms and conditions, and monitoring
requirements resulting from any reinitiated consultation on the authorized action.
(H) The terms and conditions and reasonable and prudent measures of theincidental take statement included with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s December 22,
2021 Biological Opinion are hereby incorporated into this order. The incidental takestatement is attached as Appendix D.
(I)
Consistent with reasonable and prudent measure two of the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service’s incidental take statement, the Commission reserves the authority toreopen this order or other authorization to incorporate any reasonable and prudent
alternatives, reasonable and prudent measures, terms and conditions, and monitoring
requirements resulting from any reinitiated consultation on the authorized action.
(J)
The co-licensees must implement the provisions required by the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service’s October 17, 2022 Eagle Take Permit. The Eagle Take Permit is attached
as Appendix E.
(K) The co-licensees may not conduct any land-disturbing activities subject to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ jurisdiction under section 404(a) of the Clean Water Act,
33 U.S.C. § 1344(a), unless and until the Corps issues a permit authorizing such activities.
(L) Interim Hydropower Operations Plan: The Interim Hydropower
Operations Plan, filed on December 14, 2021, is approved.
(M) The co-licensees must complete the following decommissioning activities inaccordance with the November 17, 2020 Amended Application for Surrender of License:
1. removal of water-retaining, containment, and conveyance structures;
2. barricading/plugging of the J.C. Boyle, Copco No. 2, and Iron Gate tunnels
and the Copco No. 1 Penstock #3 portal;
3. removal of the powerhouses and associated structures and equipment;
4. removal of the operator village buildings and all associated utilities;

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 56 -

5. removal of above-ground substation equipment, conduit, transmission lines,
and support structures; and6. grading and filling of the removal areas and channels.
(N) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the co-licensees must submit an
Owner’s Dam Safety Program which will be in effect following the Facilities Termination
Date for each facility until it is removed. The co-licensees must file the Owner’s Dam
Safety Program with the Secretary of the Commission, preferably through eFiling. The
co-licensees must also submit two hard copies of the document to the Commission’s
Division of Dam Safety and Inspections – Portland Regional Engineer. The Owner’s Dam
Safety Program must comply with part 12, subpart F, of the Commission’s regulations;explain the interrelationship between the co-licensees regarding dam safety issues; andinclude the name(s) and resume(s) of the individual(s) responsible for overseeing all dam
safety issues during this period. For additional guidance on preparing an Owner’s Dam
Safety Program, the co-licensees should refer to the Commission’s website.
(O) At least 60 days prior to the start of any construction, the co-licensees mustfile final decommissioning design documents and information regarding the Board ofConsultants’ (Board) review of the design documents with the Secretary of theCommission, preferably through eFiling. The co-licensees must also submit two hardcopies of the documents to the Division of Dam Safety and Inspections – Portland Regional
Engineer. The design documents must include: final plans and specifications, supporting
design report, Quality Control and Inspection Program, Temporary Construction
Emergency Action Plan, and Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. The information
regarding the Board’s review of the design documents must include: (1) Board commentson the design documents; (2) a description of how the Board’s comments were addressed in
the final design documents; and (3) a statement from the Board that the final design
documents adequately address its previous comments and that the Board is in agreementwith the final design documents. The co-licensees may not begin construction until theDivision of Dam Safety and Inspections – Portland Regional Engineer has reviewed andcommented on the documents, determined that all preconstruction requirements have beensatisfied, and authorized start of construction.
(P)
Should decommissioning activities require cofferdams or deep excavations,the co-licensees must: (1) have a Professional Engineer, who is independent from theconstruction contractor, review and approve the design of contractor-designed cofferdams
and deep excavations prior to the start of construction; and (2) ensure that the constructionof cofferdams and deep excavations is consistent with the approved design. At least
30 days before starting construction of any cofferdams or deep excavations, the co-licensees
must file the approved cofferdam and deep excavation construction drawings andspecifications, and the letters of approval with the Secretary of the Commission, preferably
through eFiling. The co-licensees must also submit two hard copies of the documents to theCommission’s Division of Dam Safety and Inspections – Portland Regional Engineer.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 57 -(Q) Within 30 days of completing decommissioning activities, the co-licensees
must file with the Secretary of the Commission, preferably through eFiling, a final
decommissioning report, with photographs, that documents that project facilities have been
decommissioned in accordance with this order and the final decommissioning design
documents. The final decommissioning report must include a table that lists eachdecommissioning and restoration requirement approved or required by this order, alongwith its completion date. The co-licensees must also submit two hard copies of this reportto the Commission’s Division of Dam Safety and Inspections – Portland Regional Engineer.
(R) The surrender of the license for the Lower Klamath Project shall not beeffective until the Commission’s Division of Dam Safety and Inspections – Portland
Regional Engineer has issued a letter stating that the project’s facilities have been
decommissioned in accordance with this surrender order and the Commission’s Division of
Hydropower Administration and Compliance is satisfied with the required monitoring inaccordance with this surrender order.
(S)
Construction Management Plan. The Construction Management Plan, filed
on December 14, 2021, and supplemented on April 18, 2022, with the following
modifications, is approved. The co-licensees must:
1. Incorporate AQ-1 through AQ-5 mitigation measures, negotiated as part of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) consultation process;2. purchase and retire carbon offsets to address mitigation measure ENR-1 of the
CEQA consultation process;3. provide public outreach that specifically addresses communication related toemergency planning with Hmong- and Spanish-speaking communities which
may be affected by construction activities related to project surrender; and4. to use, to the extent practicable, contractors that use prescribed equipment thatmeets or exceeds EPA’s exhaust emission standards for model year 2010 andnewer heavy-duty on highway compression-ignition engines.
(T) Remaining Facilities Plan. The Remaining Facilities Plan, filed on
December 14, 2021, is approved.
(U) Oregon Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. The Oregon Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan, filed on December 14, 2021, is approved.
(V) California Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. At least 90 days before
starting removal activities, the co-licensees shall file, for Commission approval, aCalifornia Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. The plan must identify erosion andsediment control best management practices (BMPs) to minimize pollution from sedimenterosion caused by facilities removal and restoration activities that would take place in
California.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 58 -The plan must be prepared after consultation with the appropriate California
agencies and Tribes. The co-licensees must include with the plan documentation of
consultation, agency comments on the plan, and a description of how agency comments areaccommodated by the plan. The co-licensees must allow a minimum of 30 days for the
California agencies and Tribes to comment prior to filing the plan with the Commission.
(W) California Sediment Deposit Remediation Plan. The California Sediment
Deposit Remediation Plan, filed on December 14, 2021, is approved with the following
modifications. The Renewal Corporation must include a period of five years of monitoring
to assess sediment deposits on parcels with a current or potential residential or agriculturalland use, for which the property owner has notified the licensee of a sediment deposit that
may be associated with reservoir drawdown activities. The plan must also provide forpublic outreach to Hmong- and Spanish-speaking communities.
(X) Del Norte Sediment Management Plan. The Del Norte SedimentManagement Plan, filed on December 14, 2021, and supplemented on April 18, 2022, isapproved with elimination of the $14,000 cost cap for removal of sediment deposits
attributable to the project from identified boat ramps in Crescent City Harbor and on theLower Klamath River. The Del Norte Sediment Management Plan will refer to theMemorandum of Understanding with Del Norte County and the Crescent City Harbor
District. The plan must provide for public outreach to Hmong- and Spanish-speaking
communities.
(Y) Reservoir Drawdown and Diversion Plan. The Reservoir Drawdown andDiversion Plan, filed on December 14, 2021, and supplemented on April 18, 2022, with thefollowing modifications, is approved. For the California Slope Stability Monitoring Plan, asubplan, the co-licensees must provide for:1. Monitoring once monthly for six months following drawdown via one ormore of the following methods: LiDAR, photogrammetry, and/or
ortho-imagery;
2. realigning affected road segments, engineer structural slope improvements,
and revegetate affected areas;
3. moving or repairing damaged structures or purchase affected properties(available to cooperating landowners who allow the licensees access to theirprivate properties for a pre-drawdown baseline assessment and for subsequentassessments during and after drawdown, as needed, to determine whether andhow any reported structural damage is related to the drawdown); and4. Public outreach to Hmong- and Spanish-speaking communities.
(Z) California Water Supply Management Plan: The California Water Supply
Management Plan, filed on December 14, 2021, is approved. The co-licensees must

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 59 -

provide for public outreach to Hmong- and Spanish-speaking communities regarding theplan.
(AA) California Public Drinking Water Management Plan: The California
Public Drinking Water Management Plan, filed on December 14, 2021, is approved withthe additional requirement that the co-licensees must provide for attachment of the newwaterline to the Daggett Road Bridge. The co-licensees must provide for public outreach to
Hmong- and Spanish-speaking communities regarding the plan.
(BB) Oregon Groundwater Well Management Plan: The Oregon Groundwater
Well Management Plan, filed on December 14, 2021, is approved. The co-licensees must
provide for public outreach to Hmong- and Spanish-speaking communities regarding theplan.
(CC) Fire Management Plan: The Fire Management Plan, filed on December 14,
2021, and supplemented on April 18, 2022, is approved with the following modification.
The co-licensees must include:
1. Additional dry hydrants that meet National Fire Protection Association
standards at Fall Creek confluence and Iron Gate Dam/Hatchery boat
launches;
2. the removal of the Deer Creek and Beaver Creek dry hydrants;
3. a boat ramp to be installed at Copco Valley site within the Copco No. 1
Reservoir area;
4. a provision that the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection or a
local firefighting agency will be responsible for storage, deployment, and fillof portable water tanks;
5. five additional dip tanks; and6. a public outreach component that specifically addresses communication
related to emergency planning with Hmong- and Spanish-speaking
communities.
(DD) Health and Safety Plan: The Health and Safety Plan, filed on December 14,
2021, is approved.
(EE) Waste Disposal and Hazardous Materials Management Plan: The Waste
Disposal and Hazardous Materials Management Plan, filed on December 14, 2021, isapproved.
(FF) Reservoir Area Management Plan: The Reservoir Area Management Plan,
filed on December 14, 2021, and supplemented on April 18, 2022, is approved with thefollowing additional provisions:Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 60 -

1. The co-licensees must undertake two periods of vegetation sampling eachyear, in late spring/early summer and late fall prior to the onset of woody
vegetation dormancy; and2. the co-licensees must include detailed pre-work maps for upland areas thatwould identify potential cool-water areas and their restoration, grading, waterrunoff control measures, planting, seeding, mulching, irrigation areas, workzones, delineated wetland areas, reservoir footprints, the J.C. Boyle Power
canal and scour hole, and areas of temporary disturbance where revegetation
activities would occur.
(GG) Water Quality Monitoring and Management Plan: The Water Quality
Monitoring and Management Plan, filed on December 14, 2021, with the following
modifications is approved. The co-licensees must:
1. Provide all reports and correspondence to the Hoopa Valley Tribe, and anyother Tribe that has subsequently obtained Clean Water Act
treatment-as-a-state status;
2. at a minimum, and at the frequencies stipulated under Condition 1 of the
California Water Quality Certificate and Condition 2 of the Oregon Water
Quality Certificate, provide estimations of suspended sediment loads during
and following reservoir drawdown using continuous flow and turbidity
measurements at the following six continuous monitoring stations:(a) Klamath River 1.3 miles below Dam (USGS gage No. 11509500);(b) Klamath River five miles below J.C. Boyle Dam (USGS gageNo. 11510700); (c) Klamath River below Iron Gate Dam (USGS gageNo. 11516530); (d) Klamath River near Seiad Valley (USGS gageNo. 11520500); (e) Klamath River at Orleans (USGS gage No. 11523000);and (f) Klamath River near Klamath (USGS gage No. 11530500);
3. incorporate measures for any in-water work activities that could impact water
quality (including beneficial uses) not otherwise covered by the Construction
General Permit of the California Water Quality Certificate in accordance with
the California Water Quality Certificate condition 10;
4. consult with the California Water Board and Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality regarding continuous monitoring at the monitoring
station between Shovel Creek and Copco No. 1 Reservoir to ensure theco-licensees’ proposed methods would provide reliable estimates for sedimenttransport from the reservoir and ensure any inconsistencies in continuous
monitoring sites are resolved; and5. identify any remedial actions taken, i.e., adaptive management, depending on
real-time turbidity monitoring.
(HH) Aquatic Resources Management Plan: The Aquatic Resources
Management Plan, filed on December 14, 2021, is approved.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 61 -(II) Hatcheries Management and Operations Plan: The Hatcheries
Management and Operations Plan, filed on December 14, 2021, and supplemented on
April 18, 2022, is approved. The approved plan provides that, for a period of eight years
following removal of Iron Gate Dam, PacifiCorp will retain ownership of the lands
occupied by the Fall Creek Hatchery and will own the new hatchery facilities and theCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife will lease the lands and facilities needed tooperate the hatchery.
(JJ) Terrestrial and Wildlife Management Plan: The Terrestrial and Wildlife
Management Plan, filed on December 14, 2021, is approved with the following
modifications:
1. Extend the survey area for nesting birds to include a 250-foot buffer around
disturbance areas for non-eagle raptor nests and a 50-foot buffer around
disturbance areas for nests of all other bird species; and2. limit the removal of structures that provide roosting habitat for bats from
September 1-March 31.
(KK) Recreation Facilities Management Plan: The Recreation Facilities
Management Plan, filed on December 14, 2021, is approved with the following
modifications:
1. A provision to consult with American Whitewater, in addition to Upper
Klamath Outfitters Association, to schedule construction activities and access
restrictions to minimize adverse effects on whitewater boaters;
2. a provision to add information to the recreation closure signage in Hmong andSpanish explaining that dam removal and reservoir drawdown will change
fish availability as species shift from lake-dwelling panfish to riverine
species, changes in gear required to catch riverine fish, and the seasonality ofanadromous fish; and3. a provision to consult with the Shasta Indian Nation and any other interested
Tribes regarding the naming of recreation sites.
(LL) Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan:
The co-licensees must implement the “Programmatic Agreement Between the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, California State Historic Preservation Officer, Oregon
State Historic Preservation Officer, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
regarding License Surrender, Decommissioning, and Removal of the Lower Klamath
Project in Klamath County, Oregon and Siskiyou County, California (FERC ProjectNos. 14803-001 and 2082-063),” executed on October 17, 2022, and including but notlimited to the October 14, 2022 Historic Properties Management Plan for the project. The
Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the Historic Properties
Management Plan at any time before the license surrender becomes effective.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 62 -(MM) This order constitutes final agency action. Any party may file a request forrehearing of this order within 30 days from the date of its issuance, as provided in
section 313(a) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C § 825l, and the Commission’s
regulations at 18 C.F.R. § 385.713 (2021). The filing of a request for rehearing does notoperate as a stay of the effective date of this order, or of any other date specified in thisorder. The licensee’s failure to file a request for rehearing shall constitute acceptance of
this order.
By the Commission.
(SEAL)

Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 63 -

APPENDIX A
STATE OF OREGON WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATE CONDITIONS
September 7, 2018
1. Proposed Action
The KRRC proposes to remove J.C. Boyle Dam, J.C. Boyle powerhouse and allappurtenant facilities consistent with the procedures and schedule described in the
Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) and associated Detailed Plan, theapplication for section 401 water quality certification, and the September 30, 2017,
Technical Support Document, which by this reference, are incorporated in their entirety(the “Proposed Action”). In accordance with applicable law, the Licensee shall notify
DEQ if FERC authorizes modification to the Proposed Action to allow DEQ to determine
whether such changes may affect compliance with water quality standards that may
require amendment of this certification.
2. Water Quality Management Plan
The Licensee shall submit to DEQ a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for
review and approval within 90 days of issuance of the surrender order. Upon approval by
DEQ, the Licensee shall file the WQMP with FERC and implement the WQMP in
accordance with its terms.
At a minimum, the WQMP shall include the following information:a) Water Quality Monitoring Plan Content
i. Data collection protocol, analytical methods, and laboratory method reporting
limits;ii. Location and description of monitoring points;
iii. Flow monitoring at USGS gauges 11509500 and 11510700;
iv. Applicable compliance criteria and associated compliance time schedule;
v. Instrument calibration schedule and procedures;vi. Data validation procedures and quality assurance methodology;vii. Contingency procedures for inoperable or malfunctioning equipment; andviii. Data interpretation procedures, andix. Adaptive management plan.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 64 -b) Monitoring Locations
The Water Quality Management Plan shall establish monitoring stations at thefollowing monitoring locations:
StationExisting USGS
Location

Approximate
River Mile

USGS 11509500

RM 213.9

Flow, data sonde, grab

JC Boyle Powerhouse USGS 11510700

RM 219.7

Flow, data sonde, grab

Keno

Measurement Typei. The Licensee shall secure all field equipment as necessary to ensure safe reliable
placement, stability, and retrieval during seasonally high flows and drawdown
conditions;ii. The Licensee shall install monitoring equipment as necessary to meet datacollection schedule as described in Section 3(d) or an alternate schedule
approved by DEQ;c) Parameters
The WQMP shall include monitoring for the following parameters:
Continuous Data Sonde Collection. The Licensee shall maintain operable data sondes
and collect continuous measurements for the following parameters:i. Temperature;ii. Conductance;iii. pH;iv. Dissolved oxygen, oxygen saturation; andv. Turbidity
Grab Sample Collection. The Licensee shall collect grab samples for the following
parameters:vi. Nitrogen: ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, total nitrogen;vii. Phosphorus: orthophosphate, organic phosphorus, total phosphorus;
viii.Carbon: dissolved organic carbon, particulate carbon;
ix. Chlorophyll-a; andx. Suspended sediment concentration.
d) Monitoring Frequency and Durationi. Initiating data collection: The Licensee shall begin sample and data collection atleastProject Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 65 -

12 months prior to initiating drawdown of J.C. Boyle Reservoir unless otherwise
approved by DEQ;
ii. Data sonde sampling frequency: The Licensee shall record data at
15-minute intervals.
iii. The Licensee shall collect grab samples for suspended sediment concentrations per
the following schedule:
A. Twice monthly through September of the drawdown year;
B. Monthly beginning October 1 of the drawdown year.
iv. The Licensee shall collect all other grab samples monthly;v.Duration: The Licensee shall monitor water quality in accordance the schedule
in WQMP for a minimum of four years after initiating reservoir drawdown.
Upon receipt and review of annual water quality monitoring reports DEQ may, atits discretion, continue or discontinue the requirement to monitor certain water
qualityparameters as warranted by water quality conditions.
e) Suspended Sediment Load
The Licensee shall propose procedures to quantify sediment export during and following
reservoir drawdown using suspended sediment concentrations and flow measurements
recorded at USGS gauges 11510700 and 11509500 and other methodologies asappropriate. Upon approval by DEQ, the Licensee shall implement thismethodology.
f) Non-Reservoir Drawdown Activities
The Licensee shall propose procedures to monitor turbidity at the locations of actions thatmay discharge or increase sedimentation in runoff to the Klamath River and its tributaries.
Except for activities that occur within the 24-month compliance time period identified in
Section 3, the Licensee shall monitor turbidity approximately 100 feetupstream and
300 feet downstream during proposed activities at the following locations:i. Activities to maintain fish passage as required by Section 4(a);ii. J.C. Boyle scour hole restoration as required by Section 8(c);iii. Removal of recreation areas required by Section 8(d);iv. Backfilling and restoring the J.C. Boyle powerhouse tailrace as required by
Section 8(f).
g) Water Quality Reporting
The Licensee shall present, summarize, and interpret water quality data in the AnnualCompliance Report prepared in accordance with Section 11 of this certification. Water
quality data shall be presented using graphs, tables, or other means to clearlyProject Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 66 -

demonstrate trends, relationships, and compliance. Raw data must be made available to
DEQ either from accessible external websites, CDs, or other means to effectively transfer
electronic data files.
3. Compliance Time SchedulePursuant to OAR 340-041-0185(5), DEQ establishes a compliance time schedule of
24 months following drawdown after which dam removal is not expected to cause an
exceedance of Oregon water quality standards. If water quality monitoring demonstrates
that project actions may contribute to exceedances of the applicable water quality
standards beyond the compliance time schedule established by this certification, DEQ
may require the Licensee to develop an adaptive management plan in consultation with
DEQ, which includes alternative measures, an assessment of impacts, and a schedule toachieve compliance. Once approved by DEQ, the Licensee shall implement the plan inaccordance with its terms, including any modifications made by DEQ as conditions of its
approval.
4. Biological Criteria; Protection of Beneficial Uses; Other Requirements of State
Lawa) Fish Passagei. The Licensee shall provide or maintain fish passage at all artificial obstructions
created or affected by the Proposed Action that prevent or delay the migrationof native migratory fish;
ii. The Licensee shall, in consultation with ODFW and subject to approval by
DEQ, remove or modify artificial fish barriers created or affected by the
Proposed Action until the effective date of license surrender at all locations
where native migratory fish are currently or have historically been present.
Until the effective date of license surrender the Licensee shall reduce or
eliminate project-related obstructions such as sediment barriers and erosional
head cuts resulting in a vertical step higher than six inches;iii. Potential artificial barrier locations may include but are not limited to thefollowing:
A. Topsy Grade Road culverts;
B. Unnamed tributary north of Keno Access Road;
C. Spencer Creek.
b) Aquatic Resource Measure AR-6: Sucker
The Licensee shall implement Aquatic Resource Measure AR-6 presented in Appendix Hof the Technical Support Document (KRRC 2017) to mitigate project effectson adult Lost
River Sucker and Shortnose Sucker in J.C. Boyle Reservoir prior to drawdown.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 67 -c) Western Pond Turtle Mitigation
Subject to approval by DEQ, in consultation with ODFW, the Licensee shall conduct
abundance and overwintering studies. The Licensee shall, as DEQ deems warranted,
implement appropriate mitigation actions to reduce potential impacts to Western Pond
Turtle populations prior to drawdown of JC Boyle Reservoir. DEQ's determination of theneed for both initiation and extent of mitigation actions, if any, shallbe based upon
ongoing survey data, anticipated impacts, and potential additional impacts associated with
capture and transport.
d) On-Site Septic Systems
To reduce the potential for bacterial pollution, the Licensee shall decommission Lower
Klamath Project on-site septic systems proposed for removal in accordance with Oregon
Administrative Rule Chapter 340, Division 71.
e) NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit
The Licensee shall register with DEQ for coverage under National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System general permit 1200-C before any construction activitiesoccur thatcumulatively disturb more than one acre of and may discharge stormwater tosurface
waters of the state.
5. Reservoir Drawdown and Diversion Plan
Within 90 days of issuance of the surrender order, the Licensee shall submit to DEQ for
review and approval a Reservoir Drawdown and Diversion Plan. Upon approvalby DEQ,
the Licensee shall file the Reservoir Drawdown and Diversion Plan with FERC andimplement the plan upon receipt of all required authorizations. The Reservoir Drawdown
and Diversion Plan shall propose drawdown procedures, schedule, and monitoring efforts.
At a minimum, the plan shall include the following elements:a) Drawdown Procedure
The plan shall include the following minimum information:i. Description of all relevant reservoir drawdown facilities;
ii. Flood frequency evaluation;iii. Anticipated drawdown rates and schedule;
iv. Slope-stability analysis;v. Schedule for the sequenced removal of structural elements whose removal
will affect discharge during drawdown.
b) Monitoring
The plan should include the following:Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 68 -

i. Location, schedule, and installation procedures for piezometer wells
proposed for the upstream shell and core of J.C. Boyle Dam and proceduresto monitor water levels and pore pressure at these locations;ii. Description of all proposed survey monuments and inclinometer
installations to monitor slope stability during and following drawdown;iii. Visual monitoring schedule for evidence of potential slumping, cracking, orslope failure of dam embankment during dam removal;
iv. Monitoring of J.C. Boyle Reservoir elevation and stream flow at USGS
gauge 11509500 below Keno Reservoir and USGS gauge 11509500 below
J.C. Boyle powerhouse during drawdown.
c) Contingency and Notification Procedures
The plan shall include procedures to assess and respond to confirmed or suspected issues
including but not limited to the following:i. Obstructions to reservoir discharge caused by physical blockages,
mechanical failure, or other conditions that may restrict outflow;
ii. Embankment instability, slumping, loss of erosion protection;iii. Cultural resource discovery;
iv. Other events that directly or indirectly affect reservoir drawdown schedule.
d) Notification
KRRC shall notify DEQ within 72 hours of an event that may substantially delay
drawdown or cause the timeline to complete drawdown to exceed the anticipatedschedule.
6. Reservoir Area Management Plan
Within 90 days of issuance of a license surrender order from FERC, the Licensee shallsubmit to DEQ a Reservoir Area Management Plan for review and approval. Upon
approval by DEQ, the Licensee shall file the Reservoir Area Management Plan with
FERC and implement the plan upon receipt of all required authorizations. The plan shall
include the following elements.
a) Reservoir Restoration Activities
The plan should include procedures to stabilize and restore the former reservoirarea
following dam removal. The plan should include the following:i.
Performance criteria for evaluating restoration efforts tomeet the following objectives:
A. Unobstructed stream continuity;
B. Fish passage;

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 69 -

C. Sediment stability;
D. Invasive exotic vegetation abatement and native vegetation coverestablishment.
ii. Proposed actions for meeting plan objectives including:A. Actions to ensure tributary connectivity following drawdown;
B. Strategies to create or enhance wetlands, floodplain, and off-channel habitatfeatures;C. Actions to improve revegetation success by enhancing floodplain roughness;
Locations for placement of large wood or other structures to improve channel
margin complexity;iii. The Licensee shall not use nitrogen- or phosphorus-based fertilizers inhydroseeding applications unless expressly authorized by DEQ.
b) Monitoringi. The Licensee shall annually conduct aerial LiDAR reconnaissance surveys of
the affected area to measure sediment stability and estimate the volume of
sediment export following reservoir drawdown. Annual sediment stability
monitoring shall be supplemented with visual inspections, physicalmeasurements, and photo-documentation at monitoring locations identified in
the Reservoir Area Management Plan;
ii. The Licensee shall twice annually conduct surveys to determine the area ofinvasive exotic vegetation and native vegetation cover in the reservoir
restoration area;iii. The Licensee shall annually inspect mainstem Klamath River and affected
tributaries for the presence of physical barriers to volitional fish passage.
Annual inspections shall occur following the wet season.
iv. Monitoring is required for a minimum of three years following completion ofreservoir drawdown.
c) Adaptive Management
If monitoring demonstrates that runoff from exposed embankment areas maycause
erosion, sedimentation, or a lowering of water quality DEQ may require the Licensee
to analyze the situation and propose an appropriate corrective response.
Corrective actions may include measures to increase soil stability through additional
plantings, irrigation to maintain revegetated areas, contouring sediment to reduce slope,
adding energy dissipating features such as large wood or boulders, modifying stream
channel slope, or other methods deemed appropriate to achieve the goals and objectives ofthe plan. Upon DEQ approval, the Licensee shall implement the corrective measures.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 70 -

7. Remaining Facilities and Operations Plan
Within six months of license surrender and prior to initiating the Proposed Action,theLicensee shall submit to DEQ a Remaining Facilities and Operations Plan for review andapproval. Upon approval by DEQ, the Licensee shall implement the plan in accordancewith its terms, including any modifications made by DEQ as conditions of itsapproval.
The Remaining Facilities and Operations Plan shall include, at a minimum, the following
information:a) A description of all Project facilities and/or structures that will not be physicallyremoved or permanently modified during project implementation;b) A description of all potential water quality impacts associated with retaining
proposed project structures;c) Proposed measures, including but not limited to potential modifications and best
management practices, to reduce potential water quality impacts associated withretaining Project facilities and/or structures; andd) Provisions deemed necessary by DEQ to ensure that any ongoing measures will
be implemented once title of the Lower Klamath Project facilities and/or
responsibility for operations is transferred to another entity, which shall notoccur later than the effective date of surrender of FERC license No. P-14803.
8. Site Restoration, Erosion and Sediment Controla) Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Within 90 days of issuance of a surrender order, the Licensee shall submit to DEQ an
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for review and approval. Once approval by DEQ, theLicensee shall implement the plan in accordance with its terms, including any
modifications made by DEQ as conditions of its approval. The ESCP shall include best
management practices to minimize pollution from sediment erosion caused by facilities
removal and restoration activities. The Licensee and its contractors shall ensure thefollowing actions are implemented to minimize sediment runoff during project activities:
i. Maintain an adequate supply of materials necessary to control erosion at the
project construction site;
ii. Deploy compost berms, impervious materials, or other effective methods during
rain events or when stockpiles are not moved or reshaped for more than
48 hours. Erosion of stockpiles is prohibited;iii. Inspect erosion control measures daily and maintain erosion control measures
as often as necessary to ensure the continued effectiveness of measures.
Erosion control measures must remain in place until all exposed soil isstabilized;
iv. If monitoring or inspection shows that the erosion and sediment controls are
ineffective, the Licensee must make repairs, install replacements, or install
additional controls as necessary;Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 71 -

v. If sediment has reached 1/3 of the exposed height of a sediment or erosion
control the Licensee must remove the sediment to its original contour;
vi. Use removable pads or mats to prevent soil compaction at all constructionaccess points through, and staging areas in, riparian or wetland areas to prevent
soil compaction, unless otherwise authorized by DEQ;
vii. Flag or fence off wetlands not specifically authorized to be impacted to protectfrom disturbance and/or erosion;viii. Place dredged or other excavated material on upland areas with stable slopes
to prevent materials from eroding back into waterways or wetlands;
ix. Place clean aggregate at all construction entrances, and utilize other BMPs,
including, but not limited to truck or wheel washes, when earth-moving
equipment is leaving the site and traveling on paved surfaces. The tracking
ofsediment off-site by vehicles is prohibited.
b) J.C. Boyle Disposal Site
i. The Licensee shall place earthen material generated during deconstruction of
J.C. Boyle Dam in the disposal site located near the right abutment of the dam.
Final contours, elevation, and slope of the disposal site shall reflect the design
specifications presented in the J.C. Boyle Right Abutment Disposal Site Plan &Section diagram presented as Figure 5.2-8 of the Technical Support Document(KRRC 2017) or subsequent version approved by DEQ;
ii. The Licensee shall implement inspection procedures to identify and divert
non-earthen material from placement in the J.C. Boyle disposal site location;iii. Site preparation, grading, and vegetative restoration shall be performed inaccordance with the ESCP to reduce the potential for erosion and sediment
runoff;iv. The Licensee shall inspect the J.C. Boyle disposal site annually for at least
five years following completion or an alternate schedule approved by DEQ.
The Licensee shall submit to DEQ an Annual Report in accordance with
Section 11,which includes inspection records documenting the physicalcondition of coverplacement, status of revegetation, evidence of erosive
conditions or sediment runoff, and corrective actions performed or proposed toensure long-term stability.
c) J.C. Boyle Scour Hole Restorationi. The Licensee shall restore the eroded scour hole beneath the J.C. Boyleemergency spillway based on the design specifications presented in the J.C.
Boyle Forebay Spillway Scour Hole Backfill Plan & Sections diagram
presented as Figure 5.2-9 in the Technical Support Document (KRRC 2017) or
subsequent version approved by DEQ;

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 72 -

ii. The Licensee shall prepare the site and source material as necessary to achieve
stable, long-term placement of fill and cover material;iii. Site preparation and grading shall be performed in accordance with the ESCP
to reduce the potential for erosion and sediment runoff;
iv. The Licensee shall inspect the restored scour hole for annually for at least
five years or an alternate schedule approved by DEQ. The Licensee shallsubmit to DEQ an Annual Report in accordance with Section 11, which
includes inspection records documenting the physical condition of coverplacement, status of revegetation, evidence of erosive conditions or sediment
runoff, and corrective actions performed or proposed to ensure long-term
stability.
d) Recreation Areasi. Topsy Campground
The Licensee shall remove all permanent water-related improvements at Topsy
Campground including boat launches, floating dock, fishing pier and concrete.
Compacted surface areas shall be prepared in a manner that increases surface
permeability and reduces surface runoff. The Licensee shall grade, seed and replant
affected areas in a manner that promotes riparian revegetation. Site restoration shall be
performed according to the ESCP prepared in accordance with Section 9(a).
ii. Pioneer Park
The Licensee shall remove all features at the two separate day use areas on the east andwest side of J.C. Boyle Reservoir identified as Pioneer Park. Compactedsurface areas
shall be prepared in a manner that increases surface permeability and reduces surface
runoff. The Licensee shall grade, seed and replant affected areas in a manner that
promotes riparian revegetation. Site restoration shall be performed according to the ESCP
prepared in accordance with Section 9(a).
e) J.C. Boyle Power Canal
The Licensee shall remove all concrete wall portions of the J.C. Boyle power canal except
for shotcrete applied to the upstream wall to maintain stability against erosion. Concrete
shall be placed in the J.C. Boyle emergency spillway scour hole in accordance with
Section 8(c). Alternatively, material may be placed at the disposal site inaccordance with
Section 8(b). If the Licensee removes the invert slab, the Licensee shall restore the former
canal area by decompacting the canal floor to support revegetation.
f) J.C. Boyle Powerhouse Tailrace
i. The Licensee shall select and place material near the mouth of the former
tailrace channel in a manner that resists erosion and scour;ii. Tailrace backfill material sourced from beneath industrial areas such as theadjacent substation and maintenance building must first be screened for theProject Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 73 -

presence of hazardous materials prior to use as fill material in the tailrace. Soils
containing oil or hazardous substances may not be used as fill below the ordinary highwater level.
iii. The Licensee shall perform all restoration activities in accordance with the
ESCP to reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation.
9. Waste Disposal and Management Plan
Within 90 days of issuance of a surrender order, the Licensee shall submit to DEQa Waste
Disposal and Management Plan for review and approval. Once approved by DEQ, theLicensee shall implement the plan in accordance with its terms, including any
modifications made by DEQ as conditions of its approval. The plan shall describe
procedures for characterizing and appropriately managing all waste streams generated
during facilities removal. The plan shall, at a minimum, include the following
components:a) Hazardous Materials
The plan must include the following information:i. Prior to drawdown, the Licensee shall commission a Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment to identify the presence, nature, and quantities of hazardous
substances associated with Lower Klamath Project facilities;
ii. Prior to drawdown, the Licensee shall implement recommendations of thePhase I ESA including, as necessary, a Phase II ESA to characterize themagnitude, extent, and risk of hazardous materials in the environment. In
consultation with DEQ, the Licensee shall undertake remedial actions to
mitigate risks from residual hazardous materials in accordance with applicablestate and federal law;iii. Procedures to manage disposal of hazardous and solid wastes in compliancewith applicable state and federal law;
iv. Comprehensive investigative and sampling procedures to confirm adequate
abatement of hazardous materials;
v. Procedures to manage all records, disposal receipts and/or manifests confirming
transportation and disposal of hazardous materials.
The Licensee shall file a report with DEQ documenting the investigation, managementand disposal of hazardous materials within 90 days of completing actions oran alternate
schedule approved by DEQ.
b) Deleterious Waste Materials:
The Licensee is prohibited from placing biologically harmful materials including,but notlimited to petroleum products, chemicals, cement cured less than 24 hours, welding slag
and grindings, concrete saw cutting by-products, sandblasted materials,

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 74 -

chipped paint, tires, wire, steel posts, and asphalt where such materials could enter watersof the state, including wetlands. The Licensee must do the following:i. Cure concrete, cement, or grout for at least 24 hours prior to any contact withflowing waters;
ii. Use only clean fill, free of waste and polluted substances;iii. Employ all practicable controls to prevent discharges of spills of deleterious
materials to surface or ground water;
iv. Maintain at the project construction site, and deploy as necessary, an adequate
supply of materials needed to contain deleterious materials during a weather
event;
v. Remove foreign materials, refuse, and waste from the project area; andvi. Employ general good housekeeping practices at all times.
10. Spill Responsea) The Licensee shall maintain a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
Plan in effect at all times in accordance with 40 CFR Part 112. The following
specific requirements apply during site activities:
i. Vehicle staging, cleaning, maintenance, refueling, and fuel storage must be
performed at least 150 feet from waters of the state. An exception may be
authorized upon written approval by DEQ if all practicable prevention measuresare employed and this distance is not possible because;
A. Physical constraints that make this distance not feasible (e.g., steep
slopes,rock outcroppings);
B. Natural resource features would be degraded as a result of this setback;C. Equal or greater spill containment and effect avoidance is provided evenifstaging area is less than 150 feet of any waters of the state.
D. If staging areas are within 150 feet of any waters of the state, as allowed
under subsection (a)(iii) of this condition, full containment of potential
contaminants must be provided to prevent soil and water contamination, as
appropriate.
ii. All vehicles operated within 150 feet of any waters of the state must be
inspected daily for fluid leaks before leaving the vehicle staging area. Anyleaks detected in the vehicle staging area must be repaired before the vehicle
resumesoperation;iii. Before operations begin and as often as necessary during operation, equipment
must be steam cleaned (or undergo an approved equivalent cleaning) until all
visible external oil, grease, mud, and other visible contaminants are removed if
the equipment will be used below the bank of a waterbody;Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 75 -

iv. All stationary power equipment (e.g., generators, cranes, stationary drilling
equipment) operated within 150 feet of any waters of the state must be coveredby an absorbent mat to prevent leaks, unless other suitable containment isprovided to prevent potential spills from entering any waters of the statev. An adequate supply of materials (such as straw matting/bales, geotextiles,
booms, diapers, and other absorbent materials) needed to contain spills must be
maintained at the project construction site and deployed as necessary;vi. All equipment operated in state waters must use biodegradable hydraulic fluid.
A maintenance log documenting equipment maintenance inspections andactions must be kept on-site and available upon request.
b) Spill Incident Reporting;i. If petroleum products, chemicals, or any other deleterious materials aredischarged into state waters, or onto land with a potential to enter state waters,
the Licensee must promptly report the discharge to the Oregon Emergency
Response System (OERS), at 1-800-452-0311);
ii. If a release of petroleum products, chemicals, or other materials results indistressed or dying fish, the Licensee must immediately do the following:cease operations; take appropriate corrective measures to prevent further
environmental damage; collect fish specimens and water samples; and notify
DEQ, ODFW and other appropriate regulatory agencies.
11. Annual Compliance Report
The Licensee shall prepare and submit to DEQ an Annual Compliance Report byApril 1
for the preceding year in which activities are performed pursuant to conditions requiredby this certification. The Annual Compliance Report shall include, as appropriate:a) Monitoring data including graphical representations, as appropriate;b) Records documenting required consultations and/or approvals;c) Narrative interpretation of results;d) Compliance evaluations;e) Efforts undertaken by the Licensee to achieve the objectives of the Aquatic
Resource mitigation measures set forth in section 4 of this certification;f) A comprehensive presentation of all actions performed in accordance with theReservoir Area Management Plan and include all data, observations,
measurements, photo-documentation, findings and recommendations. The
report shall compare reservoir restoration conditions with the objectives of theReservoir Area Management Plan and document corrective or adaptive methods
performed or recommended to meet those objectives.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 76 -

g) Efforts undertaken by the Licensee to achieve the objectives of the
Groundwater Well Management Plan, including all well installations, field
activities, outreach efforts, and monitoring results. The report shall include drill
logs and well as-builts for project-installed monitoring wells; a comparison withinstallation depths and techniques from representative nearby wells; the resultsof any pumping or drawdown tests; an interpretation of the results; mitigation to
improve water quality or quantity from affected wells; and findings andrecommendations; andh) Efforts undertaken and anticipated completion of site restoration activities
required in this certification.
The Licensee may also include a request for DEQ to consider approval of alternative or
additional measures. As used in this section, alternative measures are methods orapproaches not included in the Proposed Action that will provide or assist in providing,reasonable assurance that the Proposed Action will not cause or contribute to aviolation ofwater quality standards beyond the compliance schedule described in
Section 3. DEQ shall respond to any request for consideration of alternative measures
within 60 days of receipt. DEQ shall notify the Licensee in writing of its approval or
denial of the proposed alternative measures. Following DEQ approval, the Licensee shall
implementthe plan in accordance with the approved plan’s terms and schedule, including
any modifications made to the plan by DEQ as a condition of approval.
12. Generala) Section 401 Certification Modification
DEQ, in accordance with Oregon and Federal law including OAR Chapter 340,
Division 48 and, as applicable, 33 USC 1341, may modify this Certification to add,
delete, or alter Certification conditions as necessary to address;
i. Adverse or potentially adverse Project effects on water quality or designatedbeneficial uses that did not exist or were not reasonably apparent when this§401 certification was issued;ii. TMDLs (not specifically addressed above in these section 401 certification
conditions);iii. Changes in water quality standards;
iv. Any failure of these § 401 Certification Conditions to protect water quality or
designated beneficial uses as expected when this § 401 Certification was issued;orv. Any change in the Project or its operations that was not contemplated by this§401 Certification that might adversely affect water quality or designatedbeneficial uses.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 77 -b) Project Modification
The Licensee shall obtain DEQ review and approval before undertaking anychange to
the Proposed Action that may affect water quality other than modifications authorized
or required by this certification.
c) Inspection
The Licensee shall allow DEQ such access as necessary to inspect the Project area andProject records required by these section 401 Certification Conditionsand to monitor
compliance with these section 401 Certification Conditions, upon reasonable notice andsubject to applicable safety and security procedureswhen engaged in such access.
d) Posting
The Licensee shall maintain a copy of the section 401 water quality certificationat the
project site for the duration of the project. The certification shall be available for review
by the Licensee and its contractors, as well as by DEQ, the US Army Corps of Engineers,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and otherappropriate state and local government inspectors for the duration of the project.
e) Water Quality Standards Compliance
Notwithstanding the conditions of this Certification, no wastes shall be discharged andno activities shall be conducted which will violate state waterquality standards.
f) Conflict Between Certification Conditions and Application
To the extent that there are any conflicts between the terms and conditions in thiscertification and how the Proposed Action, activities, obligations, and processes aredescribed in the Application, the terms and conditions in this certification, asinterpreted by DEQ, shall control.
13. Project Specific Fees
In accordance with ORS 543.080, the Licensee shall pay project-specific fees, in2018 dollars adjusted according to the formula in Section 13b below, to DEQ for costs ofoverseeing implementation of this certification. The licensee shall pay an initial pro-rated
payment to DEQ within 30 days of license surrender for the period from the date oflicense surrender to the first June 30, which follows license surrender.
a) Schedule
The Licensee shall pay project-specific fees to DEQ, made payable to State ofOregon, Department of Environmental Quality, according to the following schedule:Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001
FERC License
Surrender

Annual Project-Specific Fee
Subject to Adjustment- 78 DueYear 1$42,578

Within 30 days

Year 2$40,000

July 1

Year 3$33,219

July 1

Year 4$7,254

July 1

Year 5$7,254

July 1b) Annual Adjustment
Fee amounts shall be adjusted annually, according to the following formula:
AD = D x (CPI-U)/(CPI-U-June 2018)
Where:AD = Adjusted dollar amount payable to agency.
D = Dollar amount pursuant to Section 13a and Section 13b above,
CPI-U = the most current published version of the Consumer Price
Index-Urban. The CPI-U is published monthly by the Bureau ofLabor
Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. If that index ceases to be
published, any reasonably equivalent index published by the Bureau of
Economic Analysis may be substituted by written agreement between DEQ
and the Licensee.
c) Payment ScheduleFees shall be paid pursuant to a written invoice from DEQ. Except as provided below,
project-specific fees shall be due on July 1 of each year following issuance of the new
FERC License. The Licensee shall pay an initial prorated payment to DEQ within 30 daysof license surrender, for the period from the date of license surrender to the first June 30
that follows license surrender.
d) Credits
DEQ will credit against this amount any fee or other compensation paid or payable to
DEQ, directly or through other agencies of the State of Oregon, during the preceding year
(July 1 to June 30) for DEQ’s or ODFW’s costs of oversight.
e) Expenditure Summary
DEQ shall provide the Licensee with a biennial summary of project specificexpenditures.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 79 -

f) Duration
The project-specific fee shall expire 5 years after the first July 1 following the issuanceof the new FERC license, unless DEQ terminates it earlier because oversight is no longer
necessary. One year before the expiration of the fee, or earlier if mutually agreed, DEQ
and the Licensee shall review the need, if any, to modify, extend, or terminate the fee, in
accordance with ORS 543.080. The Licensee shall pay any project-specific fee required
after such review as provided in ORS 543.080.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 80 -

APPENDIX B
STATE OF CALIFORNIA WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATE CONDITIONS
November 3, 2022
The State Water Resources Control Board hereby amends the water quality
certification for the Klamath River Renewal Corporation’s (KRRC) Lower Klamath Project
License Surrender (Project) to modify Conditions 1 – 19, 22, and 24.
CONDITION 1. WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
The Licensee shall submit the California Water Quality Monitoring Plan (WQMP) for
review and approval by the Executive Director of the State Water Resources Control
Board (State Water Board) or the Deputy Director for the Division of Water Rights(Deputy Director) no later than six months following issuance of a Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) license surrender order and prior to Lower Klamath
Project License Surrender (Project) implementation.19 The WQMP shall be developed inconsultation with staff from the State Water Board, North Coast Regional Water Quality
Control Board (North Coast Regional Board), Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (ODEQ), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The Deputy
Director may require modifications as part of any approval. The Licensee shall file any
Deputy Director-approved revisions to the WQMP, together with any required plan
modifications not incorporated into a water quality certification amendment, with FERC.
Any changes to WQMP shall be approved by the Deputy Director prior to
implementation. Upon receiving all necessary approvals, the Licensee shall implement
the WQMP for the duration of the license surrender order or until otherwise approved by
the Deputy Director in writing. The Deputy Director may require modifications to the
WQMP, including implementation of additional adaptive management measuresinformed by monitoring results, as part of review and approval of reports as specified
below.
At a minimum, the WQMP shall include: (1) a monitoring program to assess Project
impacts to water quality; (2) a reporting schedule; (3) adaptive management measures
based on water quality monitoring results; and (4) provisions for collection and submittalof water quality data to inform the Licensee’s implementation of a water quality
compliance schedule (Condition 2). Additionally, the WQMP shall describe: fieldsampling and analytical methods; monitoring locations; types of sampling (e.g.,continuous, grab) and frequency by the category (as enumerated below); pre-drawdown
monitoring; quality assurance plan and quality control measures; sediment loadquantification; reporting and adaptive management; and other Project- relatedmonitoring.
Field Sampling and Analytical Methods
The Licensee shall implement field sampling and monitoring methods consistent with theState of California’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program or equivalent methods
approved by the Deputy Director. The Licensee shall use analytical methods that comply
with Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, part 136, or methods approved by California’s
Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP), where such
19

The KRRC submitted the California Water Quality Monitoring Plan for approval aspart of its request for an amendment of the Project water quality certification.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 81 -

methods are available. Samples that require laboratory analysis shall be analyzed by
ELAP-certified laboratories.
Types of Sampling and Frequency by Category
At a minimum, the WQMP shall identify the parameters and sampling frequency1920 for
the three categories of sampling outlined below. Water quality monitoring shall be
implemented at the noted frequency or more often.
Category 1: Continuous Water Quality Monitoring
The Licensee shall continuously monitor the following water quality parameters:(1) dissolved oxygen (DO) in milligrams per liter (mg/L) and percent saturation;(2) water temperature;(3) turbidity;(4) conductivity; and(5) pH.
Category 1 Frequency: At a minimum, 30-minute interval recordings.
Category 2: Water Quality Grab Samples
The Licensee shall collect and analyze water quality grab samples for the following
parameters:(1) total nitrogen;(2) nitrate;(3) nitrite;(4) ammonia(5) total phosphorus;(6) particulate organic phosphorus;(7) orthophosphate;(8) particulate organic carbon;(9) dissolved organic carbon;(10) chlorophyll-a (beginning May 1 following drawdown activities and continuing
annually from May 1 through October 31);(11) turbidity;(12) microcystin (beginning May 1 following drawdown activities and continuing
annually from May 1 through October 31);(13) suspended sediment concentrations;(14) methylmercury (only at Klamath River monitoring locations below Copco No. 1);(15) settleable solids; and(16) particulate and dissolved aluminum (only at Klamath River monitoring locations
below Iron Gate).

20

See pre-drawdown monitoring below for minimum monitoring frequency prior to
drawdown.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 82 -

Category 2 Frequency: At a minimum, monthly (with the exception of suspended
sediment concentrations), at approximately the same time of day, during and following
drawdown. For suspended sediment concentrations, monitoring shall occur every
two weeks.
Category 3: Klamath Riverbed Sediment Grab Samples
The Licensee shall collect and analyze sediment samples from the Klamath Riverbed prior
to and following dam decommissioning. At a minimum, sediment samples shall beanalyzed for the following parameters:(1) arsenic;(2) lead;(3) copper;(4) nickel;(5) iron;(6) aluminum;(7) dioxin;(8) cyanide;(9) mercury;(10) ethyl benzenes;(11) total xylenes;(12) dieldrin;(13) 4,4’-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT);(14) 4,4’-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD);(15) 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD);(16) 4,4’-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE); and(17) 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlordibenzofuran (PECDF).
Category 3 Frequency: One monitoring event prior to drawdown activities21 andone event within 12 to 24 months of completing drawdown activities.
Monitoring Locations (Categories 1 through 3)
The Licensee shall consider the following when selecting monitoring locations: existingwater quality monitoring stations in the Klamath River Basin, site access, land use, andinput received during consultation. Whenever feasible, the Licensee shall selectmonitoring locations at or near existing water quality monitoring locations. At a minimum,
the Licensee shall monitor at the following locations:21

In lieu of collecting additional pre-drawdown [in-reservoir] samples, the Licensee may
rely on the results of previously-analyzed sediment samples, to the extent they provide thenecessary information.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 83 -

Category 1 (Continuous Water Quality Monitoring) and Category 2 (Water Quality Grab
Samples22) shall be conducted at the following locations:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Klamath River at or near United State Geological Survey (USGS) gageno. 11509500 (below Keno)
Klamath River at or near USGS gage no. 11510700 (below J.C. Boyle)
Klamath River upstream of Copco No. 1 Reservoir, and downstream of Shovel
Creek (Category 2 only);
Klamath River downstream of Copco No. 2 Powerhouse, no further downstream
than the Daggett Road bridge crossing of the Klamath River;
Klamath River at or near USGS gage no. 11516530 (below Iron Gate);
Klamath River at or near Walker Bridge (Category 1 monitoring only);
Klamath River at or near USGS gage no. 11520500 (below Seiad Valley);
Klamath River at or near USGS gage no. 11523000 (Orleans);
Klamath River at or near USGS gage no. 11530500 (Klamath); andKlamath Estuary near the mouth of the Klamath River.

Category 3 (Klamath Riverbed Sediment Grab Samples) shall be collected at thefollowing locations23:
•
•

•
•

•
•
•

Klamath River upstream of Copco No. 1 Reservoir and downstream of Shovel
Creek;
Three locations in the Copco No. 1 Reservoir footprint, in areas where sediments
will likely be terraced. If terracing does not occur at the previously sampled
location, the sample location shall be moved to a location with terraced
sediments;
Klamath River downstream of Copco No. 2 Powerhouse, no farther downstream
than the Daggett Road bridge crossing of the Klamath River;Three locations in the Iron Gate Reservoir footprint, in areas where sediments
will likely be terraced. If terracing does not occur at the previously sampled
location, the sample location shall be moved to a location with terraced
sediments;
Klamath River at or near USGS gage no. 11516530 (below Iron Gate);
Klamath River at or near USGS gage no. 11523000 (Orleans); andKlamath Estuary.

Pre-Drawdown Monitoring (Categories 1 through 3)
At a minimum, prior to drawdown activities the Licensee shall monitor as follows:•

22

Category 1 (Continuous Water Quality Monitoring): One year of continuous
monitoring at all Category 1 monitoring locations.

Samples shall be collected at the same location, or as close as possible, each time.
Samples shall be collected at the same location, or as close as possible, each time.
Locations should target slow-velocity depositional areas (eddies and backwaters) wherefine sediment accumulation is most likely to occur.
2322

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001••- 84 -

Category 2 (Water Quality Grab Samples): One year with samples collected
monthly, at all Category 2 monitoring locations.
Category 3 (Klamath Riverbed Sediment Grab Samples): One collection event at
all Category 3 monitoring locations, except as specified in Footnote 21.

Quality Assurance Project Plan
The Licensee shall develop a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) using the State
Water Board’s and United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s)
guidance resources to describe the Project's monitoring goals, data needs andassessment, responsible individuals, quality assurance plan, equipment maintenance,
quality control measures, and reporting deadlines. The QAPP shall be submitted as partof the WQMP.
Sediment Load Quantification
The Licensee shall submit reports to the Deputy Director describing the status ofsediment movement at 12 and 24 months, respectively, following completion ofdrawdown activities. The reports shall: (a) quantify the amount of sediment present ineach Project reservoir footprint; (b) quantify the total amount of sediment exported fromthe Project reservoirs; (c) quantify the amount of sediment that has settled in the
Klamath River between Iron Gate Dam and Cottonwood Creek (River Mile2423[RM] 185); and (d) describe remediation activities planned or undertaken, if any. For (a)and (b) estimates shall be provided in million cubic yards, tons (dry weight), andpercentage of sediment present compared to total amount of sediment present prior to
drawdown. For (c) estimated sediment deposition shall be presented as total estimatedquantities in million cubic yards, tons (dry weight), average depth change from predrawdown conditions, and percent particle size composition. The reports shall be
submitted to the Deputy Director at 15- and 27-months following completion ofdrawdown activities, respectively.
Reporting and Adaptive Management: Prior to, during, and for a minimum of one year
following completion of drawdown, the Licensee shall provide monthly monitoring reports
to the State Water Board, ODEQ, and North Coast Regional Board. Monitoring andmonthly reporting shall continue until otherwise approved by the Deputy Director inwriting. The monthly report shall, at a minimum: 1) summarize the results of themonth’s monitoring; 2) be provided in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format and include
all data collected during the reporting period; 3) highlight any exceedances of water
quality objectives; 4) highlight observed trends; 5) request any changes to the WQMP;
and 6) report on any adaptive management measures taken and propose any additionalor substitute adaptive management measures to address exceedances. Any proposal tomodify, reduce, or discontinue monitoring and reporting shall be included in the reports
with a request for Deputy Director approval and must include information to support therequest. Such requests must also comply with Tribal Water Quality Standards(Condition 22). Modifications to the WQMP or additional or substitute24River Mile (RM) refers to the distance, along the Klamath River, upstream from themouth of the Klamath River at the Pacific Ocean.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 85 -

adaptive management measures requested by the Licensee require Deputy Director
approval prior to implementation.
As noted in the Sediment Load Quantification section above, at 15 months and27 months following completion of drawdown activities, the Licensee shall submit thereports describing the status of sediment movement.
Based on monitoring results, the Deputy Director may require the Licensee to modify
monitoring parameters, frequency, methods, duration, constituents, reporting, or otherelements of the WQMP, or to implement additional adaptive management measures.
The Licensee shall implement changes upon receiving Deputy Director and any otherrequired approvals. The Licensee shall file the Deputy-Director-approved updates to the
WQMP with FERC. The Licensee may integrate the reporting in this condition with otherreporting requirements outlined in this water quality certification (certification).
Other Project-Related Monitoring
The WQMP shall identify other monitoring efforts the Licensee plans to conduct underother plans or aspects of the Project, which include, but are not limited to monitoring
under the following conditions: Sediment Deposits (Condition 4); Public Water Supplies(Condition 8); Construction: General Permit Compliance, and Water Quality Monitoring
and Protection Plans (Condition 10); Hatcheries (Condition 13); and Recreation Facilities(Condition 19).
The October 2022 California Water Quality Monitoring Plan and October 2022 Quality
Assurance Project Plan submitted by the KRRC to the State Water Board on
October 10, 2022, satisfy the plan requirements of this condition and are hereby
approved with the following modification:•

The WQMP shall be modified to include a suspended sediment loadquantification methodology: A minimum of six months prior to implementing
drawdown activities, the Licensee shall submit to the Deputy Director for review
and approval a methodology to quantify sediment export during and following
reservoir drawdown using suspended sediment concentrations and flow
measurements recorded at six USGS gage locations25. The Deputy Director
may require modifications as part of any approval.
Any changes to the sediment load quantification methodology shall be approvedby the Deputy Director prior to implementation. The Deputy Director may require
modification as part of any such approval. The Licensee shall file any Deputy
Director-approved updates, along with any required modifications, with FERC.
Upon receiving all necessary approvals, the Licensee shall implement the
sediment load quantification methodology until otherwise approved by the
Deputy Director in writing.
Unless otherwise approved by the Deputy Director, the Licensee shall quantify
and report suspended sediment loads in the monthly reports required by the25

Gage Nos. 11509500, 11510700, 11516530, 11520500, 11523000, and 11530500.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 86 -

WQMP. The Deputy Director may require modifications to the suspended
sediment load quantification methodology based on reporting information.
CONDITION 2. COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE
Project activities related to drawdown and the export of reservoir sediments into the
Klamath River are anticipated to result in temporary exceedances of water quality
objectives related to sediment. Temporary exceedance of a water quality objective ispermissible for restoration projects with long-term benefits to water quality and beneficial
uses. Pursuant to this certification, discharges to the Klamath River that exceed
sediment-related water quality objectives can temporarily occur during and following
reservoir drawdown, dam removal, and associated sediment flushing activities. The
Licensee shall demonstrate that, in the long term, these Project activities attain all
sediment-related water quality objectives listed in the Water Quality Control Plan for the
North Coast Region (North Coast Basin Plan) as outlined in this condition.
Implementation of this condition shall also serve to demonstrate compliance with North
Coast Basin Plan prohibitions.
The Licensee shall monitor water quality consistent with Water Quality Monitoring and
Adaptive Management (Condition 1) to assess attainment of water quality objectives
listed in the North Coast Basin Plan. Within 36 months of beginning drawdown, unlessotherwise approved by the Deputy Director in writing, the Licensee shall submit a reportthat documents: 1) Project attainment of sediment-related water quality objectives over arange of flows, including high winter flows and low summer flows; and 2) post-dam
removal Klamath River water quality conditions following attenuation of impacts
associated with drawdown and establishment of new riverine conditions.
The Licensee shall document changes in water quality following drawdown and assess
trends in water quality parameters. The Licensee’s report shall evaluate the Project’s
effects on all California portions of the Klamath River (i.e., from California/Oregon
Stateline to Klamath Estuary), including attainment of: (i) numeric water quality
objectives outlined in Table 1; and (ii) narrative water quality objectives in the North
Coast Basin Plan. Outlier exceedances that are localized or isolated may be accepted if
the Project is consistently in attainment with water quality standards. Localized or
isolated exceedances may be addressed through adaptive management associatedwith Restoration (Condition 14) or other measures proposed by the Licensee. If data
indicate that a water quality objective is exceeded and the Licensee believes theexceedance is not a result of Project activities, the Licensee shall provide informationand support demonstrating that the exceedance is not related to Project activities. The
Deputy Director will consider the information provided by the Licensee in evaluating the
Licensee’s attainment of water quality objectives.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 87 -

Table 1: Minimum Parameters to Demonstrate Attainment of Numeric Water
Quality Objectives
Parameter
Water Quality Objective*
Turbidity

Turbidity shall not be increased more than 20% above
naturally occurring background levels.

pH

pH shall be between 7.0 (minimum) and 8.5(maximum). Changes in normal ambient pH levels shallnot exceed 0.2 units in waters designated marine orsaline beneficial uses nor 0.5 units within the range
specified above in fresh waters with designated
COLD** or WARM***.

Dissolved Oxygen(percent saturation)

TemperatureStateline to the Scott River:• October 1 to March 31: 90%• April 1 to September 30: 85%
Scott River to Hoopa:• All year: 90% saturation
Downstream of Hoopa to Turwar:• June 1 to August 31: 85%• September 1 to May 31: 90%
Upper and Middle Estuary:• September 1 to October 31: 85%• November 1 to May 31: 90%• June 1 to July 31: 85%• August 1 through August 31: 80%
Elevated temperature waste discharges into COLD**
interstate waters are prohibited.
Thermal waste discharges having a maximum
temperature greater than 5°Fahrenheit above natural
receiving water temperature are prohibited.
At no time or place shall the temperature of WARM***
intrastate water be increased more than 5° Fahrenheit
above natural receiving water temperature.

Specific
Conductance

Klamath River above Iron Gate Dam and including Iron
Gate and Copco Reservoirs:• 275 micromhos (50% upper limit)****; and• 425 micromhos (90% upper limit)*****
Middle Klamath River below Iron Gate Dam:
• 275 micromhos (50% upper limit); and• 350 micromhos (90% upper limit)
Lower Klamath River:• 200 micromhos (50% upper limit); and• 300 micromhos (90% upper limit)Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 88 -* Naturally occurring background levels, for the purpose of numeric water quality
objectives in Table 1, are defined as the post-dam-removal condition of the Klamath
River with successful implementation of revegetation and bank stabilization. It does notinclude discharges from construction or restoration activities, including failures ofvegetation and/or bank stabilization.
** COLD is defined as Cold Freshwater Habitat uses of water that support cold water
ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement of aquatic habitats,vegetation, fish, or wildlife, including invertebrates.
*** WARM is defined as Warm Freshwater Habitat uses of water that support warm
water ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement of aquatic
habitats, vegetation, fish, or wildlife, including invertebrates.
**** 50% upper and lower limits represent the 50 percentile values of the monthly means
for the calendar year. 50% or more of the monthly means must be less than or equal toan upper limit and greater than or equal to a lower limit.
***** 90% upper and lower limits represent the 90 percentile values of the monthly
means for the calendar year. 90% or more of the monthly means must be less than orequal to an upper limit and greater than or equal to a lower limit.
At 32 months following the beginning of drawdown, the Licensee shall submit anassessment of whether Project activities are anticipated to result in exceedance of awater quality objective(s) beyond 36 months following the beginning of Projectdrawdown. The assessment shall be submitted to the Deputy Director and the Executive
Officer of the North Coast Regional Board (Executive Officer), and consistent with Tribal
Water Quality Standards (Condition 22). If the assessment indicates a high risk ofcontinued exceedance beyond this timeline, the Licensee shall immediately commence
consultation with staff from the State Water Board and North Coast Regional Board
regarding the development of a report and compliance proposal for actions to address
the anticipated exceedance(s). The report and proposal shall be submitted to the Deputy
Director for review and approval no later than 35 months following the beginning ofProject drawdown activities and shall at a minimum include:••••

A summary of which water quality objective(s) and compliance location(s)continue to exceed a water quality objective(s);An explanation of why the water quality objective(s) continues to be exceeded inrelation to Project activities;
A description of Licensee actions taken to date to address the exceedance(s);andA proposal to address the water quality objective(s) exceedance and associatedtimeline for attainment of compliance with the water quality objective(s).

The Deputy Director may require modifications as part of any approval. The Licensee
shall file the Deputy Director’s approval, together with any required modifications, with
FERC. The Licensee shall implement the compliance plan upon receiving Deputy
Director and any other required approvals. Any changes to the compliance plan shall beapproved by the Deputy Director prior to implementation.
If the Licensee is unable to demonstrate attainment of water quality objectives within
36 months of beginning Project drawdown activities, the Licensee shall notify theProject Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 89 -

Deputy Director and immediately begin implementation of the approved complianceproposal, or the approved portions of the proposal if the entire proposal has not yet
been approved.
CONDITION 3. RESERVOIR DRAWDOWN
No later than six months following issuance of the FERC license surrender order, theLicensee shall prepare and submit a Reservoir Drawdown and Diversion Plan
(Drawdown Plan) to the Executive Director of the State Water Board or the Deputy
Director for review and approval.
At a minimum, the Drawdown Plan shall include:(1) The material elements of the drawdown plan in the November 2020 Definite
Decommissioning Plan filed with FERC;(2) A description of the facilities that will be used to draw down the reservoirs;(3) An updated flood frequency analysis and associated average flows;(4) Anticipated drawdown rates for each reservoir. The drawdown rate for eachreservoir shall be determined using best available science and consider any
potential slope instability issues;(5) Drawdown scenarios for different water years (e.g., wet, dry, etc.);(6) Construction schedule, including anticipated schedule for drawdown, andeach reservoir’s anticipated drawdown start and end dates;(7) Anticipated total (drawdown and inflow) and drawdown only discharge rates(cubic feet per second [cfs]) associated with each structure (e.g., spillways,
diversion tunnels, outlets, etc.);(8) Public notice of Project schedule and potential impacts, including but notlimited to closure of reservoirs, recreation facilities, and impacts to water
quality;(9) Surface water elevation at which each reservoir is considered drawn down;(10) A detailed description of all structures related to reservoir operations thatare proposed to be removed during drawdown;(11) Compliance with cofferdam requirements in this condition, and a detailed
description of cofferdams or equivalent barriers that will be installed as partof drawdown that includes locations, timing and duration of installations, andother information related to how the installation and removal of cofferdams
or equivalent barriers will be coordinated to limit impacts;(12) A description of the coordination process with the United States Bureau of
Reclamation, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for any potential operation changes tothe Klamath Irrigation Project needed to implement the Project;(13) Detail on how long Project powerhouses are anticipated to be operational
during drawdown of the reservoirs;(14) An overview of the sequence of drawdown activities for all four reservoirs,
including a detailed sequence of how drawdown activities will be
implemented at each reservoir; and(15) A discussion of drawdown criteria, drawdown and diversion procedures,
alternative drawdown procedures, drawdown monitoring plans, anddrawdown implementation plans.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 90 -

Construction areas in active streams shall use cofferdams, construction pads, or
equivalent barriers to isolate construction areas from instream flows. Instream watershall be routed around the isolated construction area either by pipe or by isolating thestream in phases so that construction does not impede stream flow around theconstruction area. In addition, all dewatering pump intakes shall be screened to avoid
potential impacts to fish and all bypass routes (e.g., pipelines, outlets, etc.) shall beproperly removed or sealed upon completion of Project activities unless otherwise
approved by the Deputy Director as part of review and approval of the Drawdown Plan.
Any fish entrained by a Project cofferdam shall be safely relocated.
The Licensee shall notify the Deputy Director, in writing, within 24 hours of initiation andconclusion of drawdown activities at each reservoir. The Licensee shall notify the Deputy
Director within 72 hours of knowledge that reservoir drawdown has the potential to bedelayed or extended while still meeting the requirements outlined in this certification.
The notification shall include the reason for the delay or extension and a proposed
revised drawdown schedule that complies with this condition. The Deputy Director may
require modifications to the proposed revised drawdown schedule.
Development of a proposed revised drawdown schedule shall include consultation with
State Water Board staff.
The California Reservoir Drawdown and Diversion Plan, dated July 2022, submitted by
the KRRC to the State Water Board on July 28, 2022, as amended by the KRRC’s
October 10, 2022, supplemental filing, satisfy the Drawdown Plan requirements of thiscondition and are hereby approved. The KRRC shall file the approved documents with
FERC within 30 days of this certification amendment. Any future changes to the
Drawdown Plan shall be approved by the Deputy Director prior to implementation. The
Deputy Director may require modifications as part of any such approval. The Licensee
shall file any such Deputy Director-approved updates to the Drawdown Plan, together
with any required plan modifications, with FERC. The Licensee shall implement the
Drawdown Plan upon receipt of all required approvals.
Pre-drawdown and drawdown activities described in the Drawdown Plan that could
impact water quality (e.g., building the access construction pads below the spillway,
dredging the low-level outlet tunnel approach channel at Copco 1, cleaning andexercising the Iron Gate diversion gate) shall be covered by a Deputy Director-approved
site-specific water quality monitoring and protection plan(s) as defined in Condition 10 ofthis certification. The Licensee shall comply with Condition 10 requirements forconstruction-related pre-drawdown and drawdown work with the potential to impact water
quality.
Removal of the Project facilities shall begin and be completed, to the extent feasible,
during drawdown to minimize the duration of sediment releases, and to comply with theschedule set forth in the Compliance Schedule (Condition 2) of this certification.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 91 -

Additionally, drawdown and dam deconstruction shall be conducted to ensure instream
flow requirements26 below Iron Gate Dam are maintained.
CONDITION 4. SEDIMENT DEPOSITS
Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Deputy Director, by no later than Decemberof the second full calendar year following completion of drawdown activities, theLicensee shall assess and remediate (if appropriate) visibly obvious sediment deposits
along the Klamath River from below Iron Gate Dam to the mouth of the Klamath Estuarythat may have been deposited during reservoir drawdown activities. Assessment islimited to sediment deposits on parcels with a current or potential residential or
agricultural (e.g., row crop) land use, for which the property owner has notified the KRRC
of a potential sediment deposit that may be associated with reservoir drawdown
activities.
Within 60 days of property owner notification, visibly obvious sediment deposits shall beassessed by the Licensee to determine if the deposits are consistent with physicalsediment properties associated with Project reservoir sediments. Sediment deposits
consistent with the physical sediment properties of Project reservoirs shall be tested forarsenic or remediated without testing per the requirements of this condition. If testing is
performed, soil samples in the vicinity of the deposited sediments (e.g., from theadjacent riverbank and/or floodplain), shall also be tested for arsenic to determine thelocal background arsenic concentrations. No additional actions or remediation shall be
required if the measured arsenic concentrations in the deposited sediments are less thanor equal to measured local background soil concentrations for arsenic. If theconcentration of arsenic in the deposited sediments on the river banks and floodplain of
the Klamath River exceed local background levels and USEPA or California
Environmental Protection Agency human health residential screening levels, thedeposited sediments shall be remediated to local background levels through removal ofthe deposited sediments or soil capping, if sediment removal is infeasible or poses agreater risk than soil capping.
For Sediment Deposits that Require No Further Action. Within 30 days of adetermination that a reported deposit does not require remediation, either because it is
not consistent with reservoir sediment deposits or because sediment testing does notindicate a need for further action, the Licensee shall notify the property owner and submit
a report to the Deputy Director. At a minimum, the report shall include the location of thereported deposit, a summary of actions taken, and support for the determination that nofurther action is needed. If sampling was performed, the report shall also include, at aminimum:•

Estimated quantity of the reported sediment deposit;

The United States Bureau of Reclamation’s (USBR) Klamath River Project must meetflows below Iron Gate Dam that are required under the Endangered Species Act
Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion, and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation andManagement Act essential fish habitat requirements. Drawdown shall not interfere with
implementation of the required instream flow requirements that are current at this time.
26

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 92 -•

Arsenic testing method(s) used and the number, location, and depth of samples
collected from the reported sediment deposit and surrounding soils (background);and•Arsenic concentrations associated with each sample.

The Deputy Director may require additional testing, remediation, or other actions basedon the report. The Licensee shall provide additional information upon request by the
Deputy Director.
For Sediment Deposits that Require Further Action. Within 14 days following
completion of the inspection of a reported sediment deposit that requires further action(including any associated sediment sampling results), the Licensee shall submit a
Sediment Deposit Remediation Plan to the Deputy Director for review and approval. At
a minimum, the Sediment Deposit Remediation Plan shall include:•

Estimated location and quantity of the reported sediment deposit;•

If testing was performed, the arsenic sediment testing methods used and thenumber, location, depth, and concentration associated with each sediment
samples collected from the reported sediment deposit and surrounding soils(background); and•Proposed remediation actions, including a schedule for remediation and any
proposed post-remediation soil sampling. If soil capping is proposed, theLicensee shall provide documentation supporting why soil removal is infeasibleor poses a greater risk than soil capping.

Within 30 days of completing remediation activities, the Licensee shall provide theproperty owner and Deputy Director with a report documenting completion of theremediation. At a minimum, the report shall include the location of the remediation, asummary of action(s) taken including the quantity of soil removed or area capped, andsupport for the determination that no further remediation is needed. Additionally, if
post- remediation soil sampling was performed, the report shall include, at a minimum:
arsenic soil testing method(s) used; the number, location, and depth of soil samples
collected and their relation to the area remediated; and the associated arsenic soil
concentrations.
The Deputy Director may require additional testing, remediation, or other actions basedon the report. The Licensee shall provide additional information upon request by the
Deputy Director.
The California Sediment Deposit Remediation Plan, dated July 2022, submitted by the
KRRC to the State Water Board on July 14, 2022, as amended by the KRRC’s
October 10, 2022, supplemental filing establishes a framework that incorporates thegeneral requirements of this condition. Any site-specific remediation needed to comply
with this condition, as well as any changes to the California Sediment Deposit
Remediation Plan, shall be submitted to the Deputy Director for review and approval asProject Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 93 -

an update to the California Sediment Deposit Remediation Plan. The Deputy Director
may require modifications to the California Sediment Deposit Remediation Plan as part ofany approval of such an update. The Licensee shall file any Deputy Director- approved
updates, together with any required modifications, with FERC. The Licensee shall
implement the California Sediment Deposit Remediation Plan upon receipt of all required
approvals.
CONDITION 5. ANADROMOUS FISH PRESENCE
The purpose of fish presence surveys is to ensure that following Project implementation
anadromous fish can volitionally access the Klamath River and its tributaries within andupstream of the California portion of the Hydroelectric Reach27. Accordingly, theLicensee shall conduct surveys to document anadromous fish presence and access tothe tributaries and mainstem Klamath River.
No later than 24 months following issuance of a FERC license surrender order, theLicensee shall submit a Fish Presence Monitoring Plan (Fish Presence Plan) to the
Executive Director of the State Water Board or the Deputy Director for review andapproval. The Fish Presence Plan shall be developed in consultation with staff from theState Water Board, North Coast Regional Board, CDFW, and NMFS.
At a minimum, the Fish Presence Plan shall include: (1) a list of anadromous fish
species covered by the plan; (2) California survey reaches; (3) timing, frequency, andduration of surveys; (4) survey methods; and (5) reporting. Additional information on
the minimum requirements for each of these plan elements is provided below.
Additionally, the Fish Presence Plan may include a discussion of how the informationcollected under Action 1 (Tributary-Mainstem Connectivity) of the Mainstem Spawning
Aquatic Resources Measure (Condition 6) will be used to inform implementation of the
Fish Presence Plan.
Fish Species: The Fish Presence Plan shall, at a minimum, include surveys for thefollowing anadromous fish species: spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), Pacific lamprey(Entosphenus tridentatus), and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss).
California Survey Reaches: Unless otherwise approved by the Deputy Director inwriting, the Licensee shall survey, in California, all tributaries with potentially viableanadromous fish habitat that have a confluence in the Hydroelectric Reach, as well as
the mainstem Klamath River to the state line to determine if anadromous fish arepresent. Specific survey reaches of the mainstem Klamath River shall include areas
upstream of the California Project reservoir footprints.

27

The Hydroelectric Reach refers to the stretch of the Klamath River that begins at theconfluence of J.C. Boyle Reservoir with the Klamath River and continues to the base of
Iron Gate Dam, and includes both J.C. Boyle and Copco No. 2 bypass reaches, andtributaries in this reach such as Jenny Creek, Fall Creek, Spencer Creek, and Shovel
Creek.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 94 -

Timing, Frequency, and Duration: Fish presence surveys shall begin in the fall of thefirst year following the completion of drawdown. Fish presence surveys shall be
conducted for at least four consecutive years and until otherwise approved or modified by
the Deputy Director. The Licensee may request to reduce the duration or scope ofsurveys based on new information (e.g. survey results that substantiate either
anadromous fish presence or lack of fish passage barriers related to Project
implementation).
Survey Methods: The Licensee shall propose appropriate survey methods (e.g., carcass
surveys, snorkel surveys, etc.) to evaluate anadromous fish presence. Information
provided shall include: number of days required for surveys with approximate field crew
size; equipment that will be used to assess fish presence; global positioning system(GPS) and map of survey areas; field documentation methods (e.g., data sheets, photo
documentation); and survey timing. The results of tributary fish presence surveys may be
used to determine the need for surveys of the mainstem Klamath River (e.g.,anadromous fish present in tributaries above Copco No. 1 Reservoir footprint would
indicate anadromous fish can access portions of the mainstem Klamath River below thatpoint, eliminating the need for additional evaluation). A minimum of four weeks prior to
conducting fish presence surveys, the Licensee shall notify staff from the State Water
Board, North Coast Regional Board, CDFW, and NMFS so that agency staff may
participate in the surveys, if desired.
Reporting: The Licensee shall report fish presence survey results annually to the
Deputy Director.
Annual reports shall, at a minimum, include:(1) A summary of the fish presence results; and(2) An overall assessment of fish presence in the newly accessible Klamath Riverand tributaries. The Licensee shall consider fish return projections andobservations (e.g., barrier) as part of the fish surveys in the reports.
Additionally, the fourth annual report shall, at a minimum, include:(1) An analysis of whether any encountered fish passage impediment is
Project- related; and(2) Proposed actions to remedy any Project-related impediments to anadromousfish.
The Deputy Director may require the Licensee to submit proposed actions to address afish passage impediment that the Deputy Director finds is Project-related. Prior to
implementing any proposed actions, the Licensee shall receive approval from the
Deputy Director. The Deputy Director may require modifications as part of any approval.
The Licensee shall file the Deputy Director’s approval, together with any required
modifications, with FERC. The Licensee shall implement the action upon receipt of
Deputy Director and any other required approvals.
The Fish Presence Monitoring Plan, dated August 2022, submitted by the KRRC to theState Water Board on August 11, 2022, as amended by the KRRC’s October 10, 2022,
supplemental filing satisfies the requirements of this condition and is hereby approved.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 95 -The KRRC shall file the approved documents with FERC within 30 days of thiscertification amendment. Any changes to the Fish Presence Monitoring Plan shall beapproved by the Deputy Director prior to implementation. The Deputy Director may
require modifications as part of any approval. The Licensee shall file any
Deputy- Director-approved updates to the Fish Presence Monitoring Plan, together
with any required plan modifications, with FERC. The Licensee shall implement the
Fish Presence Monitoring Plan upon Deputy Director and any other required
approvals.
CONDITION 6. AQUATIC RESOURCES
The Licensee shall implement the three Aquatic Resource (AR) measures outlined below
and associated plans that are part of the Licensee’s Aquatic Resources Management
Plan, dated August 2022, as submitted to the State Water Board on August 3, 2022. The
Deputy Director may approve, deny, or conditionally approve any changes to the AR
Measures proposed by the Licensee.
Mainstem Spawning Aquatic Resource Measure
The Mainstem Spawning AR Measure includes two actions: 1) Tributary-Mainstem
Connectivity; and 2) Spawning Habitat Evaluation.
Action 1: Tributary-Mainstem Connectivity. No later than six months following issuanceof a FERC license surrender order and prior to Project implementation, the Licensee
shall submit the Tributary-Mainstem Connectivity Plan to the Executive Director of theState Water Board or Deputy Director for review and approval. The Tributary-Mainstem
Connectivity Plan shall be developed in consultation with staff from the State Water
Board, North Coast Regional Board, ODEQ, NMFS, and CDFW.
The Tributary-Mainstem Connectivity Plan shall assess tributary confluences with the
Klamath River for connectivity that provides coho salmon, Chinook salmon, steelhead,
and Pacific lamprey passage. At a minimum, the Tributary-Mainstem Connectivity Plan
shall include: proposed monitoring elements such as methods, timing, duration,
frequency, and locations; and proposed reporting. The Tributary-Mainstem Connectivity
Plan shall also include a framework to develop adaptive management measures that the
Licensee may implement to remove Project-related obstructions to tributary connectivity
and fish passage. The Tributary-Mainstem Connectivity Plan shall monitor and address
tributary connectivity and fish passage in one tributary28 in the Hydroelectric Reach andfive tributaries from below Iron Gate to Cottonwood Creek.
The Tributary-Mainstem Connectivity Plan shall include monitoring for at least two years
directly following the completion of drawdown activities, and within one month following

28

Additional tributaries in the Hydroelectric Reach will be assessed for connectivity
through implementation of the Reservoir Area Management Plan (Condition 14).

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 96 -

Connectivity assessment includes newly created stream channels that were previously
inundated by Project reservoirs prior to drawdown.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 97 -

a five-year flow event29,30 unless it is unsafe for field crews, in which case monitoring
shall be conducted as soon thereafter as safe conditions occur.
Reporting: The Licensee shall submit annual reports to the Deputy Director. Annual
reports shall, at a minimum, include:(1) A summary of monitoring results;(2) An overall assessment of fish passage in the newly accessible Klamath River andtributaries; and(3) A summary of tributary obstructions that limit fish passage and proposed remedialactions.
The Tributary-Mainstem Connectivity Plan, dated August 2022, as submitted by the
KRRC for review and approval by the State Water Board on August 11, 2022, as
amended by the KRRC’s October 10, 2022, supplemental filing satisfies therequirements of this action and is hereby approved. The KRRC shall file the approved
documents with FERC within 30 days of this certification amendment. Any changes to
the Tributary-Mainstem Connectivity Plan shall be approved by the Deputy Director prior
to implementation. The Deputy Director may require modifications as part of any
approval. The Licensee shall file any Deputy Director-approved updates, along with any
required modifications, with FERC. The Licensee shall implement any updates to the
Tributary-Mainstem Connectivity Plan upon receipt of all required approvals.
Action 2: Spawning Habitat Evaluation. The Licensee shall implement spawning
habitat. The Licensee shall develop a Spawning Habitat Availability Report and Plan
(SHARP) that: (i) includes field surveys and remote sensing efforts to quantify available
spawning habitat prior to and following drawdown in the Hydroelectric Reach and several
tributaries31; (ii) summarizes the survey of newly-accessible anadromous fish spawning
habitat; and (iii) includes potential actions that the Licensee may implement to augment
spawning habitat in the mainstem Klamath River and its tributaries if needed. The
SHARP shall be developed in consultation with staff from the State Water Board, North
Coast Regional Board, CDFW, NMFS, USFWS, ODEQ, and Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife. The SHARP shall be submitted to the Executive Director of the State Water
Board or the Deputy Director for review and approval no later than December 31 of theyear in which drawdown is completed.

29

A 5-year flow event is 10,908 cfs as recorded at USGS gage no. 11516530 (below
Iron Gate).
30
A 5-year flow event may occur outside of the two years following completion ofdrawdown, in which case the monitoring described here would be required.
31
Tributaries include Jenny Creek, Fall Creek, Shovel Creek, and Spencer Creek. If thespawning habitat tributary target of 4,700 square yards is achieved prior to surveying
each tributary, tributary monitoring may be discontinued. If the spawning habitat tributary
target is not met in the initial survey effort, additional tributaries that will be surveyed
include Camp Creek, Scotch Creek, Dutch Creek, Deer Creek and/or Beaver Creek.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 98 -

If it is necessary for the Licensee to take action to augment spawning habitat based on
the results of the survey of spawning habitat (i.e., if the spawning habitat target metrics[i.e., tributary – 4,700 square yards, mainstem – 44,100 square yards] identified in
Section 2 of the SHARP are not met), the Licensee shall update the SHARP to include
the following elements for proposed actions to improve spawning habitat: 1) a detailed
description of each proposed action; 2) locations of the proposed actions; 3) durationand timing (e.g., season) for implementation of the proposed actions; and4) assessment of estimated spawning habitat benefits resulting from the proposed
actions compared to the targets set forth in the SHARP. The Licensee shall evaluate a
range of actions to meet the spawning targets identified in Section 2 of the SHARP.
When spawning gravel augmentation is not appropriate32, the Licensee shall evaluate
and propose other actions to improve spawning and rearing habitat that meet thetargets identified in Section 2 of the SHARP. Other actions may include: installation oflarge woody material, riparian planting for shade coverage, wetland construction orenhancement, and cattle exclusion fencing.
Reporting: The Licensee shall submit annual reports to the Deputy Director no later
than April 1 of the following year for as long as the Licensee is conducting surveys or
implementing spawning habitat improvement actions. Annual Reports shall, at aminimum, include:(1) A summary of monitoring results; and(2) A summary of the actions, if needed, implemented to improve spawning habitat.
The Spawning Habitat Availability Report and Plan, dated August 2022, as submitted forreview and approval to the State Water Board on August 11, 2022, satisfies therequirements of this action and is hereby approved. The KRRC shall file the approved
documents with FERC within 30 days of this certification amendment. Any changes to
the SHARP shall be approved by the Deputy Director prior to implementation. The
Deputy Director may require modifications as part of any approval. The Licensee shallfile any Deputy Director-approved updates, along with any required modifications, with
FERC. The Licensee shall implement any updates to the SHARP upon receipt of all
required approvals.
Juvenile Outmigration Aquatic Resource Measure
The Juvenile Outmigration AR Measure includes three actions: 1) Mainstem Salvage ofOverwintering Juvenile Salmonids; 2) Tributary-Mainstem Connectivity Monitoring; and
3) Rescue and Relocation of Juvenile Salmonids from Tributary Confluence Areas.
Action 1: Mainstem Salvage of Overwintering Juvenile Salmonids. Except as modified
by this condition, the Licensee shall implement the overwintering juvenile salmonidsalvage and relocation efforts described in Action 1 of the Outmigrating Juveniles AR
Measure in the Lower Klamath Project Biological Opinion. The Licensee shall evaluatesites in the Klamath River between Iron Gate Dam (RM 192.9) and the Trinity River
(RM 43.4) prior to reservoir drawdown to identify salvage locations based on the32

Gravel augmentation shall only be performed in the mainstem Klamath River, unlessthe Deputy Director-approved SHARP allows otherwise.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 99 -

presence and relative abundance of juvenile coho salmon and the suitability of suchsites for salvage. Site selection and salvage methods shall be developed in consultation
with staff from CDFW, NMFS, State Water Board, and North Coast Regional Board, andimplemented as approved by the Deputy Director. Prior to drawdown, the Licensee
shall relocate juvenile coho salmon to off-channel ponds. A technical memorandum
identifying target capture locations and methods of salvage of overwintering juvenile
coho salmon shall be submitted to NMFS, CDFW, and the State Water Board at least
six months prior to salvage.
Action 2: Tributary-Mainstem Connectivity Monitoring. The Licensee shall implement
the Tributary-Mainstem Connectivity Plan approved under the Mainstem Spawning AR
Measure section of this condition above.
Action 3: Rescue and Relocation of Juvenile Salmonids from Tributary Confluence
Areas. No later than six months following issuance of the FERC license surrender order,
the Licensee shall submit a Juvenile Salmonid and Pacific Lamprey Rescue andRelocation Plan (Juvenile Salmonid Plan) to the Executive Director of the State Water
Board or the Deputy Director for review and approval. The Juvenile Salmonid Plan shallbe developed in consultation with staff from the State Water Board, North Coast Regional
Board, NMFS, and CDFW.
At a minimum, the Juvenile Salmonid Plan shall include:(1) Methods that will be used to find and relocate juvenile salmonids;(2) Potential relocation areas and/or criteria that will be used to identify potential
relocation areas;(3) Detailed description of water quality monitoring to be performed at eachconfluence of the Klamath River and the 13 tributaries33 listed in Action 3 of theJuvenile Outmigration AR Measure. In addition, the plan shall include water
quality triggers for implementation of juvenile salmonid relocation efforts. The
Licensee shall perform the water quality monitoring required here consistent withthe sampling methods and quality control procedures identified in the
Deputy- Director-approved WQMP and its QAPP (Condition 1). The Licensee
shall provide the proposed frequency, duration, and location of water quality
monitoring that will be conducted under Action 3 of the Juvenile Outmigration AR
Measure. The Licensee may use water quality monitoring results from
implementation of the WQMP (Condition 1), as applicable. The plan shall identify
what monitoring results from Condition 1 may be used under this action;(4) Detailed description of proposed rescue efforts that includes: duration, methodof rescue, locations for capture and relocation; and(5) Reporting to the Deputy Director on implementation of Action 3 of the Juvenile
Outmigration AR Measure within six months following implementation of rescue
and relocation efforts. At a minimum, reporting shall include: a summary of thewater quality data collected; any actions taken by the Licensee to rescue and33

The 13 tributaries are: Bogus Creek, Dry Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Shasta River,
Humbug Creek, Beaver Creek, Horse Creek, Scott River, Tom Martin Creek, O’Neil
Creek, Walker Creek, Grider Creek, and Seiad Creek.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 100 -

relocate juvenile salmonids, including number of juvenile salmonids rescued(including age class), release location, and the success of such efforts.
The Juvenile Salmonid and Pacific Lamprey Rescue and Relocation Plan, dated August
2022, as submitted for review and approval to the State Water Board on August 11,
2022, satisfies the requirements of this action and is hereby approved. The KRRC shallfile the approved documents with FERC within 30 days of this certification amendment.
Any changes to the Juvenile Salmonid Plan shall be approved by the
Deputy Director prior to implementation. The Deputy Director may require modifications aspart of any approval. The Licensee shall file any Deputy Director-approved updates, alongwith any required modifications, with FERC. The Licensee shall implement any updates to
the Juvenile Salmonid Plan upon receipt of all required approvals.
Suckers Aquatic Resource Measure
The Licensee shall implement the California AR-6 Adaptive Management Plan – Suckers(California Suckers Plan), dated August 2022, as submitted to the State Water Board on
August 11, 2022. The KRRC shall file the approved documents with FERC within
30 days of this certification amendment. Any changes to the California Suckers Plan
shall be approved by the Deputy Director prior to implementation. The Deputy Director
may require modifications as part of any approval. The Licensee shall implement any
updates to the California Suckers Plan upon Deputy Director and any other required
approvals.
CONDITION 7. REMAINING FACILITIESNo later than six months following issuance of the FERC license surrender order, andprior to Project implementation, the Licensee shall submit a Remaining Facilities Plan to
the Executive Director of the State Water Board or the Deputy Director for review andapproval.
At a minimum, the Remaining Facilities Plan shall include:(1) A list and description of all Project facilities and structures that will be retained
during Project implementation34, including but not limited to facilities buried inplace;(2) An analysis of potential water quality impacts associated with remaining facilities
and operations, including hazardous materials or wastes present at the facilities
and the potential for erosion or runoff to surface waters;(3) Measures the Licensee will implement to ensure remaining facilities do notcontribute to water quality impairments; and(4) Provisions to ensure that any ongoing measures will be implemented whenownership of the facilities and/or responsibility for operations is transferred toanother entity.

34

While all remaining facilities shall be listed in the Remaining Facilities Plan, it is notnecessary to include a description and other information for recreational facilities
addressed under Recreation Facilities (Condition 19) and hatcheries addressed under
Hatcheries (Condition 13).

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 101 -The Remaining Facilities Plan, dated December 2021, submitted to FERC on
December 14, 2021, and submitted to the State Water Board for review and approval
July 7, 2022, satisfies the requirements of this condition and is hereby approved. The
KRRC shall file the approved documents with FERC within 30 days of this certification
amendment. Any changes to the Remaining Facilities Plan shall be approved by the
Deputy Director prior to implementation. The Deputy Director may require modifications
as part of any such approval. The Licensee shall file any Deputy Director-approved
updates, along with any required modifications, with FERC. The Licensee shall
implement any updates to the Remaining Facilities Plan upon receipt of all required
approvals.
CONDITION 8. PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SUPPLIESThis condition outlines provisions to ensure protection of public drinking water supplies
that may be impacted by Project implementation, including drinking water supplies
sourced from the Klamath River and the City of Yreka’s water supply. The provisions foreach of these types of water supplies are provided below.
Drinking Water Supplies Sourced from the Klamath River. No later than three months
following issuance of the FERC license surrender order, and prior to Project
implementation, the Licensee shall consult with community water systems, transient noncommunity water systems, or other drinking water providers that use Klamath Riversurface water for drinking water to identify appropriate measures to reduce water supply
impacts associated with Project implementation. The Licensee shall ensure that Project
implementation does not result in service of water that fails to meet drinking water quality
standards. Potential measures shall include, as appropriate: (1) providing an alternative
potable water supply; (2) providing technical assistance to assess whether existingtreatment is adequate to treat the potential increase in sediments andsediment-associated contaminants to meet drinking water standards; (3) providing
water treatment assistance to adequately treat Klamath River water to minimize
suspended sediments and associated constituents that may impact human health;(4) ensuring that transient, non-community supplies are temporarily shut off fordrinking; and/or (5) ensuring that water not intended for drinking is clearly marked as
non- potable.
At least six months prior to initiating drawdown, the Licensee shall submit the California
Public Drinking Water Management Plan to the Executive Director of the State Water
Board or the Deputy Director for review and approval. The California Public Drinking
Water Management Plan shall: (i) identify all drinking water supplies sourced from theKlamath River that may be impacted by the Project; and (ii) details measures the
Licensee will implement to protect each potentially affected water supply and why suchmeasures are sufficient to protect the drinking water supplies. The Licensee shall
implement the measures sufficiently prior to, during, and following the reservoir sediment
releases to ensure protection of water supplies. The Deputy Director may require
modifications or additional measures. The Licensee shall provide the Deputy Director
with a summary of its implementation of this provision within three months of concluding
implementation of the measures.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 102 -

City of Yreka’s Water Supply. Prior to initiating drawdown of Project reservoirs, theLicensee shall either temporarily or permanently reroute the existing City of Yreka watersupply pipeline across the Daggett Road Bridge. The Licensee shall coordinate with theCity of Yreka to provide an uninterrupted water supply during replacement, and theestimated water delivery outage timeframe shall be agreed upon between the City of
Yreka and Licensee prior to construction, consistent with the California Public Drinking
Water Management Plan. The new replacement pipeline section shall be connected tothe existing City of Yreka water supply pipeline and installed in a location that prevents
Klamath River flows during and after drawdown from affecting the City of Yreka’s watersupply.
Any work the Licensee undertakes to ensure that the City of Yreka water supply intake
structures comply with fish screen criteria shall be completed within the water delivery
outage period specified in this condition. Installation of a fish barrier that does not impact
the City of Yreka’s water supply and associated intake structures may be performed at
an alternate time outside of the water delivery outage period.
Except as provided in this condition, the Licensee shall ensure uninterrupted watersupply during replacement of the water pipeline section, any required intake structure
modifications, and throughout Project implementation. A short water delivery outage isnecessary to make the final connections following construction of the new pipeline. The
Licensee shall limit the water delivery outage to a maximum of 12 hours or another water
delivery outage timeframe agreed upon between the City of Yreka and the Licensee.
The Licensee shall coordinate the water delivery outage period with the City of Yreka toensure the City of Yreka has an adequate supply of water stored to cover the maximum
water delivery outage period.
Water pipeline and intake work shall not cause impacts to water quality that exceed
North Coast Basin Plan standards. If the Licensee proposes any in-water work, theLicensee shall prepare a water quality monitoring and protection plan in compliance with
Condition 10 of this certification for Deputy Director review and approval.
The California Public Drinking Water Management Plan submitted to FERC on
December 14, 2021, and submitted to the State Water Board on July 7, 2022, as
amended by the KRRC’s October 10, 2022, supplemental filing satisfies therequirements of this condition and is hereby approved. The KRRC shall file the approved
documents with FERC within 30 days of this certification amendment. Any changes to
the California Public Drinking Water Management Plan shall be approved by the Deputy
Director prior to implementation. The Deputy Director may require modifications as partof any such approval. The Licensee shall file any Deputy Director- approved updates,
along with any required modifications, with FERC. The Licensee shall implement any
updates to the California Public Drinking Water Management Plan upon Deputy Director
and any other required approvals.
CONDITION 9. AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT
In the event chemical vegetation control is proposed to control algae or aquatic weeds,
the Licensee shall consult with staff from the United States Army Corps of Engineers(USACE), CDFW, North Coast Regional Board, and State Water Board and submit aProject Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 103 -

proposal to the Deputy Director for review and approval. The proposal shall include:(1) the Licensee’s plans to implement chemical vegetation management, including any
public noticing or additional measures proposed beyond those required in thiscertification; (2) the timeline for the application of chemicals and any potential impacts tobeneficial uses of water, including Native American culture uses; (3) comments andrecommendations made in connection with the consultation and how they wereincorporated into the proposal; and (4) a description of how the proposal incorporates oraddresses use of glyphosate in an aquatic formulation, avoidance of glyphosate
formulations containing the surfactants POEA or R-11, and prohibition of application if
precipitation is predicted within 24 hours of intended use. If another herbicide is selected
for use, it shall meet the characteristics of low soil mobility and low toxicity to fish andaquatic organisms and shall be applied using low use rates (i.e., spot treatments),
avoidance of application in the rain, avoidance of treatments during periods when fish arein life stages most sensitive to the herbicide(s) used, and adherence to appropriate bufferzones around stream channels as specified in Bureau of Land Management 201035.
The Deputy Director may approve, deny, or require modifications of the proposal. The
Licensee shall file any Deputy-Director-approved proposal, together with any required
proposal modifications, with FERC. The Licensee shall implement the proposal upon
Deputy Director and any other required approvals. Any changes to the proposal shall beapproved by the Deputy Director prior to implementation.
At a minimum, the Licensee shall comply with the terms in State Water Board OrderNo. 2013-0002-DWQ (as amended by Orders 2014-0078-DWQ, 2015-0029-DWQ,
2016-073-EXEC, 2017-0015-EXEC, and 2020-0037-EXEC, and any amendments
thereto), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) No. CAG990005,
Statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit for Residual Aquatic
Pesticide Discharges to Water of the United States from Algae and Aquatic Weed
Control Applications and any amendments thereto.
CONDITION 10. CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT COMPLIANCE AND WATERQUALITY MONITORING AND PROTECTION PLANS
The Licensee shall comply with the terms and conditions in the State Water Board’s
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm
Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities(Construction General Permit; State Water Board Order 2009-0009-DWQ, as amendedby State Water Board Orders 2010-0014-DWQ, 2012-0006-DWQ, and2022-0057- DWQ, as applicable), and ongoing amendments during the life of the
Project.
For any ground-disturbing activities that could impact water quality (including beneficial
uses) that are neither addressed by the Construction General Permit nor addressed inother conditions of this certification (e.g., Reservoir Drawdown [Condition 3], Hatcheries
35

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2010. Final environmental impact statement.
Vegetation treatments using herbicides on BLM lands in Oregon. Volume 2- Appendices.
FES 10-23 BLM/OR/WA/AE-10/077+1792. Prepared by BLM, Pacific Northwest Region,
Portland, Oregon.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 104 -

[Condition 13], and Restoration [Condition 14]) site-specific water quality monitoring andprotection plans shall be prepared and implemented following Deputy Director approval.
Activities for which site-specific water quality monitoring and protection plans shall be
prepared include, but are not limited to, Ward’s Canyon-related work (Condition 19) andother pre-drawdown and drawdown construction-related work (Condition 3). Prior toconstruction or other activity that could impact water quality or beneficial uses, theLicensee shall submit the water quality monitoring and protection plan to the Deputy
Director for review and approval. The Deputy Director may require modifications as partof any approval. The Licensee shall file the Deputy Director’s approval, together with any
required modifications, with FERC. The Licensee shall implement site-specific water
quality monitoring and protection plans upon receipt of Deputy Director and any otherrequired approvals.
Any water quality monitoring and protection plans shall include measures to control
erosion, stream sedimentation, dust, and soil mass movement. The plans shall be basedon actual-site geologic, soil, and groundwater conditions and at a minimum include:(1) Description of site conditions and the proposed activity;(2) Detailed descriptions, design drawings, and specific topographic locations of allcontrol measures in relation to the proposed activity, which may include:a. Measures to divert runoff away from disturbed land surfaces;b. Measures to collect and filter runoff from disturbed land surfaces, including
sediment ponds at the sites; andc. Measures to dissipate energy and prevent erosion;(3) Revegetation of disturbed areas using native plants and locally-sourced plants
and seeds; and(4) A monitoring, maintenance, and reporting schedule.
A minimum of three weeks prior to the start of ground-disturbing construction activities,
unless an alternate timeframe is approved by the Deputy Director, the Licensee shallsubmit a California Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to the Deputy Director for review
and approval. The Deputy Director may require modifications as part of any approval.
The California Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be developed in consultation
with the State Water Board, North Coast Regional Board, and appropriate Tribes andidentify any additional erosion and sediment control best management practices (BMPs)
beyond those required by Condition 10 (e.g., Construction General Permit) that the
Licensee will use to minimize pollution from sediment erosion caused from Project
implementation. The Licensee shall file the Deputy Director’s approval, together with any
required modifications, with FERC. The Licensee shall implement the California Erosion
and Sediment Control Plan upon receipt of Deputy Director and any other required
approvals. Any changes to the California Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall beapproved by the Deputy Director prior to implementation. Potential best management
practices (BMPs) include those identified in the Licensee’s November 2020 Definite
Decommissioning Plan, Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in
California –Best Management Practices (USFS 2012), California Department

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 105 -of Transportation’s May 2017 Construction Site Best Management Practices (BMP)
Manual (Caltrans BMP Manual) (Caltrans 2017), or other appropriate documents.
CONDITION 11. WASTE DISPOSAL
No later than six months following issuance of the FERC license surrender order, theLicensee shall submit a Waste Disposal Plan to the Executive Director of the State Water
Board or the Deputy Director for review and approval. The Waste Disposal Plan shalldescribe how the Licensee will manage and dispose of all non-hazardous wastes36
generated as part of the Project in a manner protective of water quality. The Waste
Disposal Plan shall be developed in consultation with staff from the North Coast Regional
Board and State Water Board.
At a minimum, the Waste Disposal Plan shall include:(1) The elements of the waste disposal description presented in the November 2020
Definite Decommissioning Plan filed with FERC, that influence water quality, andas updated based on the requirements presented in this condition;(2) An estimate of the quantity and nature of anticipated waste generated by dam
removal and other Project decommissioning activities and a description of where
all materials and debris will be disposed;(3) A detailed description of on-site disposal, including the proposed locations andassociated size of sites;(4) Erosion control measures for on-site disposal activities; and(5) A proposal to restore on-site disposal sites in accordance with the Construction
General Permit and stormwater pollution and prevention plans (consistent with
Condition 10 of this certification), including monitoring, reporting, and follow up
actions (if needed) to ensure the long-term stability of the restored disposal siteand protection of water quality.
On-site disposal of inert, non-hazardous debris resulting from dam removal and other
Project decommissioning activities may be buried at disposal sites identified in the Waste
Disposal Plan. With exception of the J.C. Boyle scour hole and powerhouse tailrace
disposal sites identified in the November 2020 Definite Decommissioning Plan, theLicensee shall ensure that the disposal sites are above the ordinary high-water mark
(OHWM) and in a location that does not drain directly to surface waters. The Licensee
shall select disposal site locations where drainage patterns can be preserved. If a waste
disposal site has the potential to drain into surface waters, catch basins shall be
constructed whenever feasible37 and other appropriate BMPs from the Caltrans BMP
Manual shall be implemented, to intercept runoff before it reaches surface waters.

36

Management of hazardous materials is covered in Hazardous Materials Management(Condition 12).
37
The Licensee shall provide justification for any determination that a catch basin is
infeasible at a disposal site with the potential to drain into surface water. Additionally, theLicensee shall provide support for why other appropriate BMPs from the CaltransManual are sufficient to protect water quality and beneficial uses.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 106 -

On-site disposal areas that will remain uncovered through the rainy season (between
October 16 and May 14) shall be protected with appropriate BMPs from the Caltrans
BMP Manual to prevent erosion or as otherwise allowed under Condition 10 of thiscertification. Reinforced steel and other recyclable materials should be recycled, when
feasible, at local recycling facilities. Excavated embankment material may be used as
topsoil to cover on-site disposal areas prior to grading and being sloped for drainage.
Concrete rubble resulting from demolition of the powerhouses may be buried in theexisting tailrace channel. All mechanical and electrical equipment shall be hauled to asuitable commercial landfill or salvage collection point. Prior to Project completion, allon-site disposal locations shall be graded and stabilized to reduce the potential for
erosion.
The California Waste Disposal Plan, dated December 2021, submitted by the KRRC to
the State Water Board on July 7, 2022, as amended by the KRRC’s October 10, 2022
supplemental filing, satisfies the plan requirements of this condition and are hereby
approved. The KRRC shall file the approved documents with FERC within 30 days ofthis certification amendment. Any changes to the Waste Disposal Plan shall beapproved by the Deputy Director prior to implementation. The Deputy Director may
require modifications as part of any such approval. The Licensee shall file any Deputy
Director-approved updates, along with any required modifications, with FERC. The
Licensee shall implement the Waste Disposal Plan upon receiving all required
approvals.
CONDITION 12. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT
No later than six months following issuance of the FERC license surrender order, theLicensee shall submit a Hazardous Materials Management Plan to the Executive
Director of the State Water Board or the Deputy Director for review and approval. The
Hazardous Materials Management Plan shall be developed in coordination with State
Water Board staff. The Hazardous Materials Management Plan shall include thefollowing: (a) proper disposal or abatement of hazardous materials and wastes that areencountered as part of decommissioning activities (e.g., asbestos tiles or building
materials, batteries, etc.); (b) proper storage, containment, and response to spills of
hazardous materials and wastes that are part of Project implementation (e.g., gasoline
and diesel for vehicles, oil and other fluids for construction equipment, etc.); and(c) proper removal and disposal of septic tanks. At a minimum, the Hazardous Materials
Management Plan shall include the requirements presented in this condition and:
(1) The elements of the hazardous materials management description presented in
the November 2020 Definite Decommissioning Plan;(2) A list with contact information of federal, state, and local officials the Licensee willcontact to respond in the event of a hazardous materials spill. The list andcontact information shall be maintained and updated by the Licensee. In theevent of a hazardous materials spill, at a minimum, the Licensee shallimmediately inform the California Emergency Management Agency, CDFW,
North Coast Regional Board, and the State Water Board staff of the magnitude,
nature, time, date, location, and action taken for the spill;Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 107 -

(3) An inventory of hazardous materials and wastes at each facility and the plan for
final disposition of the hazardous materials and wastes;(4) Description of hazardous materials storage, spill prevention, and cleanup
measures, including the deployment and maintenance of spill cleanup materials
and equipment at each facility/site to contain any spill from Project activities.
Onsite containment for storage of chemicals classified as hazardous shall beaway from watercourses and include secondary containment; and(5) Testing, monitoring, and reporting that will be implemented if a spill occurs toensure water quality is not affected.
For structures being removed, the Licensee shall inspect each structure prior to removal
for hazardous materials (e.g. asbestos-containing material, lead-based paint, andpolychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs]) and perform any necessary sampling or testing wheninspection alone does not provide sufficient information to determine whether thematerial is hazardous. Any material with asbestos, lead, PCBs, or other hazardous
waste shall be handled and disposed of as hazardous waste at approved hazardous
waste facilities in accordance with applicable waste management regulations. Other
deconstruction materials shall be disposed of as non-hazardous waste in accordancewith Waste Disposal (Condition 11) provisions of this certification.
All hazardous materials removed from inside existing structures during Project
implementation (e.g., paints, oils, and welding gases) shall be either returned to thevendor, recycled, or managed and disposed of as hazardous waste at an approved
hazardous waste facility in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations.
Transformer oils shall be tested for PCBs if no data exist. Any tanks that contained
hazardous materials shall be decontaminated prior to disposal. Universal hazardous
waste (e.g., lighting ballasts, mercury switches, and batteries) shall be handled inaccordance with applicable federal and state universal waste regulations.
Existing septic tanks associated with Project facilities shall be decommissioned in placeor removed and disposed of in accordance with the corrective action requirements
specified in the State Water Board’s Water Quality Control Policy for Siting, Design,
Operation and Maintenance of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS
Policy)3835 (State Water Board 2012).
The California Hazardous Materials Management Plan, dated December 2021,
submitted by the KRRC to the State Water Board on July 7, 2022, as amended by the
KRRC’s October 10, 2022 supplemental filing, satisfies the plan requirements of thiscondition and are hereby approved. The KRRC shall file the approved documents with
FERC within 30 days of this certification amendment. Any changes to the Hazardous
Materials Management Plan shall be approved by the Deputy Director prior to
implementation. The Deputy Director may require modifications as part of any such
3835

The OWTS Policy was adopted by the State Water Board on June 19, 2012 per
Resolution No. 2012-0032; it was approved by the Office of Administrative Law on
November 13, 2012; and consistent with OWTS Policy section 13.0, became effective
on May 13, 2013. On April 17, 2018, per Resolution No. 2018-0019, the State Water
Board amended the OWTS Policy renewed its conditional waiver.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 108 -

approval. The Licensee shall file any Deputy Director-approved updates, along with any
required modifications, with FERC. The Licensee shall implement the Hazardous
Materials Management Plan upon receiving all required approvals.
CONDITION 13. HATCHERIESNo later than six months following issuance of a FERC license surrender order, theLicensee shall submit a Hatcheries Management and Operations Plan (Hatcheries Plan)
to the Executive Director of the State Water Board or the Deputy Director for review andapproval. The Hatcheries Plan shall be developed in consultation with staff from theState Water Board, North Coast Regional Board, CDFW, and NMFS. At a minimum, theHatcheries Plan shall include:(1) Annual fish production goals that include the target production numbers by species
and life stage;(2) Identification of water supplies that will be used to operate the Iron Gate and Fall
Creek Hatchery including: location; anticipated diversion rates (cfs) and total
diversion amounts (annual and monthly); minimum amount of flow that will be
bypassed below the diversions to provide volitional fish passage; and summaries
of and compliance with any water right requirements associated with water
diversions;(3) Implementation actions for protection of hatchery and natural fish populations (asimpacted by hatchery operations) in the event water supply to Fall Creek Hatcheryis unavailable due to drought or other limitations;(4) The proposed construction BMPs for ground-disturbing activities associated withconstruction of the hatchery, including establishment of a 20-foot buffer arounddelineated wetlands, unless site-specific conditions require adjustment of the buffer
in a manner that remains protective of delineated wetlands and is acceptable to aqualified and approved biologist. Construction associated with these activities
shall be subject to the BMPs required under the Construction General Permit;(5) Expected duration of the hatchery’s operations; and(6) Reporting details, such as the amount of water diverted at each hatchery, bypass
flows, and reporting requirements under the NPDES permit.
Prior to operation of the Fall Creek Hatchery, the Licensee shall ensure that it has
obtained coverage under and complies with a NPDES permit issued by the North Coast
Regional Board. If the closure of Fall Creek Hatchery is anticipated while the license
surrender order is still in effect, the Hatchery Plan shall be updated to include theproposal for decommissioning of the facilities.
The Hatcheries Management and Operations Plan dated July 2020 and submitted by
the KRRC to the State Water Board on July 14, 2022, as amended by the KRRC’s
October 10, 2022, supplemental filing satisfies the plan requirements of this condition
with the modification outlined below. The KRRC shall file the approved documents with
FERC within 30 days of this certification amendment.
•

The Licensee shall ensure that the appropriate water right reports under
California Code of Regulation, title 23, section 929, or the appropriate statementsof diversion and use for diversion under riparian or pre-1914 water rights underProject Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 109 -

Water Code section 5101 are filed with the State Water Board for water
diversions used for hatchery operations.
Any changes to the Hatcheries Plan with the potential to increase impacts to water
quality shall be approved by the Deputy Director prior to implementation. The Deputy
Director may require modifications as part of any such approval. The Licensee shall fileany Deputy Director-approved updates, along with any required modifications, with
FERC. The Licensee shall implement the Hatcheries Plan upon receipt of all required
approvals.
CONDITION 14. RESTORATION
No later than six months following issuance of the FERC license surrender order, andprior to initiation of drawdown activities, the Licensee shall submit a Reservoir Area
Management Plan (Restoration Plan) to the Executive Director of the State Water Boardor the Deputy Director for review and approval. The Restoration Plan shall be developedin consultation with staff from the North Coast Regional Board, State Water Board, and
CDFW. At a minimum, the Restoration Plan shall include:(1) Detailed description of proposed restoration activities (e.g., grading, planting,swales, wetland construction, etc.). The description of proposed restoration
activities shall include associated water quality protection measures the Licensee
will implement as part of restoration;(2) Preliminary maps of proposed restoration activities that identifying proposed
locations for restoration activities. The preliminary map shall be updated within
six months following drawdown, as necessary. The preliminary maps shall:identify areas of grading, water runoff control measures, planting, seeding,mulching, and irrigation areas. Preliminary maps should include final limits ofwork zones, delineated wetlands within areas of proposed disturbance, thereservoir footprints, the J.C. Boyle Power Canal and scour hole, and all areas of
temporary disturbance where revegetation activities would occur;(3) Exclusive use of native plants, with preference for plants that promote soil
stabilization;(4) Description and results of the Licensee’s evaluation of the presence of wetlands
that could be affected by the Project, including wetlands in the potential disposal
areas;(5) Description of measures the Licensee will implement to ensure no net loss of
wetland and riparian habitat. Measures shall include establishment of aminimum 20-foot buffer around all non-reservoir dependent, delineated wetlands
potentially affected by construction impacts (unless site-specific conditions
require adjustment of the buffer in a manner that remains protective of nonreservoir dependent, delineated wetlands and is acceptable to a qualified andapproved biologist) to deter heavy machinery from traversing the wetland andprevent runoff pollution associated with Project activities from directly entering
the non-reservoir dependent wetlands. (For reference, non-reservoir dependent
wetlands refers to wetlands that are not anticipated to be impacted by drawdown
and their primary hydrological sources are the Klamath River, a stream or seep,
and/or precipitation.);Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 110 -

(6) Description of how the Licensee will ensure floodplain connectively within thereservoir footprint;(7) Description of how the Licensee will monitor for and address any invasive weeds
in the restored area;(8) Plan for installation of large woody material in the Hydroelectric Reach in
California that includes:a. Number or volume of large woody material to be installed;b. Consistency with practices in California Salmonid Stream Habitat
Restoration Manual (CDFG 2010) or guidance provided throughconsultation with staff from CDFW, NMFS, North Coast Regional Board,and State Water Board; andc. Timeline for placement of large woody material;(9) Monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the Restoration Plan, including
adaptive management measures that will be implemented over time to ensure
successful restoration (e.g., measures to address the loss of newly planted
vegetation, soil instability39, etc.). Monitoring shall occur frequently enough todetermine whether plantings are successful and to facilitate implementation ofadaptive measures (e.g., supplemental irrigation, re-seeding, changes in planttypes) to ensure rapid establishment of vegetation; and(10) Confirmation that water pumps used for irrigation are screened to prevent
fish injury or entrainment.
Within six months of concluding drawdown activities, and annually thereafter until
otherwise directed by the Deputy Director, the Licensee shall provide a report to the
Deputy Director documenting implementation of the Restoration Plan, including
highlights of any problems encountered and adaptive management measures deployedor proposed to address the problems. The Licensee shall provide additional reports orinformation related to implementation of the Restoration Plan if requested by the Deputy
Director.
The Reservoir Area Management Plan, dated August 2022, as submitted by the KRRC to
the State Water Board on August 11, 2022, as amended by the KRRC’s
October 10, 2022 supplemental filing, satisfy the plan requirements of this condition andare hereby approved with the modification noted below. The KRRC shall file theapproved documents with FERC within 30 days of this certification amendment.
•

39

A minimum of six months prior to reservoir drawdown, the Licensee shall submita Cold-Water Report to the Deputy Director for review and approval that
includes: (1) identification of potential cool-water areas in the Klamath River fromthe upper end of J.C. Boyle Reservoir to Cottonwood Creek; and (2) methods formonitoring and analysis of the cold-water area, triggers that would guide
implementation of adaptive management measures if necessary, and a schedule
for monitoring, analysis, and reporting of cold-water areas. The Deputy Director
may require modifications as part of any approval. The Licensee shall file the
Deputy Director-approved Cold-Water Report, together with any required

Adaptive management measures for soil stabilization may refer to the Slope Stability
Monitoring Plan required in Slope Stability (Condition 18).

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 111 -

modifications, with FERC. Any changes to Cold-Water Report shall be approvedby the Deputy Director prior to implementation. Upon receiving all necessary
approvals, the Licensee shall implement the Cold-Water Report for the duration of
the license surrender order or until otherwise approved by the Deputy Director.
Any changes to the Restoration Plan, including changes to the final reservoir restoration
designs, shall be approved by the Deputy Director prior to implementation. The Deputy
Director may require modifications as part of any such approval. The Licensee shall fileany Deputy Director-approved updates, along with any required modifications, with
FERC. The Licensee shall implement the updates to the Restoration Plan upon receipt ofall required approvals.
CONDITION 15. WATER SUPPLY MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT
The Licensee shall implement the following measures to protect water supply andbeneficial uses. The Licensee shall annually prepare, and submit to the Deputy Director,a Water Supply Management Report that includes the elements described below. The
Deputy Director may require implementation of additional adaptive management
measures informed by the report and associated monitoring results.
Surface Water Diversions: The Licensee shall identify all points of diversion on the
Klamath River listed in the Electronic Water Rights Information Management System(eWRIMS). The Licensee shall contact all California water rights holders with points ofdiversion on the Klamath River to determine whether the water right holder is interested
in working with the Licensee to evaluate potential Project impacts to the water rightholder. If potential impacts are identified and if the water right holder is interested inworking with the Licensee, the Licensee shall provide temporary accommodations (e.g.,
replacement water, settling basins, etc.) to address potential impacts. Following dam
removal, the Licensee shall investigate any impacts reported by a diverter. If theinvestigation confirms an adverse impact has occurred as a result of dam removal, theLicensee shall implement measures to reduce impacts and allow the water right holder
to divert water in the same manner (e.g., amounts, suitable quality, and timing) as before
dam removal.
The year prior to and annually for the first two years following drawdown, the Licensee
shall submit a Water Supply Management Report to the Deputy Director on
implementation of the surface water supply activities described above. At a minimum,
the report shall include: a map showing the location of potentially affected points ofdiversion; a description of the potential adverse effects; a description of
proposed/implemented mitigation measures; and the number of water right holders who
agreed to work with the Licensee to address potential water supply issues.
Groundwater: To determine Project effects on surrounding groundwater wells, theLicensee shall, within a 1,000-foot range of the reservoirs’ OHWM, monitor groundwaterlevels before, during, and after drawing down the reservoirs. To identify groundwater
wells, the Licensee shall outreach to all residents and landowners within 1,000 feet of the
California Project reservoirs to inquire about their groundwater wells. The outreach effort
shall include information regarding the Local Impact Mitigation Fund, including
information on any prerequisites to access the fund (e.g., if funding is dependent on

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 112 -

participation in the groundwater monitoring effort). At least two months prior tocommencing drawdown activities, the Licensee shall monitor groundwater levels at allavailable locations or up to 10 locations, whichever is less, within 1,000 feet of the
California reservoirs dispersed throughout the Hydroelectric Reach in California. The
Licensee may begin groundwater elevation monitoring earlier, in order to integrate
observations of natural seasonal fluctuations in groundwater elevation into the impact
analysis.
The Licensee shall continue to monitor groundwater levels, at least monthly, until
otherwise approved by the Deputy Director and for a term of at least two years following
completion of drawdown of Copco No. 1 and Iron Gate Reservoirs. Monitoring may
occur at groundwater wells of landowners or residents with wells located within
1,000 feet of the California Project reservoirs who volunteer to allow testing or at othergroundwater monitoring wells around the California Project reservoirs. Potential
groundwater monitoring locations and measures to address potential water supply impacts
are identified in the California Water Supply Management Plan, dated
July 2022. The Licensee shall provide the Deputy Director with the locations ofgroundwater wells that will be monitored per this condition, and the Deputy Director may
require additional monitoring on lands under the control of the Licensee if the locations
chosen do not provide sufficient information on potential impacts to groundwater levels.
The Licensee shall submit an annual Groundwater Report to the Deputy Director, for aminimum of two years directly following completion of drawdown. Monitoring duration
may be adjusted based on groundwater levels reported in the annual Groundwater
Report, and as approved by the Deputy Director. At a minimum, the annual Water
Supply Management Report shall include a section on groundwater that:•••

Documents groundwater level monitoring results;
Highlights any trends or significant changes in groundwater levels; andSummarizes actions the Licensee has or will implement to address any impacts
to groundwater supply associated with Project implementation. Actions
implemented by the Licensee shall ensure disruptions in groundwater supply
determined to be a result of the Project are limited. Actions shall include, but are
not limited to, providing temporary water until Project impacts are adequately
addressed.

The California Water Supply Management Plan, dated July 2022, as submitted by the
KRRC to the State Water Board on July 14, 2022, for review and approval, as amended
by the KRRC’s October 10, 2022, supplemental filing, satisfy the requirements of thiscondition and are hereby approved. The KRRC shall file the approved documents with
FERC within 30 days of this certification amendment. The Licensee shall implement the
California Water Supply Management Plan upon receipt of all required approvals. Anychanges to the California Water Supply Management Plan shall be approved by the
Deputy Director prior to implementation. The Deputy Director may require modifications
as part of any such approval. The Licensee shall file any Deputy Director-approved
updates, along with any required modifications, with FERC. The Licensee shall
implement the updates to the California Water Supply Management Plan upon receipt ofall required approvals.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 113 -

Fire Protection: The Licensee shall submit a Fire Management Plan to the Executive
Director of the State Water Board or Deputy Director for review and approval prior to its
implementation. The Fire Management Plan shall include a list and map of locations
where fire trucks and/or helicopters may access the Klamath River and its tributaries forresidential fire protection efforts in the Hydroelectric Reach.
The Fire Management Plan, dated July 2022, as submitted by the KRRC to the State
Water Board on July 14, 2022, for review and approval, as amended by the KRRC’s
October 10, 2022, supplemental filing, satisfies the Fire Management Plan requirementsof this condition and are hereby approved. The KRRC shall file the approved documentswith FERC within 30 days of this certification amendment. The Licensee shall implement
the Fire Management Plan upon receipt of all required approvals. Any changes to theFire Management Plan related to water supply access or that have the potential to affectwater quality, including beneficial uses shall be approved by the Deputy Director prior to
implementation. The Deputy Director may require modifications as part of any suchapproval. The Licensee shall file any Deputy Director-approved updates, along with any
required modifications, with FERC. The Licensee shall implement the updates to the Fire
Management Plan upon receipt of all required approvals.
If the Deputy Director finds that the measures undertaken to address water supply
impacts are insufficient or additional reporting is needed, the Deputy Director may
require the Licensee to implement additional measures or continue reporting on
implementation of this condition.
CONDITION 16. AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILE MANAGEMENT
No later than three months following issuance of a FERC license surrender order, theLicensee shall submit an Amphibian and Reptile Rescue and Relocation Plan
(Amphibian and Reptile Plan) to the Executive Director of the State Water Board or the
Deputy Director for review and approval. The Amphibian and Reptile Plan shall be
developed in consultation with staff from CDFW, USFWS, and State Water Board.
The Amphibian and Reptile Plan shall address protection of amphibians and reptiles
previously found in the areas of the Project affected by drawdown and land-disturbing
activities that are listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or the
California ESA, or are designated as Species of Special Concern by CDFW. These
species may include, but are not limited to foothill yellow-legged frog, and western pond
turtle. At a minimum the Amphibian and Reptile Plan shall include:(1) The amphibians and reptiles covered by the plan;(2) Surveys and protocols that will be implemented to identify and relocate
amphibians and reptiles identified in the plan;(3) Protocols for relocation that will be implemented upon the incidental discovery ofa listed species during surveys;(4) Identification of the minimum qualifications for the individual(s) that will conduct
the surveys and relocations, if necessary;Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 114 -

(5) Timing and locations where surveys will be conducted, including all areas of the
Project affected by drawdown and land-disturbing activities in California withknown amphibian or reptile habitat or presence;(6) Identification of potential relocation areas, which may include lower reaches ofKlamath River tributaries with suitable habitat approved by USFWS and CDFW;(7) Pre-construction surveys and associated reporting for western pond turtles
conducted by an on-site biologist approved by applicable agencies and familiar
with western pond turtle ecology;(8) Provisions for rescue and relocation of western pond turtles after reservoir
drawdown that includes survey timing to cover multiple life stages, survey
frequency, survey locations, relocation areas with suitable habitat, survey
methodology, and reporting of survey results within 60 days of the completion ofsurveys to applicable agencies and the State Water Board; and(9) Monitoring and reporting that will be implemented to document compliance withthis condition, including notification and reporting identified by USFWS and
CDFW through consultation to develop the plan. Reporting shall include a reportsubmitted to applicable agencies within 30 days of completing the Project,regarding all species handled and relocated; location, date, time and duration of
the handling; enumeration and identification of species handled; identification of
species life stage; identification of capture personnel; the release location andtime; stream, transport, and receiving water temperatures; and location, date,
and time of release.
The Amphibian and Reptile Plan must be approved by the Deputy Director prior to
drawdown, in-water work, and work in riparian areas. Prior to approval of theAmphibian and Reptile Plan, the Licensee may implement ground-disturbing activities
occurring entirely above the OHWM, so long as a USFWS- and CDFW-approved
biological monitor surveys the area, monitors construction, and takes appropriate
actions to protect amphibians and reptiles.
The California Terrestrial and Wildlife Management Plan, dated August 2022, as
submitted by the KRRC to the State Water Board on July 28, 2022, for review andapproval, as amended by the KRRC’s October 10, 2022, supplemental filing, satisfies
the requirements of this condition and are hereby approved. The KRRC shall file theapproved documents with FERC within 30 days of this certification amendment. The
Licensee shall implement the California Terrestrial and Wildlife Management Plan uponreceipt of all required approvals. Any changes to the California Terrestrial and Wildlife
Management Plan shall be approved by the Deputy Director prior to implementation.
The Deputy Director may require modifications as part of any such approval. The
Licensee shall file any Deputy Director-approved updates, along with any required
modifications, with FERC. The Licensee shall implement the updates to the California
Terrestrial and Wildlife Management Plan upon receipt of all required approvals.
CONDITION 17. BALD AND GOLDEN EAGLE MANAGEMENT
The Bald and Golden Eagle Conservation Plan developed in consultation with USFWS
staff that is dated January 2022, and submitted by the KRRC to the State Water Board
on July 7, 2022, demonstrates that the potential effects to bald and golden eagles from
Project implementation have been considered and addressed by the Licensee throughProject Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 115 -

avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. The Bald and Golden Eagle
Conservation Plan supports the KRRC’s request for an incidental take permit for bald andgolden eagles.
The Licensee shall comply with the USFWS’ incidental take permit, dated October 14,
and effective October 17, 2022, issued under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act,for any incidental take of bald eagles or golden eagles, and any amendments thereto.
Any updates to the incidental take permit shall be approved by USFWS and submitted to
the Deputy Director prior to implementation.
CONDITION 18. SLOPE STABILITY
The Licensee shall identify reservoir slopes and other Project areas prone to instability andimplement site-specific measures to avoid potential slope erosion and associatedincreases in sedimentation to surface waters throughout Project implementation.
Additionally, the Licensee shall monitor for and address slope instability throughout theterm of the Project, including restoration activities. No later than three months following
issuance of the FERC license surrender order and prior to starting drawdown, theLicensee shall submit a Slope Stability Monitoring Plan to the Executive Director of theState Water Board or the Deputy Director for review and approval. The Slope Stability
Monitoring Plan shall be developed in consultation with State Water Board staff. At aminimum, the Slope Stability Monitoring Plan shall include:
The material elements of the Licensee’s proposal related to stability ofembankments and reservoir rims, as presented in the November 2020 Definite
Decommissioning Plan and the Licensee’s commitment to implement final EIR
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 (Slope Stabilization), and as updated based on therequirements presented in this condition;(2) A list of slopes and Project areas prone to instability;(3) Number and location of piezometer wells the Licensee will use to monitor waterlevels and pore pressure and/or alternative methods to monitor for slope
stability;(4) Number and location of inclinometer installations and/or alternative methods tomonitor and determine slope stability;(5) A list of measures the Licensee will implement to prevent erosion and maintainsoil stability;(6) A description of soil stability monitoring, including locations and schedule;(7) Visual monitoring for potential slumping, cracking, and other signs of slope
instability throughout the Project area;(8) Potential measures the Licensee will implement to address soil instability;(9) Coordination with Reservoir Drawdown (Condition 3) to address the potential
modification of drawdown rates to control slope instability if necessary toprotect infrastructure, property, or resources;(10) Slope inspections during drawdown of the reservoirs and after storm events,
and implementation of any necessary repairs, replacements, and/or additional
measures to minimize potential slope instability effects on water quality basedon inspection information; and(11) Submittal of the following reports to the Deputy Director until the Licensee
requests and the Deputy Director approves discontinuance of reporting:(1)

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 116 -

a. An annual report that summarizes: slope stability monitoring andinspection information; any repairs, replacements, or additional
stabilization measures implemented; and any proposed changes to the
Slope Stability Monitoring Plan; andb. Monthly reports during the rainy season (October 16 – May 14) that
identify any areas that have experienced slope instability, any actions
taken to control and improve slope stability, and an assessment of thesuccess of initial and any ongoing slope stability actions implemented.
Upon request, the Licensee shall provide additional information regarding slope stability
measures undertaken to address identified slope instability. If monitoring and inspection
indicate that the measures identified in the Slope Stability Monitoring Plan are
insufficient to protect water quality, the Deputy Director may establish a timeframe andrequire the Licensee to re-consult on the Slope Stability Monitoring Plan, make changes,
and resubmit the Slope Stability Monitoring Plan for Deputy Director approval.
The California Slope Stability Monitoring Plan, dated July 2022, as submitted by the
KRRC to the State Water Board on July 14, 2022, for review and approval, as amended
by the October 10, 2022 supplemental filing, satisfies the plan requirements of thiscondition and are hereby approved. The KRRC shall file the approved documents with
FERC within 30 days of this certification amendment. The Licensee shall implement the
Slope Stability Monitoring Plan upon receipt of all required approvals. Any changes to
the Slope Stability Monitoring Plan shall be approved by the Deputy Director prior to
implementation. The Deputy Director may require modifications as part of any suchapproval. The Licensee shall file any Deputy Director-approved updates, along with any
required modifications, with FERC. The Licensee shall implement the updates to the
Slope Stability Monitoring Plan upon receipt of all required approvals.
CONDITION 19. RECREATION FACILITIESNo later than six months following issuance of the FERC license surrender order, theLicensee shall submit a Recreation Facilities Plan to the Executive Director of the State
Water Board or the Deputy Director for review and approval. The Recreation Facilities
Plan shall be developed in consultation with staff from the State Water Board, North
Coast Regional Board, and CDFW. At a minimum, the Recreation Facilities Plan shall
include:(1) The material elements of the Licensee’s recreation proposal for the Project, aspresented in the 2020 Definite Decommissioning Plan, and as updated based on
the requirements presented in this condition;(2) A list of recreation facilities associated with the Project;(3) Identification of recreation facilities that will be removed and a schedule forremoval;(4) Identification of any recreation sites to be added, modified, or maintained
following dam removal, including location, the types of facilities to be added,
modified, or maintained, and the proposed schedule for completion of new
facilities or modifications to existing facilities;(5) The Licensee’s plans to facilitate transfer of ownership and/or operation of
Project recreation facilities;

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 117 -

(6) Proposed measures to protect water quality and beneficial uses during any
construction, removal, maintenance, or other activities associated with the
Project recreation facilities;(7) Water quality monitoring of Project recreation areas in compliance with thiscondition;(8) Public education signage regarding aquatic invasive species and proper boat
cleaning at established public boat access locations or visitor information kiosks
in the vicinity;(9) Installation, if necessary, and maintenance of boat cleaning stations at Project
boat ramps for the removal of aquatic invasive species;(10) Signage posted at operational Project recreation facilities for water quality
impairments (e.g., E. coli or fecal coliform and microcystin toxin) discovered
through sampling under this condition or other efforts. If water quality monitoring
indicates the impairments are an ongoing problem, the Licensee shall propose
implementation of appropriate measures as part of the annual reporting
requirement outlined in this condition;(11) Annual reporting to the Deputy Director on implementation of the Recreation
Facilities Plan that includes: the status of any proposed construction, removal, or
modifications to Project recreation facilities; water quality monitoring results
required per this condition; and any proposed modifications to the Recreation
Facilities Plan requested by the Licensee; and(12) Consultation with American Whitewater and Upper Klamath Outfitters
Association to schedule construction activities and access restrictions during
construction to minimize adverse effects on whitewater boaters.
Recreation Areas Water Quality Monitoring: The Licensee shall collect and analyze
grab water samples as outlined below for protection of the recreational water contact(REC-1) beneficial use as defined in the North Coast Basin Plan. The Licensee may
use the water quality results collected under the WQMP (Condition 1) and other water
quality monitoring efforts40 in the Klamath River watershed that comply with Water
Quality Monitoring and Adaptive Management (Condition 1) and the provisions of the
Deputy Director approved WQMP, as appropriate.
For fecal coliform and E.coli:
Timing: Prior to drawdown, samples shall be collected during the 30-day period thatspans the Independence Day holiday (June-July) and the Labor Day holiday (AugustSeptember). Following completion of drawdown, sampling shall be performed asnecessary to monitor for water quality and beneficial use protection, as approved by the
Deputy Director in the Recreation Facilities Plan.

40

Other water quality efforts may include Interim Measure 15 as described inAppendix D of the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement, as amended
November 30, 2016.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 118 -

Frequency: Project facilities shall be monitored twice every year until each recreation
facility is transferred to a new owner or as otherwise approved by the Deputy Director in
the Recreation Facilities Plan.
Location: Samples shall be collected at all Project recreation facilities that provide forrecreational water contact unless otherwise approved by the Deputy Director in the
Recreation Facilities Plan. Samples shall be collected at locations near restrooms,
recreation facilities, and other high use areas.
Method: The Licensee shall use the five samples in 30-day methodology or other future
protocol identified in the North Coast Basin Plan.
For microcystin toxin:
Prior to drawdown, the Licensee shall annually monitor for microcystin toxin at all
Project recreation sites that provide for recreational water contact unless otherwise
approved by the Deputy Director in the Recreation Facilities Plan. At a minimum,
monitoring shall continue monthly (May through October) for two years following thecompletion of drawdown unless the recreation site is removed. For newly constructed or
modified-existing recreation sites, the Licensee shall monitor microcystin toxins for aminimum of two year beginning with completion of construction or modifications, unlessotherwise approved by the Deputy Director in the Recreation Facilities Plan.
The Licensee shall report monitoring results annually. Reporting shall: summarize
monitoring results; highlight any exceedances of fecal coliform, E. coli, or microcystin toxin
and propose adaptive management measures to address exceedances. Based onmonitoring results, the Deputy Director may require the Licensee to modify monitoring
frequency, methods, duration, or to implement additional adaptive management
measures. The Licensee shall implement changes upon receipt of Deputy Director
direction and any other required approvals.
The Recreation Facilities Plan, dated July 2022, as submitted by the KRRC to the State
Water Board on July 28, 2022 for review and approval, as amended by the KRRC’s
October 10, 2022, supplemental filing, satisfies the plan requirements of this condition
and is hereby approved. The KRRC shall file the approved documents with FERC within
30 days of this certification amendment. The Licensee shall implement the Recreation
Facilities Plan upon receipt of all required approvals. Any changes to the Recreation
Facilities Plan shall be approved by the Deputy Director prior to implementation. The
Deputy Director may require modifications as part of any such approval. The Licensee
shall file any Deputy Director-approved updates, along with any required modifications,with FERC. The Licensee shall implement the updates to the Recreation Facilities Plan
upon receipt of all required approvals.
Note that for any construction-related activities associated with tree removal in the
Ward’s Canyon Run, the Licensee shall develop and implement a water quality
monitoring and protection plan that meets the requirements outlined in Condition 10.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 119 -

CONDITION 20. LIMITATIONS ON HYDROPOWER OPERATIONSThis water quality certification is for the proposed removal of Project facilities as
described in the Licensee’s application and shall not be construed as approval of morethan incidental, short-term interim operation of the Project hydroelectric facilities until
such removal can be implemented.
Not later than 24 months following issuance of the FERC license surrender order, if
drawdown and dam removal are not initiated, the Licensee shall submit an Interim
Hydropower Operations Plan (Operations Plan) to the Deputy Director for review andapproval. The Operations Plan shall describe additional measures the Licensee will
implement to protect water quality and fisheries in advance of drawdown and dam
removal activities. The Operations Plan shall be developed in consultation with staff fromthe State Water Board, North Coast Regional Board, CDFW, NMFS, and USFWS. The
Licensee shall solicit comments from the agencies listed above, and the Operations Plan
shall include comments received during the consultation process and identify how the
Licensee has addressed the comments. The Deputy Director may require modifications
as part of any approval. The Licensee shall file the Deputy-Director- approved
Operations Plan, together with any required plan modifications, with FERC. The Licensee
shall implement the Operations Plan upon receipt of Deputy Director and any otherrequired approvals.
Dam removal must be initiated no later than five years following issuance of the FERC
license surrender order unless the Licensee can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Executive Director of the State Water Board that the delay is due to factors outside of theLicensee’s control.
CONDITION 21. WATER RIGHTS MODIFICATIONThe Licensee shall provide the State Water Board with a description of the Licensee’s
proposal for the post-dam removal disposition of all water rights associated with Project
facilities. Prior to changing any water diversion for implementation of the Project, theLicensee shall consult with State Water Board staff regarding potential modifications toor transfer of state-issued water right permits and licenses that may be required by the
Project. The Licensee shall follow the procedures for any such modification, as
described in the California Water Code and in California Code of Regulations, title 23.
Nothing in this certification shall be construed as State Water Board approval of thevalidity of any water rights, including pre-1914 or riparian claims. The State Water Board
has separate authority under the California Water Code to investigate and takeenforcement action, if necessary, to prevent any unauthorized or threatened
unauthorized diversion of water.
CONDITION 22. TRIBAL WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Project implementation and compliance with the conditions in this certification are
anticipated to result in improved compliance with downstream water quality standards
for the Hoopa Valley Tribe, adopted in the Water Quality Control Plan, Hoopa Valley

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 120 -

Indian Reservation (Hoopa Valley Tribe 2008)41. The Karuk Tribe and Resighini
Rancheria have received treatment-in-the-same-manner-as-a-state status, but do not yet
have USEPA-approved Clean Water Act standards. The Yurok Tribe and Karuk Tribe
have has applied to the USEPA for treatment-in-the-same-manner-as-a-state statusunder the Clean Water Act, and it is possible that other tribes may similarly apply for andreceive such status.
To ensure that the requirements of this certification ultimately meet tribal Clean Water
Act standards, the 32-month report on anticipated compliance under the Compliance
Schedule (Condition 2), as well as monthly water quality reports described under
Condition 1, shall be submitted to the Hoopa Valley Tribe, Resighini Rancheria, Karuk
Tribe, and any other Native American tribes that have obtained
treatment-in-the-same- manner-as-a-state status. Any comments from such tribes
received by the Deputy Director on the report shall be a factor in the Deputy Director’s
consideration of whether to require implementation of additional management
measures.
Additionally, the Licensee shall submit to the Hoopa Valley Tribe, Resighini Rancheria,
Karuk Tribe, and any other tribe that has subsequently obtained treatment-in-the-samemanner-as-a-state status, any request to end or modify monitoring under Water Quality
Monitoring and Adaptive Management (Condition 1) at the location(s) closest to or withinthat tribe’s reservation, along with a summary of that location’s monitoring results andassociated data, to date. Any comments from such tribes received by the Deputy
Director on the report will be a factor in the Deputy Director’s consideration of whether toapprove the cessation or modification of monitoring at that location(s).
CONDITION 23. CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS
For any condition that requires consultation with specific agencies, the Licensee may
consult with additional parties (including, through “good neighbor” agreements or
through consultation commitments under the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement
Agreement). The Licensee is particularly encouraged to consult with local agencies withexpertise in siting issues and local conditions, and with tribes that have resources that
may be affected by various plans or adaptive management measures. Suchconsultation is likely to result in plans that are better conceived and more likely toreceive approval without the need for additional modification.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS (CONDITIONS 24-41)
CONDITION 24. The State Water Board’s approval authority includes the authority towithhold approval or to require modification of a proposal or plan prior to approval. The
State Water Board may take enforcement action if the Licensee fails to provide or
implement a required plan in a timely manner. If a time extension is needed to submit areport or plan for Deputy Director approval, the Licensee shall submit a written request
for the extension, with justification, to the Deputy Director no later than 60 days prior to
the deadline. The Licensee shall file any Deputy-Director-approved time extensions
41

See also a February 1, 2017, letter from Robert Franklin, Division Lead, Hoopa Tribal
Fisheries – Water Division to Parker Thaler, State Water Board, Division of Water Rights.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 121 -

with FERC. Under existing law, all delegations for approval by the Deputy Director are
permissive, and do not divest the Executive Director or State Water Board of approvalauthority.
CONDITION 25. The State Water Board reserves the authority to reopen thiscertification based on evidence that the Project may be contributing to fish passage
impediment in the Hydroelectric Reach upstream of the California/Oregon Stateline.
CONDITION 26. The State Water Board reserves the authority to add to or modify theconditions of this certification to incorporate changes in technology, sampling, or
methodologies.
CONDITION 27. The State Water Board shall provide notice and an opportunity to beheard in exercising its authority to add to or modify the conditions of this certification.
CONDITION 28. Notwithstanding any more specific conditions in this certification, theProject shall be operated in a manner consistent with all water quality standards andimplementation plans adopted or approved pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality
Control Act or section 303 of the Clean Water Act. The Licensee must take allreasonable measures to protect the beneficial uses of the Klamath River watershed.
CONDITION 29. Unless otherwise specified in this certification or at the request of the
Deputy Director, data and/or reports shall be submitted electronically in a format
accepted by the State Water Board to facilitate the incorporation of this information into
public reports and the State Water Board's water quality database systems incompliance with California Water Code section 13167.
CONDITION 30. This certification does not authorize any act which results in theunauthorized taking of a threatened, endangered, or candidate species or any act
which is now prohibited, or becomes prohibited in the future, under either the
California ESA (Fish & Game Code §§ 2050-2097) or the federal ESA (16 U.S.C. §§1531 - 1544). If a “take” will result from any act authorized under this certification orwater rights held by the Licensee, the Licensee must obtain applicable authorization
for the take prior to any construction or operation of the portion of the Project that may
result in a take. The Licensee is responsible for meeting all applicable requirements ofthe cited laws for the Project authorized under this certification.
CONDITION 31. The Licensee shall submit any change to the Project, including Project
operation, implementation, technology changes or upgrades, or methodology, which
would have a significant or material effect on the findings, conclusions, or conditions of
this certification, to the Deputy Director for prior review and written approval. The Deputy
Director shall determine significance and may require consultation with state and/or
federal agencies. If the Deputy Director is not notified of a change to the Project, it will beconsidered a violation of this certification. If such a change would also require
submission to FERC, the change must first be submitted and approved by the Deputy
Director.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 122 -

CONDITION 32. In the event of any violation or threatened violation of the conditions of
this certification, the violation or threatened violation is subject to any remedies,
penalties, process, or sanctions as provided for under applicable state or federal law.
For the purposes of section 401(d) of the Clean Water Act, the applicability of any state
law authorizing remedies, penalties, process, or sanctions for the violation or threatened
violation constitutes a limitation necessary to ensure compliance with the water quality
standards and other pertinent requirements incorporated into this certification.
CONDITION 33. In response to a suspected violation of any condition of thiscertification, the State Water Board or North Coast Regional Board may require theholder of any federal permit or license subject to this certification to furnish, underpenalty of perjury, any technical or monitoring reports the State Water Board deems
appropriate, provided that the burden, including costs, of the reports shall bear areasonable relationship to the need for the reports and the benefits to be obtained fromthe reports (California Water Code sections 1051, 13165,13267 and 13383).
CONDITION 34. In response to any violation of the conditions of this certification, theState Water Board may add to or modify the conditions of this certification as appropriate
to ensure compliance.
CONDITION 35. This certification shall not be construed as replacement or substitution
for any necessary federal, state, and local Project approvals. The Licensee is
responsible for compliance with all applicable federal, state, or local laws or ordinancesand shall obtain authorization from applicable regulatory agencies prior to thecommencement of Project activities.
CONDITION 36. Any requirement in this certification that refers to an agency whose
authorities and responsibilities are transferred to or subsumed by another state or federal
agency, will apply equally to the successor agency.
CONDITION 37. The Deputy Director and the Executive Officer shall be notified one
week prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities that may adversely
affect water quality. Upon request, a construction schedule, and updates thereto, shallbe provided to the State Water Board and North Coast Regional Board staff. The
Licensee shall provide State Water Board and North Coast Regional Board staffs
access to Project sites to document compliance with this certification.
CONDITION 38. This certification is not intended and shall not be construed to apply to
any activity involving a hydroelectric facility and requiring a FERC license or anamendment to a FERC license unless the pertinent application for certification was filed
pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 23, section 3855, subdivision (b) andthat application for certification specifically identified that a FERC license or amendment
to a FERC license for a hydroelectric facility was being sought.
CONDITION 39. This certification is conditioned upon total payment of any fee requiredin California Code of Regulations, title 23, article 4.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 123 -

CONDITION 40. This certification is subject to modification or revocation uponadministrative or judicial review, including review and amendment pursuant to California
Water Code, section 13330, and California Code of Regulations, title 23, division 3,
chapter 28, article 6 (commencing with section 3867).
CONDITION 41. A copy of this certification shall be provided to any contractor and all
subcontractors conducting Project-related work, and copies shall remain in theirpossession at the Project site(s). The Licensee shall be responsible for work
conducted by its contractor, subcontractors, or other persons conducting
Project-related work.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 124 APPENDIX C

Incidental Take Statement included in the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National
Marine Fisheries Service’s Biological Opinion for the Surrender, Decommissioning,
and Removal of the Lower Klamath Project, P-14803
Issued on December 17, 2021
With corrections filed on April 18, 2022
Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the
ESA prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without aspecial exemption. “Take” isdefined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attemptto engage in any such conduct. “Harm” isfurther defined by regulation to include significant habitat modification ordegradation that actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing
essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating,feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 222.102). “Harass” is further defined by interim
guidance as to “create the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an
extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are
not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” “Incidental take” is defined byregulation as takings that result from, but are not the purpose of, carrying out anotherwise lawful activity conducted by the Federal agency or applicant(50 CFR 402.02). Section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2) provide that taking that isincidental to an otherwise lawful agency action is not considered to be prohibitedtaking under the ESA if that action is performed in compliance with the terms andconditions of this ITS.

2.9.1 Amount or Extent of TakeIn the biological opinion, NMFS determined that incidental take is reasonably
certain to occur as follows:
2.9.1.1 SONCC Coho Salmon ESUNMFS expects the proposed action will result in incidental take of SONCC
coho salmon adults, embryos/pre-emergent fry, sub-yearlings, yearlings, and smolts.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 125 -

2.9.1.1.1 Suspended Sediment and Dissolved Oxygen
As described in previous sections of this biological opinion, NMFS expects
all freshwater life stages of coho salmon in all populations of the Klamath Basin to
be harmed to some degree during year 1 (reservoir drawdown) and year 2 (postdam removal) due to elevated SSCs and associated decreases in dissolved oxygen.
The incidental take of coho salmon resulting from the suspended sedimentconcentrations related to the proposed action is not practicable to measure andimpossible to separate out from the reduced levels of dissolved oxygen. Incidental
take of coho salmon resulting from these impacts of the proposed action is notpracticable to measure for the following reasons: the small size of many of the life
stages, the number of individuals that will survive and return as adults in the Klamath
River in any given year cannot be precisely determined, their occurrence in elevatedsuspended sediment concentrations that make them difficult to detect, the low
likelihood of finding dead or impaired specimens, and the high rate of removal of
injured or killed individuals by predators or scavengers. Because measuring thenumber of coho salmon that are expected to be harmed as a result of the elevatedsuspended sediment concentrations and low dissolved oxygen is not practicable,
NMFS will use suspended sediment concentrations as a surrogate which we assume
includes the added impact of co-occurring low dissolved oxygen (described inTable 37 and Table 38). Impacts of elevated SSCs and the causal link to incidental
take is informed by the Newcombe and Jensen (1996) severity indices and further
described in the Effects Section, Section 2.5.1.1.7. If the modeled suspended
sediment concentrations described in Tables 38 and 39 are exceeded, the amount or
extent of incidental take of coho salmon due to suspended sediment concentrations andlow dissolved oxygen will be considered exceeded.
Bedload deposition during reservoir drawdown will be responsible forsmothering embryos and pre-emergent fry in the gravel immediately downstream of Iron
Gate Dam as described in Sections 2.5.1.1.7.3 and 2.5.1.1.9. The incidental take ofcoho salmon embryos or pre-emergentfry due to bedload deposition during drawdown is
not practicable to measure due to the small size of these life stages and their occurrencein elevated suspended sediment concentrations that make them difficult to detect. Thus,
we use the number of redds that are expected to be buried by bedload deposition as asurrogate for incidental take of coho salmon embryos and pre- emergent fry due tobedload deposition during drawdown. As described in Section 2.5.1.1.7.3, NMFS
estimates that 100% of coho salmon eggs and pre-emergent fry in up to six redds will bekilled as a result of deposition in Year 1. Therefore, if more than six redds in themainstem Klamath River downstream of the Iron Gate Dam site are buried by bedload
deposition during drawdown, then the amount or extent of incidental take of coho
salmon eggs and pre-emergent fry due to bedload deposition will be considered
exceeded.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 126 -

Table 37. Summary of incidental take of SONCC coho salmon expected to occur as a result of
SSC related to the proposed action in year 1 (reservoir drawdown) during a severe impact year.
Life History
Stage (timing)

Adult Migration(Sept 1 – Jan 1)

Populations
Upper Klamath,
ShastaMid Klamath,
Scott
Lower Klamath,
Salmon, Trinity

Embryos/preemergent fry3

Upper Klamath,
ShastaSSC(mg/l)¹

ExposureDays

52-19414 days30-17014 days18-13314 daysType and Amount/Extent of Incidental Take²
Sublethal effects, including major stress andimpaired homing
Sublethal effects, including major stress andimpaired homing
Sublethal effects, including major stress andimpaired homing

Bedload transport is expected to result in 100%
mortality in up to six redds
Major stress, reduced growth, 0–20% mortality offish rearing in the mainstem for 31% of the summer
Upper Klamath,39 - 2111 20 days
rearing period and 20-40% mortality of fish rearing
Shastain the mainstem for eight percent of thesummer rearingperiod
Summer rearing
Major stress, reduced growth, and 0-20% mortality
Mid Klamath,
0+ juveniles
23 - 1510 20 daysof fish rearing in the mainstem for 38% of theScottsummer rearing period
Major stress, reduced growth, and 0-20% mortality
Lower Klamath,18 - 679
20 daysof fish rearing in the mainstem for 15% of the
Salmon, Trinity
summer rearing period
Major stress, reduced growth, and 0 – 20%
mortality of fish rearing in the mainstem for 20% ofUpper Klamath,33 - 2319 20 days
the winter rearing period and 0-40% mortality of
Shastafish rearing in the mainstem 20% of the winterrearing period
Winter rearing
Major stress, reduced growth, and 0 – 20%
4
Mid Klamath,1+ juveniles
25 - 1739 20 days
mortality of fish rearing in the mainstem for 40% of
Scott
the winter rearing period
Major stress, reduced growth, and 0-20% mortality
Lower Klamath,of fish rearing in the mainstem for 20% of the
17 - 992
20 days
Salmon, Trinity
winter rearing period
Major stress, reduced growth, and up to 20%
Upper Klamath,mortality for approximately 60% of the250-2844 14 days
Shastaoutmigration period
Major stress, reduced growth, and 0 - 20%
Outmigrating
Mid Klamath,179-1899 14 days
mortality of smolts for 30% of the spring
1+ smoltScottoutmigration period
Major stress, reduced growth, and 0 - 20%
Lower Klamath,
96-96114 daysmortality of smolts for 20% of the spring
Salmon, Trinity
outmigration period¹ Data for Upper Klamath and Shasta populations relied on USGS Iron Gate Dam station; data for Mid Klamath andScott populations relied on USGS Seiad Valley station; data for Lower Klamath, Salmon, and Trinity populations
relied on USGS Orleans station.
² Response was determined using Newcombe and Jenson (1996) Severity Index as described in the Approach
toAnalysis.
3
Number of redds buried from bedload deposition is used as a surrogate as described above. 4We use the impacts
modeled for the “median impact year” for this life stage since they were determined to result in greater impacts toindividuals than the “severe impact year”.
60 daysProject Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 127 -

Table 38. Summary of incidental take of SONCC coho salmon expected to occur as a result of
SSC related to the proposed action in year 2 (post dam removal) of a severe impact year
SSC
(mg/l)¹
14-14

ExposureDays
14 days

Sublethal effects, including moderate stress

8-9

14 days

Sublethal effects, including moderate stress

7-7

14 days

Sublethal effects, including moderate stress

2-60

20 days

Summer rearing
0+ juveniles

Upper Klamath,
ShastaMid Klamath,
Scott

2-45

20 days

Sublethal effects, including reductions in feeding
and major stress for fish rearing in the mainstem
Sublethal effects, including reductions in feeding
and major stress for fish rearing in the mainstem

2-39

20 days39-35420 days

Winter rearing
1+ juveniles

Lower Klamath,
Salmon, Trinity
Upper Klamath,
ShastaMid Klamath,Scott

31-10220 days

Lower Klamath,
Salmon, Trinity
Upper Klamath,
ShastaMid Klamath,
Scott
Lower Klamath,
Salmon, Trinity

26-74

20 days

6-165

14 days

12-59

14 days

13-49

14 daysLife History
Stage (timing)

Adult Migration(Sept 1 – Jan 1)

Outmigrating
1+ smolt

Populations
Upper Klamath,
ShastaMid Klamath,
Scott
Lower Klamath,
Salmon, Trinity

Effects on Production²

Sublethal effects, including reductions in feeding
and major stress for fish rearing in the mainstem
Sublethal effects, including reductions in feeding
and major stress for fish rearing in the mainstem
Sublethal effects, including reductions in feeding
and major stress for fish rearing in the mainstem
Sublethal effects, including reductions in feeding
and major stress for fish rearing in the mainstem
Sublethal effects, including major stress andreduced growth
Sublethal effects, including reductions in feeding
and major stressSublethal effects, including reductions in feeding
and major stress¹ Data for Upper Klamath and Shasta populations relied on USGS Iron Gate Dam station; data for Mid Klamath andScott populations relied on USGS Seiad Valley station; data for Lower Klamath, Salmon, and Trinity populations
relied on USGS Orleans station.
² Response was determined using Newcombe and Jenson (1996) Severity Index as described in the Approach
toAnalysis.

2.9.1.1.2 Relocation Measures
NMFS expects juvenile coho salmon from Upper Klamath, Shasta, Scott, and Middle
Klamath River populations to be captured and relocated as method to minimize impactsof the proposed action at various times over the eight year implementation period. The
number of fishes estimated to be relocated is based on estimates from the Renewal
Corporation, review of relocation data from other projects, and our understanding of
habitat occupancy (e.g., newly seeded habitat has low densities of fish) as described in
Section 2.5.1.1.10. The amount of incidental take of coho salmon due to relocation
measures will be considered exceeded if the number of coho salmon captured or killed
as a result of relocation is greater than described in Table 39.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 128 -

Table 39. Amount of incidental take associated with relocation activities for coho salmon

TimingPre-drawdown
SummerPre-drawdown
WinterDuringdrawdown
Post-dam
removal(years 2-7)
Post-dam
removal(years 2-7)
Post-dam
removal(years 2-7)

Activity

Estimated
Number of
Coho salmon to
be RelocatedEstimated
Number of
Coho
SalmonKilledTemporary road construction,
temporary bridge construction,
armoring of left bank accessroad, construction of fire access
ramp

30

1

Relocation of mainstem-rearing
juvenile coho salmon tominimize SSC impacts

1000

10

Relocation of outmigrating smolt(1+) from tributary mouths

1200

12

Upper
KlamathInstream habitat restoration
projects

1200

12

Upper
KlamathFish passage maintenanceprojects

1500

15

Upper
KlamathBoat ramp construction

500

5Effected
Populations

Upper
KlamathUpper
Klamath,Shasta, Scott,
Mid-Klamath
Upper
Klamath,Shasta, Scott

2.9.1.1.3 Herbicide and Adjuvant Applications
Projects conducted under the Invasive Exotic Vegetation Management program willtake place adjacent to aquatic habitats that are reasonably certain to be occupied byindividuals of the upper Klamath River population of coho salmon. As described
below, the proposed action is reasonably certain to cause incidental take. Juvenile
life stages are most likely to be affected, although adults will sometimes also bepresent when the projects occur within or adjacent to the former reservoir footprints.
Herbicide applications, as constrained by the conservation measures, are reasonably
certain to result in herbicide drift or movement into streams that will harm listed
coho salmon. Incidental take caused by the habitat-related effects of this action
cannot be accurately quantified as a number of fish because the distribution andabundance of fish that occur within the action area are affected by habitat quality,competition, predation and the interaction of processes that influence genetic,
population and environmental characteristics both within and outside the action area.
As the portion of the action area likely affected by herbicides has not been occupied

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 129 -

by listed coho salmon since the construction of the four dams between 60 and
100 years ago, it is not certain how quickly or exactly where coho utilization will
occur. In this unique environment,the distribution and abundance of fish within the
program action area cannot be attributed entirely to habitat conditions, nor can
NMFS precisely predict the number of fishes that are reasonably certain to be harmed
or killed if fish or their prey are exposed to herbicides and their associated adjuvants.
Additionally, there is no practical way to count the number of fishes exposed toherbicides without causing additional stress and injury to these fish. In suchcircumstances, NMFS can use the causal link established between the activity and thelikely changes in habitat conditions affecting the listed species as a surrogate todescribe the extent of take in terms of habitat disturbance.
Application of herbicides and associated adjuvants will result in short-term
degradation of water quality, which is reasonably certain to cause injury to fish in theform of sublethal adverse physiological effects or temporary reduction in benthic
macroinvertebrate prey resources. This is particularly true for herbicide applications
in riparian areas that may deliver herbicides via driftto streams occupied by listed
salmonids. These sublethal effects were described in the effect’s analysis for thisopinion. The best available indicator for the extent of take due to proposed IEV
control and eradication program is the annual number of treated acres for the planned
life of the IEV program. Thus, if more than 1,967 acres of treatment each year
through the proposed three year reservoir restoration period is exceeded, incidental
take of coho salmon due to herbicide application will be considered exceeded. This
includes no more than 207 acres of irrigated riparian areas and recognizes that thisentire acreage will not be broadcast treated but is subject to mostly spot treatments of
IEV from the beginning of the site preparation through conclusion of the program.
Although this surrogate is the number of treated acres for the planned life of the
IEV program, it will serve as an effective reinitiation trigger because it can be
accurately measured within each year of the IEV program, which will indicate if
expected herbicide treatment and related incidental take is exceeded within each yearof the IEV program.
2.9.1.2 Southern Resident Killer Whales (SRKWs)
2.9.1.2.1 Incidental Take Summary for SRKWs
NMFS anticipates that the reduction in the abundance of Klamath River Chinook
salmon that will occur as a result of impacts to juvenile Chinook during dam removal
and changes in hatchery production over the short term (2-3 year period beginning
two years after dam removal)is reasonably certain to result in some level of harm toProject Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 130 -

SRKWs; specifically, members of K and L pod (currently 50 individuals258) duringthat period. The harm is a consequence of subsequent reduced prey availability
causing impairment in foraging behavior, leading SRKWs to forage for longer
periods, travel to alternate locations, and increased risk of nutritional stress and related
health effects.
Similarly, we expect that limited and occasional reduction in the abundance ofKlamath River Chinook salmon could occur during some individual years within the
mid term period (six plus year period starting four years after dam removal). This
primarily would occur because of changes in juvenile Chinook salmon hatcheryproduction. Reductions in hatchery production would be mitigated by anticipatedimprovements in Chinook salmon survival and productivity in response to changing
conditions in the Klamath River following dam removal. This scenario is reasonably
certain to result in some level of harm to SRKWs, specifically members of K and
L pod during this period. Our expectations are that SRKWs will not be harmed every
year during the mid term as reduced abundance of Klamath Chinook in the ocean is
not expected during most years during this period (if at all), and SRKWs do notnecessarily occur in the proposed action area every year. We also expect the extent
of harm during the mid term period should be less than the extent that is expected tooccur during the short term period in terms of the magnitude of reduced prey that isreasonably likely to occur.
Currently, we cannot readily observe or quantify impacts to foraging behavior or any
changes to the health of individual SRKWs that occur as a consequence of thegeneral level of prey reduction that is expected as a result of the proposed action
because we do not have the data or metrics needed to monitor and quantitatively
establish relationships between the effects of the proposed action and individual
SRKW health. Quantitative relationships between the health and productivity of theentire SRKW population and the changing abundance of prey species are complex
and of limited utility as described in section 2.4.2 Environmental Baseline forSouthern Resident Killer Whale DPS. As a result, we will rely on surrogates of theamount or extent of incidental take of SRKWs as a result of the proposed action in
the form of the extent of effects to Chinook salmon described in the Chinook effects
analysis (Sections 2.5.2 Effects to SRKWs and 2.7.2 Integration and Synthesis for
SRKWs), and the surrogates used in Section 2.9.1 Incidental Take Summary for
Coho Salmon, where applicable. Exceedance of the extent of effects to Chinook
salmon would be viewed as an exceedance of the anticipated harm to SRKWs.
2.9.1.2.2 Surrogates for Incidental Take
258

Based on the CWR 2021 Annual Census from surveys through July 1, 2021.
The additional loss of L47 following the census leaves 49 individual whales in K and
L pods.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 131 -

Analysis indicates that the take of SRKWs is expected to occur through effects toKlamath River Chinook salmon resulting in the subsequent reduction of Chinook
salmon available as prey for SRKWs. During the short term period, the anticipatedeffects to Chinook salmon include reductions in the survival and productivity ofjuvenile Chinook salmon by release of the sediment and other effects associated withdam removal. The effects also include reductions in the production of hatchery
Chinook salmon associated with the modification to hatchery production in the
Klamath River that have been proposed. During the mid term period, the anticipatedeffects to Chinook salmon include reductions in the production of hatchery Chinook
salmon associated with modification to hatchery operations in the Klamath River,gradually offset by improvements in survival and production of Chinook salmon
throughout the Klamath River in response to the improving conditions throughout thesystem associated with the proposed action.
As described in section 2.9.1.1 Amount or Extent of Take for SONCC Coho Salmon
ESU, the incidental take of SONCC coho salmon during dam removal will bemeasured by surrogates of suspended sediment and the dissolved oxygen
concentrations that will be measured during monitoring of the proposed action.
Similarly, we will use the measures of suspended sediment concentrations anddissolved oxygen to describe the extent of impacts to Chinook salmon that have been
analyzed in this Opinion given that these relate directly to the analysis of how the
proposed action affects Chinook salmon in the Klamath River, and ultimately the
future availability of Chinook salmon in the ocean as prey for SRKWs. The
incidental take of SRKW resulting from impacts to Chinook salmon due tosuspended sediment concentrations related to the proposed action is not practicable tomeasure and impossible to separate out from reduced levels of dissolved oxygen.
Incidental take of SRKWs based on reduction in Chinook salmon prey related tothese impacts of the proposed action is not practicable to measure for the following
reasons: the small size of many of the Chinook salmon life stages, the number of
Chinook salmon individuals that will survive and return as adults in the Klamath
River in any given year cannot be precisely determined, the occurrence of Chinook
salmon in elevated suspended sediment concentrations that make them difficult to
detect, the low likelihood of finding dead or impaired specimens of Chinook salmon,
and the high rate of removal of injured or killed Chinook salmon individuals by
predators or scavengers. Because measuring the number of Chinook salmon that are
expected to be harmed as a result of the elevated suspended sediment concentrations
and low dissolved oxygen is not practicable, NMFS will use suspended sedimentconcentrations as a surrogate which we assume includes the added impact of
co- occurring low dissolved oxygen (described in Table 40). If the modeledsuspended sediment concentrations described in Table 40 are exceeded, the amountor extent of incidental take of SRKW due to suspended sediment concentrations anddissolved oxygen impacts on their prey base (Chinook salmon) will be considered
exceeded.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 132 -

Bedload deposition during reservoir drawdown will be responsible for smothering
embryos and pre-emergent fry in the gravel immediately downstream of Iron Gate
Dam as described in Sections 2.5.2.2.2 and 2.5.2.3.1. The incidental take of SRKWs
based on mortality of Chinook salmon embryos or pre-emergent fry due to bedload
deposition during drawdown is not practicable to measure due to the small size ofthese Chinook salmon life stages and their occurrence in elevated suspended
sediment concentrations that make them difficult to detect. Thus, we use the extent
of bedload deposition as a surrogate for the incidental take of SRKWs based on
mortality of Chinook salmon embryos and pre-emergent fry that are predicted to die
during drawdown. As described in Section 2.5.2.2.2, NMFS estimates that 100% of
Chinook salmon eggs and pre-emergent fry will be killed in 13% of the Chinook
salmon redds in the mainstem Klamath River. The 13% of Chinook salmon redds
will occur in the reach between Iron Gate Dam and Willow Creek (as described in
FERC 2021a Appendix J-29) as a result of deposition in Year 1. Therefore, if
deposition occurs beyond the reach between Iron Gate Dam and Willow Creek inYear 1, then the amount or extent of incidental take of SRKW based on mortality of
Chinook salmon embryos/pre-emergent fry due to bedload deposition during
drawdown will be considered exceeded.
Table 40. Summary of incidental take of SRKW resulting from impacts to Chinook salmon
expected to occur as a result of SSC related to the proposed action in year 1 (reservoir
drawdown) during a severe impact year (1973).
Life HistoryStage(timing)¹

Populations/
Location

Embryos/preemergent fry³

Iron Gate toWillow
Creek

Age 0+
outmigrants

Upper
Klamath

84-1433

20

MiddleKlamath

68-1103

20

Lower
Klamath45-70720SSC(mg/l)²

Exposure
Days

Type and Amount/Extent of
Incidental Take
Bedload deposition in the Iron Gate
Dam to Willow Creek reach is
expected to result in 100% mortality
in up to 13% of Chinook salmon
redds in the mainstem Klamath River
Up to 13% mortality of fish passing
Bogus Cr trap, 17% mortality of fish
passing 1-5 trap, and 15% mortalityof fish passing Shasta River trap
Up to nine percent mortality of fish
passing Kinsman trap, up to 11%
mortality offish passing the ScottRiver trap
Up to five percent mortality for fish
passing Trinity River trap, up to
two percent mortalityfor fish passing
the Blue Creek trap

¹ Adult migration has not been included since migration will be complete prior to drawdown.
² Data for Upper Klamath populations relied on USGS Iron Gate station, data for Middle KlamathProject Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 133 -

populations relied on USGS Seiad Valley station, data for Lower Klamath populations relied on
USGSOrleans station.
³ Bedload deposition will be used as a surrogate as described above.

For SRKWs, the extent of incidental take during the short term and mid term is also
related to reductions in hatchery production of Chinook salmon in the Klamath Riverthat have been proposed. While the proposed action includes modified (reduced)
hatchery production goals forChinook salmon at the Fall Creek hatchery during andafter dam removal compared to the Chinook salmon hatchery production goals at
Iron Gate hatchery prior to dam removal, we recognize that hatchery production
goals cannot always be met. In the past, hatchery productionat Iron Gate hatchery
has not always met the goals, which was reflected in the analysis of potential
reductions in the ocean abundance of Klamath Chinook salmon described in
section 2.5.2.2.2 Effects to Chinook salmon. In the past, actual hatchery production
compared to hatchery production goals has averaged approximately 63% over the last
five years of available information (2016-2020). During this five year period, actual
production compared to goals has been as low as 24% and as high as 93%(CDFW 2021d). Using this information, we expect that the hatchery production
relative to the goals that are associated with the proposed action should fall within
the same range as what has occurred at Iron Gate hatchery recently. Our analysis of
how the proposed action affects Chinook salmon in the Klamath River, andultimately the future availability of Chinook salmon in the ocean for SRKWs, iscontingent upon expectations that hatchery production will occur at least at some
reduced level scaled with the production that occurred before dam removal. Over the
short term and mid term, we expect that actual hatchery production will not be lessthan 24% relative to the goals established by the proposed action during any year.
Therefore, we will also use this threshold for actual hatchery production as asurrogate for the amount or extent of anticipated incidental take of SRKWs fromreduced hatchery production goals for Chinook salmon at the Fall Creek hatchery asa result of the proposed action. Consistent with the recent average production at Iron
Gate hatchery compared to goals (63% rate), we anticipate that the average actual
production will meet or exceed this rate during the proposed action. Therefore, wewill also use this threshold for actual hatchery production as a surrogate for theamount or extent of anticipated incidental take of SRKWs from reduced hatcheryproduction goals for Chinook salmon at the Fall Creek hatchery as a result of the
proposed action. Incidental take will likely be exceeded if hatchery production
relative to the goals falls below 24% for any given year, or falls below an average of
63% during the proposed action. Throughout the proposed action, we expect that theannual hatchery production goals will remain similar to current goals. If these goals
are adjusted in response to available information about natural Chinook salmon
survival and productivity, we will continue to rely upon these relative performancestandards as the applicable thresholds for incidental take.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 134 -

Our use of hatchery production performance as a surrogate for the extent ofincidental take of SRKWs is linked to our expectations for how the survival andproduction of Chinook salmon will improve throughout the Klamath River following
dam removal. The anticipated benefits of the proposed action minimize the level ofharm to SRKWs that we expect as a result of the reduction in the hatchery productionof Chinook salmon. In order to effectively monitor the extent of incidental takeusing the hatchery production performance surrogate, information about the survival
and production of Chinook salmon in the Klamath River, including but not limited todisease impacts, will need to be gathered as available and be evaluated throughout
the proposed action. Along these lines, our analysis of the surrogates describedabove as a threshold for anticipated incidental take of SRKW recognizes that
adjustments of the proposed hatchery plan may be recommended by the applicant.
Specifically, if hatchery production goals are reduced based on the improvement in
the overall survival and production of Chinook salmon in the Klamath River as
demonstrated by the available information, we will assume that the overall extent of
SRKW incidental take occurring will not have been exceeded by these reductions inhatchery production goals unless performance of the hatchery relative to any new
goals drops below the same relative performance levels established in this ITS. If theannual hatchery production goals change over time (e.g., are reduced based onincreased survival of juvenile fish), we expect these changes will be reported to
NMFS along with information on how the new goals were set (e.g., considerations ofincreases in juvenile Chinook salmon survival and productivity). This information,in concert with data on actual hatchery production compared to the new goals,
overall abundance of Klamath Chinook salmon, and contribution of hatchery fish to
Klamath Chinook salmon populations, will be used to inform a review of whether
incidental take has been exceeded. The analysis in the biological opinion and ITS
above indicates that the incidental take of SRKWs is not expected to occur over thelong term through effects to Klamath River Chinook salmon resulting in thesubsequent reduction of Chinook salmon available as prey for SRKWs. We expect
the abundance of Klamath Chinook salmon in the ocean as potential prey for SRKWs
to increase over the long term, through realization of the beneficial effects of the
proposed action. In addition, we expect other improvements to Chinook salmon
productivity and diversity in the Klamath River that will benefit the future prospectof available prey resources for SRKWs when they occur off the coast of Oregon andCalifornia. Our expectation is that Chinook salmon hatchery production will cease ata time when the natural productivity of Chinook salmon in the Klamath River system
no longer needs to be supplemented. We expect this condition to exist whenrepopulation of newly available upstream habitat is occurring in concert withimproved survival/productivity of Chinook salmon throughout the entire system at alevel that will compensate (or more than compensate) for the lost hatcheryproduction. Since there is no incidental take of SRKWs expected as a result of the
proposed action over the long term, we do not establish a surrogate for the extent ofincidental take over the long term.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 135 -

2.9.1.3 Eulachon
NMFS expects the proposed action is reasonably certain to result in incidental take ofadult eulachon as a result of elevated SSCs and low dissolved oxygen during Year 1.
For the reasons we describe in our discussion regarding incidental take of coho
salmon in Section 2.9.1.1.1, it is not practicable to measure the incidental take ofeulachon resulting from the suspended sediment concentrations related to the
proposed action and impossible to separate out from incidental take resulting fromthe reduced levels of dissolved oxygen. Therefore, NMFS will use suspended
sediment concentrations as a surrogate, which we assume includes the added impact
of co- occurring low dissolved oxygen. If the modeled suspended sedimentconcentrations exceed 3,477 mg/L during the migration period of Year 1(January – May), the amount or extent of incidental take of eulachon due tosuspended sediment concentrations and low dissolved oxygen will be considered
exceeded.
2.9.2 Effect of the TakeIn the biological opinion, NMFS determined that the amount or extent of
anticipated take, coupled with other effects of the proposed action, is not likely toresult in jeopardy to the species or destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat.
2.9.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures“Reasonable and prudent measures” are measures that are necessary or
appropriate to minimizethe impact of the amount or extent of incidental take
(50 CFR 402.02).
2.9.3.1 SONCC Coho Salmon ESU and Southern DPS of Eulachon

NMFS believes that the following reasonable and prudent measures and terms andconditions are necessary and appropriate to minimize the impacts of the amount or
extent of incidental take of SONCC ESU coho salmon and Southern DPS eulachon
resulting from the proposed action.
1. Monitor and report on water quality and incidental take of coho salmon andeulachon in the Klamath River mainstem related to the proposed action.
2. Minimize incidental take associated with the IEV management program.
3. Ensure real-time decision making occurs using best available technicalinformationduring implementation and maintenance of the action.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 136 -

4. Monitor mainstem coho salmon spawning to ensure the expected amount or

extent of incidental take of coho salmon embryos and pre-emergent fry in
redds is not exceeded.
2.9.3.2 Southern Resident Killer Whales (SRKWs)

NMFS believes that the following reasonable and prudent measures, and terms andconditions, are necessary and appropriate to minimize the impacts of the amount or
extent of incidental take of SRKWs resulting from the proposed action.
5. Monitor and report on water quality and incidental take of SRKWs as it relates

to impacts to Chinook salmon.
6. Minimize incidental take of SRKWs through ensuring both hatchery and wild

Chinook salmon production and survival meets assumptions described in thisIncidental Take Statement.
7. Ensure real-time decision making occurs using best available technicalinformation during implementation and maintenance of the action.
8. Monitor sediment deposition to ensure the expected amount or extent ofincidental take of SRKWs as a result of mortality of Chinook salmon embryos
and pre-emergent fry in redds is not exceeded.
2.9.3.3 General Reasonable and Prudent Measures
9. FERC shall include in any license surrender order or other authorization for

the amended surrender application for the Lower Klamath Project a condition
that makes the license order or other authorization subject to the reasonable
and prudent measures and terms and conditions of this Incidental Take
Statement.
10. FERC shall include in any license surrender order or other authorization for
the amended surrender application for the Lower Klamath Project a reopener
clause providing for the possible amendment of the order or otherauthorization to incorporate any reasonable and prudent alternatives,reasonable and prudent measures, and terms and conditions resulting from any
reinitiated consultation on the authorized action.
2.9.4 Terms and Conditions

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, the Federal
action agency must comply (or must ensure that any applicant complies) with thefollowing terms and conditions. The FERC or any applicant has a continuing duty toProject Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 137 -

monitor the impacts of incidental take and must report the progress of the action andits impact on the species as specified in this ITS (50 CFR 402.14). The Renewal
Corporation may develop agreements with partners such as CDFW to implement theterms and conditions. If the entity to whom a term and condition is directed does notcomply with the following terms and conditions, protective coverage for the
proposed action would likely lapse.
The Renewal Corporation describes the role of the ARG as a group that provides
technical consultation during the implementation of the Aquatic Resources
Management Plan. The ARG includes members from the Renewal Corporation’s
team as well as federal, state, and Tribal resource staff. In the following terms andconditions, NMFS relies on the Renewal Corporation to utilize the ARG to gather
available data that provides information to the Renewal Corporation and NMFS
regarding the accuracy of assumptions made within this ITS.

2.9.4.1 SONCC Coho Salmon ESU and Southern DPS of Eulachon

The following terms and conditions implement reasonable and prudent measure 1:a) The Renewal Corporation shall provide NMFS real-time estimates(i.e., continuous updates every 15 minutes) of the turbidity at USGS stations at
Iron Gate, Seiad Valley,and Orleans beginning on or before thecommencement of reservoir drawdown, continuing through two years post
dam removal. The Renewal Corporation shall establish an SSC rating curveusing the turbidity data prior to June 1st of the drawdown year when such data
will be used in decision making regarding rescue and relocation actions(described in FERC 2021a Appendix D).
b) The Renewal Corporation shall provide NMFS real-time estimates (i.e.,

continuous updates every 30 minutes) of the dissolved oxygen concentration
at or near the current Iron Gate Dam gage and immediately upstream of themouth of the Shasta River beginning on or before the commencement ofreservoir drawdown through two years postdam removal.
c) The Renewal Corporation shall test in advance all measurement devices used

for SSC and DO water quality monitoring (as identified in the California
Water Quality Certification (CSWRCB 2020a)) and reporting systems toidentify and resolve any concerns that arise.
d) Reporting Requirements:

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 138 -The Renewal Corporation shall prepare and provide NMFS a summary
annual report,by April 1st of each year, for the monitoring and maintenanceperiod as defined in the Reservoir Area Management Plan (FERC 2021a
Appendix C), that was conducted the previous calendar year. The reportshall detail the following information:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

A comparison of the measured or estimated suspended sedimentconcentrations versus the modeled concentrations for the durationof themeasured period.
Total number and life stage of coho salmon captured.
Total number and life stage of coho salmon injured by capture
method.
Total number and life stage of coho salmon killed by capture
method.
The dates when trapping of coho salmon occurred.
Which BMPs were implemented and when.
The dates when transport of coho salmon occurred and the total
number andlife stage of coho salmon killed in transport.
Locations where captured coho salmon were released.

In addition, the Renewal Corporation shall report all observations of deador injured coho salmon or eulachon coincident with dam removal activities(other than relocation activities) and the associated suspended sedimentconcentrations in the mainstem Klamath River to NMFS within two daysof their observance, and include a concise description of the causative
event (if known), and a description of any resultant corrective actions
taken (if any) to reduce the likelihood of future mortalities or injuries. The
report will include a discussion of implementation of the terms andconditions that implement reasonable and prudent measure 1 above.
Submit monitoring reports to:
National Marine Fisheries Service Northern California Office1655 Heindon Road
Arcata, California 95521.
If a sick, injured or dead specimen of a coho salmon or eulachon is foundin the action area, the Renewal Corporation shall notify NMFS through thecontact person identified in the transmittal letter for this biological opinion,or through the NMFS Office of Law Enforcement at 1-800-853-1964, andfollow any instructions. In addition, the Renewal Corporation shallProject Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 139 -

immediately report to NMFS any exceedanceof the amount or extent ofincidental take described in Section 2.9.1.
If the proposed action may worsen the coho salmon or eulachon’s
condition before NMFS can be contacted, the finder shall attempt to movethe coho salmon or eulachon to a suitable location near the capture sitewhile keeping the coho salmon or eulachon in the water and reducing its
stress as much as possible. Do not disturb the coho salmon or eulachon
after it has been moved. If the coho salmon or eulachon is dead, or dieswhile being captured or moved, the Renewal Corporation shall report thefollowing information: (1) the NMFS consultation number for thisopinion; (2) the date, time, and location of discovery; (3) a brief
description of circumstances and any information that may show the causeof death; and (4) photographs of the coho salmon or eulachon and where it
was found. The Renewal Corporation shall also coordinate with local
biologists to recover any tags or other relevant research information. If thespecimen is not needed by local biologists for tag recovery or by NMFS
for analysis, the specimen shall be returned to the water in which it was
found with appropriate marking to ensure that it is not subsequently
recounted or otherwise discarded.
The following terms and conditions implement reasonable and prudent
measure 2:e) The Renewal Corporation shall prepare and provide NMFS a summary annual

report, by April 1st of each year, addressing the invasive exotic vegetation
control program that wasconducted the previous calendar year. The reportshall detail all the chemicals (herbicides and adjuvants) used in the program,where they were used (e.g., in which former reservoir footprint), how many
acres in total treated by which method, and how many acres in total treatedwithin 100 feet of the river or a wetted stream by which method. Any known
incidents of exposure of a wetted waterbody or other problem that may haveaffected aquatic resources shall be documented in the summary report. This
report may be combined with the report in term and condition d.
f) The Renewal Corporation shall not allow any broadcast application of

dicamba as part of the IEV management program because of its issues
associated with drift that can result in an uncontrolled exposure scenario. Spotspraying and hand application uses as proposed in Table C-2 in Appendix C of
the FERC (2021a) BA are permissible with the proposed buffers.
g) The biological assessment did not propose buffers between application andaquatic sites for use of the remaining herbicides considered in thisconsultation (aminopyralid, chlorosulfuron, aminopyralid + chlorosulfuron,Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 140 -and triclopyr TEA). As the risk assessment methodology and results from the
BPA HIP consultation (NMFS 2020a) are used in this analysis, the use of
these chemicals shall be subject to the same avoidance and minimization
measures – 100 foot buffer for broadcast applications, 15 foot buffer for spot
spraying, and use up to the waterline for hand applications (wiping, wicking,injection) near waterbodies or ditches containing water. For dry streams,
wetlands or ditches, broadcast applications shall be subject to a 50 foot buffer
but spot spraying and hand applications may be done without a buffer. Only
adjuvants on the May 15, 2017 revised table from the Washington State
Department of Agriculture, Pesticide Management Division (WSDA 2017)that have the EPA toxicity classification of “practically non-toxic” to both
rainbow trout and daphnids may be used. The Renewal Corporation shallinform NMFS before use of any other adjuvant to determine if reinitiation of
consultation is needed.
The following terms and conditions implement reasonable and prudent
measure 3:h) The Renewal Corporation shall convene and consider the recommendations of

the ARG frequently during implementation of the action to ensure real-timedecision making uses the best available technical information for theprotection of listed species and to maximize beneficial effects of the action onlisted species to the extent practicable. The Renewal Corporation should
convene the ARG at least once prior to reservoir drawdown and quarterly
thereafter during the implementation, monitoring, and maintenance periods (asdefined in FERC 2021a Appendix C). In addition, the Renewal Corporation
shall convene the ARG when monitoring data indicates the amount or extent
of incidental takeas described above in section 2.9.1 is likely to be or has been
exceeded.
The following terms and condition implements reasonable and prudent
measure 4:i) The Renewal Corporation shall perform at least one redd survey in thefive-mile reach downstream of Iron Gate Dam prior to reservoir drawdown todetermine whether more than six coho salmon redds are present. If
monitoring data are available from existing survey efforts, the Renewal
Corporation may use it for the purposes of this term and condition. The
Renewal Corporation shall provide information collected from the redd
surveys to NMFS prior to drawdown.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 141 -

2.9.4.2 Southern Resident Killer Whales (SRKWs)

The following terms and conditions implement reasonable and prudent measure 5:j) The Renewal Corporation shall comply with terms and conditions a, b, c, andd (to the extent term and condition d requires a comparison of the measured or
estimated suspended sediment concentrations versus the modeled
concentrations for the duration ofthe measured period) to ensure suspended
sediment concentrations are consistent with the SSC thresholds in
Section 2.9.1.2.2, Surrogates for Incidental Take.
The following terms and conditions implement reasonable and prudent measure 6:k) The Renewal Corporation shall annually evaluate the Chinook salmon

hatchery production plan, including goals and performance, and provide anannual summary reportof the evaluation to NMFS by April 1st of each year,
for the previous calendar year, that the hatchery is operational continuing to
the end of eight years post dam removal. The Renewal Corporation may
utilize the ARG to collect and summarize data as well as makerecommendations to the Renewal Corporation, CDFW, and other agencies inregards to future operations of the Chinook salmon hatchery. Data used forthe evaluation shall include (but not be limited to):•Broodstock collection numbers for Chinook salmon.

•

Annual production achieved in context of the proposed hatcheryproduction plan goals for Chinook salmon during each year of the
proposed action. This shall be compared to the minimum hatcheryproduction performance thresholds in Section 2.9.1.2.2 that measure
the actual hatchery production of Chinook salmon relativeto thehatchery plan goals for Chinook salmon.

•

Information relevant to Chinook salmon survival estimates(e.g., outmigrant trapping, disease infection rates).
l) If the minimum hatchery production performance thresholds in
Section 2.9.1.2.2 that measure the actual hatchery production of Chinook
salmon relative to the hatchery plan goals for Chinook salmon are not being
met, the Renewal Corporation shall convene and coordinate with the ARG to
specifically evaluate the cause(s) and recommend actions to remedy low
Chinook salmon hatchery production to meet those thresholds. The Renewal

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 142 -

Corporation shall submit a summary of the evaluation and the recommended
actions to NMFS prior to implementation.
m) Before any changes in the Chinook salmon hatchery plan and goals for

Fall Creek Hatchery are implemented, the Renewal Corporation shall develop
and submit proposals for any such changes to the ARG for review.
Subsequent to ARG review, the Renewal Corporation shall submit the
proposals to NMFS prior to implementation. Proposals shall include allavailable information used to support the need and utility of the changes,suchas:•Updated information on juvenile Chinook salmon survival anddisease rates;•

Updated information on Klamath basin-wide Chinook salmon
productivity, including the status of repopulation upstream of theformer dams;•

Updated information on the recent ocean abundance of Klamath
Chinooksalmon; and•Updated information on the contribution of hatchery fish to the
population(s)of Klamath Chinook salmon.

n) The Renewal Corporation shall utilize the ARG to gather available data

regarding disease rates and other available information about juvenile
Chinook salmon survival in the Klamath River. The Renewal Corporation
shall prepare an annual summary report of such data and provide the report to
NMFS by April 1st each year, for the previous calendar year, during themonitoring and maintenance periods (as defined in FERC 2021a Appendix C)
to inform whether Chinook salmon survival meets assumptions described in
Section 2.9.1.2.2 regarding the surrogate for incidental take for reductions inhatchery production of Chinook salmon. The Renewal Corporation shallcoordinate with NMFS and Reclamation as needed to gain access to
S3 modeling results to monitor and report on disease rates.
o) The Renewal Corporation shall utilize the ARG to gather available data as it

relates to the access of Chinook salmon to newly available upstream habitatand repopulation of these habitats by Chinook salmon. The Renewal
Corporation shall prepare an annual summary report of such data and provide

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 143 -

the report to NMFS by April 1st of each year, for the previous calendar year,
during the monitoring and maintenance periods (as defined in FERC 2021a
Appendix C) to inform whether Chinook salmon survival meets assumptions
described in Section 2.9.1.2.2 regarding the surrogate for incidental take for
reductions in hatchery production of Chinook salmon. Such data may include
that gathered through implementation of the:i. Fish presence monitoring plan (FERC 2021a Appendix D);
ii. Fish passage barrier monitoring (FERC 2021a Appendix D);iii. Escapement monitoring from basin-wide partners.

The following terms and conditions implement reasonable and prudent measure 7:p) Comply with term and condition h.

The following terms and conditions implement reasonable and prudent measure 8:q) The Renewal Corporation shall monitor the sediment deposition that occurs

during drawdown to ensure it does not extend further than the Iron Gate toWillow Creek reach (as described in FERC (2021a) Appendix J). The
Renewal Corporation shall use these data to ensure the applicable threshold in
Section 2.9.1.2.2 (using the extent of sediment deposition as a surrogate) is
not exceeded. If monitoring data are available from existing survey efforts,
the Renewal Corporation may use it for the purposes of this term andcondition. The Renewal Corporation shall prepare a summary report of suchmonitoring data and provide it to NMFS by December 31st of the year
following reservoir drawdown.
2.9.4.3 General Terms and Conditions

The following terms and conditions implement reasonable and prudent measure 9:r) FERC shall include in any license surrender order or other authorization for

the amended surrender application a condition that makes the order or otherauthorization subject to the reasonable and prudent Measures and terms andconditions of this Incidental Take Statement.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 144 -

The following terms and conditions implement reasonable and prudent measure 10:s) FERC shall include in any license surrender order or other authorization for

the amended surrender application a specific condition that authorizes
reopening the order or other authorization to incorporate any reasonable andprudent alternatives, reasonable and prudent measures, and terms andconditions resulting from any reinitiated consultation on the authorized action
based on circumstances listed in 50 CFR 402.16.
2.10 Conservation Recommendations
Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to use their authorities to further
the purposes of the ESA by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of thethreatened and endangered species. Specifically, “conservation recommendations”
are suggestions regarding discretionary measures to minimize or avoid adverse
effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat or regarding thedevelopment of information (50 CFR 402.02).
NMFS makes the following recommendations:2.10.1 Conservation Recommendations for SONCC coho salmon and Southern DPS
eulachona) The Renewal Corporation should work closely with the NOAA Restoration

Center to ensure restoration projects as described in Reservoir Area
Management Plan (FERC 2021a Appendix C) are consistent with the terms ofthis biological opinion and improve coho and Chinook salmon habitat to the
maximum extent practicable.

2.10.2 Conservation Recommendations for SRKWsb) The Renewal Corporation should work with the ARG and/or other partners toevaluate and develop the potential utility of additional information streams
and metrics for monitoring the overall survival and production of juvenile
Chinook salmon from the Klamath River as available prey for SRKWs in theocean following dam removal. These could include (but are not limited to)integration of models used to assess the ocean abundance of Klamath River
Chinook salmon for harvest management, as well as other in-river data that
may be collected by partners through monitoring efforts. These tools could beProject Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 145 -

used to further inform decision-making surrounding progress and execution of
the proposed action by the Renewal Corporation, as well as guiding additional
actions taken by the States, Tribes, and/or NMFS during and beyond the
proposed action in the future to maximize the beneficial impact of the
proposed action and promote the recoveryof SRKWs.
c) If the thresholds in section 2.9.1.2.2 regarding the surrogate for incidental takefor reductions in hatchery production of Chinook salmon are not being met,
the Renewal Corporation should convene and coordinate with the ARG toevaluate whether additional years of Chinook salmon hatchery production at
Fall Creek Hatchery are necessary and appropriate, in conjunction with otherfactors being used to measure the progress and success of the action, including
the status of Chinook salmon survival/productivity throughout the Klamath
River system. Based on the evaluation, the Renewal Corporation incoordination with the ARG should make any recommendations regardingwhether additional years of Chinook salmon hatchery production at Fall Creek
Hatchery are necessary and appropriate to the appropriate agencies.
2.11 Reinitiation of Consultation
This concludes formal consultation for surrender and decommissioning of the Lower
Klamath Project.
Under 50 CFR 402.16(a): “Reinitiation of consultation is required and shall be
requested by the Federal agency or by the Service where discretionary Federal
agency involvement or control over the action has been retained or is authorized bylaw and: (1) If the amount or extent of taking specified in the incidental takestatement is exceeded; (2) If new information reveals effects of the agency action that
may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously
considered; (3) If the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner thatcauses an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the
biological opinion or written concurrence; or (4) If a new species is listed or critical
habitat designated that may be affected by the identified action.”

2.12 “Not Likely to Adversely Affect”’ Determinations
FERC determined that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect thesouthern DPS of North American green sturgeon or its critical habitat. Given thelimited potential exposure of green sturgeon individuals, and the remote location ofProject Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 146 -

designated critical habitat relative to the geographic extent of expected impacts of the
proposed action, the increases in turbidity from the proposed action are unlikely tohave more than a negligible impact on any green sturgeon individuals, and are not
likely to adversely affect any PBFs that comprise green sturgeon critical habitat.
Under the ESA, “effects of the action” are all consequences to listed species or
critical habitat that are caused by the proposed action, including the consequences ofother activities that are caused by the proposed action. A consequence is caused by
the proposed action if it would not occur but for the proposed action and it isreasonably certain to occur. Effects of the action may occur later in time and may
include consequences occurring outside the immediate area involved in the action(50 CFR 402.02). In our analysis, which describes the effects of the proposed action,
we considered 50 CFR 402.17(a) and (b). When evaluating whether the proposed
action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat, NMFS
considers whether the effects are expected to be completely beneficial, insignificant,or discountable. Completely beneficial effects are contemporaneous positive effects
without any adverse effects to the speciesor critical habitat. Insignificant effects
relate to the size of the impact and should never reach the scale where take occurs.
Effects are considered discountable if they are extremely unlikely to occur.
2.12.1 Southern DPS North American Green Sturgeon
The Southern DPS of North American green sturgeon is listed as a threatened
species, and includes all green sturgeon originating from the Sacramento River basin
and from coastal rivers south of the Eel River (exclusive) (50 CFR 223.102(e)). The
only known spawning population is in the Sacramento River (71 FR 17757; April 7,2006). Sub-adult and adult southern DPS of North American green sturgeon entercoastal bays and estuaries north of San Francisco Bay, CA, during the summer
months to forage (Lindley et al. 2008). As such, individuals of the southern DPS of
North American green sturgeon’s potential occurrence in the lower Klamath River islimited to only the sub-adult and adult life stages, only during summer months, andonly in the Klamath River estuary. Potential effects of the proposed action on thesouthern DPS of North American green sturgeon are related to elevated SSCs.
However, the elevated suspended sediment concentration in the Klamath estuary andadjacent shore habitat will occur for approximately three months, and is expected tobe minor given the relatively small amount of total sediment input, in comparison to
the total annual sediment inputs to the nearshore environment, and given the fact thatriver plume sediment inputs are a naturally occurring process (DOI and CDFG 2012;
Appendix K of FERC 2021a). During the summer foraging period of the drawdown
year, monthly median SSC values for the 48-year modeling hydroperiod under the
proposed action range from 20 to 496 mg/L, levels higher than under backgroundconditions of 1 to 131 mg/L (FERC 2021a). Because green sturgeon are benthic
foragers and rely on their barbels, not sight to find prey, the increased turbidity is not
likely to impede their foraging abilities. In addition, sturgeon regularly occupy turbid

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 147 -

estuaries (Moser and Lindley 2007), are tolerant of turbid water since they prefer it
for spawning (Gessner and Bartel 2000), and are adapted to turbid waters(Perrin et al. 2003). By the summer of Year 2, SSC values at the Klamath Station are
expected to be within the range of background conditions. Based on this analysis, theincreases in turbidity from the proposed action are unlikely to have more than anegligible, insignificant impact on any Southern DPS green sturgeon individuals
exposed to them. Therefore, based on this analysis, NMFS concurs with FERC thatthe proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the subject listed species.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 148 -Southern DPS of North American Green Sturgeon Critical Habitat
In 2009, NMFS designated critical habitat for the southern DPS of North American
green sturgeon (74 FR 52300; October 9, 2009). The area identified as critical habitat
includes: (1) all U.S. coastal marine waters out to the 60 fathom depth bathymetryline (relative to mean lower low water) from Monterey Bay, California north and east
to include waters in the Strait of Juande Fuca, Washington; (2) the following
freshwater riverine areas in California: the Sacramento River, Lower Feather River,and Lower Yuba River; (3) the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta; and (4) Suisun, San
Pablo, San Francisco, and Humboldt bays in California (50 CFR 226.219(a)). The
Klamath River and estuary is not designated as critical habitat for southern DPS
green sturgeon. The expected effects of the action overlap with only a small portionof the coastal marine area of the designated critical habitat, adjacent to the mouth of
the Klamath River. The specific PBFs of coastal marine areas include foodresources, water quality, and migratory corridors (50 CFR 226.219(b)(3)). Fine
sediment released as part of the proposed action is anticipated to initially deposit on
the seafloor shoreward of the 60-meter isobath along the coast, with greater
quantities depositing in close proximity to the mouth of the Klamath River (DOI and
CDFG 2012). After this initial deposition, resuspension during the typical winterstorms will likely occur before final deposition and burial. Much of this sediment will
eventually be transported further offshore to the mid-shelf and into deeper water
off-shelf through progressive resuspension and fluid-mud gravity flows. This
sediment deposition and resuspension may affect benthic food resources of green
sturgeon. Food resources in the nearshore environment include crabs, shrimp, clams,
annelid worms, and other invertebrates, as well as small fish like anchovies and sandlances (74 FR 52300). Many of these food resources are mobile and will not beaffected by sediment deposition. NMFS concurs with FERC’s determination that the
proposed action is anticipated to have minimal to no effect on critical habitat due tothe dilutive effects of the marine environment. Based on NMFS’ analysis of theinformation available, the quantity, quality, or availability of the PBFs of the coastal
marine area designated critical habitat are not likely to decline as a result of being
exposed to the mobilized sediment or any other stressors associated with theproposed action, and these stressors are not likely to exclude green sturgeon fromdesignated critical habitat. Based on this analysis, NMFS concurs with FERC thatthe proposed action is not likely to adversely affect designated critical habitat for thesouthern DPS of North American green sturgeon.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 149 -

APPENDIX D
Incidental Take Statement included in the U.S. Department of Interior’s
Fish and Wildlife Service’s Biological Opinion for the Surrender,
Decommissioning, and Removal of the Lower Klamath Project, P-14803
Issued on December 22, 2021
INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT
Introduction
Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit
the take of endangered and threatened animal species, respectively, without special
exemption. Take is defined by the ESA as actions that harass, harm, pursue, hunt,shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture orcollect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct(ESA section 3(18)). Harm is further defined as an act that actually kills or injures
fish or wildlife (50 CFR § 17.3). Such an act may include significant habitat
modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures fish or wildlife bysignificantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, spawning,
rearing, migrating, feeding or sheltering (50 CFR §17.3). Incidental take is defined as
takings that result from, but are not the purpose of, carrying out of an otherwise lawful
activity conducted by the Federal agency or applicant (50 CFR § 402.02).
The Service’s regulatory definition of harass is constrained to “an intentional or
negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife byannoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns
which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering” and therefore isnot considered incidental take (50 CFR § 17.3). If intentional acts are determined to
be a form of take (trap, capture, harass, etc.), when the Service analyzes those
activities as part of the proposed action and includes them in an Incidental Take
Statement, that is considered adequate to serve as the exemption for that take. Under
the terms of Sections 7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2) of the ESA, taking that is incidental to andnot intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking,provided that such taking is compliant with the terms and conditions of this Incidental
Take Statement.
The reasonable and prudent measures, and terms and conditions, described below arenon- discretionary, and must be undertaken by the action agency so that they become
binding conditions of any grant or permit issued or authorization provided by thefederal action agency to the applicant, as appropriate, for the exemption insection 7(o)(2) to apply. The action agency has a continuing duty to regulate theactivity covered by this Incidental Take Statement. If the action agency: (1) fails to
include the terms and conditions in its authorizing decision; or (2) fails to exercise

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 150 -

oversight to ensure compliance that any applicant adhere to the terms and conditionsof the incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are added to the permit
or grant or authorizing document; or (3) fails to retain discretion to ensure compliancewith the terms and conditions through the extent of the project, the protective
coverage and exemption provided in section 7(o)(2) may not apply. In order tomonitor the effect of incidental take, the action agency must ensure that its grant,
permit, or authorization includes all reporting requirements, including reporting the
progress of the proposed action and its impact on the species to the Service as
specified in the Incidental Take Statement [50 CFR § 402.14(i)(3)].
Amount or Extent of Take Anticipated
As described in Chapters 6, 8 and 9 of the accompanying Biological Opinion, theproposed action will remove approximately 107,470 acre-feet of reservoir habitat
currently occupied by the Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker. The proposed
action will also create conditions that facilitate upstream migration and colonization
by Chinook salmon and steelhead to the upper Klamath Basin, and areas occupied by
the Lost River and shortnose sucker. The proposed action includes a conservation
measure to capture and translocate adult Lost River suckers and shortnose suckers
prior to reservoir drawdown activities (BA pp. 80-81).
ITS-1.1. Incidental Take of Lost River Sucker and Shortnose Sucker Adults
The proposed action will result in the incidental take of Lost River sucker andshortnose sucker adults in the form of capture, harm, and kill (Table 6).
The Service anticipates the proposed action is reasonably certain to take 5,540 adultlisted suckers through: 1) capturing and translocation; 2) harm due to injury fromreduced fitness for sheltering or feeding; or 3) killing. This amount of take is based on
the adult population estimates of listed suckers in the hydroelectric reach reservoirs
that are likely to be exposed to toxic sediments, reduced dissolved oxygen levels,
increased pH levels, acoustic shock, or direct mortality throughout the implementationof pre-drawdown, drawdown, and dam removal activities. It also includes those adults
that will be harmed from injury or mortality during capture, handling, transport andtranslocation.
Action 2 of the Conservation Measure – Capture and Translocation of Adults
The Service is reasonably certain that 600 adult listed suckers would be taken throughcapture and translocation.
•

Prior to drawdown, the Renewal Corporation (FERC’s designated non-Federal
representative), and its contractors and agents, will capture and translocate

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 151 -

adult Lost River suckers and shortnose suckers from J.C. Boyle Reservoir,
Copco No. 1 Reservoir,and Iron Gate Reservoir prior to final drawdown
activities using trammel nets, tangle nets, or electrofishing equipment.
•

As described in section 1.3 of the Biological Opinion, an approximate
600 adult listed suckers will be captured from the three reservoirs during a
two-week sampling effort.

•

Adult suckers will be physically handled in order to allow for identification to
species and sex, to collect physical measurements and fin clips, and to receive
passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags. They will be placed in net pens andaerated live wells and driven to the translocation sites where they will receive
an external parasite treatment and be released.

•

Captured individuals will be translocated to the Klamath Falls National Fish
Hatchery,the Klamath Tribes’ sucker rearing facility, or the Tule Lake
National Wildlife Refuge. Individuals may be translocated to other suitabletranslocation sites, identified through further planning and agreement between
the Service, the Klamath Tribes, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Renewal Corporation, if
needed.

•All of these individuals will experience impairment of essential behavioral
patterns resulting in harm. Any of these adults may also be injured or killedduring the capture or translocation effort. The Service assumes, based onrecent relocation efforts of adult listed suckers, that up to five percent may bekilled during the capture and transport activities (Z. Tiemann, personalcommunication, October 21, 2021).

•

Monitoring during the capture and translocation effort, and reporting after thiseffort, is part of the proposed action as a conservation measure. This
monitoring and reporting is practicable and necessary to validate the Service’s
estimates of the number of listed suckers taken through the capture andtranslocation effort, and it is necessary to inform the reinitiation trigger
regarding incidental take.

•

Refer to the respective Reasonable and Prudent Measures, Terms andConditions, and Monitoring and Reporting Requirements below.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 152 -

Other Project Activities – Adults
The Service is reasonably certain the remaining 4,940 adult listed suckers not captured
and translocated would be taken through direct injury, harm from reduced fitness for
sheltering or feeding, or killing, throughout implementation of the otherpre-drawdown activities, and during drawdown and dam removal.
•

While additional adults beyond the 600 individuals described above may be
captured and translocated, and not subject to this specific take, we have madea reasonable effort to estimate take as the maximum anticipated amount. Ourestimate here, and for larvae and juveniles below, is based on the highest
number resulting from the best information we have, rather than using thelowest number.

ITS-1.2. Incidental Take of Lost River Sucker and Shortnose Sucker Juveniles
and Larvae
The proposed action will result in the incidental take of Lost River sucker andshortnose sucker juveniles and larvae in the form of harm and kill (Table 6).
The Service is reasonably certain that 2,825 juveniles and 365,229 larvae would betaken through harm due to injury from reduced fitness for sheltering or feeding, or
killing. This take would result from juveniles and larvae being exposed to toxic
sediments, reduced dissolved oxygen levels, increased pH levels, acoustic shock that
impair essential behavioral patterns, or direct mortality throughout the implementationof pre-drawdown, drawdown, and dam removal activities. Juveniles and larvae will
not be captured and translocated under Action 2 of the conservation measure.
Approximately 98% of the total anticipated take of Lost River suckers and shortnose
suckers would be larvae, with approximately 0.76% as juveniles and 1.5% as adults.
Take Summary
The amount of take reasonably certain to occur for adults, juveniles and larvae is notquantifiable by species. The adult population estimates are based on sampling that did
not clearly estimate the number of each adult species in the reservoirs. The Service isreasonably certain however, based on all prior and more recent sampling efforts, that
only shortnose sucker occurs in Iron Gate Reservoir (see Table 6). Our juvenile andlarval population, and reasonable estimates of incidental take, are based on theService’s prior estimates of these age classes that are expected to survive in thehydroelectric reach on an annual basis, from upstream entrainment or drift at Keno
Dam (Service 2013a, see also the accompanying Biological Opinion, section 5.4).

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 153 -

Therefore, the number of listed suckers anticipated to be incidentally taken isestimated and cannot be precisely quantified by species. We have made a reasonable
effort to estimate take as the maximum anticipated amount, based on the highest
number resulting from the best information we have, rather than using the lowest
number. This was done to ensure that we do not underestimate the effect of the taking
in our Jeopardy analysis (see Table 6).
Adult Lost River and shortnose suckers will be taken during Action 2 of theconservation measure and those adults that are not captured and translocated will be
injured or killed during the pre-drawdown activities, reservoir drawdown or dam
removal. Juveniles and larvae will not be captured under Action 2 of the conservation
measure. Juveniles and larvae of both species will be injured or killed during otherpre-drawdown activities, reservoir drawdown or dam removal.
In summary, the Service anticipates the proposed action is reasonably certain to resultin incidental take through capture, injury, or killing of up to a combined 373,594 Lost
River sucker and shortnose sucker adults, juveniles and larvae (Table 6). Most of theincidental take will occur from the loss of larvae (98%), with approximately
0.76% from the loss of juveniles and 1.5% from the loss of adults.
The incidental take, which includes take from capture and translocation of adults thatare expected to survive, as well as take that occurs during the other project activities
where suckers will be injured or killed, will affect approximately six percent of therangewide adult population of the Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 154 -

Table 4. Summary of incidental take of Lost River and shortnose sucker as aresult of the proposed action.
SpeciesCause of Take

Location of Take

Type of
Take

Life
Stage
Affected

J.C. Boyle Reservoir
Pre-Drawdown
Activities
Drawdown
Lost River
and
Shortnose
SuckerDam Removal

Conservation
MeasureCapture andTranslocation of
Adults

Copco No. 1 Reservoir
Copco No. 2 Reservoir
Iron Gate Reservoir(shortnose sucker
only)

Injureand/orKill

LarvaeJuveniles
AdultsJ.C. Boyle Reservoir
Copco No. 1 Reservoir

Capture,Injure or
Iron Gate Reservoir
Kill(shortnose sucker only)

AdultsIncidental Take

365,229 larvae injured
and killed
2,825 juveniles injured
and killed
4,940 adults injured or
killed600 adults captured– Some proportionof
this number maybe
injured or killed

Effect of the TakeIn Chapter 9 of the Biological Opinion, the Service concluded that the effects of the
proposed action, including this level of anticipated take, is not likely to jeopardize thecontinued existence of the Lost River sucker or shortnose sucker.
Reasonable and Prudent Measures
Pursuant to 50 CFR § 402.14(i)(1)(ii) and (iv), the incidental take statement specifies
those reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) that are considered necessary or
appropriate to minimize the impact to such incidental taking on the species, and terms
and conditions (including reporting requirements) that must be complied with by theaction agency or applicant to implement the RPMs. These must be carried out for the
exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply.
For the established RPMs and Terms and Conditions below, both the FERC and theRenewal Corporation as the applicant are considered the responsible parties.
As part of the overall project design, the FERC and its designated non-federal
representative, the Renewal Corporation, have taken steps to avoid and minimize
impacts to listed species through the incorporation of numerous conservation measures(see section 1.3 of the accompanying Biological Opinion and BA pp. 75-84) and best

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 155 -

management practices. The Service’s evaluation of jeopardy and incidental take ispremised upon implementation of the conservation measure specific to Lost River andshortnose sucker and the best management practices for: (1) prohibiting herbicide
application near water; and (2) implementing erosion control measures during
drawdown. Any subsequent changes to the timing or application of the conservation
measure or to the best management practices described in the BA may constitute a
modification of theproposed action and may warrant reinitiating formal consultation,as specified at 50 CFR § 402.16 and in the Reinitiation - Closing Statement below.
The following RPMs and corresponding Terms and Conditions are intended tominimize the incidental take of the Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker. They also
serve to clarify important steps of Action 2 of the conservation measure that isincorporated into the proposed action by the FERC and Renewal Corporation. The
Service considers the conservation measure as incorporated into the proposed action
and the RPMs and Terms and Conditions necessary and appropriate to minimize theimpacts of incidental take of the Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker from the
proposed action.
In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, the action agency
and Renewal Corporation must comply with all of the RPMs and corresponding
Terms and Conditions listed below.
RPM-1. FERC shall include in any license surrender order or other authorization for
the amended surrender application for the Lower Klamath Project a condition thatmakes that license order or other authorization subject to the Reasonable and Prudent
Measures, Termsand Conditions, and the Monitoring Requirements of this Incidental
Take Statement.
RPM-2. FERC shall include in any license surrender order or other authorization for
the amended surrender application for the Lower Klamath Project a reopener clauseproviding for the possible amendment of the order or other authorization toincorporate any reasonableand prudent alternatives, reasonable and prudent measures,
terms and conditions, and monitoring requirements resulting from any reinitiatedconsultation on the authorized action.
RPM-3. FERC and the Renewal Corporation, and its contractors and agents, shallensure compliance with the criteria and guidelines specified in the Biological
Assessment and Biological Opinion and this Incidental Take Statement for thecapture, translocation, and monitoring of Lost River and shortnose sucker to minimize
incidental take from the captureand translocation.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 156 -

Terms and Conditions
To be exempt from the prohibitions of Section 9 of the ESA, the action agency mustfully comply with the following Terms and Conditions that implement the reasonable
and prudent measures described above. These terms and conditions are
nondiscretionary with respect to species listed under the ESA. To assure thiscompliance, the action agency (FERC) will include in any issued authorization, or
license transfer document, the following Terms and Conditions.
1. To meet RPM-1, FERC shall include in any license surrender order or otherauthorization for the amended surrender application a condition that makes theorder or other authorization subject to the Reasonable and Prudent Measures,
Terms and Conditions, and Monitoring Requirements of this Incidental Take
Statement.
2. To meet RPM-2, FERC shall include in any license surrender order or otherauthorization for the amended surrender application a specific condition that
authorizes reopening theorder or other authorization to incorporate any
reasonable and prudent alternatives, reasonable and prudent measures, terms
and conditions, and monitoring requirements resulting from any reinitiatedconsultation on the authorized action based on circumstances listed in
50 CFR 402.16.
3. To meet RPM-3, FERC and the Renewal Corporation must fully comply withthe conservation measure for the Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker,
described as part of the proposed action. This includes all methods, timing,
coordination, monitoring and reporting described for Action 2 of thisconservation measure in the Biological Assessment, and the California andOregon Adaptive Management Plans for Suckers. This will ensure the capture
and translocation effort occurs prior to the drawdown year, in accordance withthe described methods, thereby minimizing the effect of the taking.
4. To meet RPM-3, FERC and the Renewal Corporation will ensure the Renewal

Corporation, and its agents or contractors, coordinates and communicates with
the Service, the Klamath Tribes, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,
and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding the estimateddate for capture and translocation. This is to ensure the translocation areasand staff at the Klamath Tribes’ sucker rearing facility, the Klamath Falls
National Fish Hatchery, the Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, or any othertranslocation site, are prepared to receive adult Lost River suckers andshortnose suckers, and thereby minimize any harm or mortality when thesuckers are received at these translocation sites. Most critically, the FERC

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 157 -and the Renewal Corporation will notify the Klamath Tribes and the Klamath
Falls National Fish Hatchery through e-mail correspondence no later than
three months before the capture and translocation is planned to occur. This is
to ensure that any additional holding ponds, or other holding facilities, areconstructed and prepared well in advance to thereby minimize any harm or
mortality when the suckers are received at these translocation sites.
5. To meet RPM-3, FERC and the Renewal Corporation will ensure the capture

and translocation efforts for Lost River sucker and shortnose suckers are
conducted by experienced staff. These staff shall have prior experience
conducting capture and sampling of suckers using trammel nets, tangle nets orelectrofishing equipment. At least one month prior to conducting this activity,
FERC and the Renewal Corporation shall submit a list of staff, with asummary of their qualifications, who will conduct the capture andtranslocation effort to the Service. The list and summaries shall be provided
to both Field Supervisors of the Klamath Falls and Yreka Fish and Wildlife
Field Offices. If volunteers participate in this effort, the action agency and
Renewal Corporation will ensure the volunteers receive training fromexperienced staff on capture and handling techniques and that they aremonitored by experienced staff. This will help minimize handling stressduring the capture and processing of adult suckers.
6. To meet RPM-3, FERC and the Renewal Corporation will ensure that staff

from the Klamath Tribes’ sucker rearing facility and the Klamath Falls
National Fish Hatchery are onsite at both the reservoirs, and the translocation
locations, when capture and translocation of Lost River and shortnose suckers
occurs, in order to help guide and assist with this process. The action agency
and the Renewal Corporation will notify the Field Supervisor of the Klamath
Falls Fish and Wildlife Field Office and the Klamath Tribes through e-mailcorrespondence at least three weeks in advance of the capture andtranslocation effort. This will assure that these experienced staff are present
during the capture and translocation activities to thereby minimize any harm
or mortality.
7. To meet RPM-3, FERC and the Renewal Corporation will ensure the Renewal

Corporation, and its agents, contractors, or volunteers, will minimize stress asmuch as possible during capture and relocation of listed suckers.
8. To meet RPM-3, FERC and the Renewal Corporation will ensure the Renewal

Corporation, and its agents, contractors, or volunteers, comply with NMFS’
Backpack Electrofishing Guidelines (June 2000) when using backpackProject Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 158 -

electrofishing equipment. Following these guidelines will help minimize theeffect of the taking.
9. To meet RPM-3, FERC and the Renewal Corporation will ensure the Renewal

Corporation, and its agents, contractors, or volunteers, uses a new or
pre-sterilized needle for each individual injection when passive integrated
transponder tags (PIT-tags) are inserted into listed fish. Following thisprocedure will help minimize the effect of the taking.
10. To meet RPM-3, FERC and the Renewal Corporation will ensure the Renewal

Corporation, and its agents, contractors, or volunteers, scans and weighs eachsucker prior to loading into the live wells to: 1) record the PIT-tag
identification; and 2) ensure the suckers are stocked into the live wells at
densities appropriate to their size and species and the stocking density shouldbe 1 lb. of fish per gallon of water. Following these guidelines will help
minimize the effect of the taking.
11. To meet RPM-3, FERC and the Renewal Corporation will ensure the Renewal

Corporation, and its agents, contractors, or volunteers, comply and areconsistent with the“USFWS Klamath Basin Sucker Rearing Program Fish
Handling Guidelines” when capturing, handling, and transporting listed fish.
Following these guidelines will help minimize the effect of the taking.
12. To meet RPM-3, FERC and the Renewal Corporation will comply with allother Federal,State, and local laws and regulations. This includes any permits
associated with transporting fish across state lines. Following theseregulations will help minimize the effect of the taking.
Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
When incidental take is anticipated, the Terms and Conditions must include provisions
for monitoring to report the progress of the proposed action and its impact on thelisted species as specified in the Incidental Take Statement (50 CFR §402.14(i)(3)).
The amount of incidental take of listed suckers is based on the best available
information the Service has from prior and recent sampling of adults, and priorentrainment estimates of larvae and juveniles. We will be able to ensure monitoring
and reporting on the progress of the capture and translocation effort (Action 2 of theconservation measure), and its impact on the two species. See below.
However, monitoring the amount or extent of take of Lost River suckers and shortnose
suckers during the in-water construction activities, and from habitat loss as a result of
the proposed action, is impractical. Monitoring and reporting on any other forms ofProject Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 159 -

take of Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker from the proposed action will be
impractical to detect and measure for the following reasons: (1) precise quantificationof the number of listed adults, juveniles and larvae in the hydroelectric reach would
require nearly continuous sampling, handling, and identification of these individuals;(2) their cryptic coloration makes detection difficult; (3) the likelihood of finding
injured or dead suckers in a relatively large and extensive area, such as a reservoir, isvery low; and (4) a high rate of removal of injured or killed suckers by predators or
scavengers islikely to occur, which also makes detection and reporting difficult.
Furthermore, listed suckers will die from causes unrelated to the project operations
and determining the cause of death is unlikely.
Because of these difficulties, we have developed the following monitoring
requirements. Monitoring of incidental take shall be conducted by the action agency or
any applicant as follows. These reporting requirements are established in accordancewith 50 CFR §§402.14(i)(1)(iv), 402.14(i)(3), 13.45. To assure this compliance, theaction agency (FERC)will include in any issued authorization, the following Monitoring
Requirements.
1. The Renewal Corporation will track and process the Lost River sucker andshortnose sucker capture, handling, transport and translocation data, including
information on when capture occurred, the number of captured andtransported suckers, and the water quality constituents at the capture locations
and translocation areas. The number of individuals lost during handling andtransport will also be included (see item 5a below).
2. The Renewal Corporation will provide the data described above to the FERC,

the Service, CDFW, ODFW, USGS, and the Klamath Tribes. The data shallbe provided in an electronic format (e.g., Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, Word)and shall include any photographs of listed suckers from the capture andtranslocation effort.
3. The Renewal Corporation will assure the data for the collected fin clips islinked to the individual unique PIT tag identification numbers for each
captured sucker. The Renewal Corporation will provide this data in anelectronic format, along with the fin clips, to theService for genetic analysis.
4. Summary Reports will be submitted to the FERC and Service within

three months of completing the capture and translocation effort.
5. The Summary Reports shall contain, at a minimum, the following information:a. Data for any suckers that die during the capture and translocation

effort. This includes information on when an individual died

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 160 -

(e.g., during capture, holding, or transport), and the species, sex,
measurements, and photographs.
b. Information on transport densities in the live wells and the dates oftransport. The stocking densities of the live wells (e.g., number of fish
per lb. of water) when the fish are transported.
c. The date, time, and location data for each translocation including watertemperature data at the translocation site, time of translocation(e.g., dusk).
d. The results of disease and pathogen screening by ODFW and USFWSFHC,information on sex ratio.
e. All fin clip data with the associated passive integrated transponder(PIT) tagcodes.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 161 -DISPOSITION OF SICK, INJURED, OR DEAD SPECIMENS
Upon locating a dead, injured, or sick endangered or threatened species specimen, thismust be reported to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Law Enforcement Division(916-414-6660) and prompt notification must be made to the nearest Service Law
Enforcement Office (Wilsonville, Oregon; telephone: 503-682-6131), the Klamath
Falls Fish and Wildlife Office (Klamath Falls, Oregon; telephone: 541-885-8481), andthe Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office (530) 842-5763). Care should be taken in handlingsick or injured specimens to ensure effective treatment and care or the handling ofdead specimens to preserve biological material in the best possible state for later
analysis of cause of death. In conjunction with the care of sick or injured endangered
species or preservation of biological materials from a dead animal, the finder has the
responsibility to carry out instructions provided by Law Enforcement to ensure that
evidence intrinsic to the specimen is not unnecessarily disturbed. The Service is to be
notified in writing within three working days of the accidental death of, or injury to, athreatened or endangered species, or of the finding of any dead or injured specimen
during implementation of the proposed action. Notification must include the date,time, and location (including GPS location information in UTM, NAD 83) of theincident or discovery, as well as any pertinent information on circumstances
surrounding the incident or discovery. Care should be taken in handling sick or
injured specimens to ensure effective treatment and care, or the handling of deadspecimens to preserve biological material in the best possible state for later analysis ofcause of death. In conjunction with the care of sick or injured endangered or
threatened species or preservation of biological materials, the finder has the
responsibility to carry out instructions provided by Service Law Enforcement toensure that evidence intrinsic to the specimen is not unnecessarily disturbed.
The endangered Lost River suckers and shortnose suckers captured and / or killed
through Action 2 of the conservation measure are considered exempt from theaforementioned reporting requirements. This is because specific information on
injured or dead individuals will be recorded during the capture and translocation effort
and reported after this effort, as stipulated inthe above Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements.
CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Sections 2(c) and 7(a)(1) of the ESA direct Federal agencies to utilize their authorities
to further the purposes of the ESA by carrying out conservation programs for the
benefit of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they
depend. Regulations in 50 CFR §402.02 define conservation recommendations as
discretionary measures suggested by the Service to minimize or avoid adverse effects
of a proposed action on a listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery
plans, or to develop information.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 162 -

We propose the following conservation recommendations:
1. If a spring capture and translocation effort before drawdown does occur and isunsuccessful, then a fall capture and translocation effort before drawdown
shall be completed to help achieve the goals of the conservation measure.
2. Per Term and Condition 7 above, FERC and the Renewal Corporation will

ensure the Renewal Corporation, and its agents, contractors, or volunteers,minimize stress as much as possible during capture and relocation of listed
suckers. This includes possible anesthetization (following label requirements
and the USFWS Klamath Basin Sucker Rearing Program Fish Handling
Guidelines) of listed fish to avoid injuring or killing them during handling(measuring, PIT-tagging, and fin clipping); the fish must be allowed torecover before being released. Anesthetization will be implemented if staff
from the Klamath Falls National Fish Hatchery, the Service, or CDFW
recommend this action based on fish responses.
3. The Renewal Corporation will coordinate with ODFW and the Service on

their monitoring efforts for bull trout in Long Creek, Boulder/Dixon Creek,
Deming Creek, Leonard Creek and Brownsworth Creek.
In order for the Service to be informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects
or that benefit listed species or their habitats, the Service requests notification of theimplementation of any conservation recommendations.
REINITIATION – CLOSING STATEMENT
This concludes formal consultation on the Lower Klamath Project. As provided in
50 CFR § 402.16, reinitiation of consultation is required and shall be requested by theFederal Agency, or by the Service, where discretionary Federal involvement or control
over the action has been retained or is authorized by law and:
(1) If the amount or extent of taking specified in the incidental statement isexceeded.
(2) If new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species

or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered;(3) If the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes aneffect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in this
Biological Opinion or written concurrence; orProject Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 163 -

(4) If a new species is listed or critical habitat is designated that may be affectedby the identified action.

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001
APPENDIX E
Eagle Take Permit issued by the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Fish
and Wildlife Service for the Surrender, Decommissioning, and Removal of
the Lower Klamath Project, P-14803
Issued on October 17, 2022

- 164 -

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 165 -

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 166 -

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 167 -

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 168 -

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 169 -

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 170 -

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 171 -

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 172 -

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001- 173 -

Project Nos. 2082-063 and 14803-001
APPENDIX F
Map of the Lower Klamath Project Area

Figure 1. Lower Klamath Project Area (Source: Staff).

- 174 -